Talk:He That Believeth In Me/Archive 1 - Revision history

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

2020-04-11T01:39:20Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:
	There is a problem with "Go Between, Inc.". Understandably they don't keep the data forever. Searching for "battlestar" now only yields results for "[[Six of One]]". The data for "[[Razor]]" and this episode is gone. So the cite is kinda pointless. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)		There is a problem with "Go Between, Inc.". Understandably they don't keep the data forever. Searching for "battlestar" now only yields results for "[[Six of One]]". The data for "[[Razor]]" and this episode is gone. So the cite is kinda pointless. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
	: Ran into something like this with [[New Caprican loco weed]] ... the Sci-Fi thread where some of the "Also known as" names came from disappeared. Maybe we should note in the cite "info no longer available"? [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 15:04, 13 June 2007 (CDT)		: Ran into something like this with [[New Caprican loco weed]] ... the Sci-Fi thread where some of the "Also known as" names came from disappeared. Maybe we should note in the cite "info no longer available"? [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 15:04, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
	::Better to remove the cite if we can't back it up (and delete the article, if necessary). --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::Better to remove the cite if we can't back it up (and delete the article, if necessary). --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::Deleting the article because the cite isn't available anymore, would be an overreaction though. All other BSG sites still list this (even if we have more stringent citation standards). I'd prefer somehow indicating that the site isn't available anymore. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 01:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Deleting the article because the cite isn't available anymore, would be an overreaction though. All other BSG sites still list this (even if we have more stringent citation standards). I'd prefer somehow indicating that the site isn't available anymore. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 01:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::Excellent idea. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:26, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::Excellent idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:26, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

	== Update ==		== Update ==

Dogger55: /* Edit to 'Gaffe' section */ new section

2011-07-11T22:32:48Z

Edit to 'Gaffe' section: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 11 July 2011
Line 117:		Line 117:

	Did anyone notice in the scene as Seelix destroyed the missile bound on ''Colonial One'' that multiple missiles were bound for a mining ship and just as it was about to hit, ''Colonial One'''s bulk got in the way and the missiles were almost bound to hit the ship.--[[User:CoreyDanian\|Senior Lieutenant Corey N. "Shadow" Danian]] 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)		Did anyone notice in the scene as Seelix destroyed the missile bound on ''Colonial One'' that multiple missiles were bound for a mining ship and just as it was about to hit, ''Colonial One'''s bulk got in the way and the missiles were almost bound to hit the ship.--[[User:CoreyDanian\|Senior Lieutenant Corey N. "Shadow" Danian]] 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

			== Edit to 'Gaffe' section ==

			I deleted the last entry in the "Notes\Gaffe" Section. See the entry and the reasons for deletion [[User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#Not_sure_this_is_a_gaffe\|here]].
			:[[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 18:32, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

Fjenkins: /* Citing issue */

2011-01-25T02:13:47Z

Citing issue

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].--[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)		:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive]. --[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Fjenkins: /* Citing issue */

2011-01-25T02:13:09Z

Citing issue

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)		:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].--[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Fjenkins: /* Citing issue */

2011-01-25T02:12:41Z

Citing issue

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].		:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Fjenkins: added link

2011-01-25T02:11:52Z

added link

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
			:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

CoreyDanian: /* Mining ship destroyed? */ new section

2009-05-29T02:41:33Z

Mining ship destroyed?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:41, 29 May 2009
Line 112:		Line 112:

	You know the exact moment the Act 1 began, no one at all cared for the destruction of ''[[Pyxis]]'' or the 1700 lives lost in the battle. It wasn't even mentioned in the next few episodes. I've noticed that these sort of things get swept under the rug often. ''Cloud Nine'' was in that category, same with ''Adriatic'' and ''Carina''. They really should've done something in the episode to include these deaths and not completely focus on Starbuck's return. [[User:CoreyDanian\|Snr. Lt. Corey "Shadow" Danian (got promoted despite being 19)]] 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)		You know the exact moment the Act 1 began, no one at all cared for the destruction of ''[[Pyxis]]'' or the 1700 lives lost in the battle. It wasn't even mentioned in the next few episodes. I've noticed that these sort of things get swept under the rug often. ''Cloud Nine'' was in that category, same with ''Adriatic'' and ''Carina''. They really should've done something in the episode to include these deaths and not completely focus on Starbuck's return. [[User:CoreyDanian\|Snr. Lt. Corey "Shadow" Danian (got promoted despite being 19)]] 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

			== Mining ship destroyed? ==

			Did anyone notice in the scene as Seelix destroyed the missile bound on ''Colonial One'' that multiple missiles were bound for a mining ship and just as it was about to hit, ''Colonial One'''s bulk got in the way and the missiles were almost bound to hit the ship.--[[User:CoreyDanian\|Senior Lieutenant Corey N. "Shadow" Danian]] 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

CoreyDanian: /* No caring to the destruction of Pyxis and 1700 lives lost */ new section

2009-05-13T03:41:05Z

No caring to the destruction of Pyxis and 1700 lives lost: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 13 May 2009
Line 108:		Line 108:

	Could anyone sort out some screenshots of the the damage done to Galactica please? :) [[User:FredTheDeadHead\|FredTheDeadHead]] 08:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)		Could anyone sort out some screenshots of the the damage done to Galactica please? :) [[User:FredTheDeadHead\|FredTheDeadHead]] 08:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

			== No caring to the destruction of ''Pyxis'' and 1700 lives lost ==

			You know the exact moment the Act 1 began, no one at all cared for the destruction of ''[[Pyxis]]'' or the 1700 lives lost in the battle. It wasn't even mentioned in the next few episodes. I've noticed that these sort of things get swept under the rug often. ''Cloud Nine'' was in that category, same with ''Adriatic'' and ''Carina''. They really should've done something in the episode to include these deaths and not completely focus on Starbuck's return. [[User:CoreyDanian\|Snr. Lt. Corey "Shadow" Danian (got promoted despite being 19)]] 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dharadvani at 03:55, 31 July 2008

2008-07-31T03:55:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 31 July 2008
Line 98:		Line 98:
	:::::::I fully agree. But what you'll find a lot on the forums these days, and to a lesser extends on BS Wiki, is that people over-analyze everything these days and read supposedly hidden clues into just about ''anything''; be it props or the smallest lines of dialogue. Sure, there is some foreshadowing and sometimes props do have significance ("Maelstrom" has several cases of that). But sometimes a thing is just a thing. And with regards to Starbuck's voyage, there was a lot of misdirection and complete misinterpretation. Like the whole gas-giant/Jupiter thing. Though that at least was fully intented by the writers. It's a matter of taste. For me (and probably you), speculation has a place here unless it's completely unfounded, while others want to have everything added. I think this is a case where adding it later, if it does gain significance, is better. As it's now, it just suggests something that isn't necessarily there. Especially since it's presented more as scientific fact than supposition. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)		:::::::I fully agree. But what you'll find a lot on the forums these days, and to a lesser extends on BS Wiki, is that people over-analyze everything these days and read supposedly hidden clues into just about ''anything''; be it props or the smallest lines of dialogue. Sure, there is some foreshadowing and sometimes props do have significance ("Maelstrom" has several cases of that). But sometimes a thing is just a thing. And with regards to Starbuck's voyage, there was a lot of misdirection and complete misinterpretation. Like the whole gas-giant/Jupiter thing. Though that at least was fully intented by the writers. It's a matter of taste. For me (and probably you), speculation has a place here unless it's completely unfounded, while others want to have everything added. I think this is a case where adding it later, if it does gain significance, is better. As it's now, it just suggests something that isn't necessarily there. Especially since it's presented more as scientific fact than supposition. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I am not proposing speculation. It was one line that I believe was documenting something, not speculating on why or what it means. It may simply be a graphic artist's mistake or special touch, and we document those. I have not suggested any meaning for it. We're here to document. The mysteries of Earth and the final Cylon are the two central mysteries of the show; I think it highly appropriate to document all we notice relating to these. If you really think it's a matter of great dispute what the moon looks like, it could be written as "The shadow pattern on the moon is unusual, to some it is more consistent with a partially eclipsed moon than a normal 3/4 moon." If it means nothing it means nothing but an unsual artistic choice. If it means something (and I really have no idea what) it would be an error not to document it. But I'm done. This is not that important, other than to my judgement that the right thing for a wiki like this is to document in detail things that relate to the show's central mysteries. One can do that without fanwanking about what they mean.--[[User:Bradtem\|Bradtem]] 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)		::::::::I am not proposing speculation. It was one line that I believe was documenting something, not speculating on why or what it means. It may simply be a graphic artist's mistake or special touch, and we document those. I have not suggested any meaning for it. We're here to document. The mysteries of Earth and the final Cylon are the two central mysteries of the show; I think it highly appropriate to document all we notice relating to these. If you really think it's a matter of great dispute what the moon looks like, it could be written as "The shadow pattern on the moon is unusual, to some it is more consistent with a partially eclipsed moon than a normal 3/4 moon." If it means nothing it means nothing but an unsual artistic choice. If it means something (and I really have no idea what) it would be an error not to document it. But I'm done. This is not that important, other than to my judgement that the right thing for a wiki like this is to document in detail things that relate to the show's central mysteries. One can do that without fanwanking about what they mean.--[[User:Bradtem\|Bradtem]] 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::::To document ephemera without meaning is to miss the point of documenting in the first place. Reporting it ''at all'' is an assertion of significance. The ambiguous visual details of a few frames, without evidence or a theory of relevance, are not significant and just waste space. Including a throwaway detail because some''one'' feels that it might be significant to ''something'' would seriously degrade the quality of a documentary work. Without any theory or evidence, it's interesting speculation, and nothing more. If it becomes meaningful, it can be documented. I am unsure what the issue was. -- [[User:Dharadvani\|Dharadvani]] 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

	== [[w:Iron Man (film)\|Iron Man]] special preview? ==		== [[w:Iron Man (film)\|Iron Man]] special preview? ==

Bradtem: /* Thrace's claims discussion */

2008-07-30T06:51:36Z

Thrace's claims discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:51, 30 July 2008
Line 97:		Line 97:
	::::::The issue isn't the discussion. It's the fact that there's no reason to believe it to be significant, whatever the phase or transit status of the Moon. It is no more worth mentioning than the fact that the sky was grey when they landed on Earth. Leaving it in amidst the text doesn't make any sense. It's a throwaway photo used by Starbuck to show that she's been to Earth. The audience is meant to see the surface features of the moon and recognize it as our Moon. If it turns out to be significant, it can be added. There is no corroborating evidence of any kind, no mention in dialogue, and not even a rational theory that hinges on the significance of the shadow on the Moon. When doing any writing of this sort, what ''not'' to include is as important as what gets included. It's cruft. If there is any evidence to suggest it means something, please, share it. Also note that I don't agree with your assessment of a convex terminator. There's no consensus that an eclipse is depicted or intended. -- [[User:Dharadvani\|Dharadvani]] 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)		::::::The issue isn't the discussion. It's the fact that there's no reason to believe it to be significant, whatever the phase or transit status of the Moon. It is no more worth mentioning than the fact that the sky was grey when they landed on Earth. Leaving it in amidst the text doesn't make any sense. It's a throwaway photo used by Starbuck to show that she's been to Earth. The audience is meant to see the surface features of the moon and recognize it as our Moon. If it turns out to be significant, it can be added. There is no corroborating evidence of any kind, no mention in dialogue, and not even a rational theory that hinges on the significance of the shadow on the Moon. When doing any writing of this sort, what ''not'' to include is as important as what gets included. It's cruft. If there is any evidence to suggest it means something, please, share it. Also note that I don't agree with your assessment of a convex terminator. There's no consensus that an eclipse is depicted or intended. -- [[User:Dharadvani\|Dharadvani]] 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I fully agree. But what you'll find a lot on the forums these days, and to a lesser extends on BS Wiki, is that people over-analyze everything these days and read supposedly hidden clues into just about ''anything''; be it props or the smallest lines of dialogue. Sure, there is some foreshadowing and sometimes props do have significance ("Maelstrom" has several cases of that). But sometimes a thing is just a thing. And with regards to Starbuck's voyage, there was a lot of misdirection and complete misinterpretation. Like the whole gas-giant/Jupiter thing. Though that at least was fully intented by the writers. It's a matter of taste. For me (and probably you), speculation has a place here unless it's completely unfounded, while others want to have everything added. I think this is a case where adding it later, if it does gain significance, is better. As it's now, it just suggests something that isn't necessarily there. Especially since it's presented more as scientific fact than supposition. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)		:::::::I fully agree. But what you'll find a lot on the forums these days, and to a lesser extends on BS Wiki, is that people over-analyze everything these days and read supposedly hidden clues into just about ''anything''; be it props or the smallest lines of dialogue. Sure, there is some foreshadowing and sometimes props do have significance ("Maelstrom" has several cases of that). But sometimes a thing is just a thing. And with regards to Starbuck's voyage, there was a lot of misdirection and complete misinterpretation. Like the whole gas-giant/Jupiter thing. Though that at least was fully intented by the writers. It's a matter of taste. For me (and probably you), speculation has a place here unless it's completely unfounded, while others want to have everything added. I think this is a case where adding it later, if it does gain significance, is better. As it's now, it just suggests something that isn't necessarily there. Especially since it's presented more as scientific fact than supposition. -- [[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
			::::::::I am not proposing speculation. It was one line that I believe was documenting something, not speculating on why or what it means. It may simply be a graphic artist's mistake or special touch, and we document those. I have not suggested any meaning for it. We're here to document. The mysteries of Earth and the final Cylon are the two central mysteries of the show; I think it highly appropriate to document all we notice relating to these. If you really think it's a matter of great dispute what the moon looks like, it could be written as "The shadow pattern on the moon is unusual, to some it is more consistent with a partially eclipsed moon than a normal 3/4 moon." If it means nothing it means nothing but an unsual artistic choice. If it means something (and I really have no idea what) it would be an error not to document it. But I'm done. This is not that important, other than to my judgement that the right thing for a wiki like this is to document in detail things that relate to the show's central mysteries. One can do that without fanwanking about what they mean.--[[User:Bradtem\|Bradtem]] 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

	== [[w:Iron Man (film)\|Iron Man]] special preview? ==		== [[w:Iron Man (film)\|Iron Man]] special preview? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:
	There is a problem with "Go Between, Inc.". Understandably they don't keep the data forever. Searching for "battlestar" now only yields results for "[[Six of One]]". The data for "[[Razor]]" and this episode is gone. So the cite is kinda pointless. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)		There is a problem with "Go Between, Inc.". Understandably they don't keep the data forever. Searching for "battlestar" now only yields results for "[[Six of One]]". The data for "[[Razor]]" and this episode is gone. So the cite is kinda pointless. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
	: Ran into something like this with [[New Caprican loco weed]] ... the Sci-Fi thread where some of the "Also known as" names came from disappeared. Maybe we should note in the cite "info no longer available"? [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 15:04, 13 June 2007 (CDT)		: Ran into something like this with [[New Caprican loco weed]] ... the Sci-Fi thread where some of the "Also known as" names came from disappeared. Maybe we should note in the cite "info no longer available"? [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 15:04, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
	::Better to remove the cite if we can't back it up (and delete the article, if necessary). --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::Better to remove the cite if we can't back it up (and delete the article, if necessary). --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::Deleting the article because the cite isn't available anymore, would be an overreaction though. All other BSG sites still list this (even if we have more stringent citation standards). I'd prefer somehow indicating that the site isn't available anymore. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 01:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Deleting the article because the cite isn't available anymore, would be an overreaction though. All other BSG sites still list this (even if we have more stringent citation standards). I'd prefer somehow indicating that the site isn't available anymore. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 01:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::Excellent idea. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:26, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::Excellent idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:26, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

	== Update ==		== Update ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].--[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)		:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive]. --[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)		:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].--[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].		:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].[[User:Fjenkins\|Fjenkins]] 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 25 January 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		: I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
			:::I would recommend checking the [http://www.archive.org/ Internet Archive].
	:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		:::Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a ''screen capture'' of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
	::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)		::::That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)