Template talk:RDM twelve colonies series

I do think the timeline belongs here, because it actually has a major connection to the show, unlike such subjects as race, language, and the ecosystem, which has only minor impact in the show. Kuralyov 21:22, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

But the series isn't about the show, it's about the Colonies as a body. Think if it as a very long article broken into sections, because it would be impractical to put all that information into a single article. --Peter Farago 21:51, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

You don't think that history is important to the colonies? Kuralyov 22:20, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

There's an article for that already. I wrote it. Do you really think the timeline is more relevant to the Colony series that it will be for the upcoming Cylon and Fleet series? And please stop reverting. You are making me angry. --Peter Farago 22:23, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

I know there's a history article, but the timeline is just as important. How shall I put it...Think of it as a very long article broken into sections, because it would be impractical to put all that information into a single article. Also, before you continue that tone, consider two things: the timeline article existed for half a year before you signed on here, and it's not my fault if you ignored it when you were writing these articles; and just because you're started, and are working on, all of these articles does not give you exclusive right to determine what should and should not be included on them. Kuralyov 22:34, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

I'm sorry that something as minor as this is enough to make you angry. And I'd say that the timeline should belong on all three, since it affects all three. Kuralyov 22:37, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

Of course I knew about it. I wrote over half of it, and had it as a placeholder while I was working on the History article to replace the non-canonical History of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol. And it is most arrogant of you to obstinately revert the relevant changes when you have contributed little to the articles, and have nobody but yourself voicing support for your opinion. --Peter Farago 22:39, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

• And it is most arrogant of you to obstinately revert the relevant changes when you have contributed little to the articles, and have nobody but yourself voicing support for your opinion. I don't see anyone else here voicing support for you. However, I'll refrain from pointing out that that makes you a hypocrite, and merely refer this to Joe. Kuralyov 22:43, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

Outside Views

View by Joe

After reviewing the edit history of the History of the Twelve Colonies page and this conversation, I believe that this is an issue of improper dispute resolution. Instead of consistently reverting the article (which both parties are responsible for doing), the issue should have been maturely addressed via talk pages without resorting to "ping-pong" reverting. This discussion does disturb me, particularly the apparent ownership of the article that Peter has. Yes, Peter has done much work here, as have Kuralyov -- and others! -- but I think people sometimes forget that once you write something for the wiki, you are opening your contributions to merciless editing by others. Hell, I myself have been subject to complete rewrites out of the blue, not just here but on the english Wikipedia. Will it sting? Well, yes it will, you're only human; but sometimes, ultimately, you gotta roll the hard six.

Just remember there are those who are going to agree with your edit or disagree with it; the thing that needs to be understood is that disputes regarding an edit need to be worked at by both sides. It also needs to be understood that, whether for better or for worse, one or more ideas have to be conceded, possibly by both sides. If two editors can't reach a consensus, as is apparent to me in this situation, then obviously you need to get others involved as well. Kuralyov did the right thing in letting me know about this on my talk page, however I don't believe that my say, or the say on any one person, should be the final determination on this matter. Therefore, I encourage both of you to recruit others -- in a respectful matter, of course -- and bring your views to the light. Let them help you decide what should happen.

As for the matter at hand, I believe that the history and the timeline compliment each other. I don't see why it shouldn't be included to the "Twelve Colonies Series" in some form. Perhaps it should be included on the History page in the form of a link, i.e. "This is an overview of the history of the Twelve Colonies, for a thorough breakdown refer to the Re-Imagined Series Timeline." or something to that effect. Although I don't see the problem in a link being added to the Twelve Colonies series template; just because an article is included in this template doesn't make it exclusive to that series of articles. -- Joe Beaudoin 10:13, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

Replies to "View by Joe"

None at this time.

Re-imagined Series definition: taking large risks; literally, rolling 2 threes with a pair of dice