Share Your Thoughts!

Shape the future of Battlestar Wiki with this short survey!

There may be algae cookies and hydronic mushies. Mmm... Trick or Treat!

Talk:Season 3 (2006-07)/Archive 1

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

"And so, it begins..." --Ricimer 22:29, 20 November 2005 (EST)

"I have a source the episode,"lay down your burdens", it says there that Adama will still be an Admiral by the end of thr season as well as everyone else." --Destinymaker 22 November 2005 (CST)

Should have stated that clearly --Ricimer 22:28, 21 November 2005 (EST)

Anyone know yet when the third season will start? (How long will we have to wait after the season finale before we get our BSG fix again?) --Gallanosa 20:52, 2 March 2006 (CST)

It's usually in July (I think last year it was on July 20, so I'd guess the 21st for this year.) --Redwall 21:42, 2 March 2006 (CST)
An official source, I forget who it is now, said that season 3 will air beginning in October
It came from GateWorld. -- Kahran 21:07, 9 March 2006 (CST)
SciFi Wire, technically. Gateworld just dualled it. --Redwall 06:23, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Season 3 Episode Titles: I would't consider an official source. Isn't it a wiki-style site where fans enter the info? --gougef 09:40, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Exactly. It's sort of a poor man's wiki: like IMDB, it relies on fan-submissions; it's not a "news source" like say, TV Guide Magazine. --The Merovingian (C - E) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

October Start

The frak (excuse me for the word) they delay the show for October?! Anyone knows some information? I'm really upset about it. REALLY. Especially, after I saw Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II... --Nyiz 12:48, 12 March 2006 (CST)

The answer is simple (and indeed, obvious): "Black Market". Black Market is the worst. episode. ever of Battlestar Galactica, and the saving grace is that Ron himself said "I think this episode is bad and I'm ashamed that we made it"....which, might I add, is more than those jackasses at Voyager and Enterprise ever did for us! They insisted that the crap they were shoveling at us was great television.---But I digress. The point is, season one was 13 episodes long (it's a standard-length "trial season") but for season 2 they got picked up for 20 episodes (full season length for a Scifi Channel show, like the Stargates). Ron Moore basically admitted in his blog that they got really pressed for time because of the extra episodes, had to do Black Market in a hurry, and ended up with a peace of crap. The editing is bad, the dialog is wooden, etc. etc. ("Sacrifice" wasn't too great either, but I think that's just a result of being a show that had to serve the purpose of killing Billy off, and it was well executed nonetheless).------------>So basically, the running theory is that they're taking longer to make season they can do a better job, and never have a bad episode like "Black Market" again, and instead have the movie-quality episodes that proliferated in Season 1 and Season 2.0.--The Merovingian 13:10, 12 March 2006 (CST)
Why I didn't think about that? You are right. Black Market-Scar-Sacrifice was a series of crap episodes, (well, Scar was not that crap, but I didn't like it) but startnig with The Captain's Hand they made excellent quality of episodes again. If this is the cost for making good episodes, then I can wait a few more months. --Nyiz 05:23, 14 March 2006 (CST)


I went through and fixed most of the ranks and ceremonial titles for Season 3. There were a few I left, but for many of them I simply removed the rank altogether for people on New Caprica, since it's no known if they're still active military personnel or not. One exception was Starbuck, because Tyrol specifically addresses her by her rank at the end of LDYB Part II. Joe McCullough 12:14, 13 March 2006 (CST)

I think you should have held off on removing individuals' ranks because mostlikely because of their circumstances, ex-militaries would retain their title and rank after leaving the service much as was done in the American South for centuries. I plantation owner would be called Colonel because when he was younger he served in the army or militia as that rank even though he's been retired from duty for decades. In the colonial case, since as we see, there's always the chance of a cylon return, they'd probably maintain their last rank in the case of being called back into service. --StrayCat0 14:01, 15 March 2006 (MST)


Should there be a new page created for the the so-called episode "Hero" spoiled by David Eick during his interview on iFMagazine? He talked about a script relating to "a revelation about something truly egregious and illegal that Adama was guilty of doing during the days leading up to the attack, and how he has kept the revelation of that incident from rearing it’s head." There seems to be enough to start an episode page but he didn't say which episode it will be, whether it's one of the 1st 3 "trilogy", right after that, or later in the season. But he did in fact elude to it so I think it should be documented. I don't know. I thought maybe one of the more BSG Wiki Gurus could have a better idea of how to handle this. --StrayCat0 14:01, 12 May 2006 (MST)

As long as it comes from info cited by Eick himself, we're fine with that. What I would do is not worry about where the episode is placed in the chronology, and create the page. When more facts reveal themselves later on, we can worry about where exactly this piece of the puzzle should go, which is a minor detail in my view. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:11, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
the order can always be fixed later. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 10:43, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Additional episodes of Season 3

I may have found legitimate verification of the titles "Collaborators" and "Torn" for episodes 4 and 5 of season 3. On the website site is for Agents and Managers), a subsite for a staffing company called The Go Between, Inc., website, and it looks like looking for casting for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, #304 Collaborators, and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, #305 Torn. The site requires a password that I don't know how to get to go beyond this point for details but it is reasonable to say that these are official, if possibly not perminent, names for these episodes. Then again, on the page for Actors,, they don't have links for those episodes that would list roles that are being cast for. I found a few names of characters for Stargate Atlantis & SG-1 among others being cast for specific episodes on this page but not for BSG. So further information on these episodes other than the names, I haven't found anything on this site. The only thing is: this should be enough verification to create pages, or page placeholders, with these names for these episodes. Opinions? --StrayCat0 09:22, 2 June 2006 (PST)

For the path from www.sidesexpress, you have to select Vancouver, then episodes and you will see the episode names, but here's the end web address: --StrayCat0 09:29, 2 June 2006 (PST)
Our curent spoiiler policy is that unless Ron Moore, one of the writers, crew, or any of the cast members say it, it is not "confirmed". They've been known to shift around episodes and change names months in advance. Officially on BattlestarWiki, casting side excerpts are *not* a reliable source nor one that we use; I mean if you've seen some of the other sides, such as those for Pegasus or Resistance, HALF of the episode is completely rewritten between side form and the final script. You dont' get the "script" from those places you linked above; it's just a rough idea and the real episode might be nothing like that. So we don't use them. Please look over our Standards and Conventions page on the subject. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:07, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Museum of Television and Radio Spoilers

Have many of you heard of the event that happened last week at the Museum of Television and Radio involving viewings of BSG? Well, apparently RDM and D Eick also showed a Teaser for Season 3 that, for the most part, showed known information and, from what I've heard, scenes that don't provide usable material. However, there is apparently one quick scene from th Teaser that Ausiello from described like this: "we saw some guy introducing a baby to Starbuck saying, 'This is your mother.'" This is a big tease! I think those who follow the show intently would surmize that this ties into the Missing Ovaries storyline as well as the Leobon Conoy Interigation storyline, ie., cylons using Kara's stolen ovaries to create a baby successfully with the help of Leobon Conoy. Here's the big thing: Is this enough info to stick in the Season 3 page, Kara Thrace's page, or any other page? What of this information can we use? I know I speculate too too much. And are the minor gods of this website going to accept this slightly hearsay information enough to use? I am fearful to start adding this stuff myself - low-self-asteem :( - lest somebody remove that quickly cuz it doesn't meet conventions. However, hearsay as it might be, it does come directly from RDM & Eick ...If the info is correct... --StrayCat0 11:38, 14 June 2006 (PST) might not habitually check out my Talk page, but I was *at* MTR: If you check the video, I was the first fan asking a question (better than that Jamie Bambar question I should think, and a bit predictable given that at BattlestarWiki I obsess over minor characters and actually care that we find the accurate spelling of Racetrack's name, etc.): Check out the Roving Reporter stuff on my talk page: User_talk:The_Merovingian#BattlestarWiki_Roving_Reporter --The Merovingian (C - E) 07:33, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Now Playing Magazine Spoilers

Divid Eick talked about the upcoming Season 3 episode in this interview[1]--Quig 15:25, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I just finished a massive round of updates on this, about an hour ago. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:27, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

BSG Teaser on Eureka

Is the same one as the one at MTR? I think that I saw a Boomer with Anders and some rebels when I slowed it down. I have it on DVR if anyone wants me to look at something. --FrankieG 21:48, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

It was slightly expanded from the MTR thing I remember, but essentially the same thing. Perhaps I forgot some stuff in my excitement at the time, but I seriously think it's the same thing, just with a few "tweaks" of inserted new footage: for example I remember no Cally-related footage in the original, but she's in several shots of this one doin' stuff. --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:51, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
Think a write up is in order or are clips too interpretive? --FrankieG 21:56, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
For sure. This for sure good stuff. I just saw it on Eureka "repeat". Wow. Really cool! Pumped up for this third season. --Shane (T - C - E) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
Well it's really not that different from the "MTR trailer report" I have in there already, but maybe we could tack something onto that (you know, rather than a new section; I'll do it). ******MAJOR DIFFERENCE******* In the MTR version of this trailer that I saw, Caprica-Six got shot in the forehead. We don't actually see who shot her (Three? Baltar? Galactica-Boomer?). They've been saying that "a Cylon character will permanently die", and as this obviously couldn't mean losing an entire "model series", it probably means that Caprica-Six is going to die, and not be reborn. --The Merovingian (C - E) 10:02, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
I'll have it MPEG'd and put on my ftp server in about 3 hours. If anyone wants access, email 13:58, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Plot Points

Any problem with me in the next few days condensing the plot points to statements and putting the links in references at the bottom of the article? For example, condense the first point to something like, "The first episode picks up four months after LDYB II." and put the reference in the Reference section. --FrankieG 15:52, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

I am once again attempting clean this page up. My plan is to have plot points of one or two lines, direct and to the point, with references moved to the reference section. Any suggestions, ideas, help will be appreciated. Any content not directly relate to the plot will be move to Analysis or Notes, or File13. Thanks.--FrankieG 20:25, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
Sounds good. --Shane (T - C - E) 20:26, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

It's Official

An entire Cylon Model is going to bite the dust. It was confirmed directly from RDM's mouth at the Comic-Con. Here are the words:

"There's a model that will be discontinued, or boxed. And it's someone you know." -RDM

It's part 1 of the Video, and you can find it in YouTube --Sauron18 23:00, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

I've been watching: apparently it will happen in late Season 3. Anyone else leaning for the "Last Sharon" Theory? More updates as I get them. --The Merovingian (C - E) 23:28, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Strictly from a production standpoint, Number 3 or Brother Cavel would make a lot of sense. However, I like the idea of the "Last" Sharon. --FrankieG 04:41, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
I think it's going to be Cavil (Does he even have a number yet?). Also I don't see them killing off a princible character like Sharon. --Shane (T - C - E) 13:16, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
Definitely a Three. But RDM has used 'model' in the singular (to mean one copy) before, such as in the Downloaded podcast, so this does not mean an entire series bites the dust. Noneofyourbusiness 13:36, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
I don't think that RDM is going to kill off a model simply because it's easy production-wise, ie, Cavil or Three. There's a strong possibility that the model killed off is Eight leaving Sharon on Galactica as the only surviving one. My argument: 1, already Caprica-Sharon is the only cylon to openly betray the cylon cause. 2, Galactica-Sharon isn't buying into the cylon cause. 3, The number Six model more than once has shown disapproval of the Number Eight model -- In season one she showed anger/jealousy over Caprica-Sharon's feelings for Helo and Baltar-Six's saying that the baby is something she's hardly worth deserving of. The implecation is that it's more suspectable to human feelings/behavior not consistent with the cylon cause. 4, the RDM crew like to do things to heighten the tension, make the viewers more concerned about what the outcome will be, destroy your hopes before you become to happy and comfortable. Eight is the most-beloved cylon among BSG fans so I wouldn't put it past the RDM crew to kill the model. --StrayCat0 08:04, 31 July 2006 (PDT)
If they kill off Grace i might actually cry, shes much prettier than Tricia Helfer :( --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 10:22, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Olmos' Population Comments at Comic-Con

I question whether Edward James Olmos' comments at Comic-Con about the human population are really that telling or helpful. I certainly don't know if it portends that "heavy causalities" on New Caprica are in the offing, as is now written. Remember the population of New Caprica at the end of Season 2 was 39,192. That doesn't count those who are in space. Adama told Tigh that "more than half the crew (of Galactica)" was already on the surface. In the pilot, Tyrol said there were two thousand people on Galactica (he told Leobon that). That means less than a thousand are left on Galactica. Presumably, there are several hundred (at least) left in the rest of the fleet. And we don't know how many were lost in the nuking of Cloud Nine and surrounding ships, though we do know that there were probably a lot of people on Cloud Nine. It's recreational housing seemed to have become living space for a lot of people who didn't have places elsewhere or who were looking for the best accommodations.

Anyway, if you play with those variables, you can see that it wouldn't take huge losses on New Caprica to get the total human population down to 38,000, as Olmos said.

Personally, it seems to me that the numbers don't make sense. There seem to be TOO MANY people left after the nuking of Cloud Nine. That's another reason why the "heavy causalities" comment makes no sense. --Elach 22:40, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I would consider it plausible if the nuking of Cloud 9 killed 1,000 people. It could have killed 5,000. It may have killed 10,000. But that entire range I consider "plausible". --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:07, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I fully agree with Merv here. It's useless to guess at the effective blast radius. On one hand, there's nothing to stop the blast except ships; on the other, shock waves don't travel through vacuums, and the simplest statistic to measure the effects of the radiant effects, energy per unit of area, would obey an inverse square law. In any case, we don't know the strength of the warhead. It's useless to guess at how many ships would be within the radius. There's no way to know the standard gap between ships in the fleet (or if they even have a set formation at all). It's dubious to guess which ships were inside the effective blast radius, even given magical knowledge of that distance. It's dubious to guess at the complements of those ships. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 05:22, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
You guys miss my point. I'm not talking about the blast radius or destruction wrecked by the nuking of Cloud Nine. I am talking about the conclusion that to get to 38,000, "presumably there are heavy casualties to come on New Caprica," as the article now states. Do the math: approx. 49,000, minus at least 3,000 left on the fleet, minus at least 3,000 killed on Cloud Nine, equals 43,000. (That's using numbers on the low end.) 43,000 ---> 38,000 involves a loss of 5,000. That's really the MOST that could be lost in "the battle for New Caprica." I know these are back-of-the-envelope calculations, but it must seem clear even to you guys that "heavy casualities" is not a safe conclusion. It seems more likely that several hundred or a couple of thousand will be lost. Now you can argue if those figures amount to "heavy casualites" considering the number of humans left, but that does not appear to be your point. I thought we were going for conservative statements, which are logical and verifiable, not wild speculation. If that is true, then I propose that the "heavy casualites" comment be removed. --Elach 13:26, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

SFX Magazine

Does any one have access to the September edition of SFX Magazine? There is an interview with Grace Park that as some exciting revelations in it. --FrankieG 19:31, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

I heard of this SFX magazine myself. Supposdely, she said that Helo and Sharon are or get married, and she is flying Raptors again. However I have no confirmation whatsoever, and no scans of this or a reliable report. Need someone we know to acquire one of these SFX Magazines, but they're only in Britain. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:34, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
Grumbles, I might get it if i see it but i generally dont like reading spoilers :( --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 10:24, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
I have it, and read it. It disprovves some of our stuff and there is some stuff. I might just end of scanning the entire thing. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:20, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
I will get to posting some of the stuff up hopefully later tonight, before I have to leave for VA tomorrow. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:21, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

"Taking a Break..."

I e-mailed Gateworld to confirm this or say how they got it but they never e-mailed me back. That is, I didn't know if they just used "Taking a Break" as a monicker for the mid-season hiatus. The stuff they have on it seems similar to an unconfirmed report on livejournal which sounded like fanon, so I dunno. I hope they e-mail me back. --The Merovingian (C - E) 14:15, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Regarding the episode numbering

On the List of Episodes page it shows the episodes as...

  • 3.01 Occupation
  • 3.01.5 Precipice
  • 3.02 Exodus, Part I
  • 3.03 Exodus, Part II

And so on... Surely just because Precipice follows Occupation doesnt means its 3.015? Thery might not air back to back in other countries and thus should still be 3.01 and 3.02. Exodus pt I would be 3.03. If anyone one else can tell me why this should be otherwise please post here. Ill put this on my watchlist. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:01, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

I did the 3.01.5. We will for sure change it when we get the offical nunmber off the podcast. --Shane (T - C - E) 04:42, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
Well in the latest RDM blog entry he says that they are "filming episodes 10 & 11, our mid-season cliffhanger episodes". He also goes on to say that there will be 19 episodes in total and that he counts Exodus, Part I and II as one in the production schedule. The clincher is when he says "we've taken what was to be episode 3, 'Exodus'..." so that would imply that Exodus p1 is 3.03. Understand?... lol its a bit confusing. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 05:22, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't see what all of the confusion is about: Bradley Thompson explicitly layed this out for us in Official Communiques. Both "Occupation" and "Precipice" are "Episode 1", making Precipice "Episode 1.5". I even said "wouldn't that make "Exodus, Part I" "Episode 3" and he said "no, that's episode 2" (paraphrase). He said under no circumstances to count Precipice as episode 2. --The Merovingian (C - E) 08:28, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


There are a couple of citations to Ronald Moore's blog here, but the link is just to the blog and not a permalink. I checked his blog and couldn't find the referenced information. if anyone finds it, could you get a permalink and replace it in the article? thanks. --Mateo 12:08, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

I fixed it. Both references were to the most recent entry. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Starbuck's Tattoo

I must say, there is nothing in the Scifi Magazine Article that states in any way/shape/form that the tattoo on Kattee's upper left arm has anything to do with the Cylon Occupations.

We do, however, know that the tattoo in her left upper arm (the one referred to) is actually a "wedding tattoo" that she and Anders got when they got married.

So I'm saying we remove this unless the user who placed it in the article has more proof, but I doubt it since it would conflict with direct words from the actress herself. --Sauron18 06:16, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Katee Sackhoff has repeatedly stated, even in a video like that TVGuide thing, that it is a "wedding tatoo". Speculation was wrong. --The Merovingian (C - E) 09:49, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Cite Templtes

Article needs to be updated using the cite templates. BW:CITETEM. --Shane (T - C - E) 10:56, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Why No Photos?

We have in our possession several photos and screen captures from Season 3. We should be posting these online. Even though exact descriptions of the events depicted are not always available, this data is no more speculative than vague or cryptic pronouncements from the producers on their blogs, or unpremeditated slips of the tongue from actors. In fact, in many ways, they are more concrete and credible; we are seeing actual shot footage of actors in dramatic situations, often from the SciFi Channel itself. There is a lot of information to be gleaned from these photographs, and it is no less "conclusive" than what we get from some of our other sources who we regularly publish.

If we don't want to get into the business of speculating ourselves about the photos, why not establish a Season 3 "gallery" of photos and screen caps with minimal and obvious identifications (e.g., Starbuck and Leoben Conoy having dinner) and leave to others to draw conclusions about the specific dramatic circumstances? --Elach 15:15, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

There are a ton located here. I'm furiously avoiding looking at them (don't like spoilers), but I'd hope that'd have some good ammo for what you're suggesting. --Steelviper 15:24, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
also anything from here. --Shane (T - C - E) 15:31, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
That is great stuff!! I had no idea we already had those photos, already uploaded and everything. Let's get those shots into the Season 3 Pivotal Plot Points article at the appropriate places. They illustrate and support the intel we already have about Season 3. And there can be little doubt about their authenticity and relevance. --Elach 13:34, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I'll leave that to others (I try to avoid spoilers). If you want to try it yourself, you can simply edit that page and copy the "code" around the pictures you want to place, and place them in the appropriate spot. If you need assistance feel free to ask for help (either here, or on anybody's talk page). --Steelviper 13:39, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
Unfortunately, I have tried several times now to insert photos into this article and have always frakked it up. I admit I am a hopeless non-techie. Can anyone give me step-by-step instructions for inserting graphics with captions, something a liberal arts major can easily understand? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Elach 15:18, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
[[Image:FooSpoils.JPG|thumb|right|A Foo spoils spoiling spoilers.]] Of course, "right" can be replaced with "left" if it makes the page layout nicer. The syntax doesn't really make any sense, but that's it, aside from specifying a size, which is not really as great an idea as one might initially think. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 23:37, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
Calculatin, thanks but I already figured out that part. Where does the image need to be? In Wiki Media? Uploaded somehow? Sorry for what is probably really obvious, but I have never done anything like this before. --Elach 00:51, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
In the area labeled Toolbox on the left, there's a link "Upload file." Click it, make an account on, sign it in, come back here, click that same link again, and follow the instructions. There are also various tags about sourcing; I'm not completely familiar with them, but someone more knowledgeable than I on the matter will likely help you should you err in applying them.
Having to make an account there separately is some kind of MediaWiki (software) limitation. I'm probably not the right person ask, as I just today got around to making an account on --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 19:23, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

SciFi Mag not a Citable Source?

Okay, this is weird. I just got my text pulled and it was a description of photos appearing in SciFi, the official magazine of the SciFi Channel. If that is not an authoritative source, then I don't know what is. The descriptions were straight forward, although I did observe that one unidentified person looked remarkably similar to a known cylon agent, which is true. (I didn't say it was him, but you can't deny the obvious. And what a shocker it would be if he was one, being as he is in uniform and meeting with Adm. Adama.) All that is obvious and undeniable if you have seen the photos. Now it would be much better if we could show the photos (see above topic post) and let them speak for themselves, but short of that how is there a source problem with just describing what is clearly in them? You guardians of Battlestar Wiki purity are, I think, going a little overboard. And don't tell me the photos are in Battlestar Wiki media depository or whatever because no one will ever look for them there. This is the section on Season Three pivotal plot points and this is where that stuff belongs. My humble opinion anyway ... --Elach 22:02, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

If you can provide the source, go for it. The paragrpahs or information was not cited so it seemed made up. Go ahead and re-add it but cit the information, pages, location, author, etc. BW:CITE. I am not saying it might be wrong. I am simiply stating the BW:CITETEM was not used so no one knew on where the information came from. Also direct information from the magazine can not be posted. It has to be copyedited or rephrased in your own words. Photos have captions, but should not be placed as an item themselfs. --Shane (T - C - E) 22:10, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
I gave the name of the magazine and the date, and the descriptions were all in my own words based on what I saw in the photos. And BTW, your templates make no sense and there are apparently none for printed periodicals. And by making sure you have to be a programmer to use them, you are pre-selecting out all the writers who are not technically minded. Finally, you guys don't know s--t about copyright law. All over the site I see it written that "ideas are copyrighted, not the word usage themselves" which is completely and utterly backwards and WRONG. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of them in particular words. (Read the copyright law.) That's why changing the wording means you can still talk about those ideas in print.
The sad thing is that some of this information should be getting into print, and it isn't, because the style "jihadists" are going nuts and making it impossible for those who care about the information and not the coding of it. --Elach 00:39, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I will revert my mistakes. Sorry about the confusing. --Shane (T - C - E) 00:47, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
If you were referring to the bits I took out can you please elaborate? I only took out the speculatative sections and not just everything from SciFi mag. Providing its cited i dont have a problem with stuff from it. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:11, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Remove the Blog Posting?

It seems to me that most of the info is really pertaining to the end of Season 2, and actually the points about Tigh and Zarek are pertinent to Season 3. --FrankieG 21:21, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Also, there is something about Lee. I think that I can condense the important points into the plot points above. --FrankieG 21:35, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

DVD Release

Should information about the DVD releases for respected areas be addedd for season 3? Like when and where. How much $. And if they are doing Season 3.0 & 3.5 like previous years. OldManRivers 13:05, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

We haven't done that for the other seasons either, and it's a bit cumbersome, what with 3 or so different versions out. There is an own page for the DVD release here and a general DVD page here. --Serenity 13:08, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Production Numbering

The production numbering for this season is as follows:

  • 301: Occupation
  • 302: Precipice
  • 303A: Exodus, Part I
  • 303B: Exodus, Part II
  • 304: Collaborators

...and thereon down the line until 319, which is "Crossroads, Part II". Exodus was originally meant as a single episode, but was split in two and given the "A"/"B" production numbering. So we need to go through and change that as well. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 16:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Wilco. -- Serenity 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)