BSG-WIKI SM.png
Share Your Thoughts!

Shape the future of Battlestar Wiki with this short survey!

There may be algae cookies and hydronic mushies. Mmm... Trick or Treat!

Talk:Timeline (1980)/Archive 1

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

Questionable Information

This timeline is difficult to pan through; there are too many assumptions and too little information to draw on. I've attempted to clean up the article, but found myself stuck. I'm also wary of the sourcing of the article, despite the limited resources we have for official information. Much of it seems outright wrong. The article name is also incorrect, which should use (1980). Comments? --Spencerian 11:58, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

Mokwella has used the (G80) tag, though most of the articles that I have created for that continuity have been with (1980). I tend to lean towards the 1980, since the G for Galactica can be implied. I was happy to see the outline for a TOS mocked up, but I agree that the correlation to the Earth events and speculation are dings. Maybe this could form a basis for a Timeline (TOS), with a link off to the Timeline (1980) for the time after "Hand of God"? --Steelviper 12:07, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
The (G80) is for sure wrong, but I also have no idea on the timeline information. Wouldn't this mostly be the same with Timeline (TOS) ? --Shane (T - C - E) 12:08, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Ah. Didn't realize Timeline(TOS) already existed. Maybe this should just cover the time after TOS? --Steelviper 12:10, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
You mean before RDM? --Shane (T - C - E) 12:17, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
There are however, a great many people who do not consider the 1980 series to be in the same continuity as the original series... --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 12:22, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Per Mercifull, I believe that it is the majority opinion of BSG TOS fans. IMHO, the timelines should remain separate.--FrankieG 13:26, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
I know the show sucks, but it's part of the universe. We could review this Big Question as we did with the new comics as far as how we deal with 1980 as a separate continuity, but not here (I'll bring it up in S&C). For now, we should stick to it as canon. I lean to the idea of merging the relevant stuff to the TOS timeline. What's "relevant" to me is still for debate, however. --Spencerian 13:46, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
I do concur that it should be brought up for discussion in S&C. --FrankieG 14:05, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Maybe we should delete this because it's just questioningly. There is no references and the episodes themself there is not much detail in those according to Steel. --Shane (T - C - E) 13:36, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
I can't really speak at all to the 1980 stuff, having never even sat through a whole episode yet. I've got 8 eps tivo'd, but I was mostly storing them as potential punishment for Mop Boy(s). GOTO S&C. --Steelviper 15:12, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Hello everyone. I can go through and put the specific episode references in, no problem. As for keeping this timeline separate from TOS, that is my preference. There are enough discreperancies between the two series that combining them would create more problems than solve. Give me a few days to complete the tidying. Mokwella 09:26, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
Okay, I made an attempt to fix this up, remove irrelevant data, and put references up for each of the items. Hopefully this met most of the stated concerns. Mokwella 21:45, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Moved Page

Per suggestion above ("article name is also incorrect, which should use (1980)"), I moved this page from the old Timeline (G80) location to Timeline (1980), and moved the above discussion across as well. Mokwella 19:11, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Major cleanup needed

Mopping this article turned into a chore. I think I understand the use of conventional years to try to plot the timeline, given that we know a date and can reverse it to the Original Series. However, the article is so filled with cruft, including poor sourcing, missing or incomplete conventions, and subjective commentary that makes it very difficult to read (or believe). The article could use a lot of work to standardize it to either a real or neutral point of view voice. (I'd recommend neutral, with references). --Spencerian 15:51, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

I know it was a long time since the last reply, but it seems that many separate continuity material is used here, like unproduced scripts for example, even events from the Original Series. It should be better to use only official referenced "1980" material, meaning only events which are depicted or mentionned in the aired 1980 episodes. Regarding TOS events, we should mention only those mentionned in the episodes as well. --LIMAFOX76 05:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)