Talk:Caprica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Filming

Caprica is filming at UBC in Vancouver, BC, Canada on June 16 and 17: http://www.businessdevelopment.ubc.ca/film/film_notice.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.94.190 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

sexual politics?

Caprica will incorporate corporate intrigue, techno-action and sexual politics.

Seriously, is this a joke or vandalism? What the hell are sexual politics? And, for that matter, what is "techno-action"? If the template existed, I'd be tempted to flag this for stupidity if it wasn't so hilarious. ericg ✈ 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Politics with the toasters? Remember, at the time there were no human cylons.

Perhaps sexual politics within the rival families and the leadership of the colonies. 80.47.142.28 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume this will be another take on the themes of Total Recall 2070 in terms of corporations, politics and the Aasimovian AI-Debate. Will conclude how the term Cylon came to be? I guess there will be some sort of mega-corporation, Cylon Industries, military contractor and world leader in the development of artificial intelligence. Or something along those lines. Do Cylons dream of electric sheep?

Sexual Politics are the personal interactions and intrigues linked to potential or actual sexual relationships between people. The whole Starbuck/Anders/Lee Adama/Dee thing? And how it spilled all the way over into every part of their lives? That's sexual politics. I have no clue on earth what techno-action is. I think it might just mean post-Braveheart action sequences so... sci-fi action sequences?--LKAdriaan (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe by sexual politics they mean this: "Both Moore and the network pinpoint the war in space backdrop as one of the major obstacles, deterring the female audience from tuning in"

In other words who cares that 50 percent of the population is male, and some of us actually enjoy space action. After all, George Lucas was not able to get rich from catering to us right? And you can never have enough chick-vampire series, or ugly betty, or any of the plethora of series which cater exclusively to girls. Come on Moore, cut the lame studio pandering and give your constituents what they want. Get the Adama's off caprica and into the first cylon war as fast as possible - then maybe we will watch this beyond the first three episodes. Otherwise, don't hold your breath for higher ratings, as for critical response, who needs yet another soap opera.

Call for deletion?

Since this is no longer a sure thing, I'm wondering if this page has any right to exist. Do possible spin-offs deserve articles? (DrZarkov 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

It absolutely does, just as any other (just look in Category:Upcoming television series) Zisimos 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete knowledge off of the encyclopedia? Let's place it this way, the great war and world war II are no more, so lets delete any reference of them from this encyclopedia. Seem logical? --Turbinator 05:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if World War I and II were things that people thought WERE going to happen, and then DIDN'T, then it woulf make perfect sense. And there is a big difference between deleting information and giving an entire page over to something that doesn't, and probably won't, exist. This page should be deleted and all relevant information should be moved to a subheading of the main BSG article. (DrZarkov 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

This should DEFINETLY NOT be deleted. It's fate has not been yet decided. It might be turned into a made for TV movie or released to DVD. We shouldn't delete this until we are sure it will never be relesed. Tenio 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be "deleted", but I think the information can be condensed and folded into the larger article on the overall franchise. Doing a "redirect" would preserve the history, and if by some chance it ever gets picked up, then it can be resurrected. Frankly, does it pass WP:N if not picked up? I don't see any future ongoing media coverage of a proposed spinoff that never happens. --lquilter 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the pilot is in production; it doesn't mean this page should've stood fallow an entire year as it did. (216.165.149.126 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

But no, someone wanted to delete this article. This is an encyclopedia people, not "The New York Times" when something happens in history, it gets recorded in to an encyclopedia and it stay there, even if the event has come and gone. Turbinator (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Caprica.gif

Image:Caprica.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Aired first in the UK/Ireland?

I find this idea absurd; And, I wonder who thought up this lame idea. I think there are a lot of people interested in Caprica because of Battlestar Galactica; And, I expect EZTV or VTV to facilitate the widespread download after the first episode is aired. I understand the need for commercials and for people to make money. That is why I hope they do a worldwide release in November; And, going against a worldwide release will just hurt the producer's pocketbook. I hope this because I want to see more of the Battlestar Galactica universe, and the best way for that to happen is for the show to make a lot of cash.

--Spike (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the link provided by the citation in the introduction "the two-hour prequel is tentatively scheduled to air on Sky1 and Sky1 HD in Spring 2009" and NOT November 2008. Chev (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Spike is using this to utter his/her opinions, but anyway, it is useful. I did the modification of the Sky1 air date and didn't check the US premiere date. Sorry =). The text now reads:

"It is expected to get its worldwide premiere on Sky1 in the UK and Ireland in Spring 2009.[1] In the United States the backdoor-pilot is currently scheduled to air in December 2008 on SCI FI, although this may well be pushed back to early 2009.[2]"

Clearly, the Worlwide premiere would no more be aired in UK/Ireland, but in US, if the schedules were met. The text should be changed to something like:

"It is expected to get its worldwide premiere either on Sky1 in the UK and Ireland in Spring 2009[1] or on SCI FI in the United States, where the backdoor-pilot is currently scheduled to air in December 2008, although this may well be pushed back to early 2009.[2]"

I am making this change, but leaving this note to clarify the situation. Elideb (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Moore, Ron D Moore or Ron D. Moore, Ronald Moore, Ronald D Moore, Ronald D. Moore?

Anyone drink enough coffee for an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Ronald D. Moore, or simply Moore when repeated in sentence. — Edokter • Talk • 11:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Anyone know if and how a cropped screenshot of http://www.scifi.com/caprica/ - showing the Caprica logo and principals - can be used?

Never done it before and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free gets confusing. It's promotional material, but in the form of a cropped screenshot of a (commercial) webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It won't pass WP:NFCC in that form. — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

SyFy v Sci Fi Channel

This show will never be broadcast on the "Sci Fi Channel" as that name is going away in July. Hence the change to SyFy. Anything other change would be giving out the wrong facts and be original research. If a reader is "confused" as to what the name "SyFy" which was the reason given for the revert, then they can click on the wikilink which redirects to "Sci Fi Channel" and explains the upcoming rebranding in the intro paragraph. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I assume that the station's change in name must be a response to large scale illiteracy in the US, or at least the perception of this by the studio execs and their feeling that their core audience are morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.3.162 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since notes on the development of the show and citations (appropriately) reference "Sci Fi", there should be an explanation of the change somewhere in the article. Perhaps, just "the first season [...] is expected to begin airing on SyFy (known as the Sci Fi Channel before July 2009)..." Clconway (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We should not change the name of the station until the rebrand has actually happened, because SyFy simply does not exist yet. And as Clconway noted, every reference still uses the name SciFi. — Edokter • Talk • 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And do we know for certain when Caprica will start? It may begin on SciFI, particularly given the ratings of the BSG finale and their tendency to shift airdates around. Drmargi (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Galactica and Caprica + Production Background

There's still a lot to be said about Caprica's identity, specifically how and why it differs from Galactica. Scattered throughout the reference sources are quotes by Moore and Eick about creative reasons as well as quotes from Sci-Fi execs on how Galactica's space backdrop was an obstacle in attracting a female audience, making a terra firma set-up prefferable. And a lot more.

This story can be told as part of Caprica's Production section (Genesis) or a side-by-side comparison of Battlestar and Caprica.

Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrzzrr (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split in two. The pilot DVD should be at Caprica (film), because it was released first as a direct-to-video film. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be split unless they're too long, or too obviously about different things. There's no rationale for it (other than, perhaps, obsessively wanting to increase article count or something). Philwelch (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I also do not believe it should be split - at least not yet anyway. Once the series starts, however, and an episode list article has been created, then there should be an episode page for the "Pilot" episode or whatever it will be called. At the moment though, I believe there simply isn't a need or enough information to go splitting this article up yet. --Myles Trundle (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As the straight to DVD movie represents the first two episodes of the series I do not see any reason for splitting it at this point, perhaps when the show starts airing, but even then it seems pointless Tenarei (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when the show starts there should be a general Caprica TV series page and a Pilot page for the first 2 episodes (which, as a side not, may also be called "Caprica"). --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles should be split apart. We have articles for "The Plan", and "Razor" because they are films. The DVD as it stands is also a "film" and should get an article. If there were no TV show, it'd be a Battlestar Galactica movie, and there isn't a TV show now, so having this at TV show instead of film is a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

I propose this article be moved to Caprica and the current Caprica disambiguation page be moved to Caprica (disambiguation), per WP:DISAMBIG this is the primary topic. The others are minor topics in the BSG series. Rehevkor ✉ 03:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No opposition? Nothing at all? Rehevkor ✉ 05:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for it. I reckon it would be more appropriate when make the change when the series begins airing but I can't see the harm in making the change now. --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't proposed to at WP:RM so no one will ever see your suggestion, since the TV series isn't out, and the DVD came out some time back. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Neither usage is particularly more notable. In fact most of the references on Wikipedia are likely referring directly to the planets in either of the two universes, or Caprica Six, rather than the expected series as a whole. - BalthCat (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no way this is the primary usage. If WP:RECENTISM then the DVD is primary usage. If from the recent TV show, then Caprica Six is the primary usage, if the last 30 years, then the fictional planet is primary usage. But the TV series is not primary usage. It won't be unless the TV show is a hit. If it tanks, then at most the direct-to-video film (pilot on DVD) might be primary, but probably not. Caprica Six gets more press than the TV show or the DVD. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with producer Jane Espenson in HPlusMagazine

Of possible interest, an interview with producer Jane Espenson in HPlusMagazine: http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/art-entertainment/down-earth-interview-caprica-executive-producer-jane-espenson Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Airdate

The airdate is not clear. It was marked as January 15 last week and an editor changed it back to January 15 explaining "first episode aired on January 15, 2010 on SyFy" but then others have changed it to January 22 with little or no explanation. Better edit summaries would really help.
Rather than messing about making any further reverts and rollbacks to what seem like good faith edits I'm asking here for clarification.
From what I can tell Jan 15 (or possibly the 14) was when Caprica became available as video on demand from Amazon and others. Was it also shown on tv? Or like other articles is this a case of Canada airing the episode before the US? I'll assume for now the television airdate still takes precedence over any advance release online but without some kind of explanation to that effect the article is quite confusing. The article List of Caprica episodes also suffered poorly explained edits and changes to the airdates.
It would be great if someone could clear this up, there must be someone here who knows what's happening. I'm not overly concerned about citations, just a comment in the source to make it clear to editors what's going on would be great. -- Horkana (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Caprica," the new series that takes place 50 years before the events of "Battlestar Galactica," will debut Jan. 22 on Syfy with a 2-hour premiere. That pilot episode is already available on DVD. http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/07/caprica-gets-a-release-date.html

The named reference for that citation is actually January 15 oddly enough. The article says the DVD is already released, so was Jan 15 the DVD release date? (That's what I guessed last week before this got all confusing, adding to it even more the Amazon.com release date bizarrely claims to be "DVD Release Date: April 21, 2009"

My brain hurts. -- Horkana (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hype

This show is going to be wrong from the beginning. It was reveled that there were Cylons 1,000 years before this, not 58yrs. The "final five" were the creators of all the other "human looking" Cylons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cylons that were created a 1000 years ago were from the 13th Colony. These Cylons evolved into the Human Cylons who then travelled (at subluminal speed hence the long time frame) to the other 12 Colonies to stop them from creating their own Cylons and continuing the cycle of war between humans and machines. They were, however, too late as the 12 Colonies had just created Cylons for the first time and this is the time line for this new series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.137.50 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds just like the fanboy excuse about Lucas and his Kessle Run/Parsec mistake. So thousands of years and millions/billions of light years away they happen to invent EXACTLY same same cylon including the problems, behavior, design and name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.70.110 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll feel like an ass for replying to this, but it'll kill me if muffle myself while this falls to the wayside. It's all perfectly rationalised by one phrase: "All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again." It's a major motif of the series!--Bacteria (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable for the two to have been created under different names, but the name from the 12 Colonies stuck because it was more recent and well-known. It's also reasonable to assume that the same mistake (enslaving artificial intelligence) would be made with a similar result (mass death). Webmaren (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be "perfectly reasonable" if the same type of stuff happened but calling them "cylons" making them look exactly the same...? I would buy a general revolt of robotic beings but when they make the EXACT same thing happen over and over. I'll stick with the Kessle Run/Parsec comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.85.58 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how we've never seen any of the 13th tribes robot looking Cylons what exactly makes you think their design was the same besides having a humanoid shape?! The human looking ones being the same makes sense because they're human looking. And of course everyone would refer to the 5 as Cylons just as we would refer to mechanical being as a robot even if they where made by some alien species that calls them otherwise. Ciobanica (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the head of a 13th tribe Cylon was (briefly) shown, and other than the shape of the mouthpiece and eyeslot, they were pretty much the same design as the classic Cylons. However even within the show itself it was explained that yes, the same development had occurred in two separate cultures (and had probably *also* happened on Kobol), with the minor differences such as the mouthpiece and eyes showing that the 13th tribe Cylons were not the same Cylons as the classic ones (even though they looked rather similar), and as Ciobanica pointed out, it was just yet more of the recurring theme of "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again". It may not be a believable plot point to 76.185.85.58, but it was actually intentional within the show. So yeah, Caprica's history is still consistent with BSG. Xmoogle (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Adama must have a genetic trait that grants him extreme prejudice against Cylons, Data, and The Terminator. Maybe Kyle Reese can send Starbuck back in time to stop the holocaust of the 12 colonies.

Okay, so don't get me wrong, I love the series, but "television's first science fiction family saga"? How am can I control myself against such a statement? Assuming this isn't refering to the continued usage of the Adamas, how is Star Trek not "television's first science fiction family saga"? And why not Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers? If being a "non remake" is a requirement, Star Trek still makes the grade. Can someone give me a definition/reason that does not include hype? --Trakon 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When I think of a "family sci-fi show" only "Lost in Space" comes to mind, and I'm assuming the statement means the show will based on the Adama family's point of view. which Star Trek is not a "family" show. It's a military/space opera. It's probably best, if whoever added the "family saga" comment put a reference to where it came from. If it was their personal opinion then it violates NPOV and should be deleted. Cyberia23 09:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This link might clear things up a little. http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=35773 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.108.127 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

--When they say 'Family Saga' they are referring to programs like Dallas & Dynasty. Its that type of program set in a sci-fi context -- malocite

--Hello, although I've been reading wikipedia for years, this is the first time I've tried to edit something with a ref and I think I messed it up. Also, I hope I'm doing this whole discussion thing correctly, but in case I'm not, please do forgive me. After watching the third episode I realized that Taurons speak modern Greek on some occasions (when in the company of other Taurons, so I wanted to edit this into the Ethnic origins of the Taurons, with this http://www.bearmccreary.com/blog/?p=3111 as my reference. If anyone could help make this reference correct I would appreciate it. It's ref no. 13, currently. - Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.74.187 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the web citation you might wish to look at Template:Cite Web for future edits, welcome to being an editor --Magicus69 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity?

This article starts talking about "the reimagined series" before explaining what that phrase refers to. rowley (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Is the link to "Watch Caprica Online" legal/relevant? --Hallenser44 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No which is why I keep reverting it as spam. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Er it is legal to post... http://www.syfy.com/caprica/ scifi.. er excuse me Syfy hosts it online and prolly hulu too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.9.97 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Technology

One of the more interesting pieces of technology explicitly demonstrated in Caprica is e-sheets, networked computers that look like scrap sheets of paper (and cost practically nothing). The display technology is clearly different from anything we currently have; the letters glow, somewhat like a movie projected onto the paper (or from within the paper). Typing is done with the aid of a keyboard that zips by, minimizing the amount of finger motion for the input of text.

This is a stub description that we can expand and add when we find reliable sources. David Spector 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception: Bias?

Reaction to Pilot is quite one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.182.165 (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of this comment is quite unclear. David Spector 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the reception section looks like it was compiled by a fan rather than an unbiased source. --76.169.78.52 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree - lots of comment on how rubbish this series is turning out. All of those reviews seem to be of the pilot only. Many reviews into the series have been heavily critical of the series.121.209.148.37 (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag somebody put up. I don't see what the problem is because everything there is properly cited. If it has been given bad reviews, then find the cites and add them. Otherwise you're just complaining for no purpose. If it's broke -fix it!

One big problem, which makes the the Reception section read like advertisement copy, is that it primarily contains cherry-picked qualitative reviews, whereas it should, like most TV articles, make some mention of viewership and ratings. Furthermore, nearly all the cited reviews, for this and practically any other new TV show, references only the pilot material. Since the pilot was essentially a TV-movie event and, in good and bad ways, quite different from new episodes, this information doesn't do much to tell the reader how well the show is presently and even recently being received. 67.185.29.175 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike Hale's review is not cited (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/arts/television/22caprica.html?_r=1) and he is grossly misrepresented and misquoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PH03NIX-ZA (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarice Willow

At what point does it say Clarice is the headmistress of the school? From watching it I figured that she was a counselor. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian Markinson

Brian Markinson is also billed as a regular after the pilot, even if he doesn't appear much and it hasn't been discussed as much as Sam (because of how minor Durham is). --71.150.248.191 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Main cast?

I'm surprised to see that Zoe is not listed as a member of the main cast, as she is the crux that the show centers around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.44.193 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism NPOV - Mike Hale

New York Times' Mike Hale describes Caprica as "a talky futuristic soap opera" that "[d]espite swooning reviews and obsessive fans" remains an utterly "ordinary show." Amongst other instances of logical inconsistencies and poor writing, Hale observes that "in a world in which we have perfected space travel and settled on other planets, big swaths of our new home look like present-day Vancouver." The show boils down to "hazy philosophizing" reminiscent of an undergraduate philosophy paper and "hasn’t yet developed enough humor or authentic domestic drama" to garner the attention of intelligent television viewers.

Having read that review, most claims are just straight-up wrong:

• Hale doesn't describe Caprica as a talky futuristic soap opera, he states that it presents the potentiality of becoming a talky futuristic soap opera.
• Hale refers to Caprica being a more ordinary show as compared to Battlestar Galactica due to the less fantastical setting (also the word utterly is misplaced and possibly NPOV).
• There is no mention of poor writing and logical inconsistencies (apart from the criticism of the strangeness of housing looking similar to Vancouver homes). As a matter of fact, Hale seems to commend Caprica for its well-rounded nature:

"The moral turpitude is represented by a welter of references to current times: absorption in virtual realities (i.e., the Internet), an overemphasis on sports, sensationalist television pundits. Racism and the struggles of immigrants are evoked in the lesser status of the Taurons (depicted using Italian and Eastern European organized-crime clichés). A memorial service for victims of the bombing looks just like the 9/11 memorials at ground zero. All this high-minded stage setting could produce an intriguing drama of ideas or a talky futuristic soap opera. The goal, presumably, is to achieve both"

• The article mentions nothing of undergraduate philosophy papers. This is a pretty bad hyperbole.
• The article mentions nothing of the intelligence of the show's viewers. It's unencyclopedic to call people that enjoy watching Caprica unintelligent (without a source, at the very least).

Someone fix it please.72.211.192.245 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I reworked it with quotes from the review and removed the flagrant violations of NPOV. DarthTaper (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled vs. On Hiatus

I don't want to get in some big edit war about this. It seems obvious to me that the status of the show is "Cancelled", notwithstanding the fact that some remaining episodes may be aired in the future. "On hiatus" is misleading, because it implies the show may resume production when SyFy has said explicitly that it won't. Clconway (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"On hiatus" does not imply anything regarding production of the show. There are still five episodes left to broadcast, and they have been pushed back until 2011. So, while production has ben cancelled, broadcasting is on hiatus. — Edokter • Talk • 17:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked and I didn't find any guidance about what Wikipedia:WikiProject Television considers "cancelled" vs. "on hiatus". I would not that the final five episodes will be available on DVD December 21, 2010, so that fact that SyFy might broadcast them in 2011 is barely even relevant. Clconway (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe "cancelled" would be more appropriate. Broadcasting schedules are many and varied, the production is what is important here. I'm sure the network reserves the right to change their mind re: cancellation, but for now we should take their word for it. The Interior(Talk) 20:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The show is canceled but the current status is on hiatus, they have confirmed that 5 episodes will be aired, just like we don't add a premier date in the infobox until the premiere happened, or don't put the finale date but "present" until that date. It should say what the show is currently on, which is a hiatus, it should say canceled after the five episodes have broadcasted. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per past custom, it should have the end date as Nov 30, 2010 as that is when the final episode first aired. I was just about to change it when I saw this discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The "missing five" episodes are supposedly being broadcast in Canada (only) on the SPACE(?) channel; I can't confirm that. I help administer the Caprica wiki on Wikia, and a viewer requested that new episode pages be added on that wiki. Nothing has happened yet because, I believe, of a lack of interest by anyone in becoming an editor at the wiki.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "missing five" episodes are currently scheduled to air on Jan 4, 2011 on SyFy.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag

The flag of Caprica bears a close resemblance to the flag of Thailand in color and layout.

Flag of Thailand#Other mentions this flag, but I'll leave it to others to decide if Caprica should return the compliment. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't properly belong in either article, since the source doesn't mention the resemblence; your comparison is original research. Even if the source did explicitly compare Caprica's flag to Thailand's, it would make more sense to mention it here than in Flag of Thailand: without a statement from the series creators, we can only assume the resemblence is coincidental. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed per WP:OR, I doubt that source can be considered reliable. Rehevkor ✉ 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK by me as it wasn't MY original research and I, two, assume original research. --Pawyilee (talk)

It's gone and all is well, cheers for pointing it out, Pawyilee. Rehevkor ✉ 12:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)