Talk:Miniseries, Night 1/Archive 1

Reason for Expansion

The analysis section needs to be expanded. I began working on it earlier, but never got around to finishing it. Obviously, anyone (including yours truly) can add their thoughts later on. -- Joe Beaudoin 17:05, 2 May 2005 (EDT)

OK, Now It Needs to be Condensed

I've begun the slow process of truncating this page to help in reducing it below the 32K preferred limit as well as to make the page less cumbersome to read. Information or speculation that has been answered ad nauseum has been removed. Questions that now have answers were updated. Ancillary information available en masse from other articles was trimned and links added. I created a new page for an empty link as well.

I think the two larger sections should be reviewed further and cut down. Likewise, the dialogue and notes may stand a cut as well. Spencerian 13:32, 25 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Cylon

I thought that the original Cylon Centurion was in the museum, not a cylon basestar. --Blacklight

They both are. --Peter Farago 01:15, 1 October 2005 (EDT)

Alright, I'll make the neccessary changes in the nod section then --Blacklight

Structural Consequences

"That nuclear hit will come back to haunt them later; there will be consequences to what happened to the ship structurally when it took that hit"

Are they referring to the episode Water or some other consequence not yet realized? Rocky8311 02:08, October 19, 2005 (EDT)

Water, almost certainly. --Peter Farago 02:17, 19 October 2005 (EDT)

I disagree in part. The water storage was above the flight pods, and Boomer's charges were planted from within, where an explosion would do the most damage since the water would magnify the shockwave. The show has not yet dealt with the fate of the starboard flight pod, which was converted into the museum but is not depressurized. Perhaps with the resources of Pegasus, Galactica will manage to reactivate the starboard flight pod--and maybe not a moment too soon if problems are still occurring from the hit on the port pod. --Spencerian 15:02, 2 December 2005 (EST)

Move

Can we please move this to Miniseries or Mini-series? The intercaps are driving me insane. --Peter Farago 19:47, 14 December 2005 (EST)

I concur. The SciFi Website uses it as if it were not even a proper noun: "Battlestar Galactica miniseries scheduled to air..." I think, at the least, we should move it to "Miniseries". Maybe, though, we should move it to "Miniseries (RDM)" or "Miniseries (2003-2004)". I realize there's no conflict, but there is for the seasons (which might should be "Season 1 (RDM)", etc.) and I like consistency. --Day 01:56, 17 December 2005 (EST)

No need for (RDM), I think. "Season 1" doesn't even need it, since a TOS Season one article would be entirely redundant with the main TOS article anyway. --Peter Farago 02:05, 17 December 2005 (EST)

"Episode" Data Template for this Article?

The miniseries doesn't quite fit with the elements of the new episode template, but it certainly could use it to condense all the statistics as well as make this page look like the deservedly important page that it is--in effect, "episode 0." Can we rig a unique episode table just for this article (and maybe, the TOS opener as well) to condense the data here to fit the format of the series episodes? --Spencerian 16:49, 9 January 2006 (EST)

Must... apply... template. Wow. The guest stars alone would crush the normal template. The TOS "episode 0" (Saga of a Star World) fit fine into that box, but it had a very small guest star list, and fit in many other ways more neatly into the "episode" box. I guess if you left off the guest stars, the other mini-series data elements would line up ok with the template. The question would remain (as it does with Saga of a Star World) what you would put on the "previous" line. I put "None" for TOS, but it could theoretically point to the series home (but that seemed redundant with the "episode of" at the top of the template. --Steelviper 16:59, 9 January 2006 (EST)