Talk:We are fighting Galactica in the year 1980/Archive 1 - Revision history

PawPatroler: PawPatroler moved page Talk:Galactica 1980/Archive 1 to Talk:We are fighting Galactica in the year 1980/Archive 1

2026-02-05T18:52:35Z

PawPatroler moved page Talk:Galactica 1980/Archive 1 to Talk:We are fighting Galactica in the year 1980/Archive 1

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:52, 5 February 2026
(No difference)

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

2020-04-11T01:39:26Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Should we use <nowiki>[[The Fleet]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fleet (TOS)]]</nowiki>? The latter is somewhat misleading (though only somewhat), but the former leads only to a disambiguation page. I think we should use the former until we can get <nowiki>[[The Fleet (1980)]]</nowiki> going. That way, we can still easily find the pages that should link to 1980 when we need to do another find and replace run. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 00:08, 15 January 2006 (EST)		Should we use <nowiki>[[The Fleet]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fleet (TOS)]]</nowiki>? The latter is somewhat misleading (though only somewhat), but the former leads only to a disambiguation page. I think we should use the former until we can get <nowiki>[[The Fleet (1980)]]</nowiki> going. That way, we can still easily find the pages that should link to 1980 when we need to do another find and replace run. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 00:08, 15 January 2006 (EST)

	:It's not exactly the pinnacle of consistancy and elegance, but since there's probably little content specific to just the 1980 fleet, I'd link to [[The Fleet (TOS)]], and footnote the relevant details there. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 04:14, 15 January 2006 (EST)		:It's not exactly the pinnacle of consistancy and elegance, but since there's probably little content specific to just the 1980 fleet, I'd link to [[The Fleet (TOS)]], and footnote the relevant details there. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 04:14, 15 January 2006 (EST)

	== THE DAY THEY KIDNAPPED CLEOPATRA ==		== THE DAY THEY KIDNAPPED CLEOPATRA ==
Line 15:		Line 15:
	There should be some information about the future episodes of this series. The script for this episode can be found in http://www.blast.net/hart/DayThey.htm. Other scripts are in http://www.blast.net/hart/Scripts.htm --[[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 10:19, 16 March 2006 (CST)		There should be some information about the future episodes of this series. The script for this episode can be found in http://www.blast.net/hart/DayThey.htm. Other scripts are in http://www.blast.net/hart/Scripts.htm --[[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 10:19, 16 March 2006 (CST)

	:My admiration for anyone willing to document this is considerable, but I must ask if you can provide a second source to corroborate that site. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 20:10, 16 March 2006 (CST)		:My admiration for anyone willing to document this is considerable, but I must ask if you can provide a second source to corroborate that site. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 20:10, 16 March 2006 (CST)

	::There are several sites that mention the name of the episode, but only this one has the script summary. After having read it, it is stupid enough to validate as an episode of G1980... :) I have seen many good information sources on Galactica go down over the years, so I would like to write about it here. The only way to make sure is to try to buy the script on ebay one of these days. I will create the articles and then we can discuss if they should be deleted because we can't verify it at multiple sources. -- [[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 04:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::There are several sites that mention the name of the episode, but only this one has the script summary. After having read it, it is stupid enough to validate as an episode of G1980... :) I have seen many good information sources on Galactica go down over the years, so I would like to write about it here. The only way to make sure is to try to buy the script on ebay one of these days. I will create the articles and then we can discuss if they should be deleted because we can't verify it at multiple sources. -- [[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 04:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	:::My only concern is verifying that this isn't fanficton before we report on it here. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 04:24, 17 March 2006 (CST)		:::My only concern is verifying that this isn't fanficton before we report on it here. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 04:24, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	::::I've heard of it as well. It is a valid script, like "Wheel of Fire" (I believe that to be the name). It was one of the few scripts that were in the works before ABC (thankfully) pulled the plug on G80. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:22, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::::I've heard of it as well. It is a valid script, like "Wheel of Fire" (I believe that to be the name). It was one of the few scripts that were in the works before ABC (thankfully) pulled the plug on G80. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:22, 17 March 2006 (CST)

RedKnight: /* Canon / Continuity */

2010-02-27T15:26:25Z

Canon / Continuity

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:26, 27 February 2010
Line 67:		Line 67:
	::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Actually, you might not be aware of this, but the common consensus on a majority of the TOS fandom in question is to ignore ''1980'' entirely. There is also Glen Larson's continued insistence on the subject—notably his crack about ''1980'' being Starbuck's bad dream—that dictates this otherwise odd separation. Further, comics are generally considered [[BW:SEPCON\|separate continuity]] sources, and therefore not canon. -- [[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> 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		:::Actually, you might not be aware of this, but the common consensus on a majority of the TOS fandom in question is to ignore ''1980'' entirely. There is also Glen Larson's continued insistence on the subject—notably his crack about ''1980'' being Starbuck's bad dream—that dictates this otherwise odd separation. Further, comics are generally considered [[BW:SEPCON\|separate continuity]] sources, and therefore not canon. -- [[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> 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Well, that does make sense although simply "no liking" something does not make it stop existing. Jumping into Star Trek for comparison, the age-old debate about the animated series being canon or not within TOS has begun to sway towards its inclusion believe it or not. Similarly, just about anything Star Wars is "supposed" to be canon, yet since Lucas does not like the infamous Holiday Special it is not canon, yet many fans argue with this decision regardless of his views.		::::Well, that does make sense although simply "not liking" something does not make it stop existing. Jumping into Star Trek for comparison, the age-old debate about the animated series being canon or not within TOS has begun to sway towards its inclusion believe it or not. Similarly, just about anything Star Wars is "supposed" to be canon, yet since Lucas does not like the infamous Holiday Special it is not canon, yet many fans argue with this decision regardless of his views.
	::::Comics and novels... I would automatically consider any non-canon excepts where expressly stated such as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics. Difficult choices overall and many open to individual interpretation I guess. --[[User:RedKnight\|Watcher of the Omniverse]] 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::::Comics and novels... I would automatically consider any non-canon excepts where expressly stated such as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics. Difficult choices overall and many open to individual interpretation I guess. --[[User:RedKnight\|Watcher of the Omniverse]] 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RedKnight: /* Canon / Continuity */

2010-02-26T23:35:23Z

Canon / Continuity

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 26 February 2010
Line 67:		Line 67:
	::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Actually, you might not be aware of this, but the common consensus on a majority of the TOS fandom in question is to ignore ''1980'' entirely. There is also Glen Larson's continued insistence on the subject—notably his crack about ''1980'' being Starbuck's bad dream—that dictates this otherwise odd separation. Further, comics are generally considered [[BW:SEPCON\|separate continuity]] sources, and therefore not canon. -- [[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> 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		:::Actually, you might not be aware of this, but the common consensus on a majority of the TOS fandom in question is to ignore ''1980'' entirely. There is also Glen Larson's continued insistence on the subject—notably his crack about ''1980'' being Starbuck's bad dream—that dictates this otherwise odd separation. Further, comics are generally considered [[BW:SEPCON\|separate continuity]] sources, and therefore not canon. -- [[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> 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
			::::Well, that does make sense although simply "no liking" something does not make it stop existing. Jumping into Star Trek for comparison, the age-old debate about the animated series being canon or not within TOS has begun to sway towards its inclusion believe it or not. Similarly, just about anything Star Wars is "supposed" to be canon, yet since Lucas does not like the infamous Holiday Special it is not canon, yet many fans argue with this decision regardless of his views.
			::::Comics and novels... I would automatically consider any non-canon excepts where expressly stated such as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics. Difficult choices overall and many open to individual interpretation I guess. --[[User:RedKnight\|Watcher of the Omniverse]] 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Canon / Continuity */ reply

2010-02-26T19:50:32Z

Canon / Continuity: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:50, 26 February 2010
Line 66:		Line 66:
	::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus.		::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus.
	::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
			:::Actually, you might not be aware of this, but the common consensus on a majority of the TOS fandom in question is to ignore ''1980'' entirely. There is also Glen Larson's continued insistence on the subject—notably his crack about ''1980'' being Starbuck's bad dream—that dictates this otherwise odd separation. Further, comics are generally considered [[BW:SEPCON\|separate continuity]] sources, and therefore not canon. -- [[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> 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RedKnight: /* Canon / Continuity */

2010-02-26T19:27:52Z

Canon / Continuity

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 26 February 2010
Line 65:		Line 65:
	: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus.		::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus.
	Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RedKnight: /* Canon / Continuity */

2010-02-26T19:27:30Z

Canon / Continuity

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 26 February 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:
	I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus.
			Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RedKnight: /* Canon / Continuity */

2010-02-26T19:20:56Z

Canon / Continuity

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 26 February 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:
	I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
			::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Canon / Continuity */ reply

2010-02-26T15:22:03Z

Canon / Continuity: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 26 February 2010
Line 63:		Line 63:

	I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
			: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RedKnight: /* Canon / Continuity */ new section

2010-02-26T14:33:52Z

Canon / Continuity: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 26 February 2010
Line 59:		Line 59:
	Why is the Second coming mentioned as the follow-up to G80? It's never been aired outside of conventions and it's only a demo trailer of what could be.. The TOS storyline reached the end (for now...) with the 'Return of Starbuck' episode. -- [[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 06:26, 14 February 2008 (CST)		Why is the Second coming mentioned as the follow-up to G80? It's never been aired outside of conventions and it's only a demo trailer of what could be.. The TOS storyline reached the end (for now...) with the 'Return of Starbuck' episode. -- [[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 06:26, 14 February 2008 (CST)
	:Concur. I pulled it. --08:52, 14 February 2008 (CST)		:Concur. I pulled it. --08:52, 14 February 2008 (CST)

			== Canon / Continuity ==

			I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Should we use <nowiki>[[The Fleet]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fleet (TOS)]]</nowiki>? The latter is somewhat misleading (though only somewhat), but the former leads only to a disambiguation page. I think we should use the former until we can get <nowiki>[[The Fleet (1980)]]</nowiki> going. That way, we can still easily find the pages that should link to 1980 when we need to do another find and replace run. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 00:08, 15 January 2006 (EST)		Should we use <nowiki>[[The Fleet]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fleet (TOS)]]</nowiki>? The latter is somewhat misleading (though only somewhat), but the former leads only to a disambiguation page. I think we should use the former until we can get <nowiki>[[The Fleet (1980)]]</nowiki> going. That way, we can still easily find the pages that should link to 1980 when we need to do another find and replace run. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 00:08, 15 January 2006 (EST)

	:It's not exactly the pinnacle of consistancy and elegance, but since there's probably little content specific to just the 1980 fleet, I'd link to [[The Fleet (TOS)]], and footnote the relevant details there. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 04:14, 15 January 2006 (EST)		:It's not exactly the pinnacle of consistancy and elegance, but since there's probably little content specific to just the 1980 fleet, I'd link to [[The Fleet (TOS)]], and footnote the relevant details there. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 04:14, 15 January 2006 (EST)

	== THE DAY THEY KIDNAPPED CLEOPATRA ==		== THE DAY THEY KIDNAPPED CLEOPATRA ==
Line 15:		Line 15:
	There should be some information about the future episodes of this series. The script for this episode can be found in http://www.blast.net/hart/DayThey.htm. Other scripts are in http://www.blast.net/hart/Scripts.htm --[[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 10:19, 16 March 2006 (CST)		There should be some information about the future episodes of this series. The script for this episode can be found in http://www.blast.net/hart/DayThey.htm. Other scripts are in http://www.blast.net/hart/Scripts.htm --[[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 10:19, 16 March 2006 (CST)

	:My admiration for anyone willing to document this is considerable, but I must ask if you can provide a second source to corroborate that site. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 20:10, 16 March 2006 (CST)		:My admiration for anyone willing to document this is considerable, but I must ask if you can provide a second source to corroborate that site. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 20:10, 16 March 2006 (CST)

	::There are several sites that mention the name of the episode, but only this one has the script summary. After having read it, it is stupid enough to validate as an episode of G1980... :) I have seen many good information sources on Galactica go down over the years, so I would like to write about it here. The only way to make sure is to try to buy the script on ebay one of these days. I will create the articles and then we can discuss if they should be deleted because we can't verify it at multiple sources. -- [[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 04:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::There are several sites that mention the name of the episode, but only this one has the script summary. After having read it, it is stupid enough to validate as an episode of G1980... :) I have seen many good information sources on Galactica go down over the years, so I would like to write about it here. The only way to make sure is to try to buy the script on ebay one of these days. I will create the articles and then we can discuss if they should be deleted because we can't verify it at multiple sources. -- [[User:Jcnventura\|Jcnventura]] 04:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	:::My only concern is verifying that this isn't fanficton before we report on it here. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 04:24, 17 March 2006 (CST)		:::My only concern is verifying that this isn't fanficton before we report on it here. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 04:24, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	::::I've heard of it as well. It is a valid script, like "Wheel of Fire" (I believe that to be the name). It was one of the few scripts that were in the works before ABC (thankfully) pulled the plug on G80. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:22, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::::I've heard of it as well. It is a valid script, like "Wheel of Fire" (I believe that to be the name). It was one of the few scripts that were in the works before ABC (thankfully) pulled the plug on G80. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:22, 17 March 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 26 February 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:
	I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus.
			Of course there is still the qwustion of what else is considered main continuity and not (comics for example), but I know such items are typically not part of continuity. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 26 February 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:
	I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		I understand that the series is generally considered to be hardly watchable, but is it considered to be part of TOS continuity? --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
	: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)		: It's a unique situation. It's certainly derived from the TOS continuity and could be considered a part of it, as it is technically a spin-off. However, given the comments from Glen Larson—where Larson said he would ignore 1980 itself and ignore all ties with TOS completely, if given the chance—and other crew members over years (Busch and Cole come prominently to mind), ''1980'' is treated as an offshoot from the primary TOS continuity and not a part of it. (Unlike ''Caprica'' or the Re-imagined Series, where both are part of the same continuity.) So... there's your answer. -- [[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> 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
			::In that case, focusing on the phrase "if given the chance" I think it best considered part of the TOS continuity as there is no common concensus. --[[User:RedKnight\|RedKnight]] 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)