Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive1

Archive - Between December 3, 2005 and April 12, 2006
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. Please add new archives to Archive 2.

Need help with a new article namespace

I want to create an entry on the atmosphere testing stick Starbuck used when stranded on the small moon in "You Can't Go Home Again", but do not know what the official name of the device is in order to name and initiate the page , and thoughts? — Lestatdelc 21:40, 3 December 2005 (EST)

"Field oxygen meter"? --April Arcus 21:55, 3 December 2005 (EST)

We use many descriptive terms here to give a name to something not yet officially named in the show. "Humano-Cylon", Unknown Cylon Ship, and "Presidential security service" are good examples. Feel free to create a descriptive term, and note it as such in a note in the article. It can always be moved later to its official name once we find it. --Spencerian 00:06, 4 December 2005 (EST)

Why is a raven like a writing desk?--Ricimer 23:16, 30 January 2006 (EST)

You should probably use something like F.A.T (Field Atmosphere Test[er]). The military loves

to abbreviate and soldiers love to make these terms into vulgar slang whenever they can.--IcePlanetZero 00:15, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Colonel Tigh / Colonel Tye historical connection in TOS?

Hi, I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I searched the wiki for mentions tying (heh) together the TOS Col. Tigh and the historical Col. Tye, who was a feared military commander on the side of the British during the American Revolution, and a freed African-American slave.

More info on him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tye

Has anyone ever asked Terry Carter if this historical figure had any impact on his portrayal on TOS? I can't believe the name's a coincidence. --Boradis

I'm sorry, but I think that's pure coincidence.--Ricimer 00:31, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Cast Data infobox?

With all the work April and the others are doing in regards to the cast and behind the scenes crew, I am wondering whether or not it is time to create a cast data template (similar to {{Character Data}}). It would probably look a lot better than blurbs on top of the main pages (such as those presently on the Edward James Olmos page). Thoughts? Critisims? Questions? -- Joe Beaudoin 22:10, 11 February 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia uses Template:Infobox Biography, which includes full name and dates and places of birth and death. I'm not entirely sure such a thing is useful, and there was enough controversy to generate a fairly active debate on Templates for Deletion (which it survived).

Joe, what sort of information would you want to include in addition to that? Links to IMDB, episode categories and offsite biographies such as on EJO's page? --April Arcus 23:16, 11 February 2006 (EST)

Actually, it apparently survived a TfD twice. Here's the other one. Let me make it clear that my feelings on this are extremely mixed - I think the possibility exists that it could be done right, but I'd rather figure out what "right" is before we implement it than after. --April Arcus 23:25, 11 February 2006 (EST)

I don't think the "infobox biography" template that Wikipedia uses is all that terribly useful either. Typically, the fields I would like to see included are: name, birth date and location, date of death, character actor portrays; the infobox would include links to IMDB and NNDB, as well as the actor's official site. -- Joe Beaudoin 10:18, 12 February 2006 (EST)

Would we want to include things like marital status or anything like that, or is that too tangental? --Day 20:23, 12 February 2006 (EST)

I would find that a bit voyeuristic. --April Arcus 20:59, 12 February 2006 (EST)

I would avoid going into that much detail. Just the fields I listed above should be satisfactory. -- Joe Beaudoin 21:53, 12 February 2006 (EST)

The Kitt Joke

dunno if anybody made this joke before... once upon a time, humans and cylons were friends and were working together: click me (may be deleted, xbruce ;-) EDIT: sorry, didn't know where to put this...)

Yeah, but we all know what happened to the first version of this nice device. --Astfgl 04:52, 14 February 2006 (EST)

When Earth is found...

I know this may be a little too early, but it is inevitable. When Galactica finds Earth what time frame will it be set in (according to earth as we know it). Will they arrive in our past and find dinosaurs, thereby fulfilling a prophecy of the 13th tribe as well as our becoming our ancestors. Will they arrive in our present and fly a raptor the U.N. and ask for some nukes? Or will they arrive in our future, as they did in the original series and ask for Earths military assistance?

What would you prefer, or predict? Personally I think a Raptor should come back from a recon mission with the Voyager space probe, just when the fleet gives up hope on finding earth.

This is all speculation, but its coming and who knows, if Ron Moore is reading this maybe he'll use one of our ideas.--IcePlanetZero 00:17, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Ron D. Moore has repeatedly stated that they have intentionally never adressed this point or decided it, and are purposefully not going to; the story could take place at any time in the past, present, or future relative to Earth; see Miniseries DVD commentary.--The Merovingian 03:35, 18 February 2006 (EST)

I don't want to be a party pooper, but I don't see anything remotely inevitible about the idea that Galactica and the Fleet will eventually find Earth, even if they appear to have coordinates. If it were inevitible, I'm not sure there'd be any point in telling the story. This series is not necessarily about happy endings, after all.

That said, one speculation that leapt into my own brain a couple of weeks ago was this: suppose the Fleet finds an Earth of the not-too-distant future -- say, 50 years out. A future where humans casually jack in to networks, replace random limbs and organs with cybernetics, etc -- in short, a cyberpunk Earth a la Gibson, Sterling or Stephenson. It's not unimaginable that the Fleet would be a little fundamentalist on the point of human vs. machine at this stage, while such an Earth would be totally casual about humans using and integrating with machines. If the Fleet reacted too strongly to the cyborg culture they found, the Fleet could find Earth, only to see Earth side with the Cylons!--Uncle Mikey 11:31, 4 March 2006 (CST)

IMHO, I've got a feeling that the Galactica and the Fleet will arrive at Earth in the far-flung future becuase from the looks of the re-imagined series of Battlestar Galactica, it appears that the story is set in the far-flung future (the evidence that the humans of Kobol and the Twelve Colonies did originate from Earth is pretty strong which places the possibility that Kobol was settled by humans from Earth in the far future).

I've got a feeling that the Colonals will be in for a real shock when they get to Earth and they find that Earth is NOT the 13th colony of Kobol and they find out that they and the humans of planet Earth were a product of 2 million years of evolution that occured on Earth as well as finging out that they originated from Earth. Also, I've got a feeling that they will be extremely shocked with the humans of Earth being highly multi-cultural, multi-religious (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Sikhism etc), and multi-lingual (e.g. English, Russian, French, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, German, Arabic, Persian, Italian, Greek etc) which is in stark contrast to the mono-cultural, mono-religious, and mono-lingual nature of the Twelve Colonies because they would be expecting the people of Earth to be worshipping the Lords of Kobol and have similar values and principles to what they would have.

Another thing that the Colonals would be very shocked with would be the humans of Earth embracing high-technology and science to a very high degree - something the Colonials are really petrified about because they created the Cylons and they got burned in a very big way for that. -- Roughneck Jase.

A proposal

I know this may come as a little unorthodox, but I would like to propose that a rule to our Standards and Conventions page, that at no time may any Battlestar Wiki User travel to planet Talos IV, under penalty of death. --The Merovingian 19:12, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Captain Christopher Pike is, of course, exempt from this. -- Joe Beaudoin 12:10, 4 March 2006 (CST)

Server time is wrong

Server time says 58 minutes after, time.org and time.windows.com (sync) says 21 minutes after. there are no time zones that are 23 minutes off GMT, are there? --Bp 01:59, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Let me do a time update/sync for the server. That should fix any discrepancies. -- Joe Beaudoin 09:32, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Wikipedia user box

Just letting everyone know that Battlestar Wiki has its own userbox on the English Wikipedia. Simply enter in {{User Battlestar Wiki}} on your Wikipedia user page and off you go. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin 15:34, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Uhm... Wha? I dropped it in to see what it was and... It no worikie. What's it supposed to do? I tried to find it to see if I was breaking it, but it seems not to exist? --Day 23:50, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Eh, it's on Wikipedia, not on Battlestar Wiki. -- Joe Beaudoin 17:15, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Oh. Ahha. I see... If you're a Wikipedia editor AND a BSG Wiki editor, you can note your editorship here on your user page there. Got it. --Day 03:58, 9 March 2006 (CST)

Battlestar Galactica Model Kits

Hello all,

I am writing this because I am a bit peeved about the prices of "Battlestar" models. I have 3 Battlestars from Revell/Monogram and after all was said and done it came to me that these are way over priced( aftermarket wise ). You can get the Cylon Basestar for $5 on ebay but when you type in "Battlestar" you can expect to pay at least $50.00+ and I have seen them way higher! I know the kit is now out of production but come on now!

I wrote Revel/Monogram a few months back asking if they will ever be re-issuing the line again and what I got back from them was simply that they did'nt believe the Name was popular enough to re-issue the kits (I'm gussing they don't ever look on the internet to see the litteraly hundreds of popular Battlestar Galactica devoted websites or read Time Magazine which stated that Battlestar Galactica was THE show to watch!)

I guess I am venting somewhat but really, those of us who missed out on the 78-79 Issuing of these models and then again in 97 (Which no model shops anywhere near me ever got) what are we to do? Getting a battlestar model is like going to a scalper outside of a popular concert and having to pay 8 times what the ticket is worth!

Looking at the new and very small Battlestar kits from the new Battlestar Galactica show make me nervous as well. An 8 inch model can cost $75 to $100 canadian, makes me wonder how much it would be if they made it to scale with the old Revel/Monogram ( 18inch ) kits!

Does anyone out there feel the same way, or is it just me that these are over priced!?

Also ,does anyone know if they will be doing a larger Battlestar Models, close to the size of the original models?

error on Battlestar Wiki:Help

This header has the h4 font, but is NOT in the Table of Contents

shows up in the Table of Contents... I do not know why. I have checked multiple browsers and It shows up in all of them.

Talk pages for actors?

If you click on William Adama you get a page describing the character and naming the actor playing the character. Associated with that page is a "talk page" containing discussions and inquiries about the character. All very logical.

Now if you click on Edward James Olmos, the actor in this case, you are taken to a page containing his biography (and it's a good read, too). But there doesn't seem to be a "discussion" page for the actor. Is there a reason for this? Maybe nobody wants to talk about Edward James Olmos (or Mary McDonnell or ...) outside of the context of BSG. Or is there some policy to the effect that one simply doesn't do that in the BSG Wiki? --JohnH 15:38, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Sir, the only reason there is "no talk page" is because nothing has been posted in it yet; it's "there", it's just that there's been no discussion yet. Discussion for actor pages would be used if someone says something controversial and not yet verified, which we would wait to find a source for. For example, if someone wrote on EJO's page "EJO thinks abortion is morally wrong", with no sources, the comment would be moved to discussion (in italics and quotes), and we would request a source (from a newspapaer, interview, etc.) Before either adding it back onto the page, or deciding never to put it back (be advised; I have no idea what EJO's views on abortion are, I just picked an issue at random). --The Merovingian 15:54, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Fatal error

When I Click this link: Gaius Baltar, I get...

• Fatal error: Call to undefined function: wfregexreplacement() in /home/admin/domains/battlestarwiki.org/public_html/en/includes/MagicWord.php on line 297

Same thing for Tricia Helfer.

When I click your links I only get it for Tricia. Let me try : Tricia Helfer --Sauron18 21 March 2006

I'm getting the same thing for James Callis. --Steelviper 15:33, 21 March 2006 (CST)

New scary error on "Recent Changes":

"Fatal error: Call to undefined function: wfclone() in /home/admin/domains/battlestarwiki.org/public_html/en/includes/Linker.php on line 899"

Problem fixed. Let me know if there any additional issues. -- Joe Beaudoin 15:57, 21 March 2006 (CST)

The spam filter

The spam filter is lame. It refuses to save an <hr> with style="". Of course, it doesn't tell you that your work will be rejected while you preview it. Very frustrating. So what's the problem with <hr style="width:..."> anyway? --Bp 02:01, 22 March 2006 (CST)

I've removed the spam filter. It was causing too many issues anyway. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 09:37, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Peabody award

On April 5th, 2006, BSG won a Peabody award.

From the peabody press release [1]:

[BSG] A belated, brilliantly re-imagined revival of a so-so 1970s outer-space saga, the series about imperiled survivors of a besieged planet has revitalized sci-fi television with its parallax considerations of politics, religion, sex, even what it means to be "human."

FYI. --Bp 22:39, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

BSG in the Comics

Battlestar Galactica has made it into the comics! In the syndicated comic strip "Baldo" by Cantu and Castellano, Baldo and his friend are watching BSG. It focuses on Adama giving commands with a Latino flare. The comics can be viewed at the Baldo Website. Click on the dates for April 5, 6, 7, 2006.--Monkeyboy

Yes, thanks. It was also in this great Dilbert a few weeks back. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:58, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Season 2.0 and 2.5 DVD

Can anyone confirm whether they plan to release Season 2.0 and Season 2.1 as a complete DVD set of Season 2?

We don't know, although we think they will make a separate set of DVDs for the second set of 10, so everyone that bought the first set will buy the second set. It would cost less, thus more people would buy it. It's not called "2.1"; going by that terminology there would be 9 other halfs to season two. It's "season 2.5". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 01:00, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

I would guess the studios would do like they did with Lost, release both a 2.5 disc set and a complete set. However in the UK, as we have not had any dvds released yet at all for season 2, i'd hazard a guess that we'll only get a complete series. --Mercifull 03:01, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Spoiler policy

Moved from Administrators' noticeboard by User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.

I would like BattlestarWiki's Standards and Conventions page to address the following re: Spoilers. You see, I think that a cast member mentioning something happening in an upcoming episode is a spoiler which we can post on BattlestarWiki. However, as you may recall Ron Moore warning in his blog, in the days leading up to the season 2 finale one guy got his hands on an advanced DVD of the show and posted a lot of screencaps giving away most of the major plot points. RDM was not pleased, nor was I. We should not include such news into our updates of BSwiki. Actually, what I wanted to bring up was something else more important: From time to time, people post what they CLAIM are "advanced script fragments" from upcoming episodes. More often than not, they're actually either fake, or (rarely) from such an early version of the script that it has little to do with the finalized story. The idea which lends a shade of credibility to this (instead of just instantly thinking "someone made this up") is that logically, they send out early fragments of the script for potential guest stars to audition with. Still almost all of these things I've ever seen are faked, while the others were from such early draft versions that they did not resemble the story at all. You could count on one hand the times these things are actually what appeared in the show. ---->Also, they're not exactly sourced. As a result of this lack of sourcing, many are faked. I mean, there is that handful which might actually have been "demo scripts" for guest actors, but as I said, these are rarely relevant to the actual plot. As a combination of their generally fake nature and lack of sourcing, I propose that we add to our Standards and Conventions a rule clarifying our spoiler sourcing policy, that such "advanced script fragments" found on messageboards and such should not be used as a source of information to be put onto BattlestarWiki in any form whatsoever. The only acceptible "spoilers" we use are cast and crew interview information, etc. '--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:25, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

For the sake of clarity, I would be fine with this being noted in S&C. However, I believe "script fragments" and message board postings don't qualify as sources and would be eradicated due to the Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 15:36, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Indeed. It's just that several people have been circulating these things and new users (infuriatingly) take them as fact over there. I mean that D3u5 user probably saw it and assumed it was fact and tried to write it up here. That's why I brought it up. But I actually think our current spoiler policies cover this very well, I just felt it should be re-iterated. Thanks. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 16:50, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

I think that's not unreasonable. Maybe a shortened, kind of condensed blurb on S&C with a link to the full text of the Spoiler policy. Unless you would rather someone else do it, Merv, I'd like to see how you would realize this (i.e. go ahead and do it, unless you don't have the time or whatever). --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 19:36, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Our current policy is that rumors and spoilers need to be sourced, and should be hidden by spoiltext when not on episode pages. I don't think we need to ban references to non-production sources - that would rule out the accurate and helpful Patriot Resource, among other things. Do I misunderstand your intention? --April Arcus 19:45, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

The policy I would like to see, personally is something like this: "Encyclopedic pages should contain only officially released (press release, TV listing) or definitifely sourced (producer's blog or podcast, detailed interview) information. After the episode airs, the episode itself is of course definitive. No detailed synopsis, no matter how credible the source, should be posted on an encyclopedic page before an episode has aired in one of its major markets."

I deliberately chose not to batten that down to "...aired in the US..." on the chance that some scheduling oddity might lead to, say, the UK seeing an episode before SciFi ran it. That sort of thing happened all the time with B5, but I don't actually know if it can happen with BSG.--Uncle Mikey 14:15, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

The UK has Season 1 before it was shown in America but season 2 is about 3 months behind the us airdates :( --Mercifull 14:49, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

Gateworld.net recently posted up the "spoiler" which I have been referring to. It's not from any legitimate source; they saw the exact same messageboart post I did, and THEY decided to accept it as fact. It sounds kind of weird. Anyway, I have asked Ron and Mrs. Ron on the official messageboard if there is ANY SHRED OF TRUTH in this report, or if it is someone's fanfic. I probably won't get a reply. Still, give me two days for an answer. I don't like the way things are headed. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 01:11, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

So the leasson learned, assume anything unless it can be disproven. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 01:20, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

No....no...Shane, the entire concept of BattlestarWiki's Standards and Conventions is that we assume NOTHING until it CAN be proven. The entire point of the post I just made was "those idiots at Gateworld.net saw the same messageboard post I did, which I think might be fake, and they posted it up on their website without regard to the consequences; dear God, now other websites will assume it is fact, simply because Gateworld was dumb enough to post it themselves". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 01:24, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

We should not be posting here, as this is a place for alerts, but everything Gateworld get their hand on or reports seems to be true. Maybe they have the correct information. I already read the plot for Episode 1, Season 3. If you say GateWorld posts bad information, Gateworld would not be the place where you look up information. Simple math. We can discuss this further if you want on Season 3 talk page, but this alerts all the administrators. This is a trivial matter that could have been discussed on S&C also. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 01:30, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Shane, bother to read the posts I make. Gateworld *IS* an almost always good source of information....that's why it would be so damaging if they posted something wrong. Because then everyone would assume it to be correct, coming from a reputable source like Gateworld. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 01:55, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm afraid I just don't see the urgency. Rumors are rumors. The best thing to do is cite agressively and not hold our breath. --April Arcus 01:57, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree. This is why I am moving this to the Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum, the more apt place for this sort of thing. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:03, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Re-imagined Series definition: in military parlance, directive to continue the attack; otherwise used to refer to journalists ^{(TRS: "Maelstrom")}