Adama's Civie's?
Checkout this outfit from "The Return of Starbuck". I think it's the first time that Adama is out of uniform (except as a disguise in "The Magnificent Warriors"). I can't decide if it's more Moses ("Let my people... get to Earth") or Star War ( I've got a bad feeling about this... series"). --Steelviper 09:27, 3 January 2008 (CST)
Pointless Article
I think this article is pointless. It hardly talks about Adama in Galactica 1980. I think this article should be scrapped and all the points about Adama be transferred to the Adama article or at the very least have this article revamped. --Curst Saden 17:30, 6 March 2009 (CST)
- If you feel that information in this article that needs to be added, then feel free to do so! However, we've made a point of distinguishing TOS from 1980, since the two shows are separate and should be treated as such. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--Curst Saden 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)
- The issue with that is that 1980 is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of The Animated Series) is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity explicitly contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the same continuity despite contradictions. --PeepsMcJuggs 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the "Separate Continuity" note is wrong. (Thank you very much for pointing that out, by the way. I'll correct this logic error now.) Fact of the matter is that Glen Larson has explicitly stated his desire that Galactica 1980 be treated as "Starbuck's bad dream" and to "forget it even existed." Since he did create the series, his comments effectively separate 1980 from the Original Series. Cheers! -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note 1 at http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Separate_continuity explicitly contradicts what you're saying. "Despite the unpopularity of the short-lived Galactica 1980 series among Original Series fans, the aired events, characters and situations presented there define it as canonical (albeit sometimes contradictory). Do not use the separate continuity feature to mark Galactica 1980 articles." In other words, they are considered part of the same continuity despite contradictions. --PeepsMcJuggs 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- The issue with that is that 1980 is not considered canon in relation to TOS, whereas all of Trek (with the possible exception of The Animated Series) is all in one canon. I do know what you mean by making this easier, but, on the other hand, since the two continuities are not directly related to one another, it wouldn't seem correct to put it all under the same article either. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, over on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia they have all the information for the characters and ships and what have you in just one article for the respective topic. For example they have all the information on Captian Kirk in one article rather than an article for him in the old series and an article for him in the movie Star Trek: Generations and so forth. Shouldn't we do the same here? It would make organization easier and it would save space. Or is the format on this site simply different?--Curst Saden 20:35, 9 March 2009 (CST)