Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Separate continuity

As noted in the TT, we already perform the use of separate continuity, but there's no policy established for it. It works well, but with a policy we can enforce content in the future without ripping it from the wiki, as it does belong, but just in its proper section, like juvunile books in a library. Comments? --Spencerian 14:45, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Sounds quite fine to me -- it's naturally what we do already anyway. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 15:53, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Technically, it's a policy that is as good as any other, with the advantage of making things clearer for the reader. Now, the "separate continuity" thing is not free from crucial criticism. Following a comment made by Joe Beaudoin here (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Flight_pod#The_nuke:_only_kiloton.3F), I went to read more about what's canon, being unaware of there being anything about an official canon policy from the makers of the show or the producers. I realized that the canon policy is a fan construct thus far, and as such, will collide with other policies. There are many fans who consider that unless an official product clearly stands in its own continuity, it is part of the canon, but at a lower level. Generally, when a source conflicts with the show on a detail, and not on a critical element, only the point of contradiction is ignored in favour of the corresponding fact from the higher level of canon, usually the show in that case. Therefore, I don't see how exactly the 2005 BSG novelization can be counted outside of canon while 99.9% of its material closely follows the mini series and fits with it very well, when there are very few discrepancies with the mother material.

Canon is largely a matter of recognized rules, pretty much like religion and geopolitics. It's a mere question of agreement. Even when a central source of authority dictates what is canon and what is not, fans of a given community, on a given board, may adopt their own canon, although in general most tend to follow the official word, generally for practical reasons since what is officially declared canon has far less chances of being contradicted that material outside of this ensemble, official or not.

But there's an absolute lack of any official party line about the re-imagined series. You clearly put lots of efforts into the local policy, but don't be shocked to see that fans outside would joyfully integrate more official sources to the canon as long as the points of disagreement are on small details. There are countless TV franchises out there with their own canon policies which include sources carrying more internal contradictions than the bits found in the 2005 novelization of nBSG. --Mister Oragahn 19:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote

• Date Started: Sunday, October 15, 2006 at 12:00 (UTC)
• Date Ending: Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 12:00 (UTC)

1. Joe Beaudoin Jr. - Support -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 21:13, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
2. CalculatinAvatar - Support It seems like the best way to handle the issue, and it's what we do already. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 01:23, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
3. Day -
4. Mercifull -
5. April Arcus -
6. Shane - Support --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 07:52, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
7. Spencerian - Support. --Spencerian 09:27, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
8. Steelviper - Support Pay no attention to "bearded-Steelviper", who may drop by and oppose. His vote only counts in the mirror universe. --Steelviper 17:10, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

1. Support --FrankieG 09:41, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.