| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
| |
|
| :Star Trek suggested an artificial deliberate distribution of such life. As such, they clearly acknowledge a non-natural abundance, and even a non-natural design. Under such circumstances, which, taking FTL travel for granted, are perfectly reasonable, standards of natural distribution don't apply. "Most TV scifi" is also an unsuitable standard. Things are quite different whether a series is set around Earth or in a different region of the galaxy altogether, where stars are much more common than in our relatively remote corner. Plus, there's plenty of series with a very limited "supply" of aliens, such as "V" or "Alien Nation", "Space:A&B" etc. let alone stuff such as "Dark Angel" which very much qualifies as SciFi as well. However, the issue is not aliens, but life supporting worlds, and as the data cited above shows, these are believed to be quite abundant. In order to judge what's unrealistic, one has to be familiar with what's realistic first. --[[User:OliverH.|OliverH.]] 17:03, 3 March 2006 (CST) | | :Star Trek suggested an artificial deliberate distribution of such life. As such, they clearly acknowledge a non-natural abundance, and even a non-natural design. Under such circumstances, which, taking FTL travel for granted, are perfectly reasonable, standards of natural distribution don't apply. "Most TV scifi" is also an unsuitable standard. Things are quite different whether a series is set around Earth or in a different region of the galaxy altogether, where stars are much more common than in our relatively remote corner. Plus, there's plenty of series with a very limited "supply" of aliens, such as "V" or "Alien Nation", "Space:A&B" etc. let alone stuff such as "Dark Angel" which very much qualifies as SciFi as well. However, the issue is not aliens, but life supporting worlds, and as the data cited above shows, these are believed to be quite abundant. In order to judge what's unrealistic, one has to be familiar with what's realistic first. --[[User:OliverH.|OliverH.]] 17:03, 3 March 2006 (CST) |
|
| |
| The universe, in my opinion, should be teeming with life. Just because aliens haven't gone by our planet waving huge banners reading 'yes, there is life out there' doesn't mean they don't exist. Our planet is on the edge of the galaxy, so for all we know we could be just sending radio signals into empty void. And Epsilon Eridani is not a stone's throw away from here, unless you count billions and billions of miles to be a stone's throw. I think that the the re-imagined series should have had aliens, as it would have brought racial issues into the show. And forgive me, but I didn't see too much racial issues in the show. (forgive me if this sort of stuff isn't allowed on talk pages, but I'm relatively new) --[[User:Boogaloo|Boogaloo]] 02:20, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Hooray! ==
| |
| Hooray for non-blank userpages. Even if they just say "n". I just hate seeing all the "broken links". Our "Wanted" list is way overpopulated with user pages instead of actual articles. Thanks for making one (spartan though it may be at present). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:09, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Regarding opinions ==
| |
|
| |
| Hi there. I just read your comments regarding opinions. Could you please some examples of where you believe this opinion is present? This would definitely help us determine what exactly is opinionated, in your view, and what exactly needs to be rectified. Thanks! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 17:59, 28 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| **Well, I think the article on the re-imagined series is a bit biased, for starters. I mean:
| |
|
| |
| ''Tackling issues of civil rights, survival, terrorism, and religion, "Battlestar Galactica" is an epic following the survivors of the human race...''
| |
|
| |
| ''But the worries of the fans turned to surprise, cheers and applause as the Miniseries aired and the regular series began...''
| |
|
| |
| Those are just two examples I selected. Now I think they're a little bit biased, if you ask me. I mean, I think they're biased. Because, ultimately, views of bias and opinion are, in a way, opinion. Er, if you get what I mean. UPDATE: And also, I think most of the anaylsis sections on the episodes are just pure opinion. [[User:Boogaloo|Boogaloo]] 02:08, 29 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| : Well, I see where you're coming from. The two examples you cited do seem a bit biased, though not majorly, and a minor rewording could easily remove their bias. As for the analysis sections of the episode guides, they're meant to represent a cross-section of views on the episode, so opinion and views will enter into it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 08:15, 29 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| **Well, yes, but the vast majority of the analysis sections seem to just support one view. [[User:Boogaloo|Boogaloo]] 12:08, 29 November 2006 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| == On using Wikipedia as a source ==
| |
|
| |
| Hi there! Just to let you know, Wikipedia is not a valid source per our [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad|Citation policy]]. See: [[BW:CITE#Acceptable Sources]] for what constitutes as an acceptable source. Thanks! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 09:51, 6 December 2006 (CST)
| |
