Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)/Archive 2

backlash
Should there be some discussion about some of the backlash from fans of the original? While I think the new Galactica is one of the best shows on TV there was a LOT of backlash from fans of the original who just could not adjust to the new version.


 * Yes, there definitely needs to be some mention of the reaction of the fans of the original Galactica. While most of it that I saw was negative,I'm sure that there were fans that liked the reimagining of the series.Hx823 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In a distant galaxy lie the twelve Colonies of Kobol...

How do we know it's a distant galaxy? In fact, isn't it supposed to be the same galaxy that Earth is in? Evercat 20:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * For the 'modern' version of Battlestar Galactica, we don't. In the original there was a line in the end about the rag-tag fleet at the edge of their galaxy and venturing across space to another one - something to that effect. It was very clear, at least, that they were to find Earth in a different galaxy in that episode (don't have the ep. title ATM). [We won't get into the sheer impossibility of the rag-tag fleet venturing through and across totally empty space to a different galaxy...]
 * Perhaps it should read: on a distant world lie the Twelve Colonies of Kobol... instead?
 * VigilancePrime 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But that would imply they were all on the same world...

It would have to be the same galaxy. The planetarium in Athena's Tomb showed a nebula that the Galactica could also see, indicating they were in the same galaxy. — Phil Welch 05:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In the last episode of season three we definitely see it's in the same galaxy, not too far away even.--80.146.21.189 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tradition of Star Trek?
The intro contains the line: "in the tradition of Star Trek, the writers use science fiction to examine contemporary social, moral and ethical issues in allegory."

It'd probably be more accurate to say: "in the tradition of science fiction, the writers use science fiction to examine contemporary social, moral and ethical issues in allegory." It's not like this is original or unique to Star Trek.


 * While it's true that the original series of star trek was not the first (nor the only) science fiction to explore societal issues (if I had to guess, that honor belongs to The Time Machine which explored differences between the worker class and rich; other obvious earlier examples would be A Canticle for Leibowitz and Stranger in A Strange Land). However, the difference is that (A) I believe star trek was the first TV science fiction show to do it, and (B) star trek built a franchise around it -- the whole basis of the show - the federation, the klingons, the romulans -- were allegories to the world of the late 1960s. Further, they also explored racism, class issues, and a whole range of stuff not touched by other TV shows of hte day. →Raul654 23:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Twilight Zone did all those things and debuted 7 years before Star Trek. It wasn't entirely sci-fi, but a whole lot of it was.155.97.232.72 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that Star Trek wasn't the first to do so, but I think few would argue that Star Trek has in the long run been the most popular series to do so. That is probobly more of what the referance was aiming tword. FLJuJitsu

Renewal for a fourth season
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-galactica12feb12,1,7910575.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true Please look into this http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=91282 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.0.185 (talk • contribs)


 * Here's an open site link (the LA Times requires signup): SyFyPortal --Ckatz chat spy  05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Audience
Many articles have been written that touch on who the battlestar galactica audience is and how the show impacts them. We could totally write down a few things from those and then build a "Audience" subsection. Lotusduck 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

4th Season Last
Producers Make It Official: 'Battlestar Galactica' Is Done --88wolfmaster 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Choice of character names
Hi, I'm no Battlestar expert, but it seems to me that it would be really nice to have a section of the choice of character names in the series. Names such as Hadrian (the security officer who begins a kind of witch hunt) and Socinus clearly were not chosen by accident, and it would be a notable addition to the article to add some links to the origins of these names.. .I'm just not sure how best to go about it! --Tomhannen 09:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Country
And the country has come up yet again with people adding Canada and UK to the country in the infobox. Why? It's a US production made by a US studio and production company. It's shot in Canada yes, but that doesn't make it Canadian. And as for the claim that it's UK produced where has that come from? The only UK connection to the show other than a couple of actors is Sky One provides some of the funds, but they have nothing to do with the production. See also Talk:Battlestar_Galactica_%282004_TV_series%29/Archive_3. Ben W Bell  talk  08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's produced in Canada... so it's a Canadian production. Sky One co-produce(d) and aired the show first, making them an original country, if not the original. Matthew 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sky One didn't co-produce, they gave money towards the production on the understanding of first airing rights. They didn't co-produce and had no hand whatsoever in the production of the show. Ben W Bell   talk  10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide your source? A press release I am looking at states "Battlestar Galactica is being produced exclusively for SCI FI, in association with SKY One, and will be distributed by USACE." We even have an article on the subject, but that offers little assistance (Country of origin). It's my personal belief that the UK and Canada are the original countries, as the UK co-produced (or "produced exclusively for SCI FI, in association with SKY One") and aired the series first and Canada is the filming location where everything happens. I'm not actually sure what role America plays, they just seem to pay money and air the episodes. Matthew 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well could you quote your source as it's impossible for me to prove a negative. If you have a valid source that can be referenced then fair enough under WP:V. Ben W Bell   talk  11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly add the source for the UK to the article, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for "Sky One didn't co-produce" as well. Matthew 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source. I've never seen a source that reliably said that they did, only ones that say they gave money, especially since Sky One doesn't tend to make its own shows so I find it co-producing something to be very curious. However if you have a reliable source to the contrary then that's verifiability. Ben W Bell   talk  14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They actually produce and co-produce a fair amount of programming for a digital channel. But it's mostly imports. I've added the source for the UK, I even added one for Canada. Both sources are highly reliable (NBC Universal and Sci Fi Channel's website). Matthew 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about this, if it were a SkyOne production it would appear so in either the opening or ending credits of the show or miniseries. Sky One gave the SciFi Channel a cash advance to air the miniseries in England prior to its US primier. They didn't co-produce it or it would appear as such in the credits of the show, like any show.
 * Um actually Sky One didn't have anything to do with the mini-series to the best of my knowledge. The Mini series was shown in the US well before it was in the UK, and the first time it was in the UK was actually on DVD. Sky One didn't show it until much later. Sky One did part finance the first season of the series, and showed that before anyone else, but not the mini series. Ben W Bell   talk  06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this disprove? My point still stands, if Skyone had production credits it would appear in the credits for the show's first season. Which it doesn't, you are clearly wrong on this. --68.236.57.106 22:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All: according to an article from the BBC News service, Sky One provided the necessary funding for the series launch in exchange for first airing rights of season 1, which aired in the UK in October 2004. The US would not see season 1 on the Sci Fi Channel until January 2005. Sky One did not provide any production work and therefore is not a producer of the show. Sky One's involvement with Battlestar production was limited to season 1 only, had no involvement with the miniseries except for its airing, and did not provide any other funding for the series after season 1. UK airings (by Sky One through licensing with NBC Universal) now occur after the US airings. Sky One receives some credit for its financial support for the series pre-production. Here is another link to Sky One on the Battlestar Wiki, where I am a bureaucrat. While Battlestar Wiki is not a news source itself, the wiki uses only credible news sources to aid in its articles, as does Wikipedia. --Spencerian 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section appears to be a tad bit long per WP:LEAD, and I think some of the sections could use a bit of restructuring. I'll give it a shot, let me know what you think... Dreadlocke ☥  23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that on the Battlestar Galactica website, "reimagined' is a non-hyphenated word., as well as the Sci Fi website.  Even google corrected me when I put in re-imagined.  Dreadlocke  ☥  01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And Webster's online agrees: reimagine. Dreadlocke  ☥  01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Obscure passage
Executive producer Ronald D. Moore points out that the Cylons and Al Qaeda are not necessarily intended to be directly allegorical  : Al Qaeda is not intended to be directly allegorical ?? meaning ? --Anne97432 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Cylons are not exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers & headers
The current section References to modern society contains not just very general info, but spoilers for those that haven't watched Season 3. Part of the discussion around spoilers and deleting the spoiler template involved appropriate headers being used on sections that contain spoilers (so I added that to the guideline but don't know if it'll stick). I don't want to edit or rearrange it as I'm only up to season 2 myself. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fer Gads sake people, put in some spoiler tags! The article outright tells you that Starbuck is a cylon, and after I read that Valeri was one I didn't want to read any further. Sure, I knew Boomer was but having not seen past the 2nd series I didn't want to read any further in case. You guys might know it all but not everyone does! 82.29.235.234 (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the Wikipedia spoiler guidelines to understand why there are no spoiler tags. Spoiler warning tags are no longer used in the Wikipedia, unlike some other online fan sites, reviews pages, and such.  It doesn't matter whether "visitors" or "newcomers" might see a plot spoiler in our articles on fictional subjects - it is not the purpose of the Wikipedia to be "fan sensitive" or something, but to provide verifiable information without censorship.  Thanks in advance for your understanding.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * *Shrug* I would argue but after taking a glance it seems this has gone on a while, so I don't see the point.  I would suggest linking the disclaimers at the *top* or nearer the search box though, by the time someone has reached the bottom they've potentially already read a lot of the stuff that the disclaimer is supposed to protect against. 89.241.233.39 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

January 2009 auction:Article worthy?
I didn't know if it was worth entering that they had an auction in January of many key set pieces & costumes. I thought it would be interesting to list how much everything had sold for total, as well as how much some of the more iconic pieces (Head Six's red dress & the crew's dress blues went for the most) made. I saved the results on my computer so I could compile this data if someone thinks it would be worth entering in. Not many shows have a public auction (let alone a public charity auction) like this I'm guessing that it's worth at least a few lines somewhere in the article. Most times the sets are either stored away for years, worked into other shows the company is making, or quietly sold to private collectors. I personally think that it's something to note, but my biggest question is where we would work it into the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Merge
I propose that each of the incarnations of Galactica have its own article, one for the 1970's version encompassing all of that show's cannon plus Galactica 1980 (which some see as non-cannonical) and one for Galactica 2003 (or re-imangined or whatever title is decided on) which encompasses the mini-series, the re-imagined series, Razor and possibly Caprica (That will be subject to debate) along with the section under Destruction of the Tweleve Colonies that pertains to each version.Hx823 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this article should be merged into Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries). --Jcbutler (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

setting- time
it seems that 'the third planet of nine in a system on the northern rim of the milky-way' is to forgotten in this timeline. I frankly cannot believe that this society is having such a hard time finding earth. It would ahve to be set in like, 18897 ad or something closer for Earth to really be forgotten. i know i havn't seen the whole series, but i can't imagine with internet and archiving all history that somthing as precious as our planet's location.

my main question - when is this version of the show set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.212.79 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all this is not the place to get into a discussion of the hows and whys of a fictional-universe television series. The story line is what it is.  You may be looking for a proper discussion on this at one of the many BSG fan sites - there are some external links which you may find of interest to pursue your studies, or a Google search on the subject might be more helpful.  You might also find more helpful information at Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) or Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) which may help tie up some of the loose ends.  In any case this discussion page should be on the topic of how to improve the article itself.  As to your question, if you follow the series it becomes clear that Earth and the "Thirteenth Colony" was only a legend, barely more than an obscure myth; and very few but some religious zealots even believed it existed, never mind knowing where to find it.  The fleet proceeded along on the search for the mere possibility of an earth-like refuge in order to keep hope alive.  It was only later in the series that there started to emerge actual physical (and other) evidence, beyond their ancient bible-like scrolls, that suggested there even was an Earth, and that it might be worth finding.  As to the time frame, it is suggested (in-universe) in both the original 1978 series and the current one, that the "active" time frame is more or less contemporary to 20th/21st century (AD) Earth, and that some of the Histories of the 12 Colonies parallel that of Earth History, from the Ancient Civilizations until "now", suggesting that the original settlements of the 12 Colonies (and the 13th/Earth) would have taken place a few to several thousand years ago (ignoring the relativistic nature of spacetime etc. which renders the whole concept virtually impossible from a special relativity standpoint).  But this is all essentially speculation that should be revealed more fully as the final season wraps up - see List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes for more info.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny looking back at it, after the end, how wrong we was about the timeline and the 13th colony. — raeky ( talk 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Battlestar Galactica intro.jpg
The image Image:Battlestar Galactica intro.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Popular misconception (VFX company)
The beginning of the Production section needs to be corrected. As a search for online articles(examples: 1, 2, 3) will show Zoic is only one of several VFX shops that worked on the effects for the show and while they were instrumental to the miniseries their share of the effects declined during the run on the show just as with the other studios (Atmosphere, Enigma Animation Productions Inc.) moving the main load of the effects to the show´s in-house effects team coordinated by Gary Hutzel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennier1 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Series information
I disagree that this is merely miscellaneous information. It's fundamental information about the franchise, laying out all the various projects and their order and so needs to be placed early in the article. Perhaps some of the extra information can be cut out though.Pabsiletr (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted; the previous version is better, and avoids duplication (as the essential details are already in the lead.) --Ckatz chat spy  04:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reimagining
This is not the proper name for naming convention. If this is a TV series, then it should be labeled "TV series", or more specifically "2004 TV series". I will attempt the move.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um...ok. Someoe explain the difference between this page, and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)? There should not be two pages on the same thing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge same topic
merge

I was looking around at TV articles and I came across this one and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), and realized they were two pages on the same topic. What I see on this page is a page that talks about the miniseries and also talks about the 2004 series. Whatever is said about the miniseries should be on the miniseries, and whatever is said about the 2004 series should be on the page. We should not be rehashing the same information (or splitting it off under the same title) on two different pages. The 2004 page needs major cleaning (it tends to go into unnecessary detail about each season and spin-off when they all have their own pages). This page is highly unsourced to begin with, regardless of the fact that any relevant production history of the 2004 series should be presented on that page. There is reptition of reception and awards. A massive cleaning house needs to be done, but there is no reason that there should be two pages talking about the same subject.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC) A trade-off between size and clarity (and to reduce redundancy):
 * Agree; The "reimagining" should appear as an early sub-topic in the main 2004 TV Series Article. The redundant language from the Reimagining piece should be eliminated or redistributed to the other sections as necessary.  Matthew Baldwin (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree; There should be one article to cover the entire series (which begins with the miniseries), but specifics about the miniseries should be treated only at that article working it as an extended episode of the series. (It's hard to argue it's not part of the series, given it's packaged in the first season's DVD set). For sake of consistency, the resulting series page should be at the (2004 TV series) disamb. page, though a redirect from here to there is fine. --M ASEM  (t) 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be merged. While unusual in TV, its an issue often found in anime/manga articles dealing with adaptations of the same material, and in general they are all covered under one article unless they are just so significantly different as to not have much more in common than the name. This doesn't seem to be the case here, so one article is all that is needed, particularly when there is already so much redundancy between the two. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call on the merger. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) covers the exact same ground as Battlestar Galactica (reimagining). Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) has pretty much the same status for the 2004 series as pilot episodes have for other shows, so it should be subordinate to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) as well. – sgeureka t•c 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. One article is better than two, and there is considerable overlap in scope of the two articles.-- BlueSquadron Raven  18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree: Considering how complex the 2004 version is, it might still be worth dividing it into a parent article and one for each element (miniseries, TV series/webisodes, each movie). But that´s what might have caused the two different articles in the first place. OTOH cramming it all into one big article doesn´t seem advisable either. And as BIGNOLE said, the verification through sources goes a long way. I tried to do verify my information from different people who worked on the show when I rewrote the part about the visual effects companies but there´s a fine line between too much and not enough. --Lennier1 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal: It´s probably what most of us are talking about but it can´t hurt to spell it out.
 * Main Article
 * Miniseries + TV series + webisodes (after all, the miniseries was a backdoor pilot and formed part of the first season and the webisodes are pretty much fillers between regular episodes)
 * Caprica
 * Movies (each as separate article)
 * --Lennier1 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More opinions on structuring the articles? --Lennier1 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the way people want it to go, ok. Right now, I think the first priority will be to dissect this page and put the miniseries info with the miniseries and the TV info with the TV series. Then we should probably hold a separate merge discussion on putting the miniseries and TV series into one article (especially given that that page isn't currently connected to this discussion and those editors may (or may not) think that is appropriate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree These articles are effectivly the same, any extra infomation can be placed on the miniseries article or added into the TV series article. There is absolutly no need for both of these.


 * Comment - Ok, even though there seems to be a good early consensus, I'm going to leave this up for a few days to get a good number of opinions. My plan, should the merger take place, will be to put all sourced information exactly how it is on its respective pages (i.e. either miniseries or 2004 TV series), and then put all of the unsourced information on the respective talk pages to request that a source be found before it is reinserted back into the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's the mini series article as well, the reimagining covers the mini-series as well as the TV series and the upcoming telemovie (The Plan) and the spinoff TV series (Caprica). Remove the redundant information from the TV series article, and leave it at the "universe" article. Use a main to link to it. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the point. It repeats information on both sides. If all of the information was separated to its respective side (miniseries or TV series), then there wouldn't be any information in the article discussing the "universe", because there is no information in the article discussing that. All of the information is just a blending of the two topics.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Support merge after looking over the article more indepth. (refactored comments)Ikip (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, leave your personal attacks at home. Second, this isn't a notability discussion, this is a discussion about the existence of 3 pages, and where one page repeats the same crap at the other two. This page primarily is a copy of the 2004 TV series page. It isn't about notability, it's about common sense. You don't have two pages on the same topic. It's like having a page for The Dark Knight (film), and then turning around and having a page titled Batman Begins sequel where you say the same thing. If you're going to follow people around and spout propaganda, at least make sure you're doing it on the right discussion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You were quicker on the draw than I was in refactoring my comments, is the message on my talk page from you? nope. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. But first - Comment - For one thing, I find the Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) article to be improperly named and rather misleading and confusing.  The article is essentially about the entire reimagined TV series (post miniseries though), since it covers all 4 (or 4.5 as it were...) seasons; much more than just "2004" (Season 1).  I would propose that it first be renamed Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) or something similar, and then worked and merged appropriately together with the Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) (2003) and Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) to avoid confusion.  I agree that there are three articles here that cover essentially the same basic material, and merging to a "master" article is appropriate to avoid confusing the non-experts.  The producers of the miniseries (2003) and subsequent TV series seasons have effectively already "done this", by combining the miniseries (2003) and the first season (2004) in the first season DVD set (it is Disc 1 of 5).  The main master "reimagined series" article can still spawn sub-articles for convenience and brevity, to cover plot elements and critical reception and such, but these should always be "subordinate" to a single main article.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's per the naming conventions. Because there are 2 "Battlestar Galactic" "TV series" articles, they are then both disambiguated based on the year they first aired. It's the same reason we don't have film articles named "TITLE (remake)". Right now, I don't care about the mini-series article, just the full fledged TV series article. Even if the mini-series articles goes into the TV series article it would still be "2004", because that was when the TV series began. You would merely note that it spawned based on a miniseries that ran in 2003.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, just because Prefix the year of release or series debut is listed as one of many options in disambiguating a TV series, it does not in any way imply that it is the best option under any specific circumstance, particularly when a merger is under discussion, and particularly since it causes confusion in this case. The candidate Battlestar Galactica (reimagined TV series) (which currently redirects to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)) or something similar is just as valid in WP:NCTV as either Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) or Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), and is far more sensible in a merged context as a main "parent" article in my view.  Again, while the miniseries was originally made as a standalone entity, it de facto became the pilot (albeit a lengthy one) for the larger "complete series", and in the long run should be treated essentially as a pilot episode (in 4 parts or whatever, such as it was).  Which is why the Producers essentially merged the miniseries into Season One in the DVD Set.  Remember, we want to do what is right for the Project, and if we get stuck on something as petty as sticking to using Prefix the year of release or series debut as the unbreakable rule, then WP:IAR could always be applied to allow us to restore sanity to the topic.  Thanks though for the explanation as to the origin of the naming scheme - ideal or not.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't use that because it's naming the article by what it does, not what it is. It is a TV series, foremost. Nothing else. There is no such thing as a "reimagined TV series". There are "reimagined TV series storylines" and "concepts", but a TV series is a TV series. Hence why, like I exampled before, we don't have things like Halloween (film remake). Or, another example would be Paint It Black or Sweet Child Of Mine, which are songs that have been covered by many bands. If those cover songs were to have their own article, they wouldn't be titled "Paint it Black (cover)" or "Sweet Child Of Mine (cover)", but "Paint it Black (GOB)" or "Sweet Child of Mine (Sheryl Crow)". We don't really identify things based on what they do, but one what they are generically. Battlestar Galactica is both a 1978 TV series and a 2004 TV series. The difference that the 2004 TV series is a reimagining of the original concept. That's what it's about, but when you boil it down it's still a TV series.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page should be changed from the name 2004 TV series if merged, perhaps it should be renamed Battlestar Galactica (2003 TV series) as it did start in 2003 with the miniseries, and then was continued as the regular TV series --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That should be a discussion for the TV series page. I'm not sure how clear it is on whether the miniseries was intended to be a lead into the TV show, or if it just happened....or what.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The miniseries was created as a pilot for the TV series, if the miniseries was popular (which it was) it would have been picked up for a regular TV series. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose this covers the entire reimagined continuity - not just the 2004 TV series, but also the miniseries, the two webisode series, the two TV movies, the Caprica spinoff show, and the comic/book/etc spinoffs. Kuralyov (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The TV series page covers most of that stuff as well. The difference is that this page contains original research.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge - these are essentially the same topic. We already have articles for the Battlestar Galactica 2004 TV series, the 2003 miniseries, and each of the various minor spinoffs... we don't need this 'umbrella article' covering them all, which mostly duplicates information already available in the other articles. This sort of article is justifiable in cases like Star Trek (where it provides an overview of the entire franchise) but I don't think there's a good case for it here. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus: - The consensus seems to be clearly in favor of merging. As I stated before, I'll merge all sourced information (not caring whether it's reliable or not, that's a whole new discussion), to the respective pages. I will place all unsourced information on the talk page of those pages requesting sources. I'll redirect this page to the 2004 TV series. If someone wants to start a discussion about merging the mini-series and the 2004 series then that's cool, but that's a new discussion in an of itself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)