Editing Talk:Humanoid Cylon/Archive2
Discussion page of Humanoid Cylon/Archive2
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
I would think that the unfortunately named Number Two is a pretty thankless job. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:00, 25 February 2006 (EST) | I would think that the unfortunately named Number Two is a pretty thankless job. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:00, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ||
:Yes, where those numbers are known. I broached the subject on [[Talk:Sharon Valerii]] and am currently awaiting a little more feedback before we go ahead with the move. --[[User: | :Yes, where those numbers are known. I broached the subject on [[Talk:Sharon Valerii]] and am currently awaiting a little more feedback before we go ahead with the move. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:07, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ||
Do the Cylons tend to look out for Number One? [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 03:09, 25 February 2006 (EST) | Do the Cylons tend to look out for Number One? [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 03:09, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
When did "we" start calling them "Galactica-Boomer", "Caprica-Boomer", "Pegasus-Six", etc? You see, Televesionwithoutpity.com does make up and popularize terms like this....but I'm not sure if they STARTED using it, or if they TOOK UP using it from some reviewer or the messageboards. I seriously think this is one of those Stand Alone Complex things; we all just more or less independently, from the grassroots up, got the idea to do that. Anyone? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 04:49, 25 February 2006 (EST) | When did "we" start calling them "Galactica-Boomer", "Caprica-Boomer", "Pegasus-Six", etc? You see, Televesionwithoutpity.com does make up and popularize terms like this....but I'm not sure if they STARTED using it, or if they TOOK UP using it from some reviewer or the messageboards. I seriously think this is one of those Stand Alone Complex things; we all just more or less independently, from the grassroots up, got the idea to do that. Anyone? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 04:49, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ||
:Pretty much. --[[User: | :Pretty much. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:03, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ||
::I generally compel the proper use of "Boomer" to the Galactica model only, as she is the copy that actually served. ''No one'' in episodes have called the Caprica copy by that name, and things are confusing enough. "Caprica-Valerii" or "Galactica-Valerii" (or Boomer) is better. Otherwise, yes, we have to make things up until we get an official term, but we should be consistent and precise about it. ''Never'' use Sharon in any context--use of character first names only is against wiki convention in episode summaries. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:19, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ::I generally compel the proper use of "Boomer" to the Galactica model only, as she is the copy that actually served. ''No one'' in episodes have called the Caprica copy by that name, and things are confusing enough. "Caprica-Valerii" or "Galactica-Valerii" (or Boomer) is better. Otherwise, yes, we have to make things up until we get an official term, but we should be consistent and precise about it. ''Never'' use Sharon in any context--use of character first names only is against wiki convention in episode summaries. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:19, 25 February 2006 (EST) | ||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
== The 5 remaining agents == | == The 5 remaining agents == | ||
I think it is apparent that the function of the 5 remaining agents is different from the function of the 7 known agents (my analysis) since the 7 seem to be making decisions on both New Caprica and on the basestar about Baltar and the other 5 are not. Additionally, we have Aaron Douglas's speculation on their status and there is probably other evidence but I honestly haven't done any research on that. Is there enough beef behind this line of reasoning to say that it's not speculation on my part and is worthy of putting SOMETHING on the article page? --[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 21:18, 29 October 2006 (CST) | I think it is apparent that the function of the 5 remaining agents is different from the function of the 7 known agents (my analysis) since the 7 seem to be making decisions on both New Caprica and on the basestar about Baltar and the other 5 are not. Additionally, we have Aaron Douglas's speculation on their status and there is probably other evidence but I honestly haven't done any research on that. Is there enough beef behind this line of reasoning to say that it's not speculation on my part and is worthy of putting SOMETHING on the article page? --[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 21:18, 29 October 2006 (CST) | ||
:It's certainly speculation, and moreover, it's based on spoilers. --[[User: | :It's certainly speculation, and moreover, it's based on spoilers. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:25, 29 October 2006 (CST) | ||
::Indeed, in truth we have a lot more information about the Cylons than we've seen on the show, but since we've received them in interviews they could be considered spoilery, and as such must be kept out. Which is sad really, because a lot of great Cylon things were left out because of timing constraints (How they eat, more of projection, etc...). These are things we have knowledge of because of interviews, but we can't include them because there's still the chance that they've chosen to reveal it at another point in the show, later on, which would make whatever information received behind the curtain a possible spoiler. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 15:53, 11 January 2007 (CST) | ::Indeed, in truth we have a lot more information about the Cylons than we've seen on the show, but since we've received them in interviews they could be considered spoilery, and as such must be kept out. Which is sad really, because a lot of great Cylon things were left out because of timing constraints (How they eat, more of projection, etc...). These are things we have knowledge of because of interviews, but we can't include them because there's still the chance that they've chosen to reveal it at another point in the show, later on, which would make whatever information received behind the curtain a possible spoiler. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 15:53, 11 January 2007 (CST) | ||
| Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
::Hi, Sloan. Just to add my two cents to this: Battlestar Wiki tends to use [[BW:TERM|descriptive terms]] where an official name for a person, place, or thing has not been established in episode dialogue. For a long time, "Humano-Cylon" was used here for what we know as the Cylon agent. As you may have noted in the central article, there is a dossier shown in the episode, "Epiphanies" that gives the humanoid Cylons a canonical name, where then we changed the name. As well, the term "agent" is another word for "spy", of which the agents (up until New Caprica's occupation) had done fairly well. While not all humanoid Cylons are working for the Cylons (note [[Sharon Agathon]] and [[Hera Agathon]], the name is short, easier to type than "humanoid Cylon" and gives sufficient differentation from the other Cylon models. It is quite alright if you want to simply say "Cylon" when discussing these models; they are Cylon. But there seems little purpose, for the needs of simple categorization, between the old "Humano-Cylon" term (which is a contraction of "humanoid Cylon") and the current "Cylon agent" designation, to warrant a name change. See also the discussion on the first name change in this same talk page, above, for the rationale. Frankly, it is also far easier to type the current term. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:29, 14 January 2007 (CST) | ::Hi, Sloan. Just to add my two cents to this: Battlestar Wiki tends to use [[BW:TERM|descriptive terms]] where an official name for a person, place, or thing has not been established in episode dialogue. For a long time, "Humano-Cylon" was used here for what we know as the Cylon agent. As you may have noted in the central article, there is a dossier shown in the episode, "Epiphanies" that gives the humanoid Cylons a canonical name, where then we changed the name. As well, the term "agent" is another word for "spy", of which the agents (up until New Caprica's occupation) had done fairly well. While not all humanoid Cylons are working for the Cylons (note [[Sharon Agathon]] and [[Hera Agathon]], the name is short, easier to type than "humanoid Cylon" and gives sufficient differentation from the other Cylon models. It is quite alright if you want to simply say "Cylon" when discussing these models; they are Cylon. But there seems little purpose, for the needs of simple categorization, between the old "Humano-Cylon" term (which is a contraction of "humanoid Cylon") and the current "Cylon agent" designation, to warrant a name change. See also the discussion on the first name change in this same talk page, above, for the rationale. Frankly, it is also far easier to type the current term. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:29, 14 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:::I don't think "short and easier to type" can be relevant arguments really; accuracy should be most important and "Cylon agent" is just confusing, especially since season three. Why would anyone call a random Cylon, let's say one on the Cylon homeworld, an ''agent''? Interestingly, the policy page [[BW:TERM]] you referred to, and the first footnote of this article both use the term "humanoid Cylon" to describe what is really meant by "Cylon agent". So why not use this more accurate description in the first place, especially since it is also a canonical term. [[User:Sloan|Sloan]] 11:19, 14 January 2007 (CST) | :::I don't think "short and easier to type" can be relevant arguments really; accuracy should be most important and "Cylon agent" is just confusing, especially since season three. Why would anyone call a random Cylon, let's say one on the Cylon homeworld, an ''agent''? Interestingly, the policy page [[BW:TERM]] you referred to, and the first footnote of this article both use the term "humanoid Cylon" to describe what is really meant by "Cylon agent". So why not use this more accurate description in the first place, especially since it is also a canonical term. [[User:Sloan|Sloan]] 11:19, 14 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:I agree that "Cylon agent" has become troublesome since the introduction of the baseship plot. If a move is required, I would prefer it to be a merge with Cylon (RDM), since the humanoid models are clearly the defaul type, with hybrids and centurions being identified explicitly. That being said, I also have no objection to leaving the article be, for the reasons Spencerian lays out above. --[[User: | :I agree that "Cylon agent" has become troublesome since the introduction of the baseship plot. If a move is required, I would prefer it to be a merge with Cylon (RDM), since the humanoid models are clearly the defaul type, with hybrids and centurions being identified explicitly. That being said, I also have no objection to leaving the article be, for the reasons Spencerian lays out above. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:03, 14 January 2007 (CST) | ||
::"Cylon Agent" is more for clearing up any confusion than to be an official name. If you want to talk about their real name, they should just be called "Cylons" like Peter said. They are (as he said), the default, they are the Cylon, the people, the race, the main thing. So yeah, I'm in the same thinking area as Peter. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 12:38, 14 January 2007 (CST) | ::"Cylon Agent" is more for clearing up any confusion than to be an official name. If you want to talk about their real name, they should just be called "Cylons" like Peter said. They are (as he said), the default, they are the Cylon, the people, the race, the main thing. So yeah, I'm in the same thinking area as Peter. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 12:38, 14 January 2007 (CST) | ||
| Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
# {{support}}. For the reasons above (Cylon agent only applies to those who are infiltrators, etc.) Also agree with Sloan's suggestion regarding the character template. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 22:08, 15 January 2007 (CST) | # {{support}}. For the reasons above (Cylon agent only applies to those who are infiltrators, etc.) Also agree with Sloan's suggestion regarding the character template. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 22:08, 15 January 2007 (CST) | ||
# {{support}}. Sure, although I do agree with Spence re:humano-cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 22:12, 15 January 2007 (CST) | # {{support}}. Sure, although I do agree with Spence re:humano-cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 22:12, 15 January 2007 (CST) | ||
# {{support}} --[[User: | # {{support}} --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] | ||
; Move to "Humanoid model" | ; Move to "Humanoid model" | ||