Talk:33 (Battlestar Galactica)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

August 2006

Any speculation as to the significance of 33? Is it biblical? It's a prime number.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petewatson (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

33 minites was the time it took after each jump in all for the olympic carrier to send and the cylons to recieve a signal so that they knew where the fleet was and could jump there. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but why did the producers choose 33? Why not 32 or 34? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.15.247 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it was just a random number they picked for the hell of it (time it took for the radio signal to reach the Cylons - 33 light minutes distance in their jumps - maybe it just sounded cool... who knows? If there is some symbology or esoteric relavence to the number 33 then look on 33's page and find your own "conspiracy theory". Cyberia23 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Is the 33 light-minute jump a limitation due to the time they had to calculate the jump, or is that a hard limit for colonials? If they had an hour to calculate, could they jump 66 light-minutes (though I doubt it would scale linearly)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.58.163 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't prime, it's divisible by 3 and 11, both of which are prime.24.47.17.220 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo in briefing room

When the pilots walk out of the briefing room they each touch a picture of a guy in front of a burning city backdrop, for good luck. Who is he? - Tronno ( t | c ) 01:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo is from Aerelon City on the morning of the attack. In the deleated scenes in season 1, Roslin is given the photo and it's explained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook31400 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you! - Tronno ( t | c ) 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Caution - crazy new math.

Upon further review ... at the beginning of the episode, the survivor headcount is listed as 50,298 - and this is reduced by 300 to 49,998 due to "some overcounts, a few deaths from wounds, and a few missing during the last attack". After the Olympic Carrier went missing with "1345 souls" aboard, it should leave 48,653 survivors in the remaining fleet. But the President's headcount tote board is changed to 47,972 - for an apparent loss of 2026 souls. Rather than trying to guess on the source of the difference (constituting original research and speculation), I would propose to leave the headcount numbers as provided, without comment or explanation. If there are some "deleted scenes" on the DVDs, or "official website FAQ" data that might explain the head count difference, then we might add that. Otherwise, I think we are SOL. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

imagery

I don't find this article suited to requiring any non-free imagery as per the non-free content criteria. Thus far, and I'm open to others' interpretations, there's no prose that needs to be illustrated by copyrighted material to be understandable or pertinent (that's not already wikilinked to another article). WP:NFCC#1 requires that any media be non-replaceable by libre content, to include text. Having watched this episode relatively recently, I didn't find any aspects that were not textually describable. WP:NFCC#8 requires that the media be necessary to the readers' understanding of the article. As I said above, I found no instances whereupon a copyrighted image would be required to understand any portion of prose.

That being said, Rootology (talk · contribs) added an image (Image:BattlestarGalactica -- 1x01 - 33.jpg) to the article which is rationaled to "[provide] critical commentary in describing a key moment in the said episode." It may, but it certainly doesn't meet the criteria as described. Captain Adama in the cockpit of a Viper doesn't add anything to the understandability of the article or its prose, it's just a dramatic moment decorating the article. Unless anybody can provide rationaling to meet the whole of the NFCC, I'll orphan the image and tag duly. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

5 days without sleep

That's bull. don't they work shifts on their marvelous giant spaceship? I mean, come on! -- 217.186.221.97 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

reversion

I reverted Myles Trundle (talk · contribs) here for the following reasons.

  • It's preferable to leave the infobox variable spacing lined up for ease of editing and reading when in coding view. Especially if there're citation templates in the infobox, it can become very disjointed if that spacing is removed.
  • The infobox header for the episode chronology already says "episode chronology", to then have a link saying the same thing is ambiguous whereas specifying the "list of ... episodes" is disambiguous to the reader and site navigator.
  • The miniseries is not a part of the re-imagined TV series, nor is it an episode thereof. Having it in the episode chronology is misleading, as well as mis-formatted as the box puts double-quotes around the title, assuming it's a TV episode.

I explain myself to assuage any assumptions of animosity on my part. I don't presume to own this article, and would make the same edits regardlessly. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I also undid this edit by Kuralyov (talk · contribs) because it removed the list of episodes from the infobox w/o explanation, and also mistakenly assumed the Battlestar Galactica miniseries to be an episode of the 2004 Battlestar Galactica TV series (which is also problematic since the infobox automatically and incorrectly double-quotes the title assuming it to be a TV episode). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuralyov reverted again arguing: "It is the preceding episode of the narrative, is included in the first season DVD, is directly tied into the plot of this episode and the series, and is made by the same team and actors".
The story of the miniseries does precede this episode (as discussed in prose), but it is not an episode of the TV series which began in 2004. Being part of a contiguous story does not automagically make the 2003 miniseries a really-long, unnumbered, time-travelling episode of the TV series that would then start the next year. Edward James Olmos described the TV series as "even better than the miniseries", not that "the rest of the first season is better".
The miniseries is included with the first season as a convenience, described by Amazon.com: "Picking up where the miniseries ended (it's included here, sparing the need for separate purchase), season 1 opens with the riveting, Hugo Award-winning episode '33,'" not because it is an episode thereof.
Being made by the "same team and actors" makes it part of the same fictional universe, nothing else; otherwise we're arguing that Serenity is an episode of Firefly, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: First Contact are episodes of Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation respectively, The Simpsons Movie is an episode of The Simpsons, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie is an episode of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and so on. That argument is a non sequiter.
Putting the miniseries in the infobox (and inexplicably removing the list of episodes) as Kuralyov has is (a) confusing, since this article opens explaining that this is the first episode, (b) incorrect, as demonstrated the miniseries is not a TV episode of the series that followed, (c) improperly formatted, as the infobox quotes the link as if it were an episode as opposed to italicizing it as its own article formats, and (d) a poor attempt at consensus building as explained at WP:BRD and WP:CON. I'm more than open for discussing edits and content and welcome Kuralyov or anybody else to discuss here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Barring a lack of reply here at the BSG project, and the precedential evidence and references above, I'm reverting User:Kuralyov and Myles Trundle (talk · contribs) here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have revereted these changes with regards to the chronology. First, "Episode" chronology should not be taken that literarely, as the story continuity is quite clear. The miniseries was aired on TV in two parts, and they do count as epiosdes. They are also listed on the list of episodes. Your comparison with feature movies does not apply. The quotes are a byproduct of them being hardcoded in the template, which is a monor issue. With regards to the production code; you keep reverting it to an invalid link, whereas the correct link quite clear states this is episode 101. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the talk page!
You assume that the readers (or anybody for that matter) presume ambiguity in the infobox and that "Episode chronology" doesn't actually mean exactly what it says? Why would we? It says "X", and "X" is what goes into it. As far as I can tell, there was a miniseries in 2003, and the episodal TV series started in 2004, and continued the story of the former. The miniseries wasn't retroactively made the zeroth episode; as this article specifically says '33' is the first episode of the reimagined 2004 Battlestar Galactica television series, immediately following the events of the miniseries. The miniseries is a miniseries and aired in 2003. The TV series is a TV series, and began airing in 2004/2005. This is the first episode of the latter, and has no predecessor in the series. You're right in that formatting is a relatively minor issue, however it begs to realize that the infobox chronology was meant solely for TV episodes to be listed within.
The title of the URL (I mistakenly used the wrong version of) doesn't say anything about a production code. Where are you looking for that information? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Right in the blue title bar of your browser. Several BS pages on scifi.com use this format as their production codes, so it is a established format. The fact the the miniseries is a seperate production does not mean that there isn't any continuity. A miniseries and a regular TV series aren't that different; they both are aired on TV as multi part stories. Every other connection between episodes and TV movies are also linked. It is the narrative that is leading. Saying that the miniseries are not episodes is only semantics; some stations aired it as four episodes. If it said "Story chronology", it wouldn't be a problem. But again, this is nitpicking over a single word in the infobox. The context becomes quite clear when a reader clicks the link. — Edokter • Talk • 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) No blue bar; Chrome, remember?  ;^) If that's the only reliable sourcing for the production code, then there needs to be something, somewhere that says it's the production code. Is there a SCIFI.com style guide or SOP documentation? To play devil's advocate, perhaps everybody's just assumed that "Episode 101" meant that was the production code, when the Sci Fi Channel actually uses hexadecimal coding for them. Without an explicit reliable source saying that either "XYZ means the production code" or "this episode's production code is XYZ", it's just interpretation and assumption.
You're right, if it said "story (or, I would prefer 'narative') chronology" and had variables to circumvent the automatic double-quoting, it would make big sloshy buckets of sense to place the miniseries in the infobox as preceding this episode. However, it doesn't. It instead says "Episode chronology", and presumes only the inclusion of episodal links therein. This is the caveat of our choosing to use this template. We don't have to, of course; we could simply remove the template and write all of the information out in prose and use succession boxes for our chronology. Nothing forces us to use this template. But since we are currently, it needs to be properly formatted and unambiguous as to what it contains to be accurate.
For what it's worth, I raised this aspect of the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Television episode#episode chronology, to see if modifications or concessions could be made to the template. Also, if you have any such skills, you could modify the template yourself to include modification variables to allow us to dictate the changes this particular article would benefit from.
Stop re-adding unsourced material ([1]); the "production code" is unsourced and contested. As for the external link, consistency would be like originally listed: I've added other episodal external link templates for examplar of the site-wide consistency for such. This discussion isn't somewhere to keep me distracted while you continue to impress your particular version of the article, which is contested on policy-based arguments. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
May I add that three editors have reverted you by now, and that that is a pretty good indication that your edits are against consensus? Please consider that. — Edokter • Talk • 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You may. You're also the only one who has continued to do so after having been explained to, however. Do you misunderstand what I'm saying or discussing here, or would you rather continue to edit war to your iteration of this particular article w/o discussion first? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Pot/kettle anyone? I am quite done with you! Revert yourself now; You have gone against three other editors, and I WILL report you to 3RR. The fact that I am the only one present does nto change that. You requiring a cite for such a trivial factoid is quite honestly bordering on the obsessive, and I am beginning to see your actions as vandalism. Why here? Why now? Are you going to do the other 75 articles as well? — Edokter • Talk • 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I shan't (and didn't), but feel free to. Verifiability = Obsession and Vandalism? Be that as it may, it doesn't change that it's one our policies and should be followed. Why here? Why now? Because you're now trying to insert unsourced information into this article here. The English Wikipedia has 2,797,900 articles, not 75; and yes, I will if I have the time. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am with Edokter on this. The miniseries is certainly not a part of the first season but it is part of the overall TV show which consists of four seasons and some extra bits. The miniseries was a pilot and in retrospect became part of the series (as other back door pilots do) but not of the first season. To edit war about the production code number (as one party has done) and to even worry about italics vs. quotes (as both are doing) seems pretty ridiculous. Str1977 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

anew

I spoke with several discussion pages, and have made some changes based on the responses I received.

Edokter (talk · contribs) and I were involved in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#double-checking, which resulted in a modification of {{infobox television episode}} to allow italicized entries into the "prev" and "next" boxes. I'm still not pleased with the title of "Episode chronology", but I think the ability to italicize negates a lot of ambiguity there.

At the External links guideline talk page the general consensus is that the official link needs to be at the top of the External links section. I also concurred with DreamGuy (talk · contribs) that describing the page as a review is ambiguous to the reader, as most often this usage in such articles refers to critical/content reviewing by third parties, not a synopsis and photogallery by the originator. I wanted to simply use {{official}} for the link, but coudln't for some reason, so I simply used its wording.

Discussing the numbering issue at the apropos policy page, it came upon me that since The Sci Fi Channel reliably sources 101 as the episode number, then we should obviously use it as such. Problem solved (imo). We don't have any explicit sourcing for a production number, but we do for a episode number. Voila! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take matters regarding episode/production numnering to Talk:List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes, as the infobox only mirrors the information from the list. My main concern is consistency. Episode numbering is a matter of simple math, not original research. Also, it would be courtious to inform me (and other) of your discussion elsewhere before coming back and implement the changes you have decided on there; consensus has to be established here'. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The infobox shouldn't be mirroring any other Wikipedia page, as they're not reliable sources. My main concern, on the other hand, is verifiability and citing reliable sources in the article. You, too, aren't a reliable source for episode numbering, whereas the provider (The Sci Fi Channel) is.
I don't know why you insist on the inclusion of unreferenced and unverifiable information in this particular article, but such is against the Verifiability policy which (in a nutshell) instructs us that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Without a doubt, your claim of a "production number" for this episode article has been challenged, and yet not attributed to the sourcing required. On the other hand, an episode number has been. I'm not so hard pressed to include the 101 numbering the infobox if you're set against it, as its understanding can go either way, but I will not acquiesce to the wanton usage and publishing of plainly unwarranted information. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Having read the discussion at WT:V, it is clear that including 101 as a production code does not fail WP:V, as it is simply too trivial. You were told there not to be so adamant about it, yet you continue to press the issue. The only one contesting the information so far is you, and noone else. And yes, the infobox should mirror the information from the list, as the information simply needs to be consistent accross articles. — Edokter • Talk • 19:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Came from Third Opinion page. Is this resolved? Does the Sci Fi Channel thing cover it? If there's no source, the info is trivial, and this guy is sure it's correct, then I'd ask how he knew, and if he gave a reasonable answer (like, "I bought the DVD set and that's what it says on the case!") then I would believe him. I think if it's such a small detail and doesn't have any detrimental impact, it's good to allow some leeway for one another. The guidelines advise that we treat each other as mature colleagues working on an important project together. I think that's a good standard for judgement on a lot of issues.--Asdfg12345 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, There're three options here ultimately. Allow me to lay them out as (I think) we see them. (a) Leave the production code variable in the article, unsourced. Example version (b) Leaving the production code variable blank pending reliable sourcing. Example version (c) Using the SCIFI.com source, and putting the "101" in the episode number variable. Example version
Edokter (talk · contribs) appears unwilling to budge from position a, determining the information to be too insignificant to need sourcing, despite my challenge (WP:V). I prefer position c, as that information is citable, but am willing to concede to position b, as it leaves no unverifiable information in the article. This is the situation as I see it; it is not resolved. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If there's a source available why not just cite it? --Asdfg12345 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no source as pd_THOR would like to see. He is also unwilling to concede, despite being told on WT:V that it does not need sourcing. The point is, this is an established numbering scheme employed by both TV producers and television related wikiprojects, but are always source in one form or another, ususally on the official website. That is why you will see different schemes on some show (ie Doctor Who). The fact we call it a production code is because it does not fall under the "Episode" monniker. "101" isn't an episode number, "1" is. The production code also includes the season number, which has a seperate parameter in the infobox. pd_THOR's (c) example shows how that leaving the production code blank leaves a very confusing result. — Edokter • Talk • 12:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no source. I am unwilling to concede, despite the opinion of one uninvolved editor, that we should have unreferenced information in an article.
I'm not sure what Edokter's arguing later, that we should just assume what The Sci Fi Channel meant, or just assume that since some TV shows' production code formatting follows one format, that this one should too. We have no style guide or SOP documentation with which to interpret what the Sci Fi Channel means by "Episode 101", except the verbatim. As for other shows' production code formatting, see The Simpsons' for an example of consecutive episode codes (2F20, 2F17, 3F01).
I, for one, don't understand Edokter's vehemence against leaving the information blank (or—as it was originally—commented) when there's no source for it. What is the insistence for including unverifiable information in this particular article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Again: too trivial to remove or source. Others have told you so, but you go against it anyway. 101 is on the homepage, but neither as "episode numer" or "Production number", but is regarded as such on other pages on scifi.com and elsewhere. As it stand, you are the only one advocating this change, but failed to get consensus. Please do yourself and anyone a favor: drop it. Getting hung up on such a detail is seriously hurting your own credibility. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy doesn't state anything about triviality being a concern with regards to sourcing necessity. To wit:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.

I'm doing our readers and the credibility of Wikipedia itself a favour by ensuring that everything we present as factual information to our readers is, in fact, supported by something more that our anonymous contributors: reliable third-party sources. Getting "hung up" on the details of what we publish would seem to be of benefit to the project's goals. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(←) You were told by multiple editor on WT:V not to press the issue. Why are you pressing the issue? You are taking this way too far; you are wiklawyering to the point of becoming disruptive. Please drop it. As long as noone else agrees with you, there is no point in continuing this. — Edokter • Talk • 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll just put my final opinion here, for what it's worth. My concern is that we are responsible to readers, and that information in the articles is accurate and helpful. If there is no source for this, but we are sure that it would be correct to have it in, then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be in. Is there a particular reason--other than that it doesn't have a source--that the information is problematic? Is there a reason why it may be mistaken? If there was, I think that should be brought up and discussed (like THOR says "No, I have the DVD set and it says something different." [then takes a photo of that and uploads to imageshack, for eg.]) But if THOR also believes the information to be accurate, or can't produce a reason for why it may not be, I don't see the reason for fussing over a source. It's not going to do any harm to have it there, assuming it's accurate. If everyone knows it's the actual episode number, and Edokter is not just making it up, then just put it in, right? Well, that's just my thought. There could be things I am not aware of, and THOR may not have fully explained his reasoning or misgivings. If it's a mere technical point, I mean, emphasising the need for a source for the sake of having a source, this seems a little counter-productive. There are principles which underlie the policies on paper, and if we can follow the principles when unable to follow the paper, that's sufficient. This is what being a human is all about, being responsible, making common sense decisions, exercising one's own judgement, expressing goodwill when possible, etc.. If that still doesn't work then I guess there's no point escalating it. Or maybe you would want to open an RfC or seek wider community input. The world keeps turning either way. Things like this make a dispute over episode numbers look somewhat trivial. Best wishes to you both.--Asdfg12345 06:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you're asking me to prove a negative, which I cannot. Edokter has no proof one way or another as to what he believes to be a "production code" in this situation, but presses on with knowingly unverifiable information. Despite our explicit instructions otherwise (WP:V), once challenged, Edokter has neither sourced or removed the information. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
As WP:V indicates, it isn't necessary to provide a source for absolutely every bit of data. If there is a source available, then by all means add it, but its only absolutely necessary if the data, as Thor points out above, is "challenged or likely to be challenged". As it stands at this exact point in time, the production code is not sourced, and was set that way by Thor. In my opinion, this discussion has reached a consensus, and needn't continue moving forward. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A consensus of? Sorry, not to be obtuse, but I don't see anybody agreeing to anything per sé. Would you mind elabourating on what you see consensus to be? I do, however, appreciate your reading the instructions at WP:V as I have, and reaching the same understanding re: challenged material. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to point out that I had no idea that this discussion thread even existed, let alone one which spawned from one of my edits. Well snyway, for some reason I just read this entire discussion thread and I still don't understand why I just bothered to read about something which is so damn trivial. As far as I am concerned, the production numbers should remain as 101, 102 etc and the episode numbers simply remain as 1, 2, 3 etc which I believe is the first (or option a) of the three proposed by pd_THOR. The only way that would possibly make me change my mind is if other production codes were uncovered (like the ones used on ‘The Simpsons’ and ‘Bones’). But until then, the best we have is what is given to us by the US SCIFI site (for example) and directors/writers (as another example). I don’t see as all how the production numbers could be confusing as it would take anyone no longer than 5 seconds to realise that the front number (eg, “1” in “101”) represents the season and there 2nd and 3rd numbers are the episode number. You may also notice that the same production number style is used for many other TV series including 'Lost.' All in all, unless other production numbers are miraculously uncovered, these are the best there are and they are perfectly sufficient for referencing particular episodes. --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the rub. Assuming the production codes to be the format you put forth is original research without any reliable sources to back them up. Sure, I'll concur it's a logical numbering system, one BitTorrent sites use as well iinm, but logical numbering != a production code formatting, as evidenced with The Simpsons as you put forth. We shouldn't publish information that's probably right w/o proof otherwise, we should provide the information we can verify. Once challenged, the Verifiability policy requires the information either be sourced or removed. Neither of which I can accomplish, despite verbatim repeating of the policy. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Proof?! I am pretty sure that it has already been established that the US SCIFI site refers to episodes as 101, 102 etc. If you don't have that "blue bar" in IE and instead use Chrome, like I also do, then you can very clearly see the numbers in the tab title. I hardly see the point in marking something so trivial, I mean if this line of reasoning is followed then why aren't the production codes referenced for every other TV series? Take this episode page for Bones for instance, its P# isn't referenced at all. And if you take down the Production codes then why don't you also take down all the air dates too? -they aren't referenced either! For that matter the survivor counts aren't referenced either! If we drop production codes, it is a never ending slippery slope. --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It does refer to the episodes as such, but there's nothing that says they're production numbers. Nothing even that infers the series even uses production numbers; that's all just assumed at this point.
The point is that all of our information needs to be verifiable, or we're conceding that we don't really vet the information we include at all. Hypothetically, if I thought citing birth dates, Holocaust figures, and proof for mathematical constants is "trivial", then what's to prevent me from removing that unnecessary information that we're all pretty sure is right anyways? WP:V does, instructing (as I quoted above) "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". It doesn't make any bones about what information is "trivial". The slippery slope is making exceptions for citing information in articles; where does it stop, and who makes the determination when the policy doesn't? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

2009-03-29 expansion

In my recent expansion, I tagged the production code with {{fact}} as suggested by WP:V. This way it alerts the reader that the information is unreliable, but allows the unverifiable information in the article as required by Edokter (talk · contribs). I suggest it remain until either the information is sourced or another editor feels inclined to implement the Verifiability policy and remove it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me explain one more time. You have been told repeatedly that this information does not require sourcing because it is a matter of convention. Please do not add that tag again. Your are damaging your own credibility, and that of the policy. Consensus is against you here; your resolve to apply policy over this is becoming disruptive. — Edokter • Talk • 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Thor that triviality is not a legitimate reason to dispense with verifiability and sourcing. However, triviality is IMHO a legitimate reason not to fact that little number as long as the discussion is ongoing here. Also, it is not the number that needs a citation but the concept of a production code (so the proper place for a tag would be that word).
Re the three options presented above: (a) and (b) are reasonable while (c) is not. (c) is clearly a compromise but one which has zero chances of being verified.
The number "101" obviously means something but cannot possibly be an episode number in the strictest sense "Season 1, Episode 101" is nonsense, as the episode is not preceded by a hundred episodes.
In a wider sense "101" might be an episode number ... but one that includes the information about the season - and this is basically the same thing which Edokter calls "production code". So, if anything it is "Episode 101".
So I think for the moment the "production code" may stand until somebody at least comes up with an alternative explantion or an alternative term for that number. Edokter'S assumption of an production code is reasonable, since it exists in other series as well.
Str1977 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That said, Edokter went in search of some support for his interpretation at WT:TV. Instead, there is the determination that production codes, if used, should be cited. If they cannot be cited, they should not be used. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:33 (Battlestar Galactica)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 17:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

  • Top: Add the DISPLAYTITLE template
  • Infobox: Reference for Cinematography
  • Infobox: Add "running time" to the infobox
  • Infobox: Add production code for infobox
  • Lede: Remove references. They are already in real sections. In summary, no ref needed
  • Lede: Must summarize every section in article
  • Writing: Merge section with "Production"
  • Reception: Unlike United Kingdom; to Television in the United Kingdom instead
  • References: Ref. 2 - Don't need 2 TV Guide notes

Good work. On hold. TBrandley 12:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the nominator, but I have worked on the article a great deal. Please forgive me if my efforts here are contrary to procedure.
  • I added a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to the top of the article.
  • As for the Cinematography reference, Stephen McNutt's role is discussed and cited in the first paragraph of the Production section. Since it's cited there, like the rest of the information in the infobox, I didn't think it needed a citation in the infobox.
  • I referred to my rip of the episode from the official DVD release and added that time, though I have no official citation for it.
  • I ask that you trust me when I say that the production codes for BSG episodes is an issue I went around and around on. There are no reliable sources (that I or any other editors have found) that provide production codes for this or any BSG episodes. Lacking reliable sources for citing such a number, I removed it from this and (at user:edokter's insistence) all other BSG episode articles.
  • I removed the citation for the writer/director line, but there's nowhere else in the article where the following episode is discussed, and I never found anywhere else appropriate to include it. That's why it's cited in the lede: because it's not cited elsewhere.
  • Oof, I'll do my best. Let me know what you think; writing lede's is my weakest point.
  • I don't understand merging the two sections. The writing took place well before, and is a wholly separate happening than the actual production and "making" of the episode if you will.
  • I think you meant "unlink", and I've done so.
  • TVG citation 2 is showing that the episode "Water" aired following "33", whereas TVG citation 25 is citing the date "33" aired in the United States.
Again, I hope I'm not out of line making these comments and inputs, and thank you for taking the time to review this article for GA consideration. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

November 2014

194.72.181.15 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)There's a whole section that talks about how this isn't a space opera. Someone's added this entire episode to the wiki entry on space operas, as an example of one.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 33 (Battlestar Galactica). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 33 (Battlestar Galactica). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:33_(Battlestar_Galactica)/Archive_1&oldid=1196172466"