Editing Talk:Battlestar Galactica 0/Archive 1
Discussion page of Battlestar Galactica 0/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:I'm for creating a comic continuity for these, noting that the events are based on the RDM continuity but are of a different continuity. This prevents us from mixing what contradictions or "non-events" occur between the shows. Obviously if a major character of the past reappeared, our characters should have been gravely affected, but then, the TV continuity character may not. They have a place, but we need to make a distinction. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:36, 3 June 2006 (CDT) | :I'm for creating a comic continuity for these, noting that the events are based on the RDM continuity but are of a different continuity. This prevents us from mixing what contradictions or "non-events" occur between the shows. Obviously if a major character of the past reappeared, our characters should have been gravely affected, but then, the TV continuity character may not. They have a place, but we need to make a distinction. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:36, 3 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::So does this mean we would need separate pages for [[Zak Adama]] and [[Timeline (RDM)]] to include comics continuity information? Would separate sections within the main page be enough? --[[User: | ::So does this mean we would need separate pages for [[Zak Adama]] and [[Timeline (RDM)]] to include comics continuity information? Would separate sections within the main page be enough? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:56, 3 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I think that making separate subsections in an article is a mistake, as is making a separate timeline. It's a comic book. STar trek has dozens and Memory Alpha does not include such info outside of the comic book article. We don't need to include them into our projects when their canonicity is dubious: we don't include info from the video game. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> | :::I think that making separate subsections in an article is a mistake, as is making a separate timeline. It's a comic book. STar trek has dozens and Memory Alpha does not include such info outside of the comic book article. We don't need to include them into our projects when their canonicity is dubious: we don't include info from the video game. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> | ||
::::We don't include (much) information from the Video Game because few people have contributed anything. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia for all things BSG. I don't think it's our place to make quality distinctions here - we could argue against documenting Galactica 1980 on the same grounds. I say that as long as it has an official license, it's fair game. --[[User: | ::::We don't include (much) information from the Video Game because few people have contributed anything. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia for all things BSG. I don't think it's our place to make quality distinctions here - we could argue against documenting Galactica 1980 on the same grounds. I say that as long as it has an official license, it's fair game. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:13, 4 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::::Right. I'm just saying Galactica 1980 and RIC stuff don't get mixed. Current warning on top of this page seems adequate. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:06, 4 June 2006 (CDT) | :::::Right. I'm just saying Galactica 1980 and RIC stuff don't get mixed. Current warning on top of this page seems adequate. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:06, 4 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Got mine today too. Was expecting the inconsistencies with the actual franchise to be jarring, but I actually found it quite absorbing. The characterisation seemed very well observed and if the story weren't so contrived it'd actually fit right in as an episode. Plus it was only 20 pence. --[[User:Pearse|Pearse]] 14:28, 16 June 2006 (CDT) | Got mine today too. Was expecting the inconsistencies with the actual franchise to be jarring, but I actually found it quite absorbing. The characterisation seemed very well observed and if the story weren't so contrived it'd actually fit right in as an episode. Plus it was only 20 pence. --[[User:Pearse|Pearse]] 14:28, 16 June 2006 (CDT) | ||