Talk:Doctor Zee/Archive 1 - Revision history

April Arcus: name change

2020-04-11T08:33:36Z

name change

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 11 April 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::As ~~Peter~~ said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or ~~Peter~~ finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::As April said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or April finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:39:40Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''Spencerian wrote:''		''Spencerian wrote:''
	:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''		:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''
	While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that.		:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that.
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::Ah, it's not mortal combat. WATCHING "1980"...now THAT'S mortal combat. Perhaps we can add an episode of "Far Out Space Nuts" and the worst of "Buck Rogers" to complete the madness. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::Ah, it's not mortal combat. WATCHING "1980"...now THAT'S mortal combat. Perhaps we can add an episode of "Far Out Space Nuts" and the worst of "Buck Rogers" to complete the madness. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::::Darn. Well, I'm glad I ran it by somebody first. Hopefully [[User:Mokwella\|Mokwella]] has it in his heart to get some screenshots for us. Actually, looking at his site I think we'd be good for Adama and Starbuck. The only character I haven't seen on his page is Col. Boomer. I may try to get a start on the 1980 offshoots of the characters, though, never having seen the show I'll be limited as to my usefullness in filling them in. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::::Darn. Well, I'm glad I ran it by somebody first. Hopefully [[User:Mokwella\|Mokwella]] has it in his heart to get some screenshots for us. Actually, looking at his site I think we'd be good for Adama and Starbuck. The only character I haven't seen on his page is Col. Boomer. I may try to get a start on the 1980 offshoots of the characters, though, never having seen the show I'll be limited as to my usefullness in filling them in. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Steelviper at 20:08, 3 January 2006

2006-01-03T20:08:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 3 January 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::::::Darn. Well, I'm glad I ran it by somebody first. Hopefully [[User:Mokwella\|Mokwella]] has it in his heart to get some screenshots for us. Actually, looking at his site I think we'd be good for Adama and Starbuck. The only character I haven't seen on his page is Col. Boomer. I may try to get a start on the 1980 offshoots of the characters, though, never having seen the show I'll be limited as to my usefullness in filling them in. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

April Arcus at 19:37, 3 January 2006

2006-01-03T19:37:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 3 January 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Spencerian: A dissent (updated)

2006-01-03T19:35:56Z

A dissent (updated)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 3 January 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]]		:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that.

			:Also, while Zee may be 10 years old, it doesn't suggest by extension that it took Galactica 10 years to find Earth or even that it took them at least 10 years. We don't know the time it took Zee to reach the Fleet. To point out that Zee was born in Earth year 1970 is meaningless. The sentence detailing this is also extremely awkward. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::Ah, it's not mortal combat. WATCHING "1980"...now THAT'S mortal combat. Perhaps we can add an episode of "Far Out Space Nuts" and the worst of "Buck Rogers" to complete the madness. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Steelviper: weird parenthesis

2006-01-03T19:25:48Z

weird parenthesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 3 January 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would ~~prefer~~ to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there ~~(though the~~ [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Steelviper at 19:24, 3 January 2006

2006-01-03T19:24:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 3 January 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would prefer to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there (though the [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

April Arcus at 19:10, 3 January 2006

2006-01-03T19:10:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 3 January 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Steelviper at 19:04, 3 January 2006

2006-01-03T19:04:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 3 January 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]]		:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]]

			::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Spencerian: A dissent.

2006-01-03T18:57:27Z

A dissent.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 3 January 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''		:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''
	While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 11 April 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::As ~~Peter~~ said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or ~~Peter~~ finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::As April said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or April finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''Spencerian wrote:''		''Spencerian wrote:''
	:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''		:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''
	While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that.		:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that.
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::Ah, it's not mortal combat. WATCHING "1980"...now THAT'S mortal combat. Perhaps we can add an episode of "Far Out Space Nuts" and the worst of "Buck Rogers" to complete the madness. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::Ah, it's not mortal combat. WATCHING "1980"...now THAT'S mortal combat. Perhaps we can add an episode of "Far Out Space Nuts" and the worst of "Buck Rogers" to complete the madness. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::::Darn. Well, I'm glad I ran it by somebody first. Hopefully [[User:Mokwella\|Mokwella]] has it in his heart to get some screenshots for us. Actually, looking at his site I think we'd be good for Adama and Starbuck. The only character I haven't seen on his page is Col. Boomer. I may try to get a start on the 1980 offshoots of the characters, though, never having seen the show I'll be limited as to my usefullness in filling them in. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::::Darn. Well, I'm glad I ran it by somebody first. Hopefully [[User:Mokwella\|Mokwella]] has it in his heart to get some screenshots for us. Actually, looking at his site I think we'd be good for Adama and Starbuck. The only character I haven't seen on his page is Col. Boomer. I may try to get a start on the 1980 offshoots of the characters, though, never having seen the show I'll be limited as to my usefullness in filling them in. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 3 January 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			::::::The offseason is (thankfully) fading quickly. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Since there are various continuities that branch off from TOS in addition to 1980 (such as Hatch's novels), I think that separate character pages are indeed warranted. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::::::Darn. Well, I'm glad I ran it by somebody first. Hopefully [[User:Mokwella\|Mokwella]] has it in his heart to get some screenshots for us. Actually, looking at his site I think we'd be good for Adama and Starbuck. The only character I haven't seen on his page is Col. Boomer. I may try to get a start on the 1980 offshoots of the characters, though, never having seen the show I'll be limited as to my usefullness in filling them in. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:08, 3 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 3 January 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]]		:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that.

			:Also, while Zee may be 10 years old, it doesn't suggest by extension that it took Galactica 10 years to find Earth or even that it took them at least 10 years. We don't know the time it took Zee to reach the Fleet. To point out that Zee was born in Earth year 1970 is meaningless. The sentence detailing this is also extremely awkward. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::I'm just overjoyed that somebody already WATCHED all this gunk and wrote this all down. It does doom the fund that I was building to help pay for the meth you would have needed to watch it. Two admins, locked in mortal combat... which way is it going to go? I guess I'd love to see ANY episode analysis/speculation, as the 1980 pages generally just have the summaries right now. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY grateful for the summaries, but I'd like everything to be uniform.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:04, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)		:::It's not as if my opinion or Spencerian's count for more than any other user now that we're admins. If you'd all like the remark added back, go ahead. I just found the tone to be unnecessarily snide. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:10, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::Ah, it's not mortal combat. WATCHING "1980"...now THAT'S mortal combat. Perhaps we can add an episode of "Far Out Space Nuts" and the worst of "Buck Rogers" to complete the madness. :) --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

	::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)		::::Just a (failed) attempt at humor. It was the first time I'd seen you two disagree since sysoping. I really would like to see it in one of the episode pages, if only to provide some content there. The [[Galactica 1980]] page would probably be the best place for it. Since we're drawing a comparison to another series (RDM, Trek, etc), it makes sense to do that at the series level rather than the character level. That way if they're "immersed" in the (whatever little) 1980 content they don't end up being pulled into RDM or TOS any more than they have to. Also... I was looking at the (sparse) 1980 character category. Should the TOS characters that show up in 1980 be added to that category to help fill it out? I don't think a Boomer (1980), etc, is really merited. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:::::As Peter said, it's more of a contributor-perception thing, not Sysop Wars :) We have disagreements all the time; we've never made them into flame wars or Peter finally realizes I'm right (/snide comment :). But this does bring up an interesting concept of a place for voting for our best and worst of the Galactica episodes, old, new, or bad. Maybe something we can incorporate somewhere here in the off-season. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:35, 3 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 3 January 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''		:''This "whiz-kid" alien character, akin to Commander Spock in the "Star Trek" series, is a type of stereotypical character not used in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)\|Re-imagined Series]] as part of its goal to provide [[naturalistic science fiction\|a realistic basis]] to both characters and technology.''
	While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)		While noting that the whiz-kid is a common trope is well and good, I don't think this is an appropriate place to preach the virtues of naturalistic science fiction. It would be good to cite other SF whiz-kids to bolster the point, if we decide to re-include it. Wesley Crusher comes most immediately to mind, and the cliche was parodied to good effect in "Galaxy Quest", but I can't actually think of any other examples at the moment. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 13:37, 3 January 2006 (EST)

			:I didn't want to go into a list of examples, although Wesley is also a good example. I added the notation because the character of Zee was one of the prime reasons why this spinoff was so remarkably poor in quality. I could add such analysis to the [[Galactica 1980]] main article or episode speculation or analysis, but it deserves to go somewhere, I feel. Even if I don't contrast NSF to it, elements such as Zee were Just. Plain. Awful. Steelviper's probably in therapy after having to fill pages in for that. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]]