Talk:Adama (1980)/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Pointless Article */ reply

2010-11-11T03:04:45Z

Pointless Article: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 11 November 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)		:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity ''explicitly'' contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the ''same'' continuity despite contradictions. --[[User:PeepsMcJuggs\|PeepsMcJuggs]] 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)		::::Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity ''explicitly'' contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the ''same'' continuity despite contradictions. --[[User:PeepsMcJuggs\|PeepsMcJuggs]] 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
			:::::Actually, the "Separate Continuity" note is wrong. (Thank you very much for pointing that out, by the way. I'll correct this logic error now.) Fact of the matter is that Glen Larson has explicitly stated his desire that ''Galactica 1980'' be treated as "Starbuck's bad dream" and to "forget it even existed." Since he did create the series, his comments effectively separate ''1980'' from the Original Series. Cheers! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PeepsMcJuggs: /* Pointless Article */

2010-11-11T02:43:51Z

Pointless Article

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 11 November 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)		::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)
	:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)		:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
			::::Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity ''explicitly'' contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the ''same'' continuity despite contradictions. --[[User:PeepsMcJuggs\|PeepsMcJuggs]] 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Pointless Article */ reply

2009-03-10T04:04:19Z

Pointless Article: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 10 March 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)		: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)		::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)
			:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Curst Saden: /* Pointless Article */

2009-03-10T02:33:57Z

Pointless Article

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 10 March 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)		I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)
	: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)		: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
			::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Pointless Article */ reply

2009-03-07T00:41:20Z

Pointless Article: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 7 March 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Pointless Article ==		== Pointless Article ==
	I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)		I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)
			: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Curst Saden: /* Adama's Civie's? */

2009-03-07T00:28:42Z

Adama's Civie's?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:28, 7 March 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Checkout [[:Image:Adamacivies.jpg\|this outfit]] from "The Return of Starbuck". I think it's the first time that Adama is out of uniform (except as a disguise in "The Magnificent Warriors"). I can't decide if it's more Moses ("Let my people... get to Earth") or Star War (		Checkout [[:Image:Adamacivies.jpg\|this outfit]] from "The Return of Starbuck". I think it's the first time that Adama is out of uniform (except as a disguise in "The Magnificent Warriors"). I can't decide if it's more Moses ("Let my people... get to Earth") or Star War (
	I've got a bad feeling about this... series"). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:27, 3 January 2008 (CST)		I've got a bad feeling about this... series"). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:27, 3 January 2008 (CST)

			== Pointless Article ==
			I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)

Steelviper: + pic

2008-01-03T15:27:00Z

+ pic

New page

== Adama's Civie's? ==
Checkout [[:Image:Adamacivies.jpg|this outfit]] from "The Return of Starbuck". I think it's the first time that Adama is out of uniform (except as a disguise in "The Magnificent Warriors"). I can't decide if it's more Moses ("Let my people... get to Earth") or Star War (
I've got a bad feeling about this... series"). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:27, 3 January 2008 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 11 November 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)		:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity ''explicitly'' contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the ''same'' continuity despite contradictions. --[[User:PeepsMcJuggs\|PeepsMcJuggs]] 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)		::::Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity ''explicitly'' contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the ''same'' continuity despite contradictions. --[[User:PeepsMcJuggs\|PeepsMcJuggs]] 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
			:::::Actually, the "Separate Continuity" note is wrong. (Thank you very much for pointing that out, by the way. I'll correct this logic error now.) Fact of the matter is that Glen Larson has explicitly stated his desire that ''Galactica 1980'' be treated as "Starbuck's bad dream" and to "forget it even existed." Since he did create the series, his comments effectively separate ''1980'' from the Original Series. Cheers! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 11 November 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)		::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)
	:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)		:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
			::::Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity ''explicitly'' contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the ''same'' continuity despite contradictions. --[[User:PeepsMcJuggs\|PeepsMcJuggs]] 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 10 March 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)		: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)		::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)
			:::The issue with that is that ''1980'' is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of ''The Animated Series'') is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- [[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> 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 10 March 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)		I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the [[Adama (TOS)\|Adama]] article or at the very least have this article revamped. --[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)
	: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)		: If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- [[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> 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
			::Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--[[User:Curst Saden\|Curst Saden]] 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)