Editing Talk:Cyrannus (system)/Archive 1

See relevant discussion on this article [[Talk:Cyrannus|here]].   [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

== Sorry to ask but... ==

...what does this article actually have to do with Battlestar Galactica? As far as I know, in [[TOS]] we are only told that the colonies are in  the same [[Cyrannus (TOS)|galaxy]], whilst in the [[Re-Imagined Series]] we are only told that a few of the colonies were in the same, as yet unnamed, system.

This is an interesting discussion of planetary dynamics, but it's relation with the series seems tentative at best and [[BW:FANW|fanwanking]] at worst. Could this be moved to a better location (i.e. outside this wiki)? -- [[User:OTW|OTW]] 11:00, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

:Yeah, its relevance and speculative nature is kinda borderline. While on screen, it's only been established that three or so colonies are in the same system - and I'd prefer for them to be spread over several systems - a RDM blog entry states, that internally they went with the "all in the same system" idea. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:09, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
::I definitely feel the same as you both, OTW, Serenity. I was questioning keeping this at all when I did the original split of the "BSG solar system / Cyrannus / Cyranus" article. In the end, it's interesting, possibly relevant, researched and cited, and marked with the "plausible speculation" warning ... I could go either way on it. Also, no need to be sorry about asking ... that's an important part of how things get noticed and changed around here! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 11:18, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

== Nomination for deletion ==

Considering the factors in the discussion above I believe that the content of this article does is neither necessary or useful for this wiki. It is an interesting discussion of planetary dynamics, and indeed quite accurate, but its revelance is questionable. In short, 12 planets will orbit one star if RDM says they can, regardless of physics. It is exceedingly unlikely that the writers will have considered the papers cited here, indeed the Canup and Ward work which forms a significant part of the first section post-dates the miniseries by two years.

In short, there are 12 planets in this system because it works well for the plot, and it is not too significant a leap for the layman to accept with the general [[Naturalistic science fiction]] theme. This speculation may be accurate when one considers real-world science, but is unnecessary and incorrect with regard to the fictional universe we're trying to document.

--[[User:OTW|OTW]] 14:04, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

:{{Keep}} - I don't really see the harm in it remaining. There was discussion awhile back in the Think Tank (Female Involvement I believe) about a new series of articles, on the "Themes" of BSG and such ... that will end up being as much speculation as (and probably less researched and cited than) this article. I think this article's existence lets us point to an excellent example of plausible speculation, well-cited ... I'll say it again, I'm an inclusionist. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 21:23, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
:{{Keep}} per JubalHarshaw --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 05:22, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
:{{vd}} - I've reviewed this article after remembering its generation long ago (having being split up from a single article) as well as its basis for being on the wiki. My feeling is, while researched well, there are essentially zero supporting links of the article's information to either Re-imagined Seriees or Original Series topics. In fact, the article is supposed to only cover the Original Series as the Re-imagined Series does not name its star system (and at least [[The Twelve Colonies of Kobol|tells us that it ''has'' a star system]]). Again, while the information is thought out, it doesn't support how the information directly relates to the Original Series, which is (as opposed to the time when the article was generated) against wiki policy for [[BW:FANW|fanwanking]]. The article can be saved '''IF''' someone can show supporting information through links of the relevant information. It will be best to put a deletion timer of 1 week on this. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:36, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
:: {{Comment}} Last rites have been performed (I've removed all the links to [[Cyrannus (system)]] on other pages (besides Talk and bot-updated pages) and made a copy of it in my user space (as I find it interesting)). [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 07:22, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

=== Resuming discussion ===

I see a split here regarding this article... Is this article worth keeping or no? Let's re-vote then, by the first or second week of January 2008, we can finally decide one way or the other. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 16:30, 26 December 2007 (CST)

: {{vd}} No real basis for this article, as all of it seems to be based on the assumption that the Twelve Colonies of the Original Series were part of the same star system. Honestly, we don't know either way. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 16:30, 26 December 2007 (CST)
: {{vd}} While one can make a point for it relevance to the shows, it's really mostly a general science article and pretty much completely separated from the rest of the wiki. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:34, 26 December 2007 (CST)
: {{vd}} Per reasons above --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 16:45, 26 December 2007 (CST)
: {{vd}} It's already orphaned (almost effectively deleting it anyway), and I can't think of any article it really ought to be linked from. Toast it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:21, 26 December 2007 (CST)
: {{vd}} Per my reasons from June, which, on review, haven't changed. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:53, 26 December 2007 (CST)
Latest revision		Your text
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{deleted discussion}}~~

	See relevant discussion on this article [[Talk:Cyrannus\|here]]. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (CDT)		See relevant discussion on this article [[Talk:Cyrannus\|here]]. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (CDT)