Talk:Unnamed characters (RDM)/Archive 1

Rename List of pilots to List of crew and merge this into it? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:29, 13 December 2006 (CST)

It might deserve its own article if it contains enough people. But it should be renamed "unnamed Battlestar Galactica characters", since "personell" implies that the "BSG" refers to the ship instead of the show --Serenity 09:31, 13 December 2006 (CST)

It is referring to the ship. I modelled it after the Memory Alpha article "Unnamed USS Enterprise personnel" [1], because I thought that if we list all the unnamed characters in one article it might be too long. But you're right, for now maybe it's best to have all unnamed characters in one article. Ausir 09:36, 13 December 2006 (CST)

But it should refer to the show IMO since there might also be unnamed characters on other ships. With Pegasus gone I can't think of any at the moment, but it's a possibility. And I don't think the list would get too long, as we don't want to list all one-shot characters, but only recurring ones. There aren't a few dozen, are there? --Serenity 09:43, 13 December 2006 (CST)

True, especially that, unlike in Star Trek, here Brad often gives us names of minor characters, so they might often get removed from this list. OK, rename it then. Ausir 09:48, 13 December 2006 (CST)

There are many "Marines" or "Pilots" in the credits with no names attached. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:53, 13 December 2006 (CST)

I think that we should list all characters with speaking lines here (also the one-shot ones) and all the recurring extras, especially for Galactica and Pegasus crew. Ausir 10:00, 13 December 2006 (CST)

I went ahead and added the Unnamed Pegasus XO to the list. Although he doesn't have any speaking parts, and isn't even seen, he plays an important part in the plot of Pegasus, and he was a high ranking officer.Mastrchf91 18:49, 30 January 2007 (CST)

List of other unnamed characters

I made an incomplete list of other characters, but would the inclusion of these people would be appropriate? DrWho42 10:46, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

I think we should stick to characters with some significance. The Situation Room officers are already pushing it.--Serenity 10:50, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

We could do what Memory Alpha does with unnamed people as Unnamed Starfleet personnel or Unnamed Andorians. DrWho42 12:24, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Thoughts

We should stick to characters who are credited (or can be credited), or have some supreme significance. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 23:28, 23 November 2007 (CST)

As I have suggested before, I'm more in favour of this article mirroring the detail of Memory Alpha's articles on unnamed individuals. Personally, I feel that this would benefit the several actor articles that lack a character to link to. DrWho42 00:11, 24 November 2007 (CST)

I concur with Joe. My rule of thumb is that any character with more than 1 minute visual airtime and at least one line in a substantial (that is, highly or importantly thematic) scene revolving around a central (major or supporting) character should be noted here. For instance, the Caprican refugees all fit this as they are images of the dying world and its importance to Helo. Not all of the people seen there are important, but the ones that speak or act show (or require the character to show) part of something that affects the central characters of that scene in the miniseries. There are many extras in the show, but repetition or gravity of their appearance is more important than that they appeared at all. Otherwise we'd be getting into identifying and categorizing some 52,000 people as they appear, which is not possible. There is a difference between importance or significance (the mandate of an encyclopedia such as ours) and trivia, which is, in my opinion, what the M.Alpha equivalent pages do. Minutae just gets in the way. You can have too much information, even on a wiki.

I and others need to know something about a nameless character if and only if they are a significant element in a story that supports a scene without being part of the scenery (i.e., forever nameless background extra). Sister Tivenan is a good example of brief yet important role to the Tyrols, for instance, although we will likely never see her again. But, say, mentioning one of the medics carrying the stretcher of Jaycie McGavin is not a character of significance, just a part of the background of busyness aboard the ship. The Tattooed pilot is significant because he regularly appears and is identifiable. Hopefully that's a clear set of my thoughts. I think Joe was thinking of that as well. Not to center you out, Dr.Who, but remember the extensiveness of work on the article of compilation of Star Trek episodes that BSG vets have been in, which made that article awkward to read and oversized? That was trivia. With all respect and appreciation for your very hard work, there are other places to go for that sort of thing. -Spencerian 01:24, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Agreed. I see no point in listing every insignificant characters just out of a sake of completeness. There needs to be some relevance to their role. --Serenity 07:15, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Article division

Does division into seasons really make sense considering that some recurring unnamed characters appear throughout the series? Isn't it better to divide it e.g. into Unnamed Galactica and Pegasus crew (RDM), Unnamed civilians in the Fleet (RDM), Unnamed civilians in the Colonies (RDM), etc? Even if we keep season-specific characters to the season pages and move the ones recurring in various seasons to this page, it means that we'll be constantly moving characters when they reappear in a season other than the one when they were introduced. Ausir 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Re-imagined Series definition: Executive Officer, e.g. Saul Tigh