| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Greetings, Jzanjani. I welcome you to the battlestar wiki and want you to know that I appreciate your desire to contribute here. However, your edits to this article baffle me. At present, it has been meticulously arranged to provide the most comprehensive information possible in an objective, well-cited manner with separate sections for interpretation and commentary. If you feel this layout is mistaken, or that there's information which needs to be incuded in this article which we've missed, I would like you to make your case here, on the talk page, before comitting another revision. Thank you for your consideration. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 05:03, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | | Greetings, Jzanjani. I welcome you to the battlestar wiki and want you to know that I appreciate your desire to contribute here. However, your edits to this article baffle me. At present, it has been meticulously arranged to provide the most comprehensive information possible in an objective, well-cited manner with separate sections for interpretation and commentary. If you feel this layout is mistaken, or that there's information which needs to be incuded in this article which we've missed, I would like you to make your case here, on the talk page, before comitting another revision. Thank you for your consideration. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 05:03, 5 October 2005 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| ==On the Format of Character Quotes== | | ==On the Format of Character Quotes== |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
| I'm not sure if this comment should be somewhere else, but I think the Sacred Scrolls article in particular could definitely use some cleanup. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 16:08, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | | I'm not sure if this comment should be somewhere else, but I think the Sacred Scrolls article in particular could definitely use some cleanup. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 16:08, 5 October 2005 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| :See [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]]. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 17:31, 5 October 2005 (EDT) | | :See [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:31, 5 October 2005 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| :: I would be extatic if you'd post this comment for discussion on the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions|Standards and Conventions]] project page. That's really the best place to discuss such sweeping things. | | :: I would be extatic if you'd post this comment for discussion on the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions|Standards and Conventions]] project page. That's really the best place to discuss such sweeping things. |
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
|
| |
|
| :::::That's no "Cycle of Time" in the sense of history repeating itself, though, but rather a singular cyclical event that happens time and again to different people until someone finds a way to end it. The circumstances are quite different every time. It's not any different from solar activity cycles or cyclical weather patterns. --[[User:OliverH.|OliverH.]] 05:21, 26 February 2006 (EST) | | :::::That's no "Cycle of Time" in the sense of history repeating itself, though, but rather a singular cyclical event that happens time and again to different people until someone finds a way to end it. The circumstances are quite different every time. It's not any different from solar activity cycles or cyclical weather patterns. --[[User:OliverH.|OliverH.]] 05:21, 26 February 2006 (EST) |
|
| |
| ::::::I was thinking about how the series might end.
| |
|
| |
| What if the humans and Cylons decide to return to Kobol and settle there, thus starting the cycle of time again (12 colonies of man + one Cylon colony)? Like, Adama, Roslin, Baltar, maybe even Zarek just for the irony, Six, Boomer, Starbuck, Lee, etc become that cycle's Lords of Kobol.
| |
|
| |
| With the 12 colonies irradiated, which makes them unhabitable, and Earth... being how it is in Revelations, Kobol is the (only?) logical destination for the fleet, isn't it? --[[User:ManofTheAtom|ManofTheAtom]] 03:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Removed== | | ==Removed== |
| Line 137: |
Line 131: |
|
| |
|
| ::::Maybe one of the other pics of Elosha reading a scroll?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 13:02, 7 July 2006 (CDT) | | ::::Maybe one of the other pics of Elosha reading a scroll?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 13:02, 7 July 2006 (CDT) |
|
| |
| == Hand-Written? ==
| |
|
| |
| I just watched "Home: Part II" and I noticed something peculiar. It seems as though all of the copies of the Sacred Scrolls (at least in this episode) are hand-written, rather than printed on a press of some kind. Is that worth mentioning in the article?
| |
| [[User:CrimsonLine|CrimsonLine]] 20:42, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| :I thought about that; good catch there. We rarely get to see what Elosha read; this was one of the few times. It may be that the scroll copies are copied by hand from the originals as other real-world religions require of their sacred texts, thus the writing. Good enough speculation since we know this culture has modern electronic printing methods they would normally use. The drawings of Kobol could also be useful to this line of reasoning from the first season episode where Roslin has the visions of the Kobol city (I think it's [[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:28, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::I just assumed it was printed, in an archaic font. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:53, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| Thanks to whoever put the "Form of the Scrolls" section in. I think it accurately captures some interesting information about the show. Just what Doc Cottle ordered! :)
| |
| [[User:CrimsonLine|CrimsonLine]] 14:50, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
| |
| ::That was me, with due credit given to you for inspiring the notion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:08, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Cleanup Required ==
| |
|
| |
| I've found this article to be confusing to read, perhaps not just due to length, but from the mix of information, both derived, plausible and factual. I'm going to go "[[User:April Arcus|Peter]]" on this article soon to clean up the threads and verify their basis on aired content, using the [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad#Derived Content|Derived Content standards]] as a guideline. Knowing how so many have worked hard on this, however, I won't make outright deletions but will go nuts with the <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> marker when I find items that don't fit the aired content or appears too much a stretch. Given that we know now that the virtual Six is NOT the actual [[Caprica Six]], much of what has been said by her alone may be in doubt. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:29, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| :In particular the "Three Exodii" theory could stand some revision. But to be honest, I can't be bothered to do it, since it's very complicared and I don't agree with it in the first place. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:35, 13 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| :I think all of the "Three Exoduses" theory that follows the bare outline should be deleted. It has a higher word count than all of the quotes combined and is little beside a fan theory peppered with the occasional prophecy. My apologies to those that have worked on it, but I feel that it is entirely out of place and should be placed on a talk page. [[User:Miraba|Miraba]] 14:57, 23 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| :: I agree with this. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:14, 23 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| Some parts are a bit long. What I'd really like to know, however, is why there is no "Earth is the real homeworld" theory in this article?
| |
|
| |
| You know, the one where it goes: Earth, in the future, has an exodus of some kind, or perhaps a certain group just decides to leave, for any random reason. (An alternative is aliens taking human samples from Earth and taking them to Kobol, which would allow an earlier point of divergence, but the outcome is the same.) Then, the people on Kobol leave because of another catastrophe later down the line. The legend of Earth becomes the legend of a 13th tribe departing long ago. Then we get the 12 Colonies, and the Cylons, etc.
| |
|
| |
| This makes it Earth > Kobol > Colonies. Much simpler, eh?
| |
|
| |
| I'm sure this theory is pretty obvious. So why isn't it presented here? It's just as valid an interpretation as anything else. Is there a reason I don't know? I'm new here, so I'd just like to find out why this omission seems to exist. -[[User:Mysterius|Mysterius]] 01:20, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| ::Yeah, ideally, we'd have a ''small'' section that outlines two theories: 1.) Mankind originated on Kobol and 2.) Mankind really originated on Earth
| |
| ::But not such a huge essay, that's one of the biggest pieces of speculation on this wiki. However I recognize that a lot of work probably went into it, so I'd like to hear some other admin opinions on this before I go delete it. Or we move it to some other page, that's clearly marked as speculation and keep this one closer to the facts. The other page could then be linked for people who really want to read it ("Origin of mankind" or something) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:41, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| :::As I've noted long ago, I'm OK on the theories as they have merit, but we should keep it brief to minimize fanwanking, and verify that the theories are based on aired content in any case. I recommend a short paragraph for each theory, and that's it. Any further extended discussion can come here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:51, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| ::::There we go :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:56, 1 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| :::::Looks much better. Simple, informative and brief. Needs a few typo and conventionizing tweaks... --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:13, 1 February 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| == More Cleanup ==
| |
|
| |
| I was going through this again, and found it a hard mix of in-universe assessments and out-of-universe notes. Both are needed (an earlier cleanup improved that) but the reading is odd. Maybe the article could withstand some adjustments to put the out-of-universe analysis in footnotes, or redo the article to out-of-universe analysis. I'm looking for the article to look or read like [[Computers]] does. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:25, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Nearly all of the out-of-universe stuff is contained in that one note and in "Form of the Scrolls". The note is interesting, but the latter information could be deleted, as it doesn't enhance the points being made there. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:32, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::This article was peculiar recently in that there were ''questions'' added in what should be an ''encyclopedic'' article. While questions are allowed in episode summaries, the wiki has frowned on asking questions in other articles. It appears awkward by twisting the voice and point-of-view of the article, and weakens the authoritative nature of an article. It's up to readers to form the big questions in their minds (not in the article) and for our editors to add the relevant links in the article for the reader to click for more "clues" in their own interpretation and exploration. The talk page can ask specific questions if desired (but not to get into a deep discussion...take it to our new [http://www.battlestarforum.com bulletin board for that]). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 02:29, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Some theological notes ==
| |
| Whether its just because writers write what they know, or a deeper meaning (perhaps having to do with history repeating itself) there is a lot fo real world theology mixed into the theology of BSG that I'm surprised you do not pull out in your theology footnotes. Off the top of my head...
| |
|
| |
| A) The exodus. The 12 tribes of Isreal were led across the hostile desert to the promised land by a leader who was destined to lead them to it but never enter it himself. Laura is *clearly* a Moses figure and the journey of the 12 colonies clearly the same.
| |
|
| |
| B) The concept of God sending angles to lead select humans in the right direction occurs many times in Christianity. (Messengers of the Lord do appear a few times in the old testament but they are not codified as the beings we know as angles til the new one, making the apparitions use of the word "angel" in BSG that much more striking.)
| |
|
| |
| C) The idea that man is fallen and his soul must be "saved" is entirely Christian. (And said a couple of times to Baltar by his apparition of Caprica 6.) {{unsigned|Cyberqat}}
| |