Talk:Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II/Archive1

Discussion page of Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II/Archive1

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

The Cliffhanger[edit]

I'm betting that Baltar's little gift to the Demand Peace movement makes its way to Pegasus and is about to destroy or mortally damage the battlestar in this season closer. Mortally damaging it makes more sense to allow Galactica (and the show) to gather some of the new resources that Pegasus brought before it has to be removed from the picture. Perhaps, in coordination with a probable Cylon attack, Pegasus may end up doing a "Commander Cain charge" at the start of Season 3. --Spencerian 11:52, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Looks like I picked one hell of a week to quite drinking...--The Merovingian 12:02, 13 February 2006 (EST)
Is it just me, or does the second season seem to be bouncing from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, with the in-between episodes being nothing but filler? --April Arcus 12:08, 13 February 2006 (EST)
It isn't just you... Looks like I picked one hell of a week to quit sniffing glue. -- Joe Beaudoin 12:22, 13 February 2006 (EST)
I don't mind the "filler" episodes. I believe you need them to set up future stories down the road. I believe PEGASUS will stick around for one or two episodes next year(Gives them time to strip her down)....Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines!--Quig 16:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)
I don't think the Pegasus is going anywhere... I do wonder what the rescue operation will look like though. I haven't quit anything this week... except maybe worrying. --Aggie 09:58, 13 March 2006 (CST)

There's no cliffhanger, really. The Cylons win, humanity is occupied and the ships of the fleet are essentially empty with everyone down on Cylon-occupied New Caprica. The show is completely different from here on out. Cloud Nine is gone (which from a production standpoint makes sense--- no need for a planet-like ship when they have an actual planet) and all the leads but Lee, Adama and possibly Sharon are on the planet, hoping not to be killed by their new Cylon overlords. It's awesome. Oh, girlBilly seems to be sticking around as a character as well. numbertwelve

You have no idea; that's just fanfic. --The Merovingian 21:11, 24 February 2006 (EST)
Could one or the other of you please explain what that last enormous edit-and-reversion was all about? Numbertwelve, have you seen the episode in question? Are you passing on reports from other sources, and if so, can you identify them? Merv, are you familiar with a fanfic that resembles his description? --April Arcus 21:18, 24 February 2006 (EST)
Well, it sounds like he was just posting his own guesses/fanfic ideas without any basis on actual material, so I cleaned it up. --The Merovingian 21:31, 24 February 2006 (EST)
I believe that the info is coming from BIG SPOILERS. Don't know the validity of it though.
Based on the what I've read of the Part I summary, I'd say that the information was actually accurate. That said, I'm not sure this site really wants to post detailed episode summaries before the episode has actually aired anywhere, especially when we have no way of confirming the source.--Uncle Mikey 10:35, 4 March 2006 (CST)
In all likelihood, numbertwelve's comments stem from here. --Watcher 03:24, 8 March 2006 (CST)
Judging by that picture, I think those spoilers might be right, though I seriously hope they are dead wrong, anyone else hope this? --LeobenConoy 02:30, 10 March 2006 (TST)
It certainly would be a heck of a sharp turn for the series, but, y'know, I'm OK with that. RDM really kinda needs to keep making sharp turns to keep the series from falling too much into the established track of the Original Series, for one thing. For another thing, I like surprises :-) I don't want this story to become too predictable. Actually, when I look back over the two seasons to date, RDM et alia have not allowed us to settle into anything like a routine for more than a few episodes before they kick over the tables again. That's a good thing. That said, if the spoilers are in fact's going to be a long six months 'til we find out how the situation resolves itself...--Uncle Mikey 11:12, 9 March 2006 (CST)
Well, actually, numbertwelve was right! I don't know who he/she is, but (s)he knew what'll happen exactly in Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II Anyway, it's the best ep so far! --Nyiz 16:14, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Regardless, that degree of detail probably didn't belong on the encyclopedic page before the episode had actually aired anywhere...--Uncle Mikey 13:57, 13 March 2006 (CST)

The Peace Proposal[edit]

I haven't actually seen "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I", yet (I don't have cable, so I'm basically watching via DVD as time allows), but reading the summary, I see no mention of the Cylon peace proposal in the story as aired. It looks as though the preliminary data for the episodes was somewhat misleading, and that the peace proposal won't come until Part II. The Part II article, however, still reflects the old information. Should this be changed now? Or just wait for Friday's airing and the full summary?--Uncle Mikey 10:32, 4 March 2006 (CST)


Holy crap they turned everything on its head. I can't think of a better way of stating the obvious. ONE YEAR LATER!?!?!? Crap. Rocky8311 22:15, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Yep...and we'll have to wait about that frakkin' long to find out WTF happens next...:)

Joe McCullough 22:23, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Well, look at it this way - if they ever want to bring Boxey back due to chronology issues, they now have an excuse. Actually, I'm surprised they didn't have the character (if not the actor) doing a cameo in the schooltent.--??D Mitsukai 23:23, 10 March 2006 (CST)
I personally was asking, "Where's the kicker?" Well, nothing like a second Cylon occupation to do that for you. As for October...hell, they haven't even started shooting the season yet. --Sgtpayne 22:32, 10 March 2006 (CST)
You really have to find it pretty ironic that Baltar's fraked over the Colonies again. He gives Gina the bomb, fraks her, she blows up Cloud 9 (and Gods know how many ships she took with her in that blast) and Baltar forces everyone to colonize the plantet... and the Cylons find it because of the nuclear blast. How's that for a kicker? -- Joe Beaudoin 22:36, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Katee Sackhoff has to grow out her hair. She can't keep using that wig all season. Well, and the writers haven't figured out what the hell they're going to do now :P Philwelch 23:06, 10 March 2006 (CST)
I'm not sure when this episode was filmed, but she still has a month to go before they start shooting Season 3, according to SciFi. I'm sure Moore and friends have plenty of ideas to go with. The questions posted for this episode should give some possible ideas, if they even read this thing. :P --Sgtpayne 23:22, 10 March 2006 (CST)

That was totally awesome. --April Arcus 01:37, 11 March 2006 (CST)

I was on pins and needles the entire time. It was so good! --Shane 11:56, 11 March 2006 (CST)
I'm just so happy that I have no idea what's going to happen next. What a fantastic finale. --stealthboy 1:48, 11 March 2006 (EST)

Well Then...[edit]

Wasn't that something. I glanced over the rumors prior, but it has to be seen to get the real effect. That, and I was hoping they were dead wrong. --Michael 22:16, 10 March 2006 (CST)

I thought generally the execution of these spoilers was much better than my expections. --Frankie Gouge 00:10, 11 March 2006 (EST)

"Rampant speculation" re Starbuck/Conoy connection[edit]

I don't think that the analysis section is the place for something with little backing... at least currently.

Although this is rampant speculation, given the warped obsession/relationship that Leoben has with Starbuck, is it possible that Starbuck's stolen egg cells from "The Farm" were fertilized with genetic material from the Leoben model to create a new Hybrid? The Cylons do seem to think she's "special".

Anyone agree or disagree? -- Joe Beaudoin 23:00, 10 March 2006 (CST)

To expand my point further, Conoy believed that Starbuck was special. Just because Conoy is a Cylon doesn't mean the Cylons share his belief. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:00, 10 March 2006 (CST)

No arguements here. I've always been fuzzy on the exact parameters of the "analysis" section, however, this thought occurred to me when I remembered that A) They said that Starbuck's missing ovaries would be mentioned before the end of the season, B) It's going to be a major plot point in season 3.--The Merovingian 23:03, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Well, in keeping with the original inspiration for the Wiki -- The Lurker's Guide to B5 -- the analysis section has always analyzed the episode. For instance, what the episode had to say, how that fit in to the grand tapestry, how that fit into real life, and things of that nature. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:12, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Long live the Lurkers guide! Best guide ever. There's also a B5 wiki being created (see my user page for the link). --Sgtpayne 23:25, 10 March 2006 (CST)

My speculation is that the reason Conoy is seeking out Kara Thrace has more to do with the events that took place with Anders, Caprica 6 and Sharon(1) in the episode downloaded...the thing with the dogtag. but we will find out in october I suppose.--Strato


I'd never put this in the actual wiki article, but does it strike anyone else who many jabs they're getting it at another ridiculously incompetent president? "I don't have to listen to the facts...I'm the president". etc. Remember, Remember the Fifth of November.--The Merovingian 23:08, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Though I don't think GWB has harems. Mr. Nice Gaius seems to have him beat there. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:11, 10 March 2006 (CST)
I thought it was a reference to Roslin and Adar's statements about "the nice thing about being President..." --Redwall 23:13, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Well, Adar said that first. --The Merovingian 23:15, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Plus, Baltar was good friends with Adar prior to the attack. The womanizing was just good 'ol self-serving Baltar. And, when was Gaius ever nice? --Sgtpayne 23:28, 10 March 2006 (CST)
See the dialogue section of Six Degrees of Separation for your answer Sgtpayne. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:31, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Just checked the page requested, and I'm not sure that's helping the argument. The statement is defensive in nature. --Sgtpayne 23:37, 10 March 2006 (CST)
It's not an argument, it's an explanation as to why we're calling him "Mr. Nice Gaius". Philwelch 20:51, 11 March 2006 (CST)
I don't think that they are trying to Bush bash... If they were then Baltar would have been the one stealing the election. (I don't believe that Bush stole the election, but it is a common belief among Bush bashers.) Perhaps they are trying to comment on American elections in general and there are similarities, but I think the purpose is literary, not political. Oh, and definitely not article material- there is no way this could be unbiased. --Aggie 10:10, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Does anyone remember...[edit]

... that crack Cottle made to Cally regarding women talking * (Actually, the good Doctor said "Complain") even when their jaws are wired shut? If so, we should note it under the dialogue section and perhaps on Cottle's page (he seems to have a penchant for sexist dialogue). -- Joe Beaudoin 23:18, 10 March 2006 (CST)

You know, Joe, I don't know why you point out "Cottle made a sexist remark here" the times that he does (Downloaded, etc.) I mean that's the type of character he is. I mean, we wouldn't list off "well, Archie Bunker did this sexist thing" in an All in the Family episode guide. --The Merovingian 23:22, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Good point. Still, since it is a part of his personality, I believe it should be noted appropriately. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:29, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Got it. On a side note, there are lots of really sexist things Cottle could have said about a woman who can't open her mouth, so maybe he should get some credit for holding back... --JohnH 10:39, 11 March 2006 (CST)
None of us, neither the show or any users here, had even had that implication at any time enter our minds. Complete non sequitor. Disgusting to bring up such crudeness, Mr.JohnH. --The Merovingian 11:38, 11 March 2006 (CST)
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, here. Because I certainly had that thought enter my mind, and you can't possibly know what the writers were thinking...--Uncle Mikey 11:28, 13 March 2006 (CST)


"Tyrol's union speech alludes to Mario Savio's address during the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in 1964."-->Can I get confirmation on that?--The Merovingian 23:22, 10 March 2006 (CST)

This is confirmed. --Sgtpayne 23:34, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Thanks. Great that the show is so political.--The Merovingian 23:41, 10 March 2006 (CST)
I don't think it's political as much as it is human. This is "naturalistic" science fiction, after all. --Sgtpayne 23:56, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Gina's Scars[edit]

We can clearly see that Gina's back is still badly scarred from her treatment on Pegasus in this episode. However, I seem to recall her back being completely healed in "Epiphanies". Can anybody confirm? --April Arcus 02:02, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Er, they're on her lower/mid back, while when she was wearing the tank top, you could only see her upper shoulder blades. --The Merovingian 11:42, 11 March 2006 (CST)


At the end of the episode (near the surrender), I thought I saw "Miss Exclusive", though it may have just been a similar-looking blonde. Can someone check this? --Redwall 11:02, 11 March 2006 (CST)

She's not in the credits. --The Merovingian 15:03, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Survivor count[edit]

There's a drop of 29 between part 1 and 2: "A more reasonable explanation is that there was a late update in the survivor count that took into account those who died off-screen during the Cylon attack on the Pegasus in "The Captain's Hand". Soldiers who are killed are often listed as MIA (Missing in Action) until they can be confirmed as KIA (Killed in Action). In the aftermath of the attack on the Pegasus, it would have taken a while to determine the exact number of crewmen and pilots killed. Also, there were probably a number of crewmen who died from injuries afterwards. As a result, a delay in updating the survivor count is quite likely"--->No. The survivor count at the beginning of Part 1 would have accounted for these losses. Part 2 takes place weeks, maybe even 2 months past "Captain's Hand"; even "Downloaded" comes in before there. 2 episodes and about 2 months passed, and we saw no further losses from Captain's Hand beyond the 5 on screen. And the Survivor Count is omniscient. --The Merovingian 15:05, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Once would assume that the Fleet has it share of black market thugs and suicidal people... Not everything has to be Cylon related. Just a thought. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:22, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Yes, and I have always argued as such...but then that makes the static pop count from end of Captain's Hand through LDYB part I unrealistic itself. --The Merovingian 16:24, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Well, one would assume that people are reported as missing prior to being reported as dead. Hence the seemingly unrealistic count changes. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:32, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Even though I STILL think those losses are most likely late figures from "The Captain's Hand" (I'm not going to argue about this), another possible reason for the drop could be the results of election-related riots/murders. Stuff like that happens. Either that or the writers just screwed up.--GreenDalek 16:45, 11 March 2006 (CST)
And, ultimately, that is the problem... it's all about thought, not fact. Until we know for certain why these variances occur (and why they register when they do), we could think about it until our brains cry for more oxygen. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:58, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Judging by our current standards and conventions, and just logic, no, it is impossible for these to be "left over" number from 3 full episodes ago. Think what you want, but don't add it back to the page. --The Merovingian 17:49, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Just keep in mind, the "omniscient" Survivor Count is controlled by the writers just like everything else. And writers do make mistakes occasionally. Besides what other plausible explanations are there?--GreenDalek 22:41, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Really? I had always assumed that it was controlled by mutant space monkeys. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin 17:21, 12 March 2006 (CST)
Perhaps they accounted for the losses on Caprica? One raptor jumped into SOLID ROCK (as emphasized on the podcast), and there was quite a bit of shooting before the end of the last episode. Of course, if this is the case, then I would hope the number would have gone up, as they should also account for the Caprica refugees they have joined up with.--Mxg75 16:22, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Cloud Nine bodycount.[edit]

Am I going completely fuzzy-headed here, or is the fact that Cloud Nine was destroyed before the transition to New Caprica being completely overlooked.

  • How many people died in the Cloud Nine explosion?
    • The Cloud Nine explosion also destroyed ships near it. Given the stated size of the New Caprica population along with subtracting the minimal crew sizes needed to maintain the ships in orbit, you can estimate that approximately 3000 to 5000 people died.
      • Actually, we have no idea how many people were still crewing the civilian ships in the Fleet when Galactica and Pegasus jumped away, so it could actually have been thousands less than that.

The answers to the questions, as I remember what I saw, are completely irrelivant. Noone was colonizing the planet yet. Or am I completely loosing my mind Durandal 02:09, 12 March 2006 (CST)

  • No, you're quite sane. Admiral Adama had ordered the first teams to New Caprica just before the commercial break, Baltar's last night with Gina, the inauguration, and the blast. There probably wouldn't have been more than a handful of raptor teams on the surface at the time--not enough to make any appreciable dent in the population figures. --BlueResistance 09:51, 12 March 2006 (EST).
I am a little confused as to what your asking, but I will try and clarify:
The episode states that after a year, there are about 39,000 people on New Caprica. The Galactica and the Pegasus require about 5,000 crew between the two ships, but at the time of Baltars election, were only carrying about 4,000. However, it is made clear that the two battlestars are operating with skeleton crews - so lets say for the sake of arguement that thats 1/2 of normal, which would put the combined crews at 2,500. There are other ships in the defense fleet above New Caprica, looks to be about ten additional ships, if I remember correctly. Lets say they need 600 crew each (see The Fleet (RDM), but are also running with skeleton crews, which puts them at 10 x 600 = 6,000/2 = 3,000. Combine that with the battlestars crew, you get 5,500. Add that to 39,000 and you get 44,500. Compare with the pre-New Caprica pop of 49,000 and it looks like about 4,500 died in the Nuclear blast. So, no, the destuction of Cloud 9 was not overlooked, it was indeed factored into the New Caprican population. --Kraetos 23:30, 12 March 2006 (CST)
My argument was that the figures mentioned have very little bearing on the actual body count caused by Gina's detonation of the nuke. There is no way to know based upon the information as presented in this episode how many were killed in that explosion. The only thing even remotely possible to conclude from those figures is an rough absolute cap. We are not informed of deaths/births between the explosion and the next available population count. The way it was origionally stated in the Questions section (as reprinted above) leads to a conclusion otherwise which leaves out important facts. Untill it is explicitly stated, or much more information on what currently composes the crew in the fleet (as of the second Cylon occupation), it is not possible to say X people died in the destruction of Cloud Nine Et Al.
Also, I mean argument in the debate sense, not the 'you stupid idiot' kinda sense. Durandal 21:19, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Where should this error go?[edit]

When we see it parked on the surface of New Caprica, Colonial One was missing the Colonial/presidential seal that we've seen before on its port side. Nobody would have scraped it off the hull. I know the people down there are desperate for resources, but paint chips? --BlueResistance 09:56, 12 March 2006 (EST)

Well the real answer is that they crew just plain old forgot to put it in the model, but forcontinuity's sake, it could be hypothesized that someone discontent with the Baltar Administration scraped off the seal in the middle of the night as if to say 'this man isn't fit to have the presidential seal on his office/spaceship.' --Antagonist 13:18, 12 March 2006 (CST)
I'd prefer to eschew the fanwankery and note it as the continuity glitch it is. --April Arcus 13:28, 12 March 2006 (CST)
'Fanwankery'? It is completely plausible that what I said might have happened, so how can you conclude that it was a glitch. There are many ways paint like that could have come off. Perhaps when they painted the seal on Colonial One they used a paint not suitable for atmospheric re-entry and it got burned off. Maybe there is some sort of corrosive rain on the plannet that solubilizes lower quality paint. Perhaps Baltar didn't like the design on the seal. The point is that even though it was most likely a continuity glitch it is not nesscearily one. --Antagonist 18:36, 12 March 2006 (CST)
Fanwank. It's my new favorite word. --April Arcus 22:07, 12 March 2006 (CST)
Eh, people... can we stop analyzing why the seal isn't on Colonial One? It's more than likely a CGI glitch -- nothing more. Anything else is just unhealthy obsession. -- Joe Beaudoin 18:43, 12 March 2006 (CST) Correction: Extremely Unheatlthy and Unproductive Obsession. Thanks SV. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:24, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Um, Joe...we're a bunch of geeks spending our time creating an encyclopedia for a TV show. We're all about unhealthy obsession, aren't we? That said, this particular debate is pointless and silly. If there's a real story-based reason for the seal being missing, we'll eventually find out what it is. If there isn't (which is most likely), we won't. Making one up is silly. Fanfic is one thing, but this crack can be easily walked over; it doesn't have to be filled in with crap :-)--Uncle Mikey 13:28, 13 March 2006 (CST)
On one of David Eick's video blogs (my apologies that I can't remember which one or even if it were Ron Moore's), it is stated that there were 2 mock-ups of Colonial One done in CGI and used and reused in the show, one bearing the presidential seal, and one not. And if you look closely as they reuse footage, in various episodes during the season, the seal isn't present on Colonial One. You can't fandangle this obvious glitch. It is jus that, a production glitch that only the most hard-core Scifi nuts would worry about. Ok, I did notice it too.  :) --StrayCat0 23:48, 13 March 2006 (CST)

6's credits voiceover[edit]

Should it be part of this episode? It seems that there is no discussion of it here or anywhere else. -- Frankie Gouge 14:426, 12 March 2006 (EST)

That was a commercial for Season 3, not part of this episode. --Redwall 13:54, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Firefly connection[edit]

Greenleaf and Persephone; both were planets in Firefly. I noticed the Greenleaf back in Sacrifice, but this episode was the first time that I saw or heard Persephone. It's a nice little homage to Firefly, if it was even on purpose. --FIDS 15:20, 12 March 2006 (CST)

No. You are grasping at straws. "Persephone" is a very generic, widely known Greco-Roman type name, and we only see it on a list briefly. As for "Greenleaf", it has been mentioned like 3 times in dialog, but this is in fact a reference to Legolas from Lord of the Rings (both Firefly and Lord of the Rings appear to have named something after Legolas, independently of each other). However, that doesn't mean we should make a note saying "wow, both Firefly and BSG have a planet named Greenleaf"...because literally HUNDREDS of other books and tv shows have named stuff in homage to LOTR. --The Merovingian 22:36, 12 March 2006 (CST)
Just to clarify, Merv must've meant that "both Firefly and Lord of the Rings [Battlestar] named something after Legolas." Easy-to-make thought-o. I just didn't want anyone to complain at Merv that he didn't know what he was talking about. Now... This could be an homage to Tolkien, or it could just be a cool name. Has it been mentioned in any blog or podcast or whatever, that anyone knows of? I am always wary of saying this or that is a nod to something else unless it's painfully obvious (like the appearance of Serenity in the Miniseries). --Day 00:58, 14 March 2006 (CST)

We'll Be Back[edit]

Before the fleet jumps away, Adm. Adama announces, in McArthuresque fashion, that "We'll be back." So, I was floored to notice on the podcast for this episode (which I just got around to listening to) that Ron Moore offhandedly mentioned that Edward James Olmos would not be returning for season three. Did anyone else catch that? It was around 25 minutes into the podcast. --TomP 1:22, 13 March 2006 (EST)

It was a JOKE. They were DRUNK. Philwelch 00:32, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Also, the Chief and Colonel Tigh got married offscreen in this episode, and Season 3 starts off 5 years in the future ;) --Bahamut 03:22, 13 March 2006 (CST)
But they did not say this bit about Olmos in the same manner or even quite the same time-frame. Also, they were clearly joking about the "CGI Adama", but not necessarily about Olmos not coming back. I have listened to this segment a few times now... It doesn't strike me as a joke. --stealthboy
It's possible that this was an inadvertant leak, but usually, if that sort of major cast change was going to happen, there'd be a lot more hubub about it, and that is the only place I've seen it mentioned. Every bit of news so far for S3 is that the cast is being augmented (with Lucy Lawless slated to show up several times as Number Three, and presumably Dean Stockwell as Cavil), but not reduced, and certainly not by one of its headliners. SciFi's blurb about S3 from a couple days ago still mentions Olmos as a star. I think we have to assume that this is a red herring.--Uncle Mikey 12:53, 13 March 2006 (CST)
That's because you're American and don't understand or appreciate irony. Philwelch 19:55, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Caprica Six or Gina?[edit]

The article says:

Are the Six and Eight that Baltar surrendered to Caprica-Six and Galactica-Sharon?

  • Judging from Six's reaction to Baltar, almost definitely.

However, couldn't it actually be Gina, and not Caprica-Six? From what we've seen in Downloaded, I doubt the "war heroes" would join the Cylon fleet, let alone try to enslave humanity. Ausir 08:46, 13 March 2006 (CST)

  • Gina was direclty proximate to a thermonuclear explosion, and there's no Resurrection Ship currently afloat. Chances are that Gina's instance of Number Six will not be back.--Uncle Mikey 10:13, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I assert that it cannot possibly be Gina. In order for it to have been Gina, there would have had to've been a second Res Ship (which is possible, though speculation) and it would have had to've been near enough to New Caprica to pick up Gina's signal (which is presumably transmited in the instant of death). However, if that had happenned, she'd have woken up in a vat somewhere and told the other Cylons what she'd been doing. They wouldn't have needed to rely on an accidental discovery of radiation from Gina's explosion to find the Fleet. As for whether or not Boomer and Caprica-Six would "join the Cylon fleet": I think that this is a new fleet, not the same one that's been harrying our heros the entire series to date. I think that fleet was recalled to wherever (the Cylon homeworld, maybe) and a new expedition, with a different intent, was put together. It might be largely the same ships, even, but it's not the same fleet, ideologically, since it's a "pretection" fleet so that the Cylons can "love" the freedom out of us. --Day 01:05, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Questions Section[edit]

It seems like we have a problem with the "Questions" section of the episode guides. Modeled after the Lurker's Guide to B5 (a resource that I STILL use, whenever I rewatch the series on DVD), the "Questions" seems to be modeled after the "Unanswered Questions" on the Lurker's guide. Now, we're not bound to that by any means, and the episode summary information that we provide is great. However, the "Questions" section seems to become more of a "Questions and Answers" or a "Questions and Speculation", or sometimes a "Questions and Terse Verbal Combat". Ideally I'd like to see some sort of a standard upheld to the questions section so that they would have uniform quality.

One possible suggestion (following the "Oppose, propose" principle), would be moving confirmed, canonical answers to the analysis or notes section. A question with an answer in a subsequent episode might remain, with a link to the episode that answers it. What I'm mainly referring removing to are questions that were answered with information from within that episode (or a prior episode, or the podcast). If the question has already been answered, it's not really an "unanswered question" for that episode.

I just hate seeing the animosity that can be generated from the Q&A process marring the main article space (rather than discussing it in the talk pages, or on a messageboard). Also, it's not that I want to stifle all speculation. I know that our "encyclopedic" standard for most articles can feel pretty restrictive to some. However I do want it to be clear to a new reader what sections are encyclopedic, and which sections may contain speculation. I'm not trying to single anybody out. I'm just trying to clarify the purpose of the section, and see what everybody feels. --Steelviper 11:53, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Lurker's Guide has always rocked my world, too!
As to your points: as I recall, the B5LG's 'Unanswered Questions' section actually never changed once it was written (well, OK, maybe it got added to, but not subtracted from). The idea behind the section was, "These are the questions this episode raises and does not answer by itself." In a tight arc story like B5, it's useful to have a record of those even when the answers eventually show up in later episodes.
My feelings run something like this:
  1. If a question is raised and not answered in the episode, it belongs in the Questions section on the encylopedic page.
  2. If a question is raised and someone else realises it's actually answered in the episode, it might make sense to add the answer after the question, but it probably makes more sense to move both the question and the answer to the Talk page.
  3. If a question is answered in a later episode, the analysis for that episode should note that the event hearkens back to an earlier open plot point, and perhaps the original page should be edited to point forward to the answer, but the answer itself should not be edited into the page for the episode that posed the question.
  4. Debates and discussion have no place on the encylopedic pages; only on the talk pages. So if there's any dispute, the whole thing should be moved over.
I'm a fanboy, and I like occasionally delving into speculation as much as any other fanboy, but it belongs on the talk pages, not the encylopedic ones, IMO.

--Uncle Mikey 12:04, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Concur. Actually, when I tackled the questions portions of earlier episodes, I would alays post a link to the question's "answer". For instance, from "Water"'s page:
This presents a cleaner look than:
  • Question 1?
  • Possibility 1.
  • Sub-Possibility/Retort
  • Possibility 2.
Plus, if you will note, the questions section on the earlier eps is a lot cleaner and orderly than our most recent entries. -- Joe Beaudoin 13:04, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I recognize part of that is the wiki-magic at work. The newest episode always gets a lot of traffic, and you end up with the "too many cooks" effect, to some extent. This will probably sort itself out in the long run, as people begin to whittle away and classify/sort/clean all the stuff that has been added. I was just thinking it might be a good idea to quantify this concept into the comment that goes at the beginning of the questions section in the Episode Guide template (so that people can ignore it, and things can continue the way they work anyway). Mostly I'm just glad that I'm not the only one. --Steelviper 13:12, 13 March 2006 (CST)
So, do we start going through and cleaning things up to fit these criteria?--Uncle Mikey 13:56, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Just want to add that I agree with all of you, and thank you for tackling this issue. --April Arcus 14:48, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I would proceed to add this bit on the Standards and Conventions page. Then get to work. So say we all. -- Joe Beaudoin 16:27, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I've taken the liberty of adding a clarified (I hope :-) ) version of the guidelines I propose above to the Standards and Conventions.--Uncle Mikey 17:03, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Nicely done! The new S&C stuff is concise, and descriptive. The questions section looks a lot better! I still don't like the all the multiple levels of bullets in the (newly moved to) analysis section. If we could make that more narrative-ish (hey look, I'm inventing words) and less bulleted it might look cleaner. Thanks for tackling that! --Steelviper 20:25, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Actually, I've been wondering why we use bullet-point rather than narrative style in general :-) The synoposes, in particular....--Uncle Mikey 22:23, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I also agree that removing the direct response to questions make it cleaner, but some identifier may be needed in the analysis sections to link question to response. Short of that, nicely done! --Sgtpayne 01:10, 15 March 2006 (CST)
I thought about that, actually, flipped a coin and decided against it. When I made similar changes to Part I, I decided in fact to simply remove any question for which an answer could be provided in analysis, and to use analysis as a way of highlighting points that are answered in the episode but may be obscure. I'm not sure this is really what "Analysis" should be for in the long run, but "Notes" is already very crowded on these pages. One disaster at a time is my motto: clean up "Questions" for now, find adequate if not perfect homes for answers that are built from evidence in the episode, delete rampant speculation, and move on, resolving to clean up the rest later.--Uncle Mikey 09:55, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Adama's Inferno[edit]

By allowing Baltar to be president and the resulting events, Adama has (unintentionally) create a Dante's Inferno, a crucible lesson and test that if humans can pass and survive, may mean we are worthth of survival. He didn't overthrow the election because of the questions of "worthy of survival" This idea is what has drove him the last half of the season. I hope this makes some sense? --User:Gougef:FrankieGouge 15 March 2006 10:30 PM EST

I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with the idea that Adama is consciously 'testing' humanity in this way, but I can certainly believe it's a part of his unconscious motivations. On a more practical, political, and risky note, he may have realised that the only way to expose Baltar for the loony he was to let him take charge and then fail, and hope that there was little damage his failure could do in the long term, compared the damage that had already been done. Of course, that gamble didn't count on the Cylons finding them....--Uncle Mikey 21:09, 15 March 2006 (CST)

quotes are inconsistant[edit]

some have quote marks around them, some don't. some are a different structure. maybe someone with authority should decide on a structure and clean that up. --Bp 02:14, 16 March 2006 (CST)

This is discussed on Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions. -- Joe Beaudoin 17:31, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Massive Reedit on 5/12/06[edit]

This article was filled with inconsistencies in conventions, and was also far too large. To bring the page below 32kb, I've removed the blog entry (leaving the link), excessive quotes, and truncated and trimmed many comments and summaries, particularly those redundant with entries already on other articles.

Please remember to follow wiki conventions (except for verb tense) throughout this and similiar articles in Analysis and other related subarticles of an episode page. Do not write responses to analyses in conversational/argumentative format; make your comments neutral in voice and try to fit the response to give the article a uniform voice. Otherwise the article appears to be less encyclopaedic and more bi-polar (talking to itself). --Spencerian 12:32, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Kudos! Good work! -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:49, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
Excellent. I've been insanely busy lately and have obviously missed some developments (I note the change in the sources policy in the banner, now, for example). I'm hoping to get back to helping with editorial duties soon.--Uncle Mikey 17:15, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Link to Missing Pic[edit]

In the Notes, section that is a link to a non-existing pic of the blackboard in the school. I can't seem to find it. Also, I have saw trivia at other websites that there was a diagram of a wormhole which may be of interest. --FrankieG 09:17, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Also noticed this, and I'm also quite surprised nobody bothered capturing a screenshot of the vote tally boards that are mentioned frequently under the Mentioned Only section of The Fleet (RDM). DrWho42 23:37, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Fixed (took a while). The pic was still there in an Imageshack link on the "Language of the Twelve Colonies" talkpage. I took it from there and re-uploaded it to the Mediawiki. --Serenity 01:07, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Baltars internal six at the inauguration scene[edit]

In the scene when Adm. Adama steps forward and Baltar says "You have your order", is that Baltars internal six standing at the left side of the screen? In a black dress with crossed arms? --Akagi 09:59, 24 March 2007 (CDT)