Talk:Exodus, Part II/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

2025-06-24T20:16:57Z

Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:16, 24 June 2025
Line 189:		Line 189:
	== Trivia ==		== Trivia ==

	[[~~Image~~:BattlestarGalacticaFrack.JPG\|Adama shaving his moustache.\|thumb]]		[[File:BattlestarGalacticaFrack.JPG\|Adama shaving his moustache.\|thumb]]
	Is there room for a trivia section on the episode pages? Not sure if anyone reads this anymore but I felt this was too weird to be a coincidence and had to tell someone. The mirror located in Adama's bathroom is sold in Ikea stores (in Australia at least) under the name [http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=18&langId=-26&productId=13145 FRÄCK]. -- [[User:KEBESTIFT\|KLEBESTIFT]] 22:26, 10 May 2007 (whateverST)		Is there room for a trivia section on the episode pages? Not sure if anyone reads this anymore but I felt this was too weird to be a coincidence and had to tell someone. The mirror located in Adama's bathroom is sold in Ikea stores (in Australia at least) under the name [http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=18&langId=-26&productId=13145 FRÄCK]. -- [[User:KEBESTIFT\|KLEBESTIFT]] 22:26, 10 May 2007 (whateverST)
	:Lol. Could go in the notes section, I guess. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)		:Lol. Could go in the notes section, I guess. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:39:18Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Spoiler */ reply

2009-08-15T19:28:27Z

Spoiler: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 15 August 2009
Line 205:		Line 205:
	It's a major spoiler. I've recommended this site to people watching the episodes for the first time and I can't if this type of info is given before it is necessary. [[User:Magpie\|Magpie]] 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)		It's a major spoiler. I've recommended this site to people watching the episodes for the first time and I can't if this type of info is given before it is necessary. [[User:Magpie\|Magpie]] 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
	::Ever since the series ended, I've been curious about how things are referenced in terms of future events. I've noticed spoilers for the last season making their way all the up to the first. My uncertainty keeps me from editing such things. It seems there's been an undertaking of grouping the answers to questions in separate place, but there are other things like this sprinkled throughout. I understand the need for helping to explain the in-and-outs of this story, but I'm struggling with the necessity of sticking spoilers so far in advance. Has there been a protocol on this established yet? --[[User:Mars\|Mars]] 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)		::Ever since the series ended, I've been curious about how things are referenced in terms of future events. I've noticed spoilers for the last season making their way all the up to the first. My uncertainty keeps me from editing such things. It seems there's been an undertaking of grouping the answers to questions in separate place, but there are other things like this sprinkled throughout. I understand the need for helping to explain the in-and-outs of this story, but I'm struggling with the necessity of sticking spoilers so far in advance. Has there been a protocol on this established yet? --[[User:Mars\|Mars]] 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			::There's what was laid out in [[BW:SPOILER\|our spoiler policy]]. As to deal with the revelations given in the last half of Season 4... I do understand both sides of the issue, and the need for a "middle ground," since there will be people who are just picking up the show for the first time. However, I have no illusions that any decision made will please everyone. Still, any suggestions toward addressing this issue would be welcome. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Nuclear Weapons ==		== Nuclear Weapons ==

Mars: /* Spoiler */

2009-08-15T19:10:16Z

Spoiler

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 15 August 2009
Line 204:		Line 204:
	:This episode marks the supposed death of Ellen Tigh. However its later revealed that she's a Cylon and simply downloaded into a new body on a Resurrection Ship and remained a prisoner of John Cavil for eighteen months until Boomer helps her escape.		:This episode marks the supposed death of Ellen Tigh. However its later revealed that she's a Cylon and simply downloaded into a new body on a Resurrection Ship and remained a prisoner of John Cavil for eighteen months until Boomer helps her escape.
	It's a major spoiler. I've recommended this site to people watching the episodes for the first time and I can't if this type of info is given before it is necessary. [[User:Magpie\|Magpie]] 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)		It's a major spoiler. I've recommended this site to people watching the episodes for the first time and I can't if this type of info is given before it is necessary. [[User:Magpie\|Magpie]] 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
			::Ever since the series ended, I've been curious about how things are referenced in terms of future events. I've noticed spoilers for the last season making their way all the up to the first. My uncertainty keeps me from editing such things. It seems there's been an undertaking of grouping the answers to questions in separate place, but there are other things like this sprinkled throughout. I understand the need for helping to explain the in-and-outs of this story, but I'm struggling with the necessity of sticking spoilers so far in advance. Has there been a protocol on this established yet? --[[User:Mars\|Mars]] 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Nuclear Weapons ==		== Nuclear Weapons ==

Magpie: /* Spoiler */

2009-08-15T13:15:46Z

Spoiler

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 15 August 2009
Line 199:		Line 199:
	Awesome episode! --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)		Awesome episode! --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Yeah, such spoilers aren't always necessary, and should be avoided if possible. It depends on the case. Here, with the events of Season 4, this isn't true anymore anyways. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)		:Yeah, such spoilers aren't always necessary, and should be avoided if possible. It depends on the case. Here, with the events of Season 4, this isn't true anymore anyways. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


			Why is this entry under "Notes" necessary for this episde:
			:This episode marks the supposed death of Ellen Tigh. However its later revealed that she's a Cylon and simply downloaded into a new body on a Resurrection Ship and remained a prisoner of John Cavil for eighteen months until Boomer helps her escape.
			It's a major spoiler. I've recommended this site to people watching the episodes for the first time and I can't if this type of info is given before it is necessary. [[User:Magpie\|Magpie]] 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Nuclear Weapons ==		== Nuclear Weapons ==

Catrope: /* Nuclear Weapons */ reply

2008-05-21T13:24:52Z

Nuclear Weapons: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 21 May 2008
Line 215:		Line 215:
	The way I see it, the nukes on the Pegasus were wasted. The cylons could have possibly intercepted the nukes or they may have hit their target... But what happened is this: No nukes were used, either by Galactica or Pegasus... the obvious result? Pegasus was lost along with it's unused nuclear arsenal.		The way I see it, the nukes on the Pegasus were wasted. The cylons could have possibly intercepted the nukes or they may have hit their target... But what happened is this: No nukes were used, either by Galactica or Pegasus... the obvious result? Pegasus was lost along with it's unused nuclear arsenal.
	---> [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)		---> [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
			:Yeah I forgot about the fact that ''Pegasus'' committed deliberate suicide, which means it would've made sense for them to fire everything they had as fast as possible. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Evilforce at 12:35, 21 May 2008

2008-05-21T12:35:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 21 May 2008
Line 214:		Line 214:
	:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	The way I see it, the nukes on the Pegasus were wasted. The cylons could have possibly intercepted the nukes or they may have hit their target... But what happened is this: No nukes were used, either by Galactica or Pegasus... the obvious result? Pegasus was lost along with it's unused nuclear arsenal.		The way I see it, the nukes on the Pegasus were wasted. The cylons could have possibly intercepted the nukes or they may have hit their target... But what happened is this: No nukes were used, either by Galactica or Pegasus... the obvious result? Pegasus was lost along with it's unused nuclear arsenal.
	----> [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)		---> [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Evilforce at 12:35, 21 May 2008

2008-05-21T12:35:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 21 May 2008
Line 213:		Line 213:
	:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
			The way I see it, the nukes on the Pegasus were wasted. The cylons could have possibly intercepted the nukes or they may have hit their target... But what happened is this: No nukes were used, either by Galactica or Pegasus... the obvious result? Pegasus was lost along with it's unused nuclear arsenal.
			----> [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Nuclear Weapons */ reply

2008-05-20T21:29:52Z

Nuclear Weapons: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 20 May 2008
Line 212:		Line 212:
	--- [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		--- [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
			:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Catrope: /* Nuclear Weapons */ reply

2008-05-20T20:48:12Z

Nuclear Weapons: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 20 May 2008
Line 211:		Line 211:
	Maybe the use of those warheads would have saved both battlestars...		Maybe the use of those warheads would have saved both battlestars...
	--- [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		--- [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
			:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 20 May 2008
Line 212:		Line 212:
	--- [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		--- [[User:Evilforce\|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)		:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
			:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 84:		Line 84:
	: I'll check on that... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 13:27, 22 October 2006 (CDT)		: I'll check on that... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 13:27, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

	:You're assuming they came in with no initial velocity, but as we've seen with various Raptor scenes, velocity is carried through a jump. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 13:30, 22 October 2006 (CDT)		:You're assuming they came in with no initial velocity, but as we've seen with various Raptor scenes, velocity is carried through a jump. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 13:30, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

	::It was Captain Kelly, and he reads their altitude as "99,000 and falling like a rock". That's roughly 61 and a half miles up, which is ''frakking'' high. Seems a little ''too'' high, don't you think? --[[User:Madbrood\|Madbrood]] 14:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT)		::It was Captain Kelly, and he reads their altitude as "99,000 and falling like a rock". That's roughly 61 and a half miles up, which is ''frakking'' high. Seems a little ''too'' high, don't you think? --[[User:Madbrood\|Madbrood]] 14:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
Line 169:		Line 169:
	I am removing all the "discussion" about continuity error(s). The question is should error discussions occur on this talk page or the [[Continuity errors (RDM)]] talk page? --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:11, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		I am removing all the "discussion" about continuity error(s). The question is should error discussions occur on this talk page or the [[Continuity errors (RDM)]] talk page? --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:11, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

	Frankie, regarding your deletion of answered questions - I think we should keep old questions, even once later episodes answer them. It represents important issues that remained unresolved at the time of the episode's airing. I wouldn't object to some level of summary and redaction, but outright deleting them obscures the record of the audience response. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 20:48, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		Frankie, regarding your deletion of answered questions - I think we should keep old questions, even once later episodes answer them. It represents important issues that remained unresolved at the time of the episode's airing. I wouldn't object to some level of summary and redaction, but outright deleting them obscures the record of the audience response. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 20:48, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
	:No problem, however, several of this question can not possibly be answered without speculation or opinion. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:53, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		:No problem, however, several of this question can not possibly be answered without speculation or opinion. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:53, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
	::My opinion on speculation (and it's just mine) is that when grounded in good evidence and clearly within the realm of reason and plot mechanics, it's okay. It only really starts to bother me when we venture into outright absurdities. In any case, I think we should really work out a policy on [[BW:TANK]] ''before'' we start removing stuff. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 21:01, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		::My opinion on speculation (and it's just mine) is that when grounded in good evidence and clearly within the realm of reason and plot mechanics, it's okay. It only really starts to bother me when we venture into outright absurdities. In any case, I think we should really work out a policy on [[BW:TANK]] ''before'' we start removing stuff. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 21:01, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
	:::I was removing speculation and opinion because Joe had early this evening. The continuity errors was discussed during [[BW:ES]]. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 21:12, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		:::I was removing speculation and opinion because Joe had early this evening. The continuity errors was discussed during [[BW:ES]]. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 21:12, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
	::::I missed that discussion, so I suppose I'll have to defer to the consensus there. It seems like we should at least mention the error, perhaps with a link to a fuller discussion at a different article. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 21:23, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		::::I missed that discussion, so I suppose I'll have to defer to the consensus there. It seems like we should at least mention the error, perhaps with a link to a fuller discussion at a different article. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 21:23, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

	In keeping the old questions, we should follow already established S&C guidelines on this, particularly point three of the [[BW:SC#Questions_Section\|Questions Section]] at S&C. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 21:36, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		In keeping the old questions, we should follow already established S&C guidelines on this, particularly point three of the [[BW:SC#Questions_Section\|Questions Section]] at S&C. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 21:36, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
	:I was wondering where I misplaced that... --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 21:42, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		:I was wondering where I misplaced that... --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 21:42, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
	::No worries. I am beginning to wonder, though, whether or not we should rework the S&C page so that it is better organized. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT)		::No worries. I am beginning to wonder, though, whether or not we should rework the S&C page so that it is better organized. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT)