Difference between revisions of "Talk:Caprica (series)"

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
(New information from E!Online: reply)
(Spoiler Policy for the new series?)
Line 144: Line 144:
 
Since we apparently believe this, is it appropriate to add Tamara Adama to the Siblings and Children sections, respectively, of Bill and Joseph's character infoboxes? -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Since we apparently believe this, is it appropriate to add Tamara Adama to the Siblings and Children sections, respectively, of Bill and Joseph's character infoboxes? -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 
: That'd work. We just need to make sure to add the proper referencing. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 
: That'd work. We just need to make sure to add the proper referencing. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Spoiler Policy for the new series? ==
 +
So I was just wondering how far are we willing to go with information coming out of the new series before we call it a spoiler?  Our spoiler policy doesn't cover new series, as dealing with an upcoming series is a first for the wiki.  Personally I think the information we're getting now counts as premise, and is ok to leave without spoiler warnings, but if in the future we get more detailed information than what we have it may be spoilerific.-- [[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:12, 3 April 2008

  1. Is this for real?
  2. If this is in the same continuity as the re-imagined series, we won't need a separate namespace for it. --Peter Farago 01:51, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
On the first, it looks it, but, like most people, I'm more inclined to believe things I like.
I almost posted the second on Quorum, but I decided it was a conclusion we'd all come to anyway. I'm glad I was at least partially right. --CalculatinAvatar 01:56, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Actually, thinking it through some more, it might be handy to have a namespace for a new series - particularly for projects like the screencap categorization. I'll have to think on how they should coexist. --Peter Farago 02:00, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Just for clarity, you cannot mean an actual namespace like Battlestar Wiki, Podcast, or Sources, since RDM and TOS use the same one. Assuming you mean something like the use of "RDM" as a parenthetical disambiguation term, I disagree. It should never be necessary to disambiguate between RDM and Caprica if they share a continuity. In fact, I think TOS/Caprica name conflicts should be resolved with RDM, as Ronald D. Moore is the creative force behind Caprica, too; it would also avoid a problem if something is mentioned first in Cparica, then in RDM.
I think a category would be sufficient for screen capture organization. (It's clearly necessary, anyway.) --CalculatinAvatar 02:09, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Yes, I meant the parenthetical suffix. What we have now is, for example, "Screen Captures (TOS)", "Screen Captures (1980)" and "Screen Captures (RDM)". The reason (1980) and (TOS) are separate is that there are numerous other continuities that branch off of TOS and don't include 1980, a concern that wouldn't be relevant for RDM and "Caprica". However, wouldn't we want a category such as "Screen Captures (Caprica)" that would be distinct from "Screen Captures (RDM)"? That's why a parenthetical designation separate from "RDM" might be useful. --Peter Farago 02:13, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
That's the category I meant. Category:CAP should probably just be Category:RDM, barring a desire to keep track of things mentioned in the re-imagined series only or Caprica only. Category:Episode Guide (CAP) would suffice for episode pages, which would also be in Category:RDM to indicate continuity, not series. --CalculatinAvatar 02:20, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I think this is horribly confusing. The best thing would be to have separate abbreviations for the current series and the RDM universe as a whole, but I don't exactly feel like going through the entire wiki, moving articles, categories and links. --Peter Farago 02:23, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Not only is it real, when I saw the first rumor I immediately took it to the "Talk to Mrs.Ron" thread, and asked. She asked Ron, who within 30 minutes responded that yes, he had already publicly pitched it to ScifiChannel and the news sites weren't making it up and it wasn't a rumor. Talk about fan-base connection! Secondly Peter, we do need a template if only for the episodes: I mean Next Generation and Deep Space Nine are in the same continuity, share several characters and even have crossover episodes, but we still use "TNG" and "DS9" stuff to sort the two out. I mean one day they might have a "Caprica" episode called "Resistance". So we have RDM "Resistance" and CAP "Resistance". It's just a convention to use for episode naming really. I mean when Galactica shows up in "Caprica" it'll be the same ship, and we'll still call it "Galactica (RDM)", yes, but "CAP" would be mostly an episode thing. --The Merovingian (C - E) 02:02, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

I sincerely hope they never give an episode the same name, but I suppose it's possible. I suggest not using " (CAP)" unless that forces it, and, even then, restricting it to that specific usage. --CalculatinAvatar 02:11, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Well, most series tend to wind up using 3 letter abbreviations after a while. And yeah even TNG had "The Emissary (TNG)" not to be confused with the pilot episode of Deep Space Nine, "The Emissary (DS9)".--The Merovingian (C - E) 02:14, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Abbreviation

For templating and just basic shorthand, we need an abbreviation we'll officially use for this series, just as The Next Generation is TNG, The Original Series is TOS, and Ron D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica is RDM. I think CAP would be good. Any objections?--The Merovingian (C - E) 02:12, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

"Caprica" in full looks better and doesn't take much longer to type, while CAP is visually consistant with RDM and TOS. I don't much care one way or the other. --Peter Farago 02:14, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I guess so, well just in case anyone wanted it. I'm not staking a big discussion on this, I'm just tossing ideas around. Whatever works out. --The Merovingian (C - E) 02:16, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Oh I just figured this out: both "Caprica" and "Voyager" have 7 letters, but Memory Alpha uses that "VOY" abbreviation all the time. --The Merovingian (C - E) 02:17, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
So will RDM refer to both the RDM universe and the re-imagined series, while CAP refers just to the new spinoff? That is, suppose a new character named "Rigel" shows up in the "Caprica" series. Is she "Rigel (RDM)", or is she "Rigel (CAP)"? --Peter Farago 02:18, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
She'll be summarily executed and all memory of her erased. ...That is a problem, though. --CalculatinAvatar 02:23, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Thought: There currently exist no pages requiring re-imagined series vs. Caprica disambiguation. "RDM" is currently used only for things that are part of both continuities.

Proposal: "TNS" should be used for the things only belonging to the re-imagined series, i.e. Episode Guide (RDM) -> Episode Guide (TNS), Screen Captures (RDM) ->Screen Captures (TNS), and things named the same in both (like hypothetical Rigel and Resistance). "RDM" should be used for the entire continuity that Ronald D. Moore has created.

This minimizes changes, but it disambiguates what must be. --CalculatinAvatar 02:30, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree that this is probably the best way out of the problem, but I just want to emphasize how very, very much I don't want to make all these changes. We will need to carefully plan what needs to be moved and what does not, in order to avoid inconsistancies and broken links. --Peter Farago 02:37, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Well actually I think it can be simpler, and moreover that we didn't want to use "TNS" anymore because it falls back into the "it's a new show, as opposed to the old show" mentality when they're really not comparable.
Thought: "RDM" covers...the entire "RDMverse" for lack of a better word.
Proposal: We'll actually keep using "RDM" for almost everything, and "RDM" is the catch-all word for the "RDMverse", HOWEVER, in cases such as "The Hand of God" which is an episode titled "RDM"....we'll just keep calling those "RDM" because there's only a few of them and they're really easy to spot. ****"CAP" would really only be used as an episode guide abbreviation, and when *citing episode articles*. --->For example, really the only time I think we'd really use "CAP" is like this: "The Cylon War began 52 years before the Fall of the Twelve Colonies ([[RDM]]: "[[Colonial Day]]"), and was started when a Centurion named B166ER killed his human commander ([[CAP]]: "[[Cylon Revolt!]]"" check out a couple of pages on Memory Alpha, ones that cover alien races that span multiple tv shows like Klingons and such: that's the format they use to cite stuff between episodes, even though they're in the same continuity. But really, we can't use "BSG" because that means "BattlestarGroup", and not "TNS" because we don't want to stress that it is the new series. They're all part of the "RDMverse", while the current show is specifically "RDM", and events, objects, and persons on "Caprica" will still be put in the "RDM" category, but episodes will have "CAP". ---->Unless of course, you guys want to invent the term "RDMverse" for use on the Wiki as an all-encompassing term--The Merovingian (C - E) 03:18, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

CA's solution is really the only reasonable thing to do in the long term, even if it is going to be a bit like a root canal. --Peter Farago 05:31, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Well, we've root-canaled before. Just need more laughing gas. Other wikis wish to have problems like ours. :) I'm in general agreemnent with CA's idea, though it's going to sting. (Oh, I got the B166ER reference, Merv. It wouldn't be an inappropriate way to start the conflict in this show either, come to think of it...) --Spencerian 12:40, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I hope I read this right... RDM to TNS? Can I work on a bot that does this for us? Does it have to be right now also? There is no set timetable yet for this to show. I was alsmost going to recommend {{delete}} very early AM. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:50, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Well look I'm not so adamant about it that I'm willing to make some sort of Faustian pact in order to see it done, but I'd prefer if we didn't use "TNS" because "The New Series" makes it sound like we're trying to set it "as opposed to the Old" when really they're not comparable. I don't know what else we could come up with, but I'm working on it. Though I must say, we have several MONTHS before we get more news on this and we've got time to decide! Yes, Spencerian, other wikis do wish for this kind of spinoff info and discussion! :) Anyone ever read "Stranger in a Strange Land"? Sometimes discussions like this remind me of that thing they mention in passing, that a Martian religious epic poem got made by a nestling that turned into a non-corporeal Old One without realizing it, and thus made a work unlike any other: as a result, the Martians themselves are heavily involved in debating this "art", even HOW to judge it, and are unconcerned with the affairs on Earth in the story; and Heinlein mentions that it will take centuries before they're done discussing this vexing dilemma! :) ***Well yeah, indeed, it is more applicable than B166ER Spencerian: those bots were just used for grunt work, but according to RDM, the Cylons were used for heavy work like mining as well as soldiers for wars between the independent Colonies; like, an army of Cylons fighting for Caprica versus and army of Cylons fighting for Gemenon, stop and ask why they're being forced to kill their fellow Cylons all the time; plus they've already got weapons. Yeah, sort of like the Jaffa in that way, actually (the Goa'uld always fought wars which were essentially just petty rivalries between the Goa'uld System Lords, thousands always dying killing their fellow Jaffa for no real reason). --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:01, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
First: Heinlein rules. Excellent reference.
Second: When I take a step back, I can see how an outsider might consider some of the discussions/debates of this nature to be silly. Perhaps as silly and arbitrary as Green vs Purple (Green rules!), Black/White vs White/Black (Original Series Star Trek), whether the Chosen realm was created in nine days or ten days (which should be obvious to any rational observer, but the debate raged anyway). However, I'm glad that there are people who care about sweating the details like this, and thoughtful (if sometimes energetic) debate about it is one of the great byproducts of the wiki experience.
Lastly, and regarding the abbreviation: I don't really have anything definitive to add, but I do ask that we try to disregard the implementation details at first, and try to come up with the "right" way to do it. When I first saw this, I cringed as I anticipated mass conversion of RDM marks over to a new abbreviation. (I even considered pleading "TOS" citizenship, but I think I'm too young.) However our goal is to be 100% correct in the end, which means not having to explain to a user years from now why the abbreviations are inconsistent. Fortunately, in this case we also likely have considerable lead time, and members with the technical expertise to implement whatever high-level category/abbreviation/etc. decisions that consensus arrives at. As for TNS vs TOS, etc. Even as a heavy editor of the TOS pages, I wasn't offended by a TNS (as I often read TOS as being "The Old... Stuff" anyway). However, technically 1980 is newer than TOS, as is any show in the continuity after this one. TRS? (The Reimagined Series?) Ideally these abbreviations would only be used at intersections in namespaces, but there is also the categories to consider. Would all the new material ALSO fall under RDM (so you have an RDM-wide content area), but then also fall under their own respective categories for their series? Well... there's a lot to consider. But we've got plenty of time, and hopefully we can work smart (as opposed to hard) on this to minimize the grunt work and maximize the accuracy, concision, and organization. Green! --Steelviper 13:38, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I think I misunderstood: I'd prefer to use "RDM" to refer to the current BSG series, not TNS, but for destinguishing screencaps and images and such, yeah TNS is just a technicality yeah. I just don't want to see "The Hand of God (TNS)". --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:04, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
How do you feel about Steelviper's "TRS" idea? I rather like it for the increased accuracy. It seems we agree on leaving stuff from the combined continuity marked "RDM" where necessary to disambiguate from TOS or 1980. I just don't think continuing to use "RDM" for episodes and screen captures of the re-imagined series is appropriate, as it uses the same symbol for two related but distinct concepts (which is even worse than using the same symbol for two completely different concepts); it also breaks on characters with the same name, as normally "Foo (RDM)" would be used for a character from Caprica and, thus, two articles would "rightfully" have the same name. --CalculatinAvatar 15:06, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Well first off, "Chosen Realm" and Enterprise as a whole are a poor source of analogy, as it was poor writing. :) --->I'd actually prefer "RIS" , "Re-Imagined Series" over "TRS" "The Reimagines Series", on account of the fact that visually "TRS" is too similar to "TOS", witha difference of only one letter. New thoughts: I think I'd go with "RIS" for the current series because it is a "Re-Imagining" of TOS Battlestar Galactica's idea about a show centered on Galactica and such, but while "Caprica" is set *IN* the "Re-Imagined Universe", it's not a *DIRECT* "not so much a "remake" as a "Re-Imagining" of the essential concept" thing. ---->Therefore, I think now, I'd want to refer to the universe as a whole as "RDM", and characters places and objects like the planet Caprica, William Adama, and the Battlestar Galactica would be "RDM", but like images and episodes (we might get a name re-used or something else) for the re-imagined version of the series centered on Galactica leadering a rag-tag fleet of survivors would be called "RIS" for Re-Imagined Series, while "Caprica" stuff would be "CAP". So use "RIS" instead of "TRS", but otherwise (if I understand what he said correctly) I think I essentially agree with CA. (Either way, I'd prefer these ideas over "TNS") You guys like that idea?--The Merovingian (C - E) 15:27, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
So basicly everything that is currently RDM will be changed to RIS and this new series would be CAP?
No. RDM will continue to be used for things which pertain to the RDM continuity/universe. Only those things which need to be disambiguated from CAP within that framework will get the new tag. So, "Boxey (RDM)" will stay "Boxey (RDM)", but "Screen captures (RDM)" will become "Screen captures (TNS)" (or whatever we decide to call it.) --Peter Farago 16:49, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Right.--The Merovingian (C - E) 17:30, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Suffix discusion

(This probably deserves its own project sooner or later. We'll get around to it.)

  • TNS ("The New Series"): Not good. The series isn't going to be "new" in ten years.
  • TRS ("The Re-imagined Series"): Adequate, although it doesn't roll off the tongue.
  • RIS ("Re-Imagined Series"): I dislike using both the morpheme and the stem for the abbreviation.
  • 2003 (by analogy with 1980): Confusing, since the series will continue into at least 2007.

Any other ideas? --Peter Farago 17:18, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Well I'm favoring "RIS". --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:30, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
It sounds like Bris, which makes me uncomfortable. --Peter Farago 17:31, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
To be honest, I don't think "bris" is a word your average joe on the street immediately recognizes. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:13, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Since I assume you're not Jewish, it doesn't surprise me that you don't think that. I am going on the record as saying "RIS" gives me the jibblies. --Peter Farago 22:08, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I'm putting my vote in for TRS, and I disagree about it not rolling off the tongue. I think it rolls off the tongue just fine. --Viannah 16:29, 12 November 2006 (CST)

This is not like TNS:Article Name or is this Article (TNS). Even I am aginist serperate namespaces for articles. I suggested another namespace for Archives, because that is reasonable, but not for "Series". I don't know of any Wikis that do this, other than doing (SERIES) --Shane (T - C - E) 19:37, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Well like I said check out MemoryAlpha they do this all the time to destinguish the various series. --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:00, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Here are some of your theories put to the test.
Which means they do not do: Star_Trek: Voyager Jeri Taylow
Oh.. and TNG goes to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Nothing suggests that they do it this way on MA. Other than when an episode from two diffrerent series has the same name, they do (TNG), (DS9), and so on. Check your sources before you think state a fact. --Shane (T - C - E) 20:39, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Calm down; he misunderstood you. As discussed above, there is some imprecision with the usage of the word namespace here. Namespaces are things like "Battlestar Wiki," "Podcast," or "Sources" that prefix a page name. "TNS," "TRS," and "RIS" would be parenthesized after the page name proper.
You might note the more civil tone taken in my mention of this above. --CalculatinAvatar 21:25, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I am pretty sure he undesrtanded me because I mentioned it above in the other discussion. I have said that "TNS", "TRS" would be in () but he said they use namespaces, which he knows, because he has worked on these himself. There was was much confusing in his long paragraphs I asked twice for clairfication from him, and he never responded. I was pointing out the differences between the Wiki in which he compares to MA a little to much. I don't because it's very retrictied to what they can do since they are on a hosted "community". --Shane (T - C - E) 21:44, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I'm consciously abusing the term "namespace" here, mainly because I couldn't think of anything better. "Suffix" will work fine, though. Sorry for any confusion. --Peter Farago 22:07, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Look I think there's confusion on what's meant by "namespace" and to be honest I don't know exactly what that means; I just meant, in in-article citations, that's how we'd abbreviate it: I mean like I said above, it would be "William Adama: William Adama is the commander of Galactica during the fall of the Twelve Colonies ([[RIS]]: [[Miniseries]]), and first joined the colonial military when Cylon Centurions destroyed his humble family moisture farm ([[CAP]]: "[[The Die is Cast]]") that's all, I mean I don't know what changing namespace would entail. --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:25, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
That is display. Twelve Colonies (RIS: Miniseries) It's ok to create invaild links if you need to make your point. I do it all the time. But if there was two boxey's bettween CAP and RIS, Boxey ([[CAP]]: [[Boxey (CAP)|Boxey]]) to Boxey (CAP: Boxey) --Shane (T - C - E) 22:34, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I think that unless there was a CAP miniseries as well, that wouldn't be necessary. "William Adama stubbed his toe when he was two (SomeCapricaEpisode). He would later reflect on this during a cylon attack in "SomeGalacticaEpisode"." --Peter Farago 22:45, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Well that was just to get the ball rolling. Let's get back to figuring out the nuts amd bolts of this when we know more about episodes and casting and such.....one year from now. :) --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:21, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Spinoff?

I don't think it's accurate to call this a spinoff in the article. It's not a spinoff because it contains none of the same characters or story. It's a prequel. That is like saying Voyager was a spinoff of Deep Space Nine. They are in the same continuity, but Caprica isn't a spinoff. If it were about the Caprica resistance in the current timeline, then it would be a spinoff. --Mateo 09:28, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Prequels are technically spinoffs. --The Merovingian (C - E) 09:34, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
Generally spinoffs keep to the same timeline. You don't normally go backwards in a spinoff do you? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 09:39, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
"Star Trek: Enterprise" was both a prequel and a spinoff. --The Merovingian (C - E) 11:46, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for clarification :) --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 11:48, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
I disagree. I think a spinoff has to take place within the same timeline, not just the same universe. Voyager is not a spinoff of Deep Space Nine. --Mateo 12:19, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
No, and something is in the same "timeline" if it's in the same "universe". Next Generation was a spinoff of "Star Trek" the Original Series, despite being set 75 years later and featuring none of the original characters in recurring roles. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:15, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
I meant the current time, I don't know a better word for that. --Mateo 13:23, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
Wikipedia says: "A new series is started with the same theme and existing in the same universe as the original series, but may not necessarily have the same characters. Examples of this type are the Star Trek, Stargate, Law & Order, and CSI series. These are sometimes called franchises." and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise are also spinoffs of the original series." Not that wikipedia is necessarily definitive (Oregon is "Idaho's Portugal"), but I thought it might help us refine the definition of "spinoff" that we're using. --Steelviper 13:22, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
The new mag. even states that the series is not final yet. It just out there. Usually a marketing ploy. --Shane (T - C - E) 13:32, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
In the IGN interview with RDM and Eick, it seemed to me (IMHO) that Eick was downplaying the possibility (We only have the script and that's it). --FrankieG 13:37, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

The Graystone Family

Anyone have any theories as to who the Graystones are? The family of the inventor of the Cylons? The family of Lee and Zak's mother Caroline? Both? Noneofyourbusiness 10:45, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

My initial reation was that the Graystones would be the inventors of the Cylon, definitely. Or perhaps, on the other side of the coin, activists wholly opposed to their creation. --Madbrood 10:00, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
Madbrood's guess is correct. According to an interview with Ron Moore on the SciFi.com website, the Greystones are a family where there is a "Microsoft"-like company that loves to make technology, regardless of whether they should. --Spencerian 10:21, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
Gods damn, I'm good :D --Madbrood 07:10, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Starting Production?

HHR is reporting that production will begin November, and may be shown on NBC.[1]. Don't know if this is concrete enough to post in article. I always thought the show might play better on another network. --FrankieG 05:48, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Reality, Meet Fiction. Fiction, Reality.

During my morning coffee I chuckled at this link from a UK newspaper, which is all too relevant to this article. Best quote from a reader:

"Seriously though given the amount of coding errors I detect and fix as an IT specialist I would be more worried that your toaster will toast and butter you instead of the bread."

-- Spencerian 07:42, 4 May 2007 (CDT) (Talk - Contrib Skillz - Edit Skillz)

I wouldn't mind being "buttered" by #8 :D --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:47, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Some honey and cinnamon from the belly button of a Six would be fine too. I'll skip any "French toast" jokes. :) -- Spencerian 09:28, 4 May 2007 (CDT) (Talk - Contrib Skillz - Edit Skillz)
Link has died. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 11:00, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
The article's title is "Human rights for robots? We’re getting carried away" on the London Times Online site. I found a newer link. --Spencerian 12:00, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Sci Fi taking Flash Gordon over this?

I remember someone commented along YouTube's upload of Razor Flashbacks that Sci Fi took Flash Gordon over Caprica.. As I'd highly doubt this is true, just to make certain: simply a rumour or a little more? DrWho42 09:55, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Hope?

In the latest TV Guide, there's a snippet on page 28 that claims that Mark Stern (SciFi's executive VP of original programming) said, "I just got a call from NBC-Universal. They want us to take another look at the project." (With reference to Caprica.) So, there may be hope yet (in part, likely, due to the writer's strike. --Steelviper 20:24, 15 January 2008 (CST)

It would be interesting to see if it ever takes off the ground... On the other hand, if it starts prepping during the strike, will RDM and company be involved in it? Or will they just give the show to someone else? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 20:38, 15 January 2008 (CST)

New information from E!Online

Since we apparently believe this, is it appropriate to add Tamara Adama to the Siblings and Children sections, respectively, of Bill and Joseph's character infoboxes? -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That'd work. We just need to make sure to add the proper referencing. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy for the new series?

So I was just wondering how far are we willing to go with information coming out of the new series before we call it a spoiler? Our spoiler policy doesn't cover new series, as dealing with an upcoming series is a first for the wiki. Personally I think the information we're getting now counts as premise, and is ok to leave without spoiler warnings, but if in the future we get more detailed information than what we have it may be spoilerific.-- OrionFour 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)