Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 19, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Battlestar Galactica Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Battlestar Galactica task force (assessed as Top-importance). Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Archives of merged pages Archives of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

In order to clear the air I have discussed the issue with two administrators and it has been agreed that the issue be resolved by WP:DR as consensus seems unlikely, to show good faith I have included the citations I plan to use in the WP:DR ^[1] Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)., a media expert ^[2], further citations: ^[3][4] and ^{[5] [6]}. Best Wishes Twobells (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's your intention here though? Are you solely arguing for more content in article regarding co-production (because I was already okay with that), or are you also arguing that the UK is also country of origin? Also, could you please fix up those references up by making them more accessible by including links to the actual sources. It's a bit confusing because ref 3 and 4 are the same thing, and 5 and 6 are the same thing. To note, I've looked at those sources (via Google Books); Global Television Formats: Understanding Television Across Borders does not mention Battlestar Galactica or the words "country of origin" anywhere; and Transnational Television Drama: Special Relations and Mutual Influence and Envisioning Media Power: On Capital and Geographies of Television do not mention "country of origin". To take away from these sources that state BSG is a co-production (which I never argued with, simply on the weight that the US and UK are equal in this instance) that UK is also country of origin is simply WP:SYNTH. No source you have given explicitly states the UK is also country of origin, that is the problem. I've already laid out my sources, which is the series end credits and official copyright laws that define country of origin.Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling for what I've always called for and that is the Wiki article for BSG 2004 includes in the info-box that the show is a UK-US production with brackets stating 'season 1' and 'season 4' (for some reason SKY1 credits were added to the last episode of S4 and Blood & Chrome) for the sake of complete authenticity. The secondary links are the authors, each book reference citation confirms that BSG 2004 was a UK-US (using the alphabet as is the case in all Anglo-American co productions, not being partisan) co-production. Also, it is not WP:Synth as each author confirms that BSG 2004 was an international co-production as explicitly stated by the sources.. Btw, why are you hung up on this 'equality' thing? I am talking about which networks produced and financed the show as reflected by the media experts citations. In closing, please see this The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made ^[1] which in BSG 2004's case was Universal TV and Sky1 Twobells (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by "equal" is that the UK is nowhere near as important as the US in terms of its relationship to the series. The series was not a 50/50 production between to two for the entire series run. Sky1 was not involved with the series after season 1 and did not receive the same air dates as the US (except for season 1). Its involvement is pretty minimal in scope of the entire series. Per the series pick-up press release, "The project will be produced exclusively for SCI FI, in association with Sky One. Your link just further proves my point, Sky1 holds no copyright to BSG, Universal is sole copyright holder for the series. "Principal offices of the production company" is Universal. All you have to do is look at the U.S. Copyright Database, here's a link for the entry for the first episode, "33" which gives the publication date and copyright owner. Here's a link to an image of the back cover of the complete series set of BSG (region 2) that displays the copyright, and again, it's Universal, no Sky1 to be found. If you search for "Battlestar Galactica" at the UK copyright database, nothing comes up (except for the old series). I think I've proven my point. The lead should still state "...in an American military science fiction television series" but I'm perfectly fine with another sentence stating something like, "The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season". Mention the co-production all you want, the fact that it aired in the UK on Sky1 first, because it's all true; but it's false and misleading to treat the UK/Sky1's involvement as if it's the same as what Universal/Sci-Fi's was. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been away on business and just returned to the UK, okay where are we? Wikipedia is not interested in 'equality' it is interested in factual information, that information is that BSG 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production as reflected by both American and British citations. Sky1 in collaboration with Universal TV enabled the show to become the success it was, the decision not to fund further seasons was a joint agreement after the decision was taken for Sky1 to fund further Anglo-American co-productions with Universal and Fox TV. It is now getting really silly, you are using original research to fight legitimate media citations, that is NOT allowed. Twobells (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sky's participation was limited to partial funding of one season. It was a limited participant for a limited time and then was gone. That does not make it a co-production. Go look at how PBS/BBC or PBS/ITN co-productions such as Downton Abbey or Sherlock are handled, where WGBH/Masterpiece a full partner and Rebecca Eaton is identified as a producer. They are still identified as British productions because they are made by the BBC or ITN, and this is when PBS's role is considerably larger and longer term than what you are citing here. As Drovethrughosts has already noted, to represent Sky as an equal partner in the production completely misrepresents its role and who produced the show. BSC is an American production which had some limited British and Canadian funding for one season, that's all. It is not a US/UK co-production, and it is not an international productions. Moreover, your sources, frankly do nothing to help your case. I can only identify, much less access one, and it's an academic publication (i.e. a tertiary source) that is only tangentially on point as Drovethrughosts has previously noted. You've done nothing to help your case, but have actually weakened it. --Drmargi (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect you are repeating what I already wrote above, it was a joint international co-production and as such Wikipedia needs to reflect that reality. I don't think you quite realise how important first run seasons are in deciding whether a show will continue or not, it was Sk1's and Universals foresight that gave us BSG 2004 and I still don't see what the problem is reflecting that. Every citation I have attempted to add confirms that BSG 2004 was a Anglo-American co production, I believe now you cannot dismiss expert opinion with your frankly ludicrous analysis of the situation, essentially what you are doing is seconding guessing expert opinion as reflected by the citations with original research which is completely unacceptable and I am now starting to believe that you and Drmargi are prevaricating in an attempt to prevent legitimate edits being added to the article, as such I must now put it to DR. Twobells (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the tags in the short term as I expect that we'll resolve this pretty quickly, unfortunately I was away for a few days and the DRN was closed prematurely. Essentially, the tense has never been the issue just the fact that the show is an Anglo-American/US-UK co-production. We need to write up a section on production (unusual that it is missing) and add 'UK' to the info-box with 'seasons 1, 4' in brackets.

• Edit. I have read the archived DRN and it seems that the tags are unnecessary, I'll remove them.Twobells^t@lk 14:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that the term "re-imagining" was used to market this series, I just don't understand why Wikipedia should also use the marketing term. There is not even an article about "re-imagining" in Wikipedia, exactly because it's just a marketing term for remake.

So could someone who advocates the use of "re-imagining" over "remake" please explain what the term mean, and in particular, where "re-imagining" and "remake" differ enough to use the obscure term over the common one?

Thanks!-91.10.17.93 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This series was never a remake of the 1978 series. While it shares some of the same elements it's around 90+% different so claiming that it's a remake of the original series is misleading. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think reboot is the better term to link to. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-imagining isn't just the marketing term. It's been used throughout the show's life in a variety of contexts, was used by the producers to describe their concept for the show, and has always been how it was described in the article. I see no need for a change. As Aussie points out, claiming it is a simple remake is entirely misleading. This show took a few elements of the old show, and went somewhere entirely different with them. Agreed, WRT linking re-imagining to reboot. --Drmargi (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also support linking to reboot (fiction). --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmargi: Read Remake before you continue this discussion. It's a perfect fit for Galactica, even with large changes (which are debatable). Re-imagining is a marketing term only, and of course it was used by the producers: They invented the damn term! The question is then whether Wikipedia should use marketing terms invented by the producer of a show (or a book, a game, a car...) or prefer general language.

Let me repeat my initial question: Please explain what the term "re-imagining" means (other than "remake as it applies to Galactica"), and in particular, where "re-imagining" and "remake" differ enough to use the obscure term over the common one.-91.10.26.55 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take orders, and you don't get to set the agenda for when/if I participate in this discussion. "Re-imagining" is the term the producers used. Its meaning seems fairly transparent to me. 'Nuff said. --Drmargi (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What orders?

You mentioned WP:BRD, so shouldn't you so the D?

Wikipedia does not let producers dictate what kind of language it uses, so their use and their wishes mean exactly zilch.-79.223.21.184 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aussielegend: "Remake" is a flexible term. From Remake: "In film or television, a remake is a motion picture based on a film or television series produced earlier. The term remake can refer to everything on the spectrum of reused material: both an allusion or a line-by-line change retake of a film.", and "With the exception of shot-for-shot remakes, most remakes make significant character, plot, and theme changes." The term "remake" fits perfectly.

Remakes are reboots by definition ("to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning"), and I think either one is fine. Which term is better suited here depends on some fundamental assumption about Wikipedia (basically, how far should an article use vocabulary of the general audience (remake) versus topic-specific langauge (reboot)), and I'm not qualified to judge that. -91.10.26.55 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true; 'remake' is a broader term, 'reboot' is a subset of that which applies to film- or TV series. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would not mean that reboots aren't remakes by definition. In any case, Reboot (fiction) does not mention your restriction: "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning. The term is used with respect to various different forms of fictional media such as comic books, television series, video games, and films among others."

I would even say that the term primarily applies to comic book arcs, not film or TV series. That's why I called it "topic-specific langauge", although I also wrote that I think the term might apply here.-91.10.26.55 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the edit history of Remake there's obviously a lot of original research in the article. I just removed hunter[1] because there is clearly no way that Knight Rider (2008 TV series) was a remake of the subject of that article, although the error had been in the article since it was added in early 2011. The "Film" section is completely unreferenced and the "Television" section contains a single reference. Ironically, the reference uses the term "re-imagining" while the article refers to it as a remake. The article itself is heavily biased toward films. The opening statement, which you've quoted above says "a remake is a motion picture", but this article is about a television series, not a motion picture. Even the link in the television section is titled List of television programs based on films. "Remake" implies some significant similarities between the original and remade item. In fact the definition of remake is "A new, especially updated, version of a film, video game, etc." but if we apply the unrealistically broad definition that you're trying to apply to this article to cars, then a Bugatti Veyron is a simply a remade Ford Model T. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the term "remake" does not apply to TV shows? If not, what are you saying?

That car bit is borderline dishonest. A "remake" is not "anything new related in any way to anything old", and nobody claims it is. Stop beating straw men, stay on topic. -79.223.21.184 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that it doesn't apply to this TV series. The car analogy is entirely appropriate. This series has only vague similarities to the old series. It's clearly not a remake. It's a reboot. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No, I'm saying that it doesn't apply to this TV series." - Of course not, that's why we met. The question remains: Why not?

"This series has only vague similarities to the old series." - As some remake have, and some reboots don't. It's simply not a useful way to hold the two apart.

You are aware that I already agreed that the term "reboot" might be applicable, aren't you?-79.223.21.184 (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you're not making a lot of sense. I've already explained that this is not a remake, it's a reboot, and I've explained why. Why do I need to explain again? If you're in agreement that reboot is applicable, why are we haveing this discussion? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. The picture of the Veyron should have tipped you off.-79.223.21.184 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does not mention your restriction: "In serial fiction..." The restriction is right there in the first three words. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point?-79.223.21.184 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His point is clearly that the claim does not mention your restriction: "In serial fiction..." is wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't know what my claim is, since it's clearly supported by the fragment you quote.

In any case, I have to ask again: What's the point of this little subthread? -79.223.21.184 (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should have to run around in circles just because you seem to want to. If your claim is not what Edokter said, then what restriction are you speaking about? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not running, I don't see the point of this at all. The restriction that does not exist is that on TV and movies.-79.223.21.184 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but "The restriction that does not exist is that on TV and movies" does not make sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does. Why are we still talking about this?-79.223.16.183 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an illustration that Wikipedia prefers general-audience language to domain-specific language: Firefly_(TV_series)#Fandom clearly describes that fans of the series are called "Browncoats", and still uses "fan" twice as often as "Browncoat" in this section.-91.10.26.55 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the comparison. Browncoats are a nickname Firefly fans gave themselves; many particularly active fan groups do something like that. How that is analogous to the BSG producers' description of their process for re-creating BSG eludes me. --Drmargi (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's is analogous because domain-specific language is in both cases different than general language.

The producers don't use the term to describe anything, they invented a posh alternative to "remake".-79.223.21.184 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of many similarities or common details, the series may have been influenced by the Macross 7 Anime series, whicn in turn may have been influenced by the 1978 Galactica series. The Macross Frontier Anime sequel then might again be influemced by BSG (2004). It doesn not negate the influence of Star Wars or other epic SciFi, but the specific closeness in the general story and many details (like key symbols, technical design, sounds, camera work) suggest a field of shared inspirations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.143.244 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Seems odd, that after all this time, there doesn't seem to be a production section, why is that? I'll get on it when I have time. Also, it seems that BSkyB co-produced the 2nd season as well ^[1] regards.Twobells (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in the credits. That's why they've never been mentioned. The infobox complies with MOS:TV. --Drmargi (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the UK and EU credits, and numerous peer-reviewed sources confirm this. Also, MOS:TV says and I quote:

For television articles, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the show, such as when the show first premiered, country, setting, genre(s), who created/developed the show, Also, I can find nothing about designating a shows 'country of production' via line credits, regards.Twobells (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have consensus for similar edits a year ago, and you must gain consensus for this one. Once you're reverted, the challenged edit stays out until you gain consensus. Your sources are academic, they are the same ones deemed unreliable a year ago, and you are cherry-picking content to justify an edit that is not supported. --Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, he should get an Oscar. What planet are you people living on?? 24.51.217.35 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Emmy. To answer your question: Hogan is listed there because he's not credited in the opening credits, but after, in the "secondary" starring billing block. "Main cast" is solely actors who received opening credits billing. I hope that answers your questions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The use of secondary is a poor choice; it should be supporting. I'm curious how the line between supporting and recurring is drawn, given may of the actors, including Hogan, Douglas and Penniket, are billed as main cast, just not in the opening credits. Moreover, I'd include some of the Cylons (particularly Leoben) as supporting; they're critical to moving the story forward. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change. I reorganized the cast list a bit a few months ago as there was a bunch of inconsistencies in how some of the actors were listed. We always distinguish "main" vs. "recurring" etc. per the actors' billing. So, main = opening credits billing; supporting = actors credited after the opening credits (essentially also series regulars) but before guest stars; recurring = any notable actors/characters who are credited as guest stars. There's also hidden notes in the cast section explaining it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the hidden notes after I left the above. Maybe it would help to group the recurring cast under some sub-headings. Let me play with it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That organizes them better. We need to identify the final five, and add an explanatory note. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted this when reading about a proposed movie of Battlestar Galatica, just take a look at the picture in this link and what does it remind you of i will give you a clue (the Last Supper)

https://www.joblo.com/assets/images/joblo/news/2018/12/battlestardinner.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.102.143 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC) or https://paleymatters.org/battlestar-galactica-sci-fi-noir-1b53d7173bd8[reply]

I believe we should add another genre onto the genre section. It should be tragedy because BSG shares many hallmarks of tragedy especially Greek Tragedy. Tragedy being a genre of suffering that invokes catharsis in the audience. And one of the main point of the show was the constant suffering faced by the characters themselves.

(Prietodream talk) 14:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can only add what reliable sources call it. If you can find references of reliable third parties consistently calling it a tragedy then it can be added. One reference won't do, per WP:CATDEFINE it needs to be defining and needs to be consistently referred to as such by third parties. Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmargi: Many people consider the term "ethnic" to be offensive when describing non-European or non-Western culture or people. Conventional Western orchestral instruments like the violin and piano have ethnic origins as well, in the ethnicities of Europe. The offense arises from the Eurocentrism of describing non-European cultures as "ethnic" without describing European-derived cultures in the same way. It's also somewhat inaccurately used to introduce the list, because "Middle Eastern" describes multiple ethnicities in a way that Japanese and Armenian do not. If you don't like "non-European" because it "European" is ambiguous as to whether it includes European-derived cultures like the United States, then perhaps "non-Western" would be more accurate and less distracting? -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need an adjective at all. Multiple influences and multiple instruments. I removed it. (If folks really think we need a descriptor then I'd suggest something like "global" or "diverse" to note conveyed from numerous places/cultures)--ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Ethnic can be interpreted purely based on the worldview and, well, ethnicity of the reader and will mean very different things to different people. The use of the word as written was likely from the perspective of assuming the reader would likely be of white European descent, which is a terrible horrible assumption to make. I agree we don't need any kind of word there at all, and certainly not a wishy washy word such as ethnic, it's not necessary for the points being made. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2019, The New York Times placed the show on its list of "The 20 Best TV Dramas Since The Sopranos", a period many critics call a "golden age of television".

I think there's some deep rumblings that shows like The Sopranos and Battlestar Galactica, while certainly praised during their time, just don't hold up as well today as they did back then. Of course, this isn't true for all shows. For example, Mad Men is still held in very high regard, despite the many different critics who never liked it. I personally believe that fans of Battlestar Galactica have added a lot of critical bias to this topic and have intentionally ignored the huge, wide ranging swath of criticism, such as the fact that, like many other popular shows, it's final season was unnecessary and frankly bad. Pinging Snow Rise just to annoy him, and maybe get him to launch into a 30,000 word missive about how Battlestar Galactica is the greatest thing since the formation of the Solar System. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you're suggesting to improve the article? As the above just feels like it's against WP:NOTFORUM and is just a basic exclamation that you dislike Battlestar Galactica. Canterbury Tail talk 00:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd interpretation of what I've wrote, and I think I was pretty clear about what I said. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your suggestion for improving the article? (Side note of personal observation, I've never met a Battlestar Galactica fan who thinks it's an absolute masterpiece and everyone is aware it has flaws.) Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you inadvertently nailed it. Does the lead mention this critical summary? Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No because neither me, nor seeing things in forums online or any other personal opinion of ours, are reliable sources. If such critical revision exists then you should be able to reference it, otherwise there's not much more we can do. And the quote you made above that started this was 15 years removed from the show debuting, hardly contemporary. Canterbury Tail talk 17:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail, I have to agree with both points. But having just reviewed the reception section, I did find something (which doesn't align perfectly with what Viriditas is advocating for here, but somewhat dovetails) that could justify a very limited addition to the lead. That thing being that we have a pretty robust criticism section which roughly reflects some of the criticisms Vir has of the show. They just aren't anything new, suggesting a radical modern re-evaluation of the show; the sources are more contemporaneous with the conclusion of the show.

Actually, if I'm honest, I feel like the section (nearly as long as the "praise" section) is a little outsized, considering the weight of positive rather than negative reviews, but I wouldn't suggest any changes, because I feel that the cited perspectives are helpful to the reader in understanding the mixed feelings that were prominent as the show came to a conclusion. But if we are going to maintain that balance, then there's a case to be made that WP:LEAD would encourage a very short, tightly constrained comment on the show's uneven reception. We could place it at the end of the second paragraph so that it reads:

"The series received critical acclaim at the time and since, including . . . In 2019, The New York Times placed the show on its list of "The 20 Best TV Dramas Since The Sopranos", a period many critics call a "golden age of television". However, the series did receive some criticism, particularly in its last season and finale, for a perceived inconsistency of tone and failure to adequately resolve some of the prominent plot lines and mysteries set up across the show's run.

I think that would have the benefit of being both accurate and also consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of the sources we already use in the article (that is to say, consistent with WP:PROPORTION)? As I've said, I'm a fan overall, but this does indeed feel like a fair representation of the show's legacy and how it is appraised on the whole: a massively accomplished and influential series, and a milestone in smallscreen genre fiction, but even its most ardent advocates mostly agree it stumbled a little at the finish line. Thoughts? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm requesting. One additional note: criticism went beyond just the last season and the failure to resolve the story. Both Gregory Erickson (2022) and Jennifer Stoy (2010) write about how the show's philosophical and religious themes were a failure. Erickson writes that these themes were "forgotten, simplified, or muddled" in the later seasons, while Stoy describes the treatment of the religious themes as "extraordinarily problematic" given that they were so important to the show but were treated with "incredible ignorance and carelessness". Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall contributing here before, but I think maybe I once indicated to Vir in passing that I wasn't such a big fan of campy sci-fi and they took a shot in the dark that this is a little more my taste. If so, their deduction was more or less correct. To leverage Canterburry's language, I consider this show both a masterpiece and also highly flawed. In terms of the moment-to-moment writing, direction, acting, thematic tone, and production value, I'm not surprised at the critical reputation it has garnered. At the same time, in terms of over-arching plotting and internal self-consistency, it is one of the sloppiest long-form works I have ever managed to sit through, from start to finish. That's about the extent of what I am going to say about my own perspective on the show, insofar as I share CT's NOTAFORUM concerns, but yes, I do regard the show well on the balance.

Now, turning to the salient policy issues. My question for Vir is, when you speak of "rumblings that shows like . . . Battlestar Galactica, while certainly praised during their time, just don't hold up as well today", are you referencing a general trend in the art criticism of television which you expect would apply to this show, or have you encountered sources which hold this specific view with regard to this show in particular? Or is it an opinion you have seen expressed in more informal online environments (fan fora and the like)? If the first or third of those options, there's not a whole lot we can do with that for editorial purposes, without running afoul of WP:RS and WP:OR. If the second, I for one see no problem with introducing an extra well-attributed quote of critique or three into the article, subject to the usual caveats about WP:WEIGHT.

That said, I just went looking for a while, and could not myself find any reviews that reflect such a substantial re-assessment of the show. I found a handful of reviews made between 2010-2020, but most of those were as gushing as the older ones (and the the critics real did fall all over themselves praising this show). The Metacritic score remains high, and anecdotally, non-RS fan reviews and community discussions seem to tend to reflect a continuing level of generally high regard. Mind you, contrary to Vir's outlook, I think the show still compares well against contemporary standards in most respects, but it's nothing like a sacred cow in my mind. If there's sources that supply evidence of a need to update our reception section, I encourage additions. But until someone supplies the sources we would be working from, I hesitate to speculate further on what said new content should look like.

For reference though, all of this happened before and I'm sure it will happen again. ;) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the cast members names at the top of the article, this was done as they were already listed in the infobox and then again in their correct place in the cast listings.

Otherwise, they will all be in the article three times, which is excessive duplication.

Any objections to this change?

Imthethenextjamesbond (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s commonplace to list main cast in the lede, and they’ve been there for some time. I see no reason to remove them. --Drmargi (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmargi I see that you are also involved in edit warring with others. Therefore, you will not be willing to consider anything other than what you believe to be correct?

Imthethenextjamesbond (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the key points of the article, and obviously the main actors which star in the series is an important aspect. Both the lead and infobox will repeat information later in the article, because that's their purpose: to summarize the key aspects of the entire article. Please also read MOS:TVLEAD, which states "The lead should also summarize the major points of the rest of the article: premise, basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast..." Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]