Talk:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series)/Archive 1

Article history

 * The contents of this article were originally part of the article Buck Rogers. I mention this so that I don't take complete credit for its content, as I was unable to move the history along with it. 23skidoo 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-org and additions
Hi:

I made some changes to the organization and added some content, much of which is based on content from Gil Gerard's own web site. I've grouped all the stuff about making the movie into one section after the introduction and made the content about the series into a section that follows.
 * The trivia section needs to be at the end of the discussion on the TV series, so I moved it down. 23skidoo 05:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fanon rumor re: Galactica
Can anyone provide a source for the fanon rumor that BSG and Buck Rogers would have merged? It sounds vaguely hoax-ish to me. 23skidoo 01:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about a source, but I've heard the same rumour. Douglasnicol 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a fanvid circulating around Youtube visualizing this proposal. (205.250.167.76 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Buck's name
Was the 'Anthony' section of the name ever used in the 70's series? I don't recall it. I know it was part of the original series though. However, there is precedence for a name change, look at the Incredible Hulk TV series where the main character was Dr David Banner rather than Bruce Banner as in the comics. Douglasnicol 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I need to check my DVD but I believe he is identified by his full name in the first episode. 23skidoo 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
None of this is sourced. If sources can be found, and the content is non-trivial enough to be included in the article, please do so. Unsourced content should not be in any article (WP:V and trivia is called trivia because it is, well, trivial. In other words, not important. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind telling me how the hell you're meant to get some sources. For example, the section about the spaceport 'pages', since that's part of an episode, there's no way to put another source except the episode itself. Isn't this just removal for removal's sake, plenty other Wiki entries have similiar sections. Douglasnicol 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And most of those sections should be removed or trimmed massively also; that is a fallacious argument. "Everybody else does it" has never been a very powerful argument for doing anything. Further, how can one small nod to Trek improve anyone's understanding of what BR25 is about? Its trivial. It adds nothing to the comprehension of the reader, and belongs on a fansite, not in an encyclopedia article. That said, if you find a reliable source concerning this, I will not quibble over it being included in the article, although how to explain its relevence might be a challange. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'll ask again about the unsourced comment. For instance the rumour of BSG and BR25 meeting has been floating around for years, but I've never actually seen a printed statement or one online from Larson saying that this would happen, so I can grant you that. However, the nods to Star Trek, Dune and DC are in episodes, IE they do exist and you can hear them from watching the episodes, so how can that be classed as unsourced. Alternately, what would you say if it had been called 'Miscellaneous', or some other title rather than Trivia. Also, the second statement about the desk does name its source, namely that of Starlog magazine and even includes an issue number. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Douglasnicol (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Floating around for years" hardly qualifies as sourced. See WP:V:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. As far as the desk story, how is it even relevant? Is it germane? Please explain how it matters to anyone but a trivia buff. WP:NOT, a policy states: KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * 2) The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. 
 * A source more reliable and verifiable than the episode containing the trivia? (If we're talking about that) --Ittakezou0 (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well excuse me for being rude, but do you even read your own initial post, as quoted here

"None of this is sourced. If sources can be found"

First off, the "floating round for years" comment was supporting the removal for that as I said that a comment like that means it is NOT sourced and therefore fell under the argument that you initially put, as quoted above. Now you seem to change the rules when I present a counterargument about other details. The desk story for instance is quoted in a Starlog magazine and is therefore sourced, but somehow this seems to suddenly not be relevant, despite your main peeve being that none of the trivia section is sourced which is blatantly untrue. Certainly sections of it like the BSG-BR25 universes meeting up are rumour without any sources. Others like the pages at the spaceport are sourced in the very episodes that are present in. Douglasnicol 01:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So rather then simply label it for citation required or requested, you just go and delete it without discussion or agreement from other editors. Brilliant (note the sarcasm). Alyeska 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not changing a thing, I also said ...and the content is non-trivial enough to be included in the article, please do so. Whether episodes can be used as self sources is subject to much debate, currently; however the question about this bit is whether it is about the show or not, whether it is non-trivial enough to be in the article, and if so, how to incorporate it. You have yet to state whether you consider that it meets relevance, and where you believe it could be incorporated. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly the pages talking about Star Trek, Dune, and DC could fall under the 'References to Popular Culture' or something similiar. Also, another thing that could be mentioned is that the Earth Directorate Starfighter was in fact the original design for the BSG Viper, for reference you only have to see Ralph McQuarrie's original artwork. I'll grant you that some of it is speculative, like the point about Dorothy Strattens voice being dubbed. Douglasnicol 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your post addresses any of the issues with this content directly. Speculation is certainly OR, I believe we agree upon that? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with the OR rule. What I'm saying is that something like the starport pages is referenced in the episode themselves, and it's plainly obvious that they are tributes/references to culture, call them what you like. I WILL agree that there are certain items in the trivia that are speculation, and are therefore unsourced, whether you think they are relevant or not, perhaps it would be best to analyse each point for sources first, THEN decide whether it is relevant to the article or not, that would make things easier. Douglasnicol 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I quite agree. Pick one, your call. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets start with this one....

Several stock shots protraying futuristic buildings on Earth are that of remaining pavillions on the site of Expo 67, including the British and French national pavillion (now open as the Montreal Casino).

There is an article on the Expo 67, which I imagine you could call a source. Of course, I haven't seen the other Expo buildings, but I suppose you could call it a source. If we're agreed on that, the point is now whether it's relevant. Funnily enough, some of those buildings make an appearance in an episode of Battlestar Galactica, but that's another story. :) Whether it's relevant is up for question, obviously in the time before CGI if you wanted to have futuristic buildings you were in a bind, you had to either use models or existing buildings. This isn't anything really remarkable as such, as it was common practice for the day. What do you think Douglasnicol 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in the article on Expo 67 if at all, and it would be a little marginal there, but could be worked into a paragraph about the "futaristic" architecture. I have two questions: What is your source? And what do you think the relevance is? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My source for what? I didn't actually put in the section on the buildings on, I did contribute a few of the trivia parts but not that. It might be more relevant to include it in the Expo 67 section. As I say, it seems to have been a common thing back then to use more futuristic buildings for sci-fi films, look at the Conquest of the Planet of the Apes film for a prime example. Douglasnicol 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you don't have a source? Then it doesn't go in. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask yet again, with something like this, where there is existing material (like a building in this case) how do you GET a source. Come on, give me an example here. All I can see you saying is "you have no source" over and over again, some pointers on GETTING a source would be a help. Douglasnicol 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No more indent just now, here's a thought. The section on the Expo buildings could go into the "Making the Movie" section. The Expo buildings seem to be well known, plus, I would say it's as relevant as the fact that Anarchia was shot on the MGM lot. It is part of the movie making process as it's to do with location shooting. Douglasnicol 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as relatively relevant, if you'll pardon the alliteration. Care to insert it in the correct paragraph? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's inserted. Perhaps the duplicate could be removed from the 'Trivia removed from article' section as this particular point has been dealt with. Douglasnicol 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the 'reference needed' box in the main article in the 'Making the Movie' section. If it's about Juanin Clay, her wiki article cites both a fan page and IMDB as her being considered for the role of Wilma. Douglasnicol 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no references in the entire "Making the movie" section in this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. No matter how awesome or lame, important or trivial, if we can't verify it with an external, reliable source, then we should not include it. Sometimes we give things a "grace period" by using things like citeneeded, but any editor wishing to remove the unsourced info may do so at any time. This is all stated in the policy Verifiability. That being said, you can cite an episode as a source. The real reason we should remove the trivia is the guideline Avoid trivia sections in articles. -- Ned Scott 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So the episode cites can be put back in? In my honest opinion, some of the trivia is tenuous, and could be removed as I don't myself see how it can be sourced.

I'd like to get back to tackling some of this stuff..however, where to begin. The easiest thing would be to eliminate what can't be put in. The last trivia point about the wrong type of wings would go under a production goofs section if such existed, however, it's not worthwhile making a section just for that. Douglasnicol (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

From the top of whats left.
 * The desk story has been sourced, whether its relevant is up for debate, perhaps it can go in the "Making the Movie" section. It is referenced with the Starlog article.
 * The Stunt double point. I don't see any real way of citing this, especially as Vendrell was uncredited.
 * Gerard suffering from the flu. Well it may be true, but it didn't seem to affect the series either way. I would be for scrubbing this altogether.
 * Dorothy Stratten being overdubbed. I've never heard anything to corroborate that, it seems unimportant.
 * The changed music in the final episode of the first season....now this is something I can't comment on. I haven't seen it televised for many years. I DO own the DVD's and the same title sequence is used as was used throughout the regular series run, so either this point is wrong, or the DVD release was altered.
 * The point about the shuttle launches. It's easily checked but is it really relevant?
 * The fanon rumour about BSG and BR meeting has, as I mentioned to KillerChihuahua one that has been making the rounds for some years. However, I have never seen a source anywhere to verify it. I even checked battlestarpegasus.com, one of the more in-depth BSG websites that has a lot of info including the lawsuits from George Lucas and a pile of other info. Nothing was mentioned there. There are sadly, not as many Buck Rogers websites that could give a source of this info.
 * The points about the differing philosophies in both BSG and BR, while making a bit of interesting reading do seem to be purely personal opinion.
 * Anne Lockhart and Wifred Hyde-White appearing in BR. Well its not uncommon for production companies to use actors and actresses they are already familiar with. I would also hesitate to call Wilfred a 'regular' as such.
 * The three 'pages' all from the same episode according to Ned can be cited since they are sourced to the episodes. They also contain references to popular culture, specifically sci-fi related.
 * Erin meeting Eric Server. We'd need verification of that, plus voice actors often don't 'mix' with the regular casts as far as I know (I admit I could be wrong here though). After all, with voice actors, their parts can be recorded more conveniently.
 * The last part about a nod to Frank Gorshin as the Riddler is a possible Batman reference, but it DOES seem to be tenuous. I'm not sure.

So, your opinions here? I've summarised each point on what I think could be removed from the main article, sources and so on. Douglasnicol 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the Erin Gray/Eric Server item. No recordings are known to exist of this because, well, it was a SF convention and you're not allowed to record these things! There is an unfair bias in Wikipedia against reports from live events such as this, and I see no reason why my report is any less credible than someone writing it up for a newspaper. In fact I've seen people screw such reports up terribly. As far as some of the other items, there's no need to mention that "so and so appeared in both BSG and Buck" or that Gorshin played the Riddler. This stuff is meaningless and is one of the reasons why people are trying to ban trivia. (It should be noted that anyone who removes trivia citing WP:TRIVIA is in the wrong; the guideline (and it's a guideline, not policy) simply says Trivia should be avoided. It does not ban trivia.) The item about the BSG/Buck merger does need to be cited, I'm afraid. That one is just too wacky. The appearance by Buster Crabbe must be kept, if no other trivia remains at the end of the day. If necessary, give it its own section, even. The episode is the source and no third-party source is necessary. If there are actually one or two readers out of the millions who visit Wikipedia who have doubts that Crabbe played Buck Rogers, they can confirm it by visiting his article. 23skidoo 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't ridiculing it as such, but it seems some people want all trivia removed, and looking at other articles I can see how it can get out of hand, The Prisoner is a prime example. Granted, you can't film at conventions, so you really can't source that, unless it was run by a convention organisation that ran an article in a magazine or on a website where there was a way of verifying. I agree that Buster Crabbe should be kept, both because of the nod to his Flash Gordon role, and the fact that he played the original Buck Rogers. The BR/BSG merger is a fanon rumour that has been going around for some years, but I have NEVER seen a source for it, even checking the Battlestarpegasus.com site that has a lot of trivia and in-depth info in it. It's possibly a rumour that has got so out of hand that some people believe it to be true. Ned Scott has also said that sourcing an episode seems fine as well. Douglasnicol 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we really should get back onto this trivia section. I've noted that the Buster Crabbe reference has been noted in the episode he guest starred in.

Trivia removed from article

 * The Buster Crabbe section is an episodic cite. To also make it more relevant to Buck Rogers, it should have mentioned that he was the original Buck Rogers as well.
 * Several stock shots protraying futuristic buildings on Earth are that of remaining pavillions on the site of Expo 67, including the British and French national pavillion (now open as the Montreal Casino).
 * "I designed a desk for Dr. Huer," said Art Director Paul Peters in the magazine Starlog #32. "It was all stainless steel and had a monitor built into it. When it came time to dress his office for the series, the desk was missing. Somehow, someone walked out of Universal with a huge stainless steel desk. We just got out the plans and built another just like it."
 * Gerard's uncredited stunt double on Buck Rogers was Michael Vendrell. Michael is the last remaining master of Yee Chuan Tao in the world and has been a stunt man for 30 years. He has taught and trained such people as David Carradine, Brandon Lee and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is now stunt co-ordinator on the TV series Lost.
 * While filming "Flight of the War Witch", Gerard suffered from the flu.
 * Actor Buster Crabbe, who played Buck Rogers in the serials, had a guest appearance as Brigadier Gordon in the episode "Planet of the Slave Girls", the character name referring to his other famous role of Flash Gordon.
 * The voice of Dorothy Stratten in "Cruise Ship to the Stars" was overdubbed.
 * The final episode of the first season used a unique version of the opening credits. For this episode only footage from the TV version of the pilot was incorporated into the opening credits along with a special effects shot that was actually created for the first episode of the second season, "Time of the Hawk".
 * According to the pilot/movie, Buck Rogers' shuttle, Ranger 3, launched in 1987. Coincidentally, 1987 was the year when no shuttles launched, due to the shuttle Challenger accident in January, 1986. The next launch was in 1988.
 * A persistent fanon rumor states that, had the original Battlestar Galactica been renewed for a second season, it would have eventually found Earth - the Earth of the Buck Rogers TV series - and the two shows would merge.
 * The involvement of Glen Larson in both Galactica and Buck Rogers, the sharing of props between them, and the rumors of merging the two shows are ironic, given the different political views each show seemed to express. Battlestar Galactica expressed certain right-wing political views; the political leaders of the Colonies were generally portrayed as (at best) well-meaning but naive and foolish pacifists who foolishly believe the Cylons' peace overtures and allow the colonies to be wiped out, and episodes often lectured on how politicians who sought peace were weakening their people and leaving them open to destruction by their ruthless enemies, clearly drawing deliberate parallels between the U.S. and its (Communist) super-power rivals. By contrast, Buck Rogers in the 25 Century was set after a nuclear holocaust shortly after Rogers was lost in space had all but nearly wiped out human life on Earth, which had slowly recovered and become a unified society. Although the destruction wrought by the war had prevented records from being left indicating exactly what had happened, there were implications that aggressive war-mongers, concerned by the perception that their enemies were gaining too much of an advantage, may have launched a nuclear first strike and precipitated disaster--almost the exact opposite of the views Galactica most often expressed.
 * Anne Lockhart and Wilfred Hyde-White are the only Battlestar Galactica regulars to appear on Buck Rogers.
 * During a presentation at a 1997 science fiction convention in Calgary, Alberta, Gray said that she never met Eric Server, the actor who provided the voice of Dr. Theopolis, until many years after the series ended when she found herself sitting next to him on an airplane.
 * A 'page' in one episode was made over the New Chicago public address system, calling for "Captain Christopher Pike" -- in an apparent nod to the Captain (played by Jeffery Hunter) of the U.S.S. Enterprise in the unaired original pilot (The Cage) for the Star Trek TV series.
 * Another 'page' in "A Plot To Kill A City" called for "Dr. Adam Strange", the DC comics character that finds himself transported from his 20th Century Earth to the Planet Rann where he has adventures similar to Rogers'.
 * Yet another 'page' in "A Plot to Kill A City" announces that a flight is "now leaving for Planet Arrakis", an apparent nod to the planet of the same name in Frank Herbert's Dune novels.
 * In "A Blast for Buck", Legion of Death leader Kellogg (Played by Frank Gorshin) from "A Plot to Kill A City" was considered as one of the likely suspects of the cryptic limerick. However, Kellogg was shown being destroyed in the climactic space battle during part 2 of "A Plot to Kill a City". Alhough Wilma is heard instructing her wingmen to tow what's left of the Legion of Death back to headquarters, nothing appears on screen suggested that Kellogg had ejected from his exploding fighter or was merely disabled. Interestingly, in a nod to Gorshin's role as Batman's Riddler, Buck later discounted Kellogg as a suspect only because he felt that "Kellog would not be bothered with riddles. It's not his style. When he decides to come after me, he will want me to know it's him, how he's going to do it, and how much it's going to hurt."
 * In the first episode of the 2nd season(Time of The Hawk)Buck Rogers(a former US Air Force pilot)is shown to be wearing US Naval Flight Officer wings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasnicol (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Been meaning to get back to this, strikeout the duplicate part about Buster Crabbe, it's mentioned in the episode listings. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) - end trivia -

Duck Dodgers as reference
Someone has put in that the Warner Bros cartoon "Duck Dogers" is a reference to Buck Rogers. Fair enough, this I can accept, but I don't think it is a reference to this incarnation, namely the 70's television series as the first of the cartoons aired in 1953. Would it be more appropriate to shift the reference to the main Buck Rogers article? Douglasnicol 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Twiki info vs. duration of 2nd season
According to at least two places in the article the 2nd season was 11 episodes; however in the section discussing Twiki in the 2nd season, the way it's written implies that Bob Elyea did Twiki's voice for the first 10 episodes and Mel Blanc came back for the final six. 10+6=16 episodes. I ass/u/me that 11 is the correct number, but I don't know. Fitfatfighter (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series) → Buck Rogers in the 25th Century—No need for the parenthetical tag since Buck Rogers in the 25th Century is an entirely unambiguous title. (The film info might as well be incorporated into the series article, or just as well left at Buck Rogers.) --78.34.108.150 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose it is not unambiguous, since an original story is also called that, and there's a reason why Duck Dodgers parodies this title before the creation of the TV show. The primary title should redirect to Buck Rogers. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, move request suspended. --87.79.164.189 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)