Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Battlestar Wiki talk:Main page

2009-11-02T17:14:42Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki talk:Main page/Archive1.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki talk:Main page/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

== Table Of Colors ==

{|align="center" style="width:100%; background-color: transparent; margin-top:-.8em; margin-bottom:-.7em text-align:center; border: 1px solid #421818; font-size:85%" |
! style="background-color: #421818; color: #F7FF63;" | '''Pattern Number'''
! style="background-color: #421818; color: #F7FF63;" | '''Color of Header Text'''
! style="background-color: #421818; color: #F7FF63;" | '''Color of Background'''
! style="background-color: #421818; color: #F7FF63;" | '''Color of Background of Header'''
! style="background-color: #421818; color: #F7FF63;" | '''Color of Border Background of Header'''
|-
| Current Colors
| {{ColorWheel|#FFFFFF}}
| {{ColorWheel|#461919}}
| {{ColorWheel|#CE2000}}
| {{ColorWheel|#A60003}}
|-
| Pattern #1
| {{ColorWheel|#F7FF64}}
| {{ColorWheel|#1f0b0b}}
| {{ColorWheel|#461919}}
| {{ColorWheel|#461919}}
|-
| Pattern #2
| {{ColorWheel|#FFFFFF}}
| {{ColorWheel|#461919}}
| {{ColorWheel|#1f0b0b}}
| {{ColorWheel|#461919}}<ref>[http://www.webwhirlers.com/colors/wizard.asp Colors on the web] using #461919 as the base.
</ref>
|-
|}

<div style="font-size:85%"><references/></div>

== Examples ==

Pattern #1:

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#1f0b0b"
! style="background-color:#461919; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #461919; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em; color:#F7FF64;" | So Say We All...
|-
|{{User:Shane/Main Page/So Say We All}}
|}

Pattern #2:

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#461919"
! style="background-color:#1f0b0b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #1f0b0b; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;" | So Say We All...
|-
|{{User:Shane/Main Page/So Say We All}}
|}

== RSS feed ==

<s>Well, I've enabled the RSS feed extension. The only thing remaining to be determined is the placement of the feed box.</s> ahem, I'm still working on it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:28, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Ok, I got the extension working. We just need to work out the placement on the main page, as well as other details.
:Sweet! I'll play with adding a box under the "airdates" with just the post titles. Also, thanks for getting the site back up! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:06, 27 December 2006 (CST)

:: No problem. Need to find out what happened in the first place... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 14:08, 27 December 2006 (CST)

::: I talked with the Planet and it was some permissions. But then after we got that working, the database "connection" was messed. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:17, 27 December 2006 (CST)

:::: Right. That was eaccelerator. When the server rebooted, the caching feature turned on, and that's why the database connection was fraked. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 14:27, 27 December 2006 (CST)
::::: Ah. :-) Expert. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:37, 27 December 2006 (CST)

::: You had already done all the "hard" work, too. I switched to Click-ext (thanks, Shane) to have the icon direct you to the blog. There's room for 10 titles (vertically), but that might be overwhelming/information overload. If people can check out the new section on the project page and weigh in with opinions, we should be good to copy and paste if the consensus favors its addition. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:38, 27 December 2006 (CST)

This appears to be busted. Need to reinstall since the upgrade? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:02, 3 January 2007 (CST)

: Need to find one that works with 1.9alpha... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:09, 3 January 2007 (CST)

=== Example of just the blog post titles ===

=== Example of the blog post titles with brief snippet ===

Discussion? Thoughts? Questions? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 21:57, 26 December 2006 (CST)

update: I've added an example to [[Battlestar Wiki:Main page]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:06, 26 December 2006 (CST)
:Looks good. I have the updated lang bars. I think it's '''go''' for production. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (CST)
::Well, I think the placement is good as well, I think the text needs some work though. (I did it quickly, so it's not stellar material on my part, in my view, and thus this is a nice target for a nuclear warhead.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:50, 27 December 2006 (CST)

== Blank citations ==

When the Colonial Fleet News Service has no references, the box just shows up. We need to find a way to hide the reference box on the main page when no references are displayed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 13:40, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
:I think that would be pretty tricky to do. The citations box itself has no way of knowing that there just happen to be no citations on [[Main Page]] or any of the pages it transcludes. The best way would probably be to just comment out the citations box manually when there are no refs left. It's not ideal, but at least it's easy and doable. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 13:44, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
::Yeah, that's just about what I already figured. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 13:57, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

== Quote box positioning and other things ==

One of the more recurring comments I've been seeing is that the Main Page is simply too cluttered. So a few things come to mind....

Recently got a comment from the survey recommending that we move the quotes section down some more, since it is of low importance. I do tend to agree with that assessment, so in its place we can do one of a few things:

# Move the portal stuff in its place, a la Memory Alpha's main page.
#* Doing this would alleviate some of the "articles are hard to find unless I know precisely what I'm looking for" issues people are reporting...
# Move the Colonial Fleet News box to its place. Since that's important as well.

What we need to keep:

# Portals (we frankly need to have a bigger box, leading back to my earlier point, since it needs to be expanded... painfully so)
# News (including merchandise)
# BSW Blog & RDM blog
# The Search box feature (expanded so that it also covers BW)
# Featured Articles/Pictures
# Airdates

Plus, get rid of the FrakMedia feed as well. That's worthless to most BSG fans, IMHO.

I would be tempted to get rid of the "sister projects" box as well, since we can roll that (and Frak Media's website) into the tab header (a lá [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]) that the wiki will have soon.

I'll have more later, but I need to go away from the keyboard now. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:19, 20 February 2008 (CST)

: Ok, good start so far. In the place of the old portals box (next to the "Welcome to Battlestar Wiki" box), we can move the search box there and be rid of the box further own down. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:31, 21 February 2008 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Main page/Archive1

2009-11-02T17:14:32Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 8 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki talk:Main page.

{{talkarchive}}

== Nav Problem ==

Your potential design for the front page suffers from the same problem as the existing one. That is lack of propper navigation.

In my opinion there should be a single entry point for each of the 3 series and then through a series of sub-pages (no more than 2) lists of various headings, ie episodes, characters, cast, etc.

Using categories to navigate is not, in my opinion, a good method to find articles. In fact I came accross a page recently ([[Re-imagined Series References]]) that that was not linked to any other page, other than a page for Original Series references similarly linked. --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 05:25, 14 March 2006 (CST)

:I know. I just started so there is going to be stuff that I haven't done yet. Right now I am just trying to get a base to that I can start from some where. I was reading the discussion on the current main page so I am trying to take everything into account. We should reall have portals and not catagories for all the different things in the upper bar. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] 05:42, 14 March 2006 (CST)

:I think what we need is a main page that just fits a screen with links to a short summary for each series. This summary then links to separate pages as listed in my previous post and then on to the main articles. None of the summary or link pages should be more than a screenfull for clarity. --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 05:51, 14 March 2006 (CST)

:Yep. I got that in my head. I am just trying to code it now. It's almost like following the format of Wikipedia (English), but with the Battlestar Idea. I got some cool names for the main sections. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] 06:06, 14 March 2006 (CST)

:Ok. To put everything into a "Portal" like Wikipedia, we have to do some serious re-design and I need to talk to Joe first before anything. Hopefully he will contact me soon. (''*Hint Hint*'') --[[User:Shane|Shane]] 06:36, 14 March 2006 (CST)

::If you want to get his attention, you might have better luck if you drop him a note on [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|his talk page]]. That usually triggers an email (if you've got it set up that way) letting the user know they have a message. Not everybody reads the Recent Changes compulsively. (Like I do.) Glad to see you run with this, though! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 06:51, 14 March 2006 (CST)
::I sent him something over Google talk. I saw your community portal. I can work those colors into the design. And I been just going through, during this time off from shows showing, we can really revamp the site and make it ''very clean and mean''! --[[User:Shane|Shane]] 07:05, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I'm just amazed at how fast this Portal project is going. Soon we will have a navigable wiki to be proud of. --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 17:03, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Before this goes live are we going to have a period of time to test all the portals? --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 03:08, 16 March 2006 (CST)
:Oh yeah. No worries. It'll take some time to get this all going. Even if we got all the portals up, there's a lot that needs to be established in terms of policy/procedure anyway. (Process for selecting featured articles, etc.) The portals are a lot of the foundation that this new main page seems to be based on, so we'll want to have them solid before we prop anything on top of them. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:17, 16 March 2006 (CST)
:This main page will most likly stay under my name until we get everything done. I mean, we have till October to work on it :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] 10:34, 16 March 2006 (CST)

:I think the white-on-bright-red color scheme looks odd/is weird to read. Thoughts?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:03, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
::I agree, it doesn't fit the existing colour scheme. I fact I don't like the white on black at all. --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 16:55, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:::What I don't like is the bright red bars; I like the dull red. Easier to read.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 18:23, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

One this I never been good at are colors, so if you want to post some colors to use. I created a template so when can post colors. [[:Template:ColorWheel|Color Wheel]] so you can post ideas. Of course you post the colors on this page and not that page. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:37, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

: The content on the page looks pretty good so far. Ive got a few idea but im a bit busy today to write them out. My first concern though is all the colour. I quite like the homepage now with its mostly black background, easier to read and looks a bit cleaner. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 03:05, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Discussion ==

I'm not sure which I like better, but I think both are better than the "White on bright red". Maybe not even specify a background, allowing the css style to determine the main background color and text color? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:16, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
: All the colros we spefic if would go in the CSS so it can be used across all the templates. right now everything is hardcoded in. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:46, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Style Consensus ==

Why not use pattern #1 for now, since that's the most readable. Unless anyone objects to it, I don't see the need for a vote. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:20, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
: All coded in. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:22, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
'''Pattern #1'''
#[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:10, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:56, 21 April 2006 (CDT) Comment: I prefer the white header text of pattern 2. Also, you should post something about this on the Quorum, lest concerned users miss it.
#:Can this get posted where the Portal notice is right now? A link to the [[User:Shane/Main Page]] and a link to an example portal? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:53, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
#::Done. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:47, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 15:58, 22 April 2006 (CDT) - Go with the white header instead of the yellow one -- besides, it is too confusing with the fact that links are yellow-colored as well.
#:That can be done. Good point. :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:26, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
'''Pattern #2'''
#--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:21, 22 April 2006 (CDT) The white header is easier on the eyes; I think you meant to post under "pattern 2" Peter.
#:No, in general I prefer the other aspects of Pattern 1, such as the dark background. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:46, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Other'''
# Then probably, Peter and Joe should have voted here. I like Pattern #1 with white text. The link confusion is, in a massively cross-linked environment, a ''dire'' problem to be avoided at all costs. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 22:44, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

== Wiki ==

I thought we were not going to use the word Wikipedia. Shouldn't the heading be "Welcome to the Battlestar Wiki"?

Sorry forgot to sign before. Other than that the portal is looking good. --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 13:37, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:Oops. :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:47, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Doesn't the 'Did you know / So Say We All' section look a bit weird ? In the context of other wikis it sounds really awkward imho. 'So say we all' is a statement, not a question; it flows strangely as written, to me. --[[User:northtwilight|northtwilight]] 17:45, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:Hey, looks much better, thanks. --[[User:northtwilight|northtwilight]] 01:31, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

== Link locations and Miscellany ==

I recommend that the series links below the central header be centered on the page. Also, it's not clear that the links to the right of the "Welcome" are for RDM. We know that the site is RDM heavy, but I remember that we try not to make so much emphasis on this unless spelled-out. Can we place a subheader over/near these links so that people know these links are generally about the RDM show? Else, also add a link to the RDM series with the other series links.

Finally, there remain some significant typos and other awkward phrasing. I, too, am not too cool on the "So say we all" usage. It should probably just be "Did you know...?". --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:42, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
:: I can check on the headers. Just so Wiki code to code in. The links underneath the header could be the problem. Maybe instead of putting the RDM stuff all in a row, maybe just all of the series links. So say you all, it as something Steel started. I liked it.. Maybe another phrase instead of the generic. :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:54, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

== More Comment ==

More comments are needed to get your input in. The main page could go active at acnytime now, with most of the "backend" done get your input in while it can still matter. We can only assume that there is no problems. that's about it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 05:55, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
:I have some pretty big issues with this whole system, but as I've been very busy dealing with other things recently. I'll compose a full reply on this topic in due course. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 05:56, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
::Not all the sections are the same width. Now this could be just an IE only issue but i dont have Firefox here at work to check. (ligntened up the red to show what i mean.
::http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4444/spaceissues2yl.png
::I also dont really like the "Have you heard..." section. I dont think theres enough data to make some kind of rotational fact thingy and to mee it seems a little cluttered and pointless. I'd rather see that remove and links to other sites added than the other way around.--[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 03:44, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
:::A total IE error. They don't follow the www standards that Firefox does. In my IE though, the PNG images, minus the logos are not transparent... just an error or can we do something about that. We will pull the Wireless section. See how it fairs up to everyone else. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:15, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
::::IE6 and below hate PNG files and fubar with loading of them. Sometimes its a black background, others grey and sometimes blue. Apatently this is fixed in IE7 but if its not working in IE then tuff. People should be using a decent browser anyway -- [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 09:11, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
Page as of this date looks better. Good use of "white space" around items. Less crowded. Love the logo badges, gives the site flair. However:

* The links left of the title appear too small. There still is a typo there, I think: "Original."
* Instead of "An encyclopedia that covers Battlestar Galactica", suggest:
::An encyclopedia of the ''Battlestar Galactica'' sagas.
::''(My favorite, rings better as a wiki)'' The ''Battlestar Galactica'' encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Also, add a link on the "Have you heard on the [[wireless]]..." just so newbies can understand the reference. Or, just shorten to "Have you heard...?" I recommend a question mark at the end in either case. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:29, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:29, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
:Not that we don't love ya ( :-) ) but we are pulling the section. Nice Jingle. #1 is the choice. Spelling is fixed. Mercifull did the logos. Kudos to him :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:15, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

::Nice. Looks good to me, virtually ready for going live. Kudos to you, Shane, Mercifull, SV, and others. Wikicoding is still beyond my abilities, so I'm happily amazed when this stuff works. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:52, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

::I also am at a loss when it comes to HTML code, but I hope my comments are insightful (i.e. I'm not going "YOU IDIOT CHANGE THE FONT!", but rather "Hey, I think italics are hard for people to read; maybe we should make the font clearer in that section on the side over there" etc. etc. :) ) --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:18, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
:::Your feedback is appreciated, and in fact spurred quite a flurry of activity. Have you seen the trimmed down banner? (We at least got it so that the banner is bounded at the bottom by the left side instead of the portal links on the right). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:21, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

== New Section? ==

Maybe we should have a Q&A section on the front page, to make it easier for people to get questions answered. Links to the Quorum, the Admin noticeboard, and a prominent link to the "Reference Desk" might be the content. We could also potentially link in the "Official Communiques" article, though it is tempting to keep that lower profile. (It's mine. My own... my precious.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
:Most of these links can be found on the [[BW:CP]] already. No need to double. I added a sample [[BW:OC]] project section on main page. More on the [[BW:OC]] talk page. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 10:10, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

== Airdates ==

Has finnaly expanded, but the list has gotten really long. I suggest, at least for the "English" lang. (soon to be en.battlestarwiki.org) that we put other lang where it not primarly English on a sub project page. In this case, Phillipines and Norway would move. AU stays because it's primarily speaks English broadcasts. Other ideas? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 10:19, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
:As long as the link to the non-english airdates page is prominently linked at the bottom of the english airdates page, navigation shouldn't be that inconvenient. It is starting to get pretty large at present. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:24, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum

2009-11-02T17:10:10Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive5, Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive6.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 6
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{Project|Wikipedian Quorum|image=BSG WIKI Quorum.png|shortcut=BW:GQ BW:WQ}}

[[Battlestar Wiki:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome, newcomers]] and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about [[Battlestar Wiki]] and how it works, please place it '''at the bottom of the list''', and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about life, the universe and everything, go to the [[Battlestar Wiki:reference desk|reference desk]] instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the [[Battlestar Wiki:FAQ]] or other pages linked from [[Battlestar Wiki:Help]].

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading [[BW:BITE|Please do not bite the newcomers]].

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Battlestar Wiki (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the Wikipedian Quorum archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

{{newsection link}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

== Rewrote [[:Council Security]] ==

I did a pretty much total rewrite of [[:Council Security]]. Hope it passes muster. — [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] ‹(-¿-)› 10:35, 8 February 2008 (CST)
:Looks good in general. Nice details of their appearances. Though we generally write the article bodies themselves from a strictly in-universe perspective and confine real-world references to notes (unless it's an article dealing with an obvious real-world subject of course). -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:45, 8 February 2008 (CST)
::Yeah, I re-read the policy on that last night (after like 3 months); will re-re-write the article so that the real-world stuff is in the Notes section, unless someone has beat me to it. — [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] ‹(-¿-)› 02:47, 9 February 2008 (CST)
:::I removed it. It was mainly about the comparisons to the US police or Secret Service. The article is fine without that. Saying things like "In episode so and so they did..." is ok if it can't be avoided. Since the article partly deals with their different depiction in various episodes, that's appropriate in this case. So a completely re-write isn't really necessary. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:54, 9 February 2008 (CST)

== "Spoiler follows, highlight to read" ==

Does anybody else find the "highlight to read" style distracting and kind of unprofessional? Why can't we just use a little CSS to make a pop-down spoiler box:

<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px;"><div class="NavHead" style=" text-align: left; padding: 0px;">'''Spoiler follows'''</div><div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: left; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align:left; border: 1px solid #ffffff; padding: 2px; margin-top: 2px;">Adama is a cylon!</div></div></div>

(This is GFDL code from Wikipedia, I can copy it over to a template and give credit where it's due.) [[User:Evan|Evan]] 16:59, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

: I don't see any problem with this. :) What does everyone else think? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:17, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
::Format's pages wrong. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
::: In what way? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:11, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
::::Colours don't work in BsgMonoBook, alignment is off in BsgBook, I don't see anything wrong in the default skin though. [[User:Evan|Evan]] 18:22, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
::::Nvm, the colours work in MonoBook. Actually I don't see anything wrong in any of the skins. [[User:Evan|Evan]] 18:38, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

::If it doesn't screw anything up, this would be far better than the highlight thing we have now. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:54, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
::::The drop down does not format on lists correct. Like before, it would create a new line and interrupt the list numbers. Also, from our previous discussion on javascript expanding boxes in the middle of episodes pages (which are not at the top), templates that expand huge things of text change the entire format of the page layout when they expand. Images get shifted and it creates an unnesseary new lines that were not there before. It's always 100% width. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

OK, the template is created as [[:Template:Spoilerbox]], add it if you like. I'm not going to replace the existing spoilers since... I don't want to be spoiled :) [[User:Evan|Evan]] 07:39, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
:Nice template. Less is more for me on some pages, especially now. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:42, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
::Uh, one question...what's the input format for the template? I can't glean that from the description. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:45, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
:::I've updated the page, but the syntax is {{tlp|spoilerbox|This is a spoiler! Muhahahahha!}}. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:55, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
::I like the idea, but I'm not sure it's universally better than the current method... Especially if it will create problems like Shane mentioned. As dumb as it seems, I think the current method does have some advantages: Depending on how someone highlights the spoiler, they can control how much of the spoiler is revealed. Also, people can gauge how much content the spoiler contains just by looking at the amount of unreadable text. --[[User:Galjamspe|Galjamspe]] 00:40, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

== Proposition for new article ==

Hi! Quite new here, and since I don't find a button for creating a new article, I figure I must go through the Quorum?

I'd love it if we could open a small article for adding notice for Caprica Six's unborn baby.
There's no actual article for this person yet, and I have to write my mentions about it, in already existing articles like Gaius Baltar's and Caprica Six's.

Thanks for the attention! {{unsigned|Iniovan}}

: Do we really know anything about the baby enough to write an article? At this point, we just know that Caprica-Six is pregnant and that the father is Saul. Other than that... any analysis on it could probably fit in the episode guides. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

== Question on editing etiquette ==

Hi,

I'm a newbie here. So this is a question so I can hopefully avoid stepping on anyone's toes. If you see an existing article and wish to add to the information and content, would it always be best to ask the original contributor before doing so? Especially if to do so, I would have to move some items around in the original article.

For example, I want to put in a new reference to supplement the article, however, it would need to go before an existing article, requiring renumbering of all of the references.

I'm just trying to get a feel of what is good editing and bad editing before I put foot in mouth.

thanks!
Jeff Rabb
:In a word, no. In addition to greatly slowing down the ability for the community to keep things up to date, it also ignores the fact that once you hit "save page" your edits become community property. There really isn't an "ownership" of articles, outside of perhaps articles in the "User" namespace. So feel free to [[BW:BOLD|be bold]] and get in those edits. If somebody takes issue with your edits they can either change it back themselves, take it up in the talk page of the article in question, and/or potentially bring it up on your talk page. New references are almost always welcome, as they're the glue that binds this place together. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!
Jeff

== How Can This Not Be Canonical? ==

On the [[unnamed battlestars]] page, there is section dealing with the [[Berserk Class Escort]]. A notation notes the specific information on this class of ship is non-canonical. Presumably because it comes from the ship designer's own website vs that from one of the sanctioned websites or sources. But the ship WAS used in [[Razor]]. So how can one on one hand use it in the show and on the other hand say that any specific information on it from it's creator is non-canonical simply because TPTB never bothered to put it with a sanctioned source? It either is or isn't in my book. I'm sure this discussion has arisen many times before, but I'd like to find out the final arguement that finally determined why this source, which straddles the line, should be excluded as non-sanctioned? Jeff Rabb
:The ship described on the website is on the show, but canon starts from the aired content and trickles down from there. So while we do see the ship, we aren't given any in-show identification of the ship. Also, there's nothing from the producers on the matter. However... the information coming from "crew" does seem to place it somewhere in category 3 in the [[BW:CITE|source hierarchy]], so it should have some weight (IMO). Anyway, I can see where the note was coming from (in that none of the information about the name of the ship, etc., came from any aired info or from RDM, etc), but I think you've got a decent argument. Given Joe's edit to the article, it appears he at least checked out the source website enough to correct the spelling to match it. Personally, I'd consider replacing the "canon" note and just replace it with a reference pointing to Chu's website. I do have to agree that it's not necessarily a battlestar, and in fact given the escort designation it's likely not a battlestar. Battleships don't "escort" battleships, and likewise with aircraft carriers. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive6

2009-11-02T17:10:00Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum.

{{talkarchive}}

== WP's tlx template works here now ==

I've ported over Wikipedia's [[w:Template:Tlx]] to [[Template:Tlx]]. Tested. It works. If you check back a long way in my edit history here you'll see I've done this with various other very useful WP templates. Tlx in particular is very, very handy for template documentation, since you don't have to manually do a bunch of <code><nowiki><code><nowiki></nowiki></code> stuff (and I note that many if not most templates here remain undocumented, so perhaps this will help inspire some documentation). — [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 8 February 2008 (CST)
: Nice! Thank you! As for the templates, about half are documented (mainly the major ones) while other smaller ones aren't. Of course, they should be all documented, but it's a matter of prioritizing which one's need to be documented the most. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 10:38, 8 February 2008 (CST)
::Note that we already ''had'' this template, [[Template:Tlp|just under a different name]]. You might wanna copy the documentation, though. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (CST)
:::D'oh. One being a redir to the other, with dox preseved seems to be in order. Wikipedians like me think in terms of "tlx" and are unlikely to remember "tlp". — [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] ‹(-¿-)› 02:48, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive5

2009-11-02T17:09:54Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 2 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum. (ARCHIVE FULL)

{{archive-message|newarchive=6}}

== Scifipedia ==

It seems Sci Fi has set up their own wiki, and looking through there I saw some articles which were, while not text-for-text copies, strongly influenced by our setup here. Is this a problem, or can we just let it pass by? --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 12:47, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
:Which articles? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:53, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
::[[Scifipedia:Aaron Douglas|Aaron Douglas]], for one. Let me find a few more. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 12:57, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
:::[[Scifipedia:Katee Sackhoff|Katee Sackhoff]] is eerily similar to ours, as well. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 13:00, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
::::Well, at first, I was going to say they probably just used an appropriate license, but [[Scifipedia:SCIFIPEDIA:Terms of Use|SCIFIPEDIA:Terms of Use]] definitely means they don't. This is a problem, as the content there clearly infringes. The same user originated both of the example articles, and they show clear similarity in a way suggesting an attempt to disguise the copying or a very poor effort to paraphase. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 13:26, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
:::::Let's have Joe notified on this. They (in proxy) own the rights to talk about the show, but not to copy from other wikis if they are going to respect the MediaWiki process and the licensing. Oh, this isn't new: Wikipedia contributors have greatly boosted many articles from us as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:26, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
::::::Yeah, I know it's not new, but I figured it should be brought up. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 17:21, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
:I've been aware of the growing issue. Scifi claims that they are the ones who wrote the original articles, such as the one on [[Edward James Olmos]]. Right now, I need help gathering evidence to the contrary -- please feel free to either e-mail me or post any evidence here. Since my time is now getting extremely limited, I need help in this. Thank you! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:20, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
::Both the BSWiki and Scifipedia use MediaWiki and both has history showing page edits. Its obviously which site wrote it first and which one just edited in large chunks. Someone really needs to give JohnRDouglas a kick up the bum. Of course its a bit of a dilema because if SciFi really wanted to they could force us to pull virtually all our content, or at the very least the images. We dont want to piss them off, but at the same time, they cant go around using material written by other people. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 19:37, 13 November 2006 (CST)

== german Battlestar Wiki ==

Again german Battlestar Wiki was the first, who aired a german description of the new episode [[Exodus, Part II]]. Thank you to all of you, who aired the english description very fast and made this translation possible. :o) -- [[User:Tirkon|Tirkon]] 14:30, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

:''Danke'', Tirkon and to everyone as well. Folks like yourself on the Internationalization project are some of our most remarkable contributors because you have to manage up to 3 separate versions, while us meager English users just have our place. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:49, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

== Miniseries Standardization ==

Of all the episode articles, the Miniseries article is most nonstandard, with much information that has been discussed ''ad nauseum'' in many other articles on Battlestar Wiki. As with any episode article, the content should reflect the parts aired, the significant summary of events, and brief questions and analysis generated by the initial broadcast (many of which has been answered).

The current format has extended analysis in the second part, most of which is painfully redundant with [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)]] and many, many other articles. I will be revising both parts to reflect their episodic nature, separating the events in each part, with questions and analysis for each episode. The articles will be renamed based on our current naming procedure in managing multi-part episodes. Both parts will avoid extended questions and analysis as much from the miniseries has been answered, but will point to the episodes and other articles that answer these questions. Any topics or sections that discuss the overall changes between the Re-imagined Series and Original Series will be moved to [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)]] if the item is not already present. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:28, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

:The [[Cylons (RDM)]] article seems as an introduction to the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)]] as well. Further I also think, that the term [[Cylon Agent]] is at the latest obsolete now. Caprica-Six, Galactica-Sharon and Caprica Sharon are the first examples against. Especially Caprica-Sharon could be called a "human agent" now. A Number Five shot Caprica Six because she helped Baltar. German version had the "mercy of the late birth" and did not use the term from the beginning ;o) -- [[User:Tirkon|Tirkon]] 11:34, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

== Special Number Three in third season ==

Since the third season we have one [[Number Three]] Character who played and will probably play in future a special role. If I remember correct, it was the same Three, who was slain by Six in [[Downloaded]]. We heard that the oracle said, she never should hold the child, because everything will change then. But she did. The first consequence was, that she did not nuke the town. I think, now at the latest we should give her a special name. In the describtions it would be much easier, to identify her. What do you think? And what is about [[Caprica-Three]], because she was introduced there? -- [[User:Tirkon|Tirkon]] 11:18, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

== Images ==

I am not sure why, but my entires on Valkyrie, Eugene Novacek and Admiral Corman which were primarily just images uploaded onto the pages were deleted...I don't get it, doesn't it help to have pictures to refer to the subject the page is discussing. If it is a matter of spoiling future episodes with these pictures, readers are imformed at the top of the page which all of the above mentioned pages have, that the page is a spoiler. If it is my own fault for not siting where i got the images taking them down isn't exactly the answer, why not modify them yourselves. I realize I am a huge amateur so, discussing this for me will help myself and possibly others.
:It's not a spoiler issue at all, and your efforts are appreciated. In this case I believe it was simply a matter of the images being duplicates of images already previously uploaded. I'll see if I can track down the image names so that the articles that you mention can be corrected. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:49, 9 November 2006 (CST)
:Apparently they can be found at [[md:User:Shane/gallery|Shane's gallery]]. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:55, 9 November 2006 (CST)

== Firefly class ==

I have what might be a dumb question, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but here it is: Does anyone think it would be a good idea to create an article for Firefly-class transports? I mean, a Firefly class ship could be seen in the skies of Caprica in the miniseries, so it might be worthy of an article. The reason I am asking is because the Star Wars Wiki has an article for Firefly class ships (see: [[Wookieepedia:Firefly-class mid-bulk transport|Firefly-class mid-bulk transport]]). Basically, since a Firefly-class ship was shown on a single panel of a Star Wars Webstrip, it was deemed worthy of it's own article on the Star Wars Wiki, so I was thinking that since a Firefly could be seen in the Galactica miniseries, it might be worth an article here as well. Just thought I would ask about it. [[User:NickScryer|NickScryer]] 19:38, 12 November 2006 (CST)
:The appearance of that ship is noted in [[Re-imagined Series References#Miniseries|our "Easter Egg"]] article (though we still need to come up with a way to increase the exposure to that article). ''Enterprise'' also made an appearance in the miniseries, but those cameos were both obvious tributes, and neither of those ships was ever to be seen again. Should either of those craft make another appearance we'll know for certain that they were intended to be canon, but until that point it'd probably be best to err on the side of caution and assume that they are just one-shot gags from the VFX guys at Zoic. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:44, 12 November 2006 (CST)
:As Spencerian said, these were likely one-time cameos. There's very little need to add individual articles about them, when the [[Re-imagined Series References]] would more than suffice. Also, other than a brief appearance, what else of an in-universe nature would there be to say about ''Serenity'' or ''Enterprise''? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:52, 13 November 2006 (CST)
::The amusing part is that the footage with the Enterpise in it (the first fleet shot at the end of the Miniseries) is in the opening credits of each episode with, if I remember correctly, the exception of the New Caprica ones. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 09:58, 13 November 2006 (CST)
:''"...was shown on a single panel of a Star Wars Webstrip, it was deemed worthy of it's own article on the Star Wars Wiki..."'' - I work over there (Star Wars Wiki), and let me tell you, my fellow editors/contributers are gonzo/bonkers/rabid/nutbag/loons. They create entire articles about a Star Destroyer variant that appeared in a two-bit, rarely seen comic book only because the artist was too lazy or too short on talent to draw the precise diameter of the bridge sensor ranging domes, or slightly changed the exact shape of an X-Wing's engine intakes so whoa! we need a whole article about ''that'' "special X-Wing"! I'd agree with the rest here... keep the homage cameos as footnotes only. -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 09:33, 22 December 2006 (CST)

== Formatting box ==

This isn't really a question about the wiki per se, but I thought this would be the most appropriate place to ask. I'm one of the admins over at the Star Trek Expanded Universe wiki, which, if you didn't know, is the fanfic/fan film counterpart to Memory Alpha. I was wondering how I would go about having the box below the editing field with all of the formatting shortcuts added to my wiki. Considering that I'm also the rank archivist for the wiki, it's extremely agitating to have to type out the <nowiki></nowiki> tags every time I'm writing something about the different grades of Petty Officers and Second/First Lieutenants. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 15:24, 26 November 2006 (CST)
:It's at [[MediaWiki:Edittools]] on this wiki, and it should be in the same place at your own wiki, assuming it runs on MediaWiki. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 17:38, 26 November 2006 (CST)
::Ok, I added it, but it doesn't seem to work. Can you tell what the problem is? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 17:59, 26 November 2006 (CST)
::The stuff is showing up on edit pages, but it's all text and no links. --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 18:17, 26 November 2006 (CST)
:::If I were to guess, it's that there's CSS stuff at work. Note the div and span id's up at the top in the code? I'm betting the default css styles here (bsgbook and bsgmonobook) have been rigged to interpret those correctly. Hopefully Shane or Joe will notice this, as I think both of them were involved with getting it up and running here. I'm sure they'd be glad to help another wiki out (whenever their ridiculous schedules will allow). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:55, 26 November 2006 (CST)
::::Hi Kevin! Welcome to the wiki! ;-) Actually, in order to get edittools working, you will need the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CharInsert charinsert] extension. Obviously, if you have need for any assistance from me, please feel free to ask! :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:58, 26 November 2006 (CST)
:::::Ok, I need help on how to get the charinsert tag working. I have no idea how to do it. --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 20:21, 26 November 2006 (CST)
::::::Hmm... Did you edit the LocalSettings.php config file and upload? Reason I ask is because the extension is not showing up on [http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Version STEU's Version page]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:42, 26 November 2006 (CST)
:::::::The thing is, I don't know where the Local Settings page is. Exactly where is it? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 20:48, 26 November 2006 (CST)
::::::::Do you have FTP access to the server, because that's the only way to get it, edit it and then upload it again. (Sadly, It's not accessible through the web-interface used by the MediaWiki software.) If you don't feel comfortable with changing the stuff directly on the server -- or don't have the access -- I suggest firing off an e-mail to the Wikia folks and let them know to install the charinsert extension for you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:54, 26 November 2006 (CST)
== Ratings? ==

One of the stats on the Lurker's guide episode guides were a "P5 Rating", an informal poll rating the episodes. Would that be of value? Personally, I'd almost rather see something more like the last vote in the Coaches poll for college football, where the votes are published. Something with the user, the rating, and maybe a brief explanation of why they rated it like they did. My only fear is that may degenerate into cross-talk and vote manipulation ("I voted a 1 because User:Starbuck_Rocks_My_World is an idiot and voted it a 10 when it should really be more like a 6 but she just really like Starbuck episodes.") Some sort of automated tabulation would also be good, as we wouldn't want to add more admin overhead (especially for older episodes). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:30, 21 December 2006 (CST)
: I'm not too keen on the idea, personally. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:55, 21 December 2006 (CST)
:Disagree as well. There are enough forums where people can rate episodes. For a place that strives to be objective, it would add unneeded subjectivity --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:17, 21 December 2006 (CST)
::Some kind of javascript/dhtml/css user [http://komodomedia.com/blog/index.php/2005/08/24/creating-a-star-rater-using-css/ star rating] might be a cool little addition though, but i think that it should be clearly a user rating not a rating given by the battlestar wiki officially. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:46, 22 December 2006 (CST)
:::I can see where there might be conflict with the "encyclopedic" mission (an encyclopedia might note that critics loved/hated a particular work, but shouldn't be in the business of critiquing itself). The user rating was just a thought I had when pondering some of the differences between us and the lurker's guide. Differences aren't always bad... --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 22 December 2006 (CST)

== Martial Arts ==

I noticed that this wiki doesn't have an article about Martial arts or hand-to-hand combat. why isn't there one? We have seen boxing used in several episodes, and we have seen a naked [[Eight]] practicing [[Wikipedia:Tai Chi Chuan|Tai Chi]] (even though Tai Chi is consitered a type of moving meditation, it is still technically a martial art). So why don't we have an article about martial arts/hand-to-hand combat? [[User:Dark Claw|Dark Claw]] 22:15, 9 January 2007 (CST)
:Welcome, Dark Claw. The series really hasn't elaborated on these fighting forms (or their versions--note that while things ''look'' contemporary, its not supposed to be truly of Earth) or given much of a storyline that justified a need to write one that's germane to this wiki. Others may have a differing opinion, but ''Battlestar's'' fights are generally uncoordinated brawls without much "art" to them, concentrating on the virtual backstabbing between characters and less of the actual kind. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:45, 9 January 2007 (CST)

== Number of pilots in a squadron? ==

I've been reading the wikipedia here as well as several other sources which state the number of Vipers/pilots in a typical Colonial fighter squadron is 20. This is based largely on the visual evidence in the miniseries where Ripper's flight of 20 Vipers is destroyed by 2 Raiders. But it should be noted that this figure did not include Starbuck (she was in the brig) or Apollo (Starbuck's replacement in the fly by but is Colonial 798's escort). When Kara is released out of the brig, she reports 20 pilots in the ready room "climbing the walls" in addition to herself. These lines seem to indicate to me that a squadron is actually 21 planes/pilots. Thoughts?[[User:AnteaterFeeder|AnteaterFeeder]] 18:04, 18 January 2007 (CST)
:Ehh, I think since she said "20 of us" she was counting herself in that number. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 19:15, 18 January 2007 (CST)

:Aside from that, a squadron could have around 20 planes in sorties, but have more pilots and planes to account for maintainance downtime or unavailibility of the pilots (illness and the like) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:16, 19 January 2007 (CST)

== Can't view images ==

I can't view any of the images on the site, what I get in their place is the "No Hotlinking!" image, and I don't know how to sort this out. Please help {{unsigned|TopGun}}
:The only way you would get a "No Hotlinking" error, usually, if you are trying to view an image from off-site. What browser are you using? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:37, 19 January 2007 (CST)
::No, that's a browser related problem I think. It has been reported before somewhere, but I can't remember where --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:41, 19 January 2007 (CST)
::From what I have access to, this user is trying to hot-link off site. There is no indication he is trying to view the site. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:49, 19 January 2007 (CST)
::Hasn't been a "Hotlink" error on the en. subdomain for the past 300 visitors. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:50, 19 January 2007 (CST)
:Happens to me on the media wiki from my works computer. My home one seems to be unaffected. Odd --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 11:41, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I'm using FireFox version 2, I haven't been hot-linking off-site apart from following a link on imdb.com (well mostly copy and pasting as most members of the imbd mbs don't know how to put proper links in their posts). But even when I go through battlestarwiki.org, I still get the same problem. Thanks anyway folks {{unsigned|TopGun}}
:Please remember to use the signature button http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/skins/common/images/button_sig.png or by typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to sign your posts on talk pages --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 13:40, 19 January 2007 (CST)
:It's a firewall issue, as far as I've been able to determine. Do you run a firewall program on your computer, TopGun? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:55, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Yes, I'm using kerio personnel firewall--[[User:TopGun|TopGun]] 14:10, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I have the same problem (explorer 7 & Firefox). Using Windows firewall. What's the solution? Thx. --[[User:Ublej|Ublej]] 14:11, 27 January 2007 (CST)

: There is no solution right now, simply because I have to find some time to sit down at one of my workstations and try to troubleshoot it. The best thing any affected user can do right now is send me the name of the firewall program they use (with version number) and their (general) firewall settings and configurations '''''via e-mail directly at joe.beaudoin@gmail.com'''''. Thanks! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 21:14, 27 January 2007 (CST)

:: I've posted what I need on [http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2007/01/30/no-hotlinking-issue/ ze bloug]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:15, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I can now see images. Thanks!--[[User:Ublej|Ublej]] 15:41, 20 February 2007 (CST)

I too can now view the images, thanks--[[User:TopGun|TopGun]] 14:59, 26 February 2007 (CST)

== Trivia and Slideshows ==

Since I have been under the weather for nearly a month (at one time I was hospitalized for a possible heart attack and still don't know if I did or not), I have had a lot of time just to sit around and think. A couple of ideas is a central trivia page (especially for the TOS) and a summary slideshow (each line in a episode gets a shot). I know the slideshow would be a lot of work and possibly cause bandwidth concerns (maybe copyright issues?). An easy solution that I played around with was a link to an image at the end of a summary point for just the most suitable points. Just trying to find a way to interject more images without "junking up" the articles. Also, a simple gallery subpage make work also. Just bored to death (almost literally one time, an emergency room damn near killed me.) --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:52, 31 January 2007 (CST)

== Addition Removed ==

I added a small piece to the Baltar as a Cylon article and it has subsequently been removed with instructions to check my email.

The only email I see is one to activate my account.

Therefore

- If my article was removed on purely administrative grounds can i get approval to replace it? And is it stored in some form of recent changes/recycling bin style thing soI do n't have to retype it.
- If it was not what did I do wrong? {{unsigned|Loreki}}

: Hi there! Anyway, the "check your bsgwiki email" message is just for the admins. As for the addition, it appears that your edit didn't make it through, as your [[Special:Contributions/Loreki|contributions]] don't show an edit to [[Baltar as Cylon speculation]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 11:24, 2 February 2007 (CST)
::I was confused by this as I didn't see any edit or revert, but your theory makes sense. Loreki: Did the submission take a very long time? If yes, then you probably made it when the server was dying and, as said, it wasn't transmitted. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:34, 2 February 2007 (CST)
::: I had the same thing happen to me a few times yesterday around the time I added the promo pic to Maelstrom. Took 2-3 times to finally get it to stay put. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 11:38, 2 February 2007 (CST)

::: That would seem to be an appropriate answer. I shall retype it later. It was just a small item pointing out that the name Gaius is roman, the rest of the series draws Greek parallels. Gaius as foreigner and hence Cylon? {{unsigned|Loreki}}
::::Like other have said, probably just a server hiccup. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 12:01, 2 February 2007 (CST)

::::While the name is indeed Roman, I would suggest leaving away the rest (and then adding it to [[Gaius Baltar]] instead) . It's not the only Roman reference. In names there is also "Valerii" and "Felix" (sounds American, but it's Latin for "happy"). In religion/mythology, there are Mars Day, Mercury and Jupiter. Especially the Eye of Jupiter indicates that the Colonials use Roman and Greek mythology somewhat interchangeably --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:03, 2 February 2007 (CST)

== Speed ==

Has anyone noticed an increase in speed and responsiveness? Just curious. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 00:03, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
:Yes and I am over-frakking-joyed about it! --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 05:35, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
:Ditto! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 10:21, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
:: Great! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:22, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
:Yes, it's great to be fast again. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 11:10, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
:Now that you say it, it's really a lot faster than before. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

== Radio/"Wireless" interference effect? ==

Hi. I am curious in how this effect was produced, namely the effect heard in various scenes such as the Galactica communicating with its fighters as well as the wireless stand off dialog between Adama and Cain. Due to the rather offside nature of this question, I am aware that it is unlikely to find a guide of such, but I do seek ways in producing this somewhat interesting effect for things like fanmade game mods - for this effect does provide a very indepth feeling of using "antique" tech. I am referring to that double tone disorted voice during speech over commlines. Thank you for any hints, links, advidce. I appollogize ;) for the offtopic'ness. [[User:Lork|Lork]] 10:53, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
:One way to get in touch with the BSG staff is [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques]]. However, Bradley Thompson seems to be busy at the moment, as he hasn't checked in in a relatively long time. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:00, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
:I agree with Serenity: put it up at [[BW:OC]]. It's true that Brad hasn't visited it for quite some time now, but he's probably all caught up in [[Season 4]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 11:35, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
:Thanks, will do. But errr - you mean "THE" BSG staff O_O? Whoa. [[User:Lork|Lork]] 05:56, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
::Well, part of it at least. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] is [[Bradley Thompson]]. But as said, don't expect a quick answer. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:21, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
:::That is cool! Yes yes, I will wait. "Those of patience shall be rewarded" :) (my question is done for now here hehe, thanks for all the help)--[[User:Lork|Lork]] 09:25, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
== Semi-automated pipe sort -> DEFAULTSORT conversion ==

Read [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:API#DEFAULTSORT_key this]. We could use this as well, as almost all of our articles still use piped sorting. The script could work either on an allpages basis (listing all pages which use piped sort), on a template basis (listing all pages that transclude [[Template:Cast Data]], [[Template:Crew Data]] and [[Template:Character Data]] and use piped sort), or on a category basis (listing all pages in [[Category:A to Z]] that use piped sort, requires MediaWiki 1.11alpha). I think the category approach is probably best, but it does require an upgrade to 1.11alpha (see [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_SVN here] for how to download that). If we can't (or won't) upgrade, we can also just use the allpages thing on the main namespace only.

Mind you: all this 'bot' will do is make a list of pages that use piped sort rather than DEFAULTSORT. Updating these pages to use DEFAULTSORT is still ''our job'', which means we'll have to enlist some volunteers if we're gonna do this.

Mind you 2: we can also use my script to ''count'' the pages that use piped sorting, so we can decide whether we want to do this with the numbers in mind.

Note: if you don't understand what this is about, read the snippet below, then re-read my post.
<pre>

[[Category:A to Z|Adama, Lee]]
[[Category:Characters|Adama, Lee]]
[[Category:Characters (RDM)|Adama, Lee]]
[[Category:Main Characters (RDM)|Adama, Lee]]
[[Category:People from Caprica|Adama, Lee]]
[[Category:RDM|Adama, Lee]]


{{DEFAULTSORT|Adama, Lee}}
[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Characters]]
[[Category:Characters (RDM)]]
[[Category:Main Characters (RDM)]]
[[Category:People from Caprica]]
[[Category:RDM]]
</pre>

What are your thoughts? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:49, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
:It appears someone has [[w:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3|already written a bot]] to do this. Maybe we could run it some time. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 06:16, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
:To be honest, if we have to upgrade to 1.11, I would like to see it out of alpha and beta status before we roll it out here. As it stands now, the use of DEFAULTSORT vs piped sorting isn't a big hairy issue, as the categories at least have a sortkey of some type. So we can always hold off on that. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 08:27, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
::You're right, it's not at biting issue, so we could as well wait till 1.11 is stable, the MediaWiki API supports editing and I've written a bot that does all this. Good plan for next year's Super Bowl, I guess (when no one will be visiting or editing anyway). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 11:10, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
== Create a page box ==

What do people think about adding a "create a page" box on the Main Page, so that it's easier for contributors to create new pages? Basically, how the "create a page" feature would work is it would be much the same as the input box on the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]] page: type the name and press "create this article". Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 19:02, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
:Fine by me. I'll never use it, of course, but it would make life easier (and more obvious) for other contributors. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 03:12, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
: Update: This'll be implemented in a few days. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 15:18, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

== Additional changes ==

Since we've changed the nomenclature a bit around here, we're going to be changing the names of a few of our locales as well to mirror this.

* The '''[[BW:AN|Administrators' noticeboard]]''' will be changed into the '''Chiefs' noticeboard'''.
* The '''[[BW:WQ|Wikipedians' Quorum]]''' will be changed into the '''Galactipedians' Quorum'''.

For backwards compatibility, we'll be keeping the original names and shortcuts as redirects.

As for the [[BW:REF|reference desk]], I'm thinking we should just merge the content into the appropriate guidelines and policies and get rid of it, since it's hardly used. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 15:18, 28 September 2007 (CDT)
:Isn't that supposed to be Galactipedians' rather than Galacti''ca''pedians'? As for the plan itself, it's fine by me. I've never seen any activity at the reference desk since I came here, but it sounds like a place to ask questions. Isn't that already covered at the noticeboard and the Quorum? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:32, 28 September 2007 (CDT)
:: Right. :P And the reference desk is a holdover from my experiment in trying to get some WP stuff over here. There's also those FAQ lists which I think can be merged into the project namespace as well. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 15:40, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

User talk:Shane

2009-11-02T16:59:39Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Shane/Archive12.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|archiveheader = {{archive-message|newarchive=%(counter)d}}
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:Shane/Archive%(counter)d
}}
<div align="center">
{| width="100%" class="messagebox"
! Message to all
|-
| ''Please note: This user has a '''photographic''' memory. Anything this user sees is quickly memorized.''
|}
{{ArchiveTOC}}
</div>
__TOC__

== Request ==

Hello.

I come to you because I need your help. I started to update the french part of the wiki, to translate various pages from the english one, to import templates the french wiki didn't use yet etc etc. I noticed you were looking for somebody to manage the french wiki. I do not exactly know what it'd be about, but let's say I'm quite interested in this.

The reason of my message is simple. I updated the Episode List (not the template, only the wikipage) and had to do some modifications, involving accents, missing or useless capital letters, and special letters. I think i'm done, however these modifications broke several links to episode pages.

I know it is possible to hide them on screen, but that would not be quite clean, that's why I tried to rename the pages who needed it... unsuccessfully, since I'm not allowed to do it. Could you please grant me the correct permissions, so that I could rename the pages with a correct typography ? Afterwoods, when there is no more broken links on the "episode list" wiki page, I shall update de "episode list" template page, and the episode infoboxes.

Thank you.

[[User:Alvine|Alvine]]

User talk:Shane/Archive12

2009-11-02T16:59:24Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 7 thread(s) from User talk:Shane.

{{archive-message|newarchive=12}}

== Protecting redirects ==

I assume [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=protect&page=Template:Talkarchive}} this] was a mistake, and that you intended to protect the target rather than the redirect itself? If not, please restore. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 13:17, 15 January 2008 (CST)
== Interwiki transcluding stuff ==

Just so you know: I tested, and #ifexist: doesn't work with interwiki transclusions. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (CST)
:That I knew... but I am working to get it to work. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (CST)
== Hi ==

Thanks for the shoutout over at Wiki Frakr ... been extremely busy in real-life, but managed to catch the Season 4 premiere and felt like fooling around. Hope all is well with you and yours (and the same to any other Galactipedian who may read this)! Regards - [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 05:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

== Caprica characters ==

Why the delete tag? We have articles for characters from upcoming BSG episodes, like [[Emily Kowalski]] and [[Reza Chronides]], so I don't see why we can't have articles for Caprica ones as well. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 12:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

== Forum... ==

Answering to your question: yes, I did register, but still haven't received the mail with a confirmation code. -- [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
== HAPPY BIRTHDAY ==

May your day be filled with 3's, 6's, 8's, and a Tori. -- [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
:Happy birthday! Just don't let Tory pluck your hair... :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
::You mean smack me :P [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
== Reminder for Shane... ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
== Vote bot ==

Are you actively developing the [[Battlestar Wiki:Bots#Bots Under Review|vote bot]]? If not, I'd like to write it ;) --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:neg. Go for it. I have wikipedia version, but havn't really looked at it in a while. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::OK, I've finished it and it's running fine on my wiki. It does require MW 1.13, though. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::That could be a problem. :D Gotta link? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:::To what, the bot or 1.13? Currently, 1.13 hasn't been released yet, there's only 1.13alpha that you can download from SVN. I'll upload the bot code later, after I've documented it. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:::No no. :p To your wiki to where you tested it. :D [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I have it running on localhost, so I can't really show you. Maybe you could set up the Hangar Bay again (it's still out) and have it run 1.13alpha? I'll be happy to do the SVN checkout if you feel awkward about that. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::domain back up an working. You should be able to access the hb folder with your access. I think the LocalSettings.php file that is on there now has the current username/password you will need for updating to 1.13. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. However, I don't have write access to /home/bsgwiki/bots/ either, so I can't add VoteBot there. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Do'h! :P Will add. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, more trouble. The bot is up there and I can run it from my machine, but since I guess we'll wanna run it on apollo as a cron job, I'll need you to work around some stupid PHP bug and add the following lines to /etc/hosts:
<pre>
74.53.78.34 hb.battlestarwiki.org
74.53.78.34 en.battlestarwiki.org
</pre>
etc. for every subdomain we want VoteBot to run on. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:Werid. Let me check it out before I do anything with the hosts files. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:Gota ya. Adding to our hosts file. HB and EN for now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:Double werid. I added to our hosts file those lines, and still no go on the command execution. Try to remove the port. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:I added the 775 flags to the file so we cna work on it. Not the /etc/hosts file. Gtalk ? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:Got it working. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
<pre>
[root@apollo VoteBot]# php VoteBot.php --run --config VoteBot.config.hb.php
VoteBot 0.1
Logging in as VoteBot... http://hb.battlestarwiki.org/w/api.php
Error: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>404 Not Found</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Not Found</h1>
The requested URL /w/api.php was not found on this server.
<hr>
<address>Apache/2.2.4 (Unix) Server at hb.battlestarwiki.org Port 80</address>
</body></html>

[root@apollo VoteBot]#
</pre> [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, a typo must've happened somewhere. The last octet should be 35, not 34. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::?? What? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I mean the IP address in the /etc/hosts file for hb.battlestarwiki.org (and en for that matter) should end in .35, not .34. No idea why, but try to run <code>ping en.battlestarwiki.org</code> from your machine at home and see what IP it gives you. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Doh! That's right. I gave the wiki URL it's own IP. :) Changed... Why task bot didn't run last night too. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
<pre>
[bsgwiki@apollo VoteBot]$ php VoteBot.php --run --config VoteBot.config.hb.php
VoteBot 0.1
Logging in as VoteBot...
Error: internal_api_error_DBConnectionError: Exception Caught: DB connection error: Access denied for user 'bsgwiki_admin'@'apollo.frakmedia.net' to database 'wikidb' (athena.frakmedia.net)
</pre>
This is because we are using one LocalSettings.php file for all the hosts. :( [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:No, that wasn't it, it was a small modification I made to Snoopy once. I then redownloaded Snoopy and forgot about it. It works now. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's really working now, see [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Bots#VoteBot demo|this]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== Batch-exporting pages ==

Do you know about [[Special:Export]] and [[Special:Import]], which allow you to bunch-copy pages (templates in this case) to another wiki? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:Ha. Yeah. :) I learned about it recently. We might want to consider upgrading to 1.13 alpha here. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Well it breaks ConfirmEdit in some weird way, so we probably wanna upgrade that too (doesn't break at my test wiki, and I also have ConfirmEdit installed). Same goes for all extensions of course. Some time around the airing gap (May 23rd) would probably be best. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== E-mail ==

Can you resend it to pawel.dembowski@gmail.com? I had an old e-mail address in my preferences. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:You should update it. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::I just did. :) [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Sent. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
== Problems in Malay Wiki ==

I cannot edit or save pages in the Malay wiki due to MySQL errors! Can you help fix it? [[User:Starkiller|Starkiller]] 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
:Yep, I see it. Let me work on it. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
:Should be all good to go. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 13:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
== Questions ==

Hi, you welcomed me yesterday - I usually edit [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Sycamore another wiki] with an ongoing discussion of funding and hosting. I was interested in the way your wiki works. You seem to be A.) Independent from a host (i.e. you don't have host that has any say in waht you do, or you host yoursleves completly?) and B.) You have user payed subscription along with advertising - Does this work well? Also [http://galactica.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia has its own battlestar wiki] free of adverts and is free to use - however its mostly abadoned - which seems odd if you have to pay to get an ad free use on this one? I hope you don't mind me pestering:) [[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== French wiki ==

Thanks for your answer! You're right, there's a lot of work to do on the french wiki. The english one is really impressive. Too bad nobody here tried to translate more articles.
Take the helm ? That would be with pleasure. As soon as you give me the right to rename/move pages, I'll try to make it right. That's not a hard work ; more a very very long one :) ; Anyway, I love it.

Thank you for everything.
[[User:Alvine|alvine]] 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Alvine

== Guest stars ==

Hello. Thanks for your note on my talk page. I believe it is in reference to my removal of some actors (i.e. Michael Hogan, Tahmoh Penikett, Kandyse McClure, Michael Trucco, Allessandro Giuliani) from the guest stars section of season 4 episodes. I don't plan to take this any further back (you suggest that I might continue on as far as season 1) as these actors were in fact guest stars in earlier seasons and are correctly listed as such. I have removed them from the season four sections as they became part of the starring cast at the beginning of season 4 and are no longer guest stars. I don't see any need to propose this to the think tank as it is a cut and dry error correction. If you would like to make some kind of proposal regarding these edits please let me know and I'll happily reproduce my rationale there.--[[User:Opark 77|Opark 77]] 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thank you!
I'm currently updating the french wiki templates (translating the english ones). Since I translate the documentation, the code, and the templates' names, there may be some issues involving missing templates, or templates whose name is still in english (and thence not found when they are called)... This shall be fixed soon.
Good news for the interwiki bot. I added the interwiki links by myself into templates pages because it is simpler to use an interwiki link than typing the entire URL everytime I had to go back and forth through each language versions...
Thank you for all. We keep in touch.
[[User:Alvine|alvine]] 11:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Namespaces ==

Hi!

Sorry to bother you again. I'm still modifying many things on the french part of the site, and I need you again... for namespaces problems. With the french localization, the main namespaces were modified to french ones. However, the misc. namespaces (i.e. added with extensions of the wiki software) were not updated to french. I'm trying to have almost all the wiki translated to French, and these english namespaces look weird. Can you help me ? Here is a list of the translations I need:

{| class="messagebox" style="text-align: center"
|+ English namespaces needing translation into French
! < English namespaces > !! < French equivalents >
|-
| Portal || Portail
|-
| Portal talk || Discussion portail
|-
| Sources talk || Discussion sources
|-
| Quotes || Citations
|-
| Quotes talk || Discussion citations
|-
| Podcast talk || Discussion podcast
|}

There is a mediawiki [[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Namespace_manager extension]] designed to manage namespaces.

Thank you for reading me again and again, day after day :) (and ''double thank you + good luck'' if you accept to translate those things).

[[User:Alvine|alvine]] 01:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Alvine

== Permissions issues ==

Thanks for the quick work on the Wiki Frakr permissions issue, I'm seeing the same problem when I try to access [http://www.battlestarpegasus.com Battlestar Pegasus]. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:I havn't restored those databases yet. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== French Battlestar Wiki ==

Hi, I just saw the english version of BSG Wiki and checked out for the presence of a french version. I found it but almost empty (compared to the english one). I work on wiki language and I am also admin of the french version of [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Accueil Stargate Wiki]. I think it's possible for me to improve the french wiki site with translations and/or templates. So, is it possible please for you to give me the admin rights for the french wiki. Thank you very much.--[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
*Hi, Thank you again for granted me admin rights. I just have another request because I think we must be bureaucrate to perform this: can you please rename two NAMESPACE in french?
**''Portal'' → '''Portail'''
**''Quotes'' → '''Citations''' Thanks --[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.

2009-11-02T16:58:38Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 14 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive8, User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive7.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 8
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

== Military Ranks ==

Just a few concluding remarks I don't blame you for what you did, where I in your position I would have done the same thing. The reason I didn't respond to Serenity's first post was because until yesterday I had been unable to figure out how. As far as fear of retribution, I've never really been involved with a wiki before so I wasn't really sure what to expect and was kind of intimidated. I appreciate you're addressing my issues. Not only did it help me understand why things were happening the way they were, but it also made me feel like my input was welcome and that was all I was asking for. I am anxious to see any clarification you can offer in the weeks ahead because I find this a rather fascinating topic.

Thanks again for the clarification. {{unsigned|Grandmaester314}}

== BG S4.1 in Latin America ==

In Latin America, Season Four of Battlestar Galactica airs on Saturdays and Sundays on [http://www.canalspace.tv Space].

== Dynamic Page List ==

Hi, I just checked all feature about BW and I didn't see the Dynamic Page List feature. Do you plan one day to install it because it's very useful?--[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
: Perhaps. I'll talk with [[User:Shane|Shane]] about this. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

=== Examples ===

Here are some examples I made for the Stargate Wiki FR:

* To see minor characters:
** [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:LigneMineurs Automatic generation of a line with five stamps] using DPL with entry of the series, the season, and the first article sorted.
** [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Portail:Personnages_Universe/Mineurs/Saison_Un/Page_1 Automatic generation of minor characters for the first page] with automatic sort by last name
**[http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Portail:Personnages_Universe/Mineurs/Saison_Un Automatic creation of minor character stamps page links] with automatic image update and automatic update of the first and the last character name of this page.
* To see objects:
** [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Ligne Automatic generation of a line]. All you juste have to do is to put the correct category.
** [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Portail:Armes Autogeneration of a page] with the famous lines.
* To resume objects in a bottom navigation bar:
** [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Divers Nav bar] automaticaly updated (put the right category)

All you have to do with this kind or templates is to put the right category and DPL (with a purge) will do the rest. The main purpose of DPL is to avoid editing when the database can do the stuff for you. You don't have to edit an article or a template to update with new article of the same category. --[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

== What about RFA and RFB for French BW ? ==

Hi Joe,

I'm on the verge to edit the policy for the french version of [[BW:RFA|Request for Admninship]] and [[BW:RFB|Request for Bureaucratship]]. I need your help for this two policies.
# Do I just translate the English version with the same vote system than the main site?
# Do I have to do it in another way?
# Is the principle of request the same than the main site?
Thanks for answering.--[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 11:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

: If you have any suggestions as to improve the policies in question, then that would work well. Until the French wiki has more contributors, I don't think the RFA and RFB are really going to work all that well, and so administrators are promoted on a case-by-case basis as determined by you, me, and Shane. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

:: Until I design or translate all the templates needed and the main page, I think there will not be a lot of contributors. The main problem is the lack of French and French-speaking people who speak English fluently. French people are not very confortable with English, so it's very difficult for them to contribute unless they have seen the show and are fans. With your agreement, I will just create one page for RFA and RFB with the statement you said above (Shane, you and me). FYI, all the episodes of the [[Re-Imagined Series]] have been aired in France, and have been released in DVD format (I just saw the Season 4 Part 2 Set yesterday in a supermarket) . --[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

::: Understandable. And, yes, this works for me. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your hard work! It is certainly appreciated! :D -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for encouraging. ;-) -- [[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

== Wiki Store (FR) and iTunes (FR) ==

Hi again,

I can see on the Support section of the sidebar many links to affiliates (like Amazon and iTunes). Can I (or not) create similar links to french Amazon and iTunes store with french official stuff from ''Battlestar Galactica'' Franchise? --[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 18:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

: I'll have to look into it. So don't worry about it for now. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
:: OK. --[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive8

2009-11-02T16:58:18Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 10 thread(s) from User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr..

{{talkarchive}}

== Question Regarding BSG Forum Administration ==

I'm just curious why we have to log into the media section separately, particularly seeing as we have the same login for the main forum and the media page. Please excuse my ignorance.
[[User:Grandmaester314|Grandmaester314]] 13:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

: From a technical standpoint, it is a different website, as are the German, Spanish, and other versions. Therefore, they require that you log into those, although your username and password are all synchronized so that they're all the same across the Wiki network. A bit annoying, but there's nothing we can really do about it, until the MediaWiki developers devise a better system. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

== Font search ==

Hi Joe.
Do you know what type of Font is used here:
http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/4/4a/Bscap243.jpg

--[[User:Enabran|Enabran]] 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

: It's a font in the OCR font series... I'll see if I can get some time later to find the specific font. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

:: Great :-) Thank you. If you need, I have made an "straightened" version of the recon-pic... --[[User:Enabran|Enabran]] 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, I have the original files from the art department.... Which may be released into the public eventually. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Hi Joe. Have you find out the right font? --[[User:Enabran|Enabran]] 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::The font is called [http://www.myfonts.com/PurchaseOptions?id[]=137952 OCR-A EF]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::Thank you very much :-)

== Rank graphics ==

Fixed the graphics for warrant officer and lieutenant colonel. *Now* they match the auction photos, eh? :)-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 01:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Welcome Back! ==

Your exploits of late are legendary, sir. I can only guess how abso-frakkin'-lutely awesome it was to attend the Ultimate Frak Party. You'll need to document the highlights, especially if you've had the opportunity to tell us all how popular the wiki is among the BSG cognoscenti. I would guess, fairly so. And if RDM commented, well, that's fun enough for me, too. :) The auction was hard work, to be sure, but I'm sure it was the time of your life. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
:Bleh. I am still waiting for a podcast to mention us. :( [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 00:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
::Me, too. I'm OK for a little fortune and glory. Maybe we need to send Ron some scotch... --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 01:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I am in for that.. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 03:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

== neeed help plez ==

the admin --[[User:Philyboy|P sutherland]] is harrassing me and threattening to block me if i dont do exactley what he wants help me pease [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Starbuck%3Dfofa_king_cool]

he should be bocked from f this sit
he sarted to tell me to screw of and stuff and so did the user Einheitskanzler he should be bloocked 2
he called me a loser

--[[User:Starbuck=fofa king cool|Starbuck=fofa king cool]] 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

: There is no such user as Einheitskanzler, you modified the welcome message that Philyboy sent you earlier and edited to appear as an attack. Given your undue disruption of the Wiki and your apparent disregard for our [[BW:CITE|citation]] and [[BW:CIVIL|civility]] policies, I have [[BW:BLOCK|blocked]] you from editing for a period of one month effective 10 July 2009. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== First effort, then failure ==

I'd like to first thank you for providing me with my small fraction of godlike abilities on here. Although I can't help but suspect that I received them via a good deal of constant pestering on several articles, but I digress. Now, I tried to exercise my power for the first time by properly moving the Alessandra Torresani page, but I'll be damned if I didn't get an error message. So, to keep you or any of the others Powers That Be from having to do my work for me, and most importantly, keep my feeling of importance in check, is there an alternative action I perform? I was thinking about taking the article title as is and the correct one and doing a switcheroo with the contents, which would leave a good deal of subsequent work with the redirects and whatnot. Or is there something more simple I can pull off? --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 10:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
: Ok, I've gone a

head and moved the article. Could you tell me what the error message you received said? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::To the best of recollection, it was something along the lines of the name already being in use. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 14:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

== Original Cylon Hybrid Concept Sketches ==

http://www.auctionnetwork.com/UpcomingItem.asp?EventId=17658&ShowId=321&SortBy=-Past

[http://naveenve.cachefly.net/bsg/065.jpg Image.]

Should this be included in the Cylon Hybrid article? --[[User:DrBat|DrBat]] 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

: Sure it should! How would you include this content in the Cylon Hybrid article? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::Maybe something like [[Hybrid#Notes|this]]? --[[User:DrBat|DrBat]] 23:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::: That works. Also, it should be sourced as to where the image / information came from. A link to the specific lot/page where this information came from via the [http://archive.battlestarprops.com Battlestar Props archive] would work nicely. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

== Blue Prints ==

The blue Prints for the Olympic Carrier are from the BSG RPG Core Rule Book. Also could you please not delete them or any other ones I have put up. Could we just talk about it.

Thanks Phil --[[User:Philyboy|P sutherland]] 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

: I only removed them from the article, they weren't deleted physically from the Media Repository. ;-)

: Also, when uploading files, you want to note the source of the files. When I reviewed [[:File:Olympic Carrier Blue Prints.png|these blue prints of ''Olympic Carrier,'']] I did not see any source information on the file's description page. Hence my question. Further, the core book isn't canon, but as it is licensed, I have no problem including these links on Battlestar Wiki, as so long as their non-canon status is clearly noted. (As I've said before, if I recall correctly.) Cheers. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

== Just dropping in... ==

Hey Joe, long time no see! Wow; can't believe it's been'' over a year ''since I last visited. How time flies! Anyway, just wanted to toss you a "hi, how ya doing, hope you're great!" Awesome work you guys have done with this beast!! Take care bud. -- [[User:Sasoriza|Sasoriza]] 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

== French Battlestar Wiki ==

Hi, I just saw the english version of BSG Wiki and checked out for the presence of a french version. I found it but almost empty (compared to the english one). I work on wiki language and I am also admin of the french version of [http://fr.stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Accueil Stargate Wiki]. I think it's possible for me to improve the french wiki site with translations and/or templates. So, is it possible please for you to give me the admin rights for the french wiki. Thank you very much. I put already this message to [[User:Shane|Shane]] and wait for the answer--[[User:LIMAFOX76|LIMAFOX76]] 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
: Shane'll set you up with everything. I'll get with him later on today or in the next few days when he's not working. Glad to have you around! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive7

2009-11-02T16:58:15Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 4 thread(s) from User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.. (ARCHIVE FULL)

{{archive-message}}

== RSS issues ==

Over at [[User:Steelviper/Lillian|Lillian's page]], I'm wondering if I haven't encountered some limitation of the RSS feed reader. The images that are displaying aren't the most recent, despite the fact that the [http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/steelviper/albumid/5090150042101485633?kind=photo&alt=rss&authkey=_RsAtgI0o_o&hl=en_US rss feed] appears updated. I tried the whole edit->save thing to force a refresh, but no dice. I just can't tell if this is some bug or if I'm just being dumb. This is obviously very low priority. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:48, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
: Yes, I see it. I am having issues with the RSS extension myself. Also, I'm trying to get it working on EWiki, so we can include VisitEureka.net's RSS newsfeed. But I'm running into problems. I'm looking into troubleshooting the problem and finding a different RSS extension. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 15:11, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
::Maybe [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFeed_-_RSS_Feed_Aggregator this]? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:19, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
== Sanity.com Removal ==

I have removed sanity.com.au sources from region 4 dvds, as i thought we could standardize our sources for merchandise. as with the region 2 dvd, you standardize on playback and amazon, so i thought that all of the sources tha"we have had" were from EzyDVD.com.au as is australias no. 1 dvd outlet, as stated on their site and it is reputable enough.--[[User:Lgamser|Lgamser]] 21:18, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
: Fair enough. Thanks! ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 21:27, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
== Happy Birthday, [[Old Man]] ==

Happy birthday! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:47, 9 December 2007 (CST)
:Ditto. The squeegee is taking a break today and has been replaced by [[Ambrosia]]. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:52, 9 December 2007 (CST)
Thank you guys! I'm taking the day "off". I like the picture in the header. LOL :P -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 16:05, 9 December 2007 (CST)
::Happy Birthday, Joe, and many returns. I hope all is well with you and yours. Best regards - [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 18:32, 9 December 2007 (CST)
:::Okay, ''babyface'', when you're old enough to have a ''beard'', you'll officially get the "Old Man" title! :) Happy birthday! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:35, 9 December 2007 (CST)
::::ROFL! Thanks for the birthday wishes! LOL -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 21:54, 9 December 2007 (CST)
== Inviere translation ==

Checked my DVD again...while the subtitle says "resurrection", it sounds very strongly like Kendra is saying "insurrection", and I'm led to believe the subtitle is a mistake (which has been known to happen before). {{unsigned|Angreifer}}
: It's the Aussie accent that throws it off to the untrained ear, but she says "resurrection". I'll also check to see what RDM and Michael Taylor have to say about it in the commentary track. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 22:04, 16 December 2007 (CST)

== Membership ==

Paypal ref: Receipt ID: 9X1915429F322013X :) --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:32, 20 December 2007 (CST)
: Done. :P Thank you! :D -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 09:02, 20 December 2007 (CST)
== My account ==

Hey this is Centurion just to let you know that the accounts "centurian" and "chicken" were mistakes and errors and that "Centurion" is my desired account.

P.s. Sorry if this is in the wrong area. {{unsigned|Centurion}} 13:12, 21 January 2008 (CST)
:Copy that. I can also make the changes. Centurion will become the only active account. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (CST)
== Purgetab extension ==

I made some modifications to the Purgetab code (not changing its functionality, just cleaning up the code) and put it in [http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/purgetab/ MediaWiki's SVN repository]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 05:38, 30 January 2008 (CST)
:You forgot ?> at the end of the file. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:27, 30 January 2008 (CST)
::I didn't forget it, I left it out intentionally. When a ?> appears at the end of a file, followed by more than one newline, that breaks stuff, and it'll be hell figuring out which file is guilty. That's why all files in the MediaWiki source "miss" their ?> tag. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:26, 30 January 2008 (CST)
:Thanks Catrope! :D -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:15, 30 January 2008 (CST)
== Block ==

I blocked that guy over at the German Wiki. He brought up the issue again, so it's for 1 month. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (CST)
: That's fine. That guy is clearly desperate for a link to his site from us and would go to any lengths to get it... *sigh* -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 19:02, 5 February 2008 (CST)
== Anti-Gtalk? ==

:) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (CST)
== Username ==

Thanks for changing my username... Just one last issue and I'll be all set: I need my username changed on the Media Wiki portion of the site (Sgalovan to "Galjamspe"). I posted on the noticeboard there, but I don't think it is checked often.

Thanks again.

--[[User:Galjamspe|Galjamspe]] 22:10, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

: Glad to hear that everything is working for you! I'll get right on the MW name change as well. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:11, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
== Aspect ratio frakup fixed ==

I did a batch job on the pictures and re-uploaded them. Looks better now and I should have seen that before. Unfortunately, I didn't have the original bmps anymore, so the picture quality suffered a little bit. But in most cases, I don't think you can tell without a direct comparison. Better than from an AVI source in any case. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
== FA ==

I was about to swap out the FA, but noticed that apparently I don't have to wear that hat. Thought we could go ahead with of of the other two picked out on the debate page. --01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
== Hey ==

Hey thanks again for fixing my username's. I'm really new, so I'll try to keep this short and reserve any questions for something that can be answered by the websites documentation.

Regarding ways to contribute, I really like adding/upgrading the Wiki's images... I think it really helps bring the encyclopedia alive. I'm curious about copyright's, is it okay to Photoshop images to remove logo's, names, etc. to make the image more presentable for the Wiki provided I disclose credit for the source? How far does "fair use" go? When should I ask for permission to use an image? Also, if you see the this [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Daru_Mozu[article]] you may notice I replaced the image for the Daru Mozu (the top right image above ship specs). I saved it the image as .png with a transparent background... I think this looks really nice and would like to do it for all the ships... But I figured I should probably check with someone as they may have different preferences. Another thing I've been doing is fixing broken links on the website using a this [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/532 [Firefox extension]] is this a valid effort? Or is there some bot or something that checks for this. In summary, I just wanted to check with someone else to make sure I'm making helpful contributions... If there is any projects that need help, I'm all good for that too, maybe something close to the stuff I've just talked about? Thanks a lot. --[[User:Galjamspe|Galjamspe]] 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
:The link checker could have double problems. Articles not created come up as bad links. URL that goto sites might the only use. If you have access tot he Zioc images -- go for it. Upload new versions and replace them. If there officially from Zioc, and the source is from Zoic, go for it. The removing text and logo is a problem if it comes from a TV source because it then becomes a problem.. how did you get it? Where did this image come from? etc. Text is also there for a reason.. I am guessing to tell a plot line to keep us imformed. Joe will explain more, but that is my take on it. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
: The issue with saving images as PNGs is that certain browsers *cough* IE *cough* have problems rendering PNGs properly. As for "fair use", the issue is that it isn't a carte blanche thing, which is why we don't have episode galleries (which are technically illegal) and we've been careful in what pictures we add. However, if you do have access to Zoic pictures, then by all means add them. We'll take those over most screenshots any day of the week... However, it's best to keep the Zoic logos intact on them, just to cover our asses, as it were. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
:: The image I uploaded of the Daru Mozu came up fine in IE7... I do know from past experiences that IE6 does have the problems you mentioned. I don't know how many people are still on IE6, I know I waited a little while before I updated just because when the new browser came out it didn't quite have full compatibility with some sites. Hopefully were talking about the same issue here... If there is something wrong on IE7 then do tell. As long as most current browsers support it, I think it still might be worth considering, completely up to everyone else though... I for sure understand the need to support all visitors to the site (no matter what browser they may be using). Also, should I keep the image as high-res as possible (original dimensions) so long as the resolution isn't too crazy? I for one really like to be able to zoom up and see detail on posted images. Back to the Photoshoping of images, for example there is a great image off of [http://www.leestringer.com/Images/Print/Galactica_Fleet_11x17_150dpi_v003.jpg Leestringer.com] that i'd like to replace as the main image for this [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/The_Fleet_(RDM)[article]]. But I'm not sure about including the text at the bottom of the image. Thanks again for the help. --[[User:Galjamspe|Galjamspe]] 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
:::There is a small image tutorial [[Battlestar Wiki:Tutorial (Images)|here]]. Basically it's <nowiki>[[Image:blah.jpg|thumb|(left/right)|caption]]</nowiki>. High-res pictures are fine, but if they're like 5000*3000 it might be better to upload two versions. As for photoshops. That one is still ok, but I think that they should resemble the tv images as closely as possible, when used main image. A lot of those CGI renders look pretty artificial, detail notwithstanding. Alright as additional image, but not so as main image. Just in my opinion. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
== Removal of item ==

FYI, I removed that because I thought it wasn't really interesting. I think the only place that really had that title was GoBetweenInc. Maybe some others copied it too. But never mind. This is no big deal. So let's keep it :) -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
: That's fine. I wouldn't have given it any thought, but Brad did correct it. That being the case, it's worth noting. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Marilyn Norry ==

Is Marilyn Norry credited in the actual episode credits? She was initially credited for this episode in IMDb, but was since removed there. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
: Yes, she's credited in the end credits, which is where I snagged the corrected name. Also, for the record, I wouldn't rely on IMDb for sourcing... It's pretty bad, particularly when episodes haven't aired yet. It's not so bad when the episode has aired and people have had time to add corrections to the filmographies, but... it's still kinda like playing Russian roulette. By the way, sourcing IMDb is actually against our [[BW:CJ|citation guidelines]]... the only reason I went ahead and referenced it in those early articles was because people were actually searching us for those terms, and I had a desire to tell people "hey, this info comes from IMDb, but it isn't the most reliable". (As you can see from the footnotes.) ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::Any idea who Chronides is? I suspect she might actually be one of the Quorum delegates from "The Ties...". [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::That might be the case. Or even a member of the press... We have a picture of her though, and we might be able to catch her upon review of the episode. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I think I found her: [[:Image:4x03 Reza Chronides.jpg]]. She's one of the Quorum delegates. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
== Re: talk page ==

Hey Joe, I'm confused by the placement of a "deletion discussion" tag on [[Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner]]. If that's the next aired episode, why is it up for deletion, and new comments discouraged (in the tag)? Was that tag placed there by mistake, maybe? [[User:Sasoriza|Sasoriza]] 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
: The talk page was originally the talk page for "Into the West", until it was moved to "Talk:Guess What's..." However, the tag still remained, despite the fact that it should have been removed. Sorry for the confusion. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
== Look @ Recent Changes with Show Bot On ==

I got [[User:TaskBot]] working again. On the media wiki, the tag bot is working. I didn't want to check all 3k images, but it checks the last 100 each 24 hours. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
: Sweet! :D -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:: That's 100 uploaded :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::: We should really have the bot slugging through all 3k+ files to ensure they are properly tagged. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: It would for sure be a one time check because I have to set it to 3k previous uploads. Then put it back at the last 100 or so. I would remove the timer so it doesn't take forever. LOL! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: System crashes when I try to check 2000+ with "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 20971520 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 1433601 bytes) in /home/bsgwiki/w/includes/OutputPage.php on line 729". So... that's the problem. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: Bah... humduck. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::"Nevermind. I found the offset area. So I can start "later in". Some of the images we have on the media wiki were imported from EN if you remember, so that upload RC is not there. So at least it will check all the recent stuff except like 611 files. We had uploaded excatly 3002 files since we made media wiki. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
== Uploading images as transparent .PNG's ==

Real quick, I never received an answer to my question regarding the transparent PNG's... I know your original answer was that Internet Explorer 6 has problems displaying them properly, a fact I also know to be true, but I have tested the graphic I uploaded for the [[Daru Mozu|Daru Mozu]] in several popular browsers: Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Opera and Camino. All of these browsers display the graphic just fine. I think the large majority of the BSG Wiki's target crowd would be on such browsers as well. Unfortunately, as of April 08 28.9% of internet users are still browsing via IE6 according to this [http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp source]. This is however a large reduction of IE6 users from early 06 where IE6 accounted for approx 60% of all internet browsing. Personally, I think it's safe to say that the users of this site are part of the 70% of internet users who have swapped IE6 for a better browser. Besides, people with IE6 can still view the image itself, just not the transparent background... Which is essentially the same look on the website right now anyways: the image with a solid background (in many cases at least). At worst, this transition would mean a considerable aesthetic increase for people using modern browsers and a slight decrease in aesthetics for people using older browsers (in most cases at least). However, I don't think anyone will be hurt by the .PNG's because everyone is using a modern browser. I won't make mention of this topic anymore if the same answer still stands, although I do think it deserves additional consideration given how sweet the [[Daru Mozu|Daru Mozu]] graphic looks!

Thanks! --[[User:Galjamspe|Galjamspe]] 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

: My only main objections to going PNG:
# Programs that save to the PNG format are notorious for loading up PNGs with worthless data that increases the file size, thus increasing bandwidth and site download times; this can be avoided using certain programs, or tweaking certain settings, but if you're of the "click, click, click" mentality then this goes completely out the window. (In particular when we get slammed during first run episodes.) It is simply easier for us to use JPGs for all of our images due to the file size and bandwidth issues.
# Secondly, IE 7 [http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img-ie7w32.html still does ''not''] have complete and full support of the PNG format; like everything else Microsoft produces, it is... incompetently produced, for want of mature terminology. Checking our recent statistics via our web server, I see that 45% of our audience still uses IE: 13% use IE6, 32% use IE7.
: Regardless to say, because of those two reasons, I am wholly against full scale implementation of the PNG format on the wiki. I'll reevaluate this stance when these errors have been rectified, particularly on the IE 7 level. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
== Battlestar Pegasus wiki ==

Hey Joe, you started [http://en.battlestarpegasus.com/wiki/Main_Page that project] too, didn't you? Surprised you don't have it linked on your user page. Also, think we can get SUL enabled there? --[[User:Sasoriza|Sasoriza]] 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
: Yeah! Unfortunately, from what [[User:Shane|Shane]] and [[User:Catrope|Catrope]] tell me, SUL can only work on one domain; i.e. "battlestarwiki.org" logins won't work on "battlestarpegasus.com"... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 04:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:: We are still looking into it. So don't worry! :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 06:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
== [[Humanoid Cylon speculation]] rewrite ==

Dear Mr. Beaudoin:

I did not realise that you had begun (in your words) a massive fucking rewrite to the Humanoid Cylon speculation page when I added another paragraph to the Duala analysis, concerning her ethnicity. It is, of course, still there on the regular Humanoid Cylon speculation page, but not on your reboot in progress.

Good luck on the re-write. That page could certainly use it and, admitedly, I caused some of the mess.

Sincerely,

/s/
David A. Miley
new around here

: David, call me Joe. :) Anyway, I'm undergoing the re-write... obviously, I'm going to bring it up for discussion on the talk page, since I'm sure it's gonna get revised repeatedly. Basically, the page will assume that Three is telling the truth and that the Last Cylon isn't in the Fleet, and is therefore elsewhere. Which means it isn't Dualla, Cottle, an Adama, or really anyone in the Fleet. Also, Ron has basically re-confirmed just recently that none of the people in [[The Last Supper]] picture, so everyone in that is thrown out, including Baltar and Roslin. Anyway, [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot|read the page]], let me know what you think. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe:

Well, that all makes sense. Don't forget to delete the bullet point about Sharon under the esoteric theories at the bottom, now that she has a whole section.

/s/
David A. Miley
== re: Which Richard Thompson? ==

Hi Joe,

I don't think Richard is currently listed on the IMDb. However, he and I were sitting on the set the other day, and he was trying to remember the name his character had been given. He couldn't think of it, so I decided to do a search of the Marines on the wiki, and lo and behold, there he was.

Richard started playing a Marine in season 1, and has continued to do so right up through the finale, which we're filming right now. {{unsigned|Zeppo}}

: Very cool. Nice to know! Thanks! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
== Help me Joe B Kenobi, you're my only hope :D ==

Joe,

Firstly i'd like to congratulate you on a top notch job on Battlestar wiki. It never dissapoints and it looks super slick. stupidly enough, i've left it until very recently to actually register, as opposed to just visiting all the time. I'd like to thank you for taking time to read this also and I hope I have not wasted your time by the end of the post.

Basically, I need you help. I am re-creating the BSG seal that sits nicely above the CiC door. I am making it out of wood and all the pieces you see on it are all individually shaped, sprayed, and then assembled. creating the pieces, eg. the caprican crest in the centre are not hard to make. the proplem is the colours used for the paint. I cannot get an accurate reading from a picture of the real thing and most other pictures have a light shining down on it and distorts the colour.

would you, or any of your colleagues know where I could find out the colour chart? it would be greatly appreciated. I am creating it for use in my own home. something to spruce the place up a bit.

Thanks again for taking time out and once again, I hope I did not waste your time as I realise this might a very unorthodox post.

Sincerely

Nick "Joker" Lawless
Galway
Ireland

: Joker, I've replied to you on the Battlestar Forum, and it's certainly ''not'' a waste of my time. Basically, I can probably snag a color chart from the department crew when I'm in Vancouver for the research and cataloging we're doing for the [http://www.battlestarprops.com Battlestar Galactica Props & Costumes Auction]. I can't tell you when exactly I'll be able to get that information to you, but we do plan on interviewing people from the show for the Battlestar Props website, and we do have access to the crew up there. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Razor script ==

I sent you an e-mail before I saw you say that you preferred being contacted here.

It mentioned in the Helena Cain sources that you read the script for Razor. Where'd you read it? -- [[User:DrBat|DrBat]] 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

: Well, I've already e-mailed you back. :D (I've readded your comments here, since people may have the same question you do... :-) )

: However, for people who may have the same question on their minds... I am the research assistant for PropWorx's Battlestar Galactica auction, and as such I have access to the production materials (scripts, reference photos, art, etc.) for the show to aid in research. I can't make copies of the scripts available online, since the WGA and the production company would have my head, and will never give me permission to do so. Hence my "on this date, Joe read that this character comes from this place..." notes in the sources pages. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Protecting the Ranks Page ==

I read your comment and wanted to ask if you even looked at the reasoning behind my changes. I'm glad to know somebody is here who actually has reliable information because admittedly a lot of what I've got is based on speculation. However as I commented to Serenity, I think it unfair that he constantly reverses all my changes without even looking at them (this isn't the only page I've battled with him over) and I feel like you just did the same thing. If you are going to lock it ok but at least look at the two conflicting versions and decide which parts of each should go up in the interim, because they way it is now, it's simply not fair. I believe some of my changes warrant being up there now such as my removal of ranks for which their is no support at all (Vice Admiral and Senior Chief Petty Officer) and the addition of certain people to the rank lists. I have felt from the time I joined like I couldn't do anything, any changes I made were promptly undone and I felt like if I complained I'd get booted out entirely since he is an administrator, if you want a truely open community everybody has to feel like they can participate and to tell you the truth, I have not felt that way at all. I know you don't want me to take it personally, but if you were in my position, wouldn't you?
: A couple things... I understand where you're coming from. I do see that Serenity contacted you earlier this month via your talk page, explaining his reasons why he reverted your changes when you joined. (You're fear of retribution for offering criticism or complaint is unwarranted, and something you projected upon yourself; simply put, you didn't know either way, but assumed the worst. We can't control that. Fact of the matter is that you didn't respond to him the first time.) That being said, I will ask you this: what would you have done if our roles were reversed?
: As for the issue of reviewing your edits, I did review them. you did make massive changes that were incorrect both factually and aesthetically. There actually is a "senior chief petty officer" rank, for instance, and there is logic behind there being a "vice admiral" rank (or similar, it may be called "senior admiral"), since it's been established that there's a "rear admiral". Further, there was absolutely no need for the "Razor, Part I" and "Razor, Part II" designations you've assigned, since "Razor" is one whole episode. (It has two production numbers for budgetary reasons, since they had to rebuild the sets for "Pegasus" after they'd been struck after Season 3. The production team members I've talked to considers that outing an interesting experience.) Not to mention the capitalization issues that you've added back in—it is bad form to capitalize ranks or titles, unless you're referring to a specific person when doing so, like Commander Adama or Admiral Cain.
: Further, as I noted on Serenity's talk page, I am fully cognizant of the fact that editing the contested article now would be a waste of time and resources for both parties concerned, simply because there is new information available to us that needs to be entered, information that I have access to. Once I get the opportunity to add that data from the reference materials I have, then I'll open it up again, and then both sides can make the determination on whether or not this issue was really worth all the hassle. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== MKI Viper in S4E1 ==

Joe,
It took me several views before I noticed that there was one there. In S4E1: He That Believeth In Me, at about 4:30, look at the Viper behind Tyrol when he yells 'Get that showboat bird in the tubes!'. You can see that it's the older style by the square wing, instead of the more triangular ones on the newer versions. I only noticed it when my computer happened to freeze at that exact moment-I saw it, and thought 'Hey, that's the MKI from the miniseries!'
That's the only other time I've ever seen it, I never shows up in the battle, it just looks like another cool little reference to the original series. {{unsigned|Marauder Pilot}}

:I don't see it. If you mean the one in the foreground, that's clearly a Mark II engine-wise. You can't even the see´forward edge of the wing because some deckhands are standing in front of it. The one in the background is a Mark II as well. And then he walks by a Mark VII on the right. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Referencing the available production materials (script and photos), as well as footage from the screen, it's a Mark II. Not a Mark I. They don't have a standing Mark I Viper anyway, just Mark IIs and Mark VIIs. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, that's what I thought. Would have surprised me. It might ''theoretically'' be one of the planes in the CGI set extension, but that's somewhat unlikely as well. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Fleet (TRS)/Archive 1

2009-11-02T16:56:25Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Talk:The Fleet (RDM)/Archive1.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 60K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:The Fleet (RDM)/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

== Comment ==

I think we should add Galactica, and Pegaus in the fleet's listings.--[[User:QX100|QX100]] 7:59, 1 October 2005 (EST)

::Hey, someone check out my mnew info on my user page.--[[User:CoreyDanian|Corey Danian]] 10.56, 26 March 2008 (aest)

== Astral Queen ==

:I thought the [[Astral Queen]], from the New series, had 900 prisoners. Does anyone have a mini-series transcript? That's where the ship is first mentioned. -- [[User:Neochiiz3000|Neochiiz3000]] 12:07, 11 July 2005 (EST)

: Billy Keikeya - "Uh, the captain of the Astral Queen wants to you to know he's got nearly 500 convicted criminals under heavy guard in his cargo hold. They were being transported to a penal station when the attack happened." -- [[User:yenguyen|YeNguyen]] 13:09, 11 July 2005 (EST)

:I thought so... I was only off by about 400. Better than a full thousand, though. -- [[User:Neochiiz3000|Neochiiz3000]] 13:39, 11 July 2005 (EST)

:: It's 1,500 -- though in the mini-series Billy said 500. (Again, his trademark "crappy math" at work.) See: [[Bastille Day#Notes]]. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 13:40, 11 July 2005 (EDT)

:I wouldn't want BIlly as my secretary. I know that much :P -- [[User:yenguyen|YeNguyen]] 14:18, 11 July 2005 (EST)

== Celestra in New BSG ==

:Isn't there a Celestra in the new series, too? I thought I had read that somewhere (or maybe it was that one of the new ships was based on the Celestra design). [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 13:57, 11 July 2005 (EDT)

:: It's listed on the Sci Fi Channel's BSG page. Though as to whether or not it is canon has yet to be determined. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:17, 11 July 2005 (EDT)

:::If you get a close up of the ''Celestra'' in "Water" and "Colonial Day", you see the name of the ship written on the side. Same with the ''Striker''.--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]]

== Size of the Fleet ==

"Saul Tigh's assertion in 'The Farm' that the twenty four ships which departed with the Laura Roslin faction during her insurrection represented 'almost a third of the fleet' imply that the number of ships in the Fleet is approximately in the mid-70's."

Could it be that Tigh was referring to the ''population'' of the fleet instead of the number of ships? Passenger and crew numbers vary considerably from ship to ship, but Tigh may have done more accurate math on the ones that had jumped earlier, then did a quick--but dependable--estimate when the last batch jumped.

:No, because he wasn't looking at a readout of WHICH ships had left; all he heard was "24 ships have left" with no names, so he couldn't be basing it on population, it had to be ship number; of course the problem presented is what if he was rounding ''down''? --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 21:47, 30 October 2005 (EST)

::Yeah, and then there's context, too--if somebody's looking at/listening to information about ships, they would probably frame their immediate response to the information in terms of ships, too. Rounding down would be the only way for the writers to explain their way out of the inconsistency. That, or the Colonel's been taking math lessons from Billy. . . . --[[User:BlueResistance|BlueResistance]] 22:07, 30 October 2005 (EST)

:::From The Farm, we know that 24 ships was "almost a third of the fleet" - Tigh has no rason to underexagerate this. From Home, Part I, we know that the number of people in those 24 ships was actually a little over a third of the fleet's population. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:39, 31 October 2005 (EST)

Here's something to think about in regards to the size of the fleet and how it increased from 40 to over 70 since the mini-series. In the mini-series, Roslin sent Boomer out with her Raptor to gather other ships which ended up with a ragtag fleet of 40 or so FTL-capabale ships and some other ships that were future space debris when they had to be left behind. Adama sent out a Fleet Wide Communication for all capable ships to jump to the Ragnar Station and roundevous with the Galactica. It's possible that the 30 or so extra ships that the fleet ended up with were other craft that recieved the communication and headed to Ragnar without hooking up with Rolsin's group. Does anyone else agree with this assessment? I think it's valid considering the chaning size of the fleet and would justify the presence of more than one refinery ship (one arrived with Roslin's group and others showed up in response to Adama's message). --[[User:Ltcrashdown|Ltcrashdown]] 20:16, 1 January 2006 (EST)

: I think you may be losing sight of what's, well, possible. Several things established in the Mini were changed for the series. When they were making the Mini, they weren't sure that there was going to be a series, so they didn't exactly plan on it. So those thirty ships came out of the script room. However, since then, we can probably better assume that the fleet size will be more consistant and, thus, worth talking about in terms of in-the-show reasons. --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:39, 1 January 2006 (EST)

::It's an admirable attempt at a [[Wikipedia:no-Prize|no-prize]], but has some problems of its own - Adama's order only went out to military units: "Send a message to all the colonial military units. Use priority channel one. Message begins: "Am taking command of fleet." Apollo then reads the message in full from Colonial One: "To all colonial units, am taking command of fleet. All units ordered to rendezvous at Ragnar anchorage for regroup and counterattack. Acknowledge by same encryption protocol, Adama."

::So I think I have to agree with Day - unless each of the 30 ships happened to have a colonial military officer with military ciphers on board, I don't see how they could have found Galactica at Ragnar. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:49, 1 January 2006 (EST)

:::Well, it was worth a try. I thought I remembered the message only being for military ships, but if you consider that Dee or Gaeta are Cylons, then they may have 'accidentally' sent the message to non-military ships to increase the number of potential Cylon sleeper agents. Just a thought. I figured the message from Adama was just about the only way for more ships to arrive. --[[User:Ltcrashdown|Ltcrashdown]] 21:27, 1 January 2006 (EST)

::::I think what Tigh said in "The Farm" should be ignored because Dualla said in "33" that fifty three ships had jumped with ''Colonial One'' and nine other ships still had trouble, two ships that could be heard saying they were jumping in the background radio calls and ''Galactica'', giving us 66 ships. In "You Can't Go Home Again", Tigh says that there are 60-odd ships, meaning that there was about 65 ships. With the addtion of the ''Pegasus'', the number goes back to 66. On the vote tally boards, the one on ''Colonial One'' had 50 ships and ''Galactica'' had 54 names, plus the ones not included but mentioned in episodes bring it to 66 all up. ''Cloud 9'' and three other ships destroyed brought the number to 63 and two ships could've been taken apart to make the Cylon buildings on New Caprica (''Galactica'' and ''Pegasus'' had eighteen civilians ships, including a mining ship, the Space Park luxury liner, ''Celestra'', five-engined vessel, the six tubed vessel, the cargo transport seen orbitting near ''Cloud 9'' in [[Colonial Day]] and the wedge-shaped vessel). With the destruction of ''Pegasus'' and the disappearance of ''Adriatic'' and ''Carina'' the number could be anywhere between 58 and 61 ships.--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]]

:::::I think the number would actually be about 40 to 50 ships as of "[[The Passage]]" as each jump had at least 8 to about 10 ships in all five jumps.--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]] 16.19 Saturday 10 November 2007

== Botanical Cruiser ==

Kahran writes: ''(While the original was destroyed in the Mini-Series, various background shots have placed an FTL-equiped Botanical Cruiser in the fleet.)''

Are you sure that's not Cloud 9? They have similar external features. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:02, 27 November 2005 (EST)

::I'm positive it's the Botanical Cruiser. They've re-used the FTL jump shot from the Mini Series at least once during season two. Durring "[[Scattered]]" when the fleet is making its emergencey jump there's a shot of various ships jumping away and right in the dead centre of the shot is the Botanical Cruiser from the Mini-Series. [[User:Kahran|Kahran]] 20:32, 1 January 2006 (EST)

I noticed it too. Curious, either a mistake (like the B5 shot of the Agamenon destroying civilian transports) or it could be that it is a simalar fhip that IS equiped with FTL. It's possible that drives are used on ship as needed. If a ship is NOT intended to travel over interstallar distances, then it wouldn't need a FTL drive. FTL drives are probably costly to make, maitain, or operate -- not to mention the fuel/energy requirments. If a ship was only ment to operate in-system, an FTL drive might not have been cost effective. The inclusion of an ARGO ship is a tip of the hat to ship's inclusion in the opriginal series. In the original, stock footage of the ship from the movie SILENT RUNNING was used. In this new show, an original designed vessel was created -- probably because people knew about the stck footage use -- [[User:Centuri|Centuri]] 06:29, 8 January 2006 (EST)

:The article for the [[Botanical Cruiser]] notes the origin. Yes, it was a recreation of the [[Agro Ship]] as an homage to the ships used in TOS, which were the redressed models used in ''Silent Running.''. That the Botanical Cruiser may seem to appear in the fleet suggests (from a story POV) that there is a FTL-capable ship of similar appearance that joined the Fleet. I think it's a gaffe--the visual effects people used stock footage or models and didn't think. Also, understand that FTL in the RDM series is apparent travel, not true "warp drive"-like flight. See the [[FTL]] article for a good synopsis. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:32, 8 January 2006 (EST)

== FTL ==

Acording to the article, in the original show "With the exception of Galactica, the ships were not capable of lightspeed. " I would like to know where this particular tidbit came from. As I remember some ships originallly were sub-light, but they were reto-fitted to be FTL capable. The problem was that none of them were capable of HIGH FTL speeds. Remember the specs of the Galactica show that she was capable of a flank speed of 10C. Remember, they were croosing not just interstellar space, but intergalactic space. If they were only in the Greater Magelanic Cloud, it would mean having to cover a distance of 140,000 light-years to get here. At anything other than FTL, the goal would be unatainable. Crossing interstellar distances requires FTL, no ifs, no ands, no buts. -- [[User:Centuri|Centuri]] 06:29, 8 January 2006 (EST)

:In the RDM series, FTL is FTL, it's not a matter of speed, but of distance in terms of the "length" of a wormhole that can be made from place to place. RDM's universe sticks to Einsteinian theories. TOS stories generally were a mismash of "science" that sometimes got in the way of the story. The Fleet probably moves at a good distance on each Jump, but space is really big. Like their TOS counterparts, it will be some time before they find Earth. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:38, 8 January 2006 (EST)

== Oh, Split ==

This article needs splitting and name-spacing, doesn't it? Into "The Fleet (RDM)" and "The Fleet (TOS)"? Is there a good reason not to split it that I don't know about, or... can I do it this evening? I was planning on moving it to "The Fleet (RDM)" and then copy/pasting to the TOS page and then making this one a disambiguation page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 10:30, 10 January 2006 (EST)

:No, go ahead. You might leave a redirect to the RDM article for now - I'll help you go link hunting tonight. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:10, 10 January 2006 (EST)

:This is a happy kind of work that has to be done, now that our TOS pages are coming into their own. I'll look for double redirects and the like after you two pick through. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:56, 10 January 2006 (EST)

::Blech. That's my half. It's all you, spence. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:20, 10 January 2006 (EST)

Talk:The Fleet (RDM)/Archive1

2009-11-02T16:56:09Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 4 thread(s) from Talk:The Fleet (RDM).

{{talkarchive}}

== Alphabetization ==

If nobody objects, I think I'm goign to alphabetize the list of ships here in the next week or so. There's nothing wrong with how it is now, except that it looks a little chaotic.

Also - when do we think it's safe to integrate the "Lay Down Your Burdens" ships (seen only on the voting board) with the rest of the ships? Now? A few months? Begining of S3? I'm interested to hear any opinions. [[User:Brecchie|Brecchie]] 20:43, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:I think it's OK as long as there's reference to them only seen on the voting board in LYBD2. -[[User:StrayCat0|StrayCat0]] 19:12, 6 April 2006 (PST)

== Alphabetization vs. Ship type sorting ==

I think we should revert to sorting these alphabetically, rather than by ship type, because users searching for a ship they hear mentioned might not know what type of ship it is. Alphabetical would be more useful. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:17, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

:Well, I was always looking at it in abject confusion as I tried to sort out which ships originated from scifi.com, and which were their aired equivalents (Celestra vs. Striker, Flattop vs. Virgon Express). It was especially difficult to navigate with all the mentioned-only ships from LDYB2 floating around in and among the more relevant entries. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:37, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

::I am still uncertain. Regardless, much will be sorted out when the Season 2.5 DVD's arrive. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:01, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

== As high as 90 ==

:[[User:Wickedsteve|Wickedsteve]] writes: "[The number of ships in the fleet] may be as high as 90."
Can I please ask for your source? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:33, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

== Possible Fleet Pics ==

[http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(403).htm group], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(414).htm jump], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(570).htm movers], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(571).htm galactica park],
[http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm side fleet].
:Here are some possible shots for this article, including one suggested by Spencerian over at Galactica (RDM)'s discussion page. All obtained from [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/gallery.htm Galacticastation], so we'd need to either upload them as is, or capture them in an alternative format if more quality is needed. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:46, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
::I put up the one fleet pic we have highlighting the enterprise. Perhaps Ford can grab a few decent HD shots --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 14:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
:::Didn't you also wipe out the list of mentioned ships and all the demographics stuff? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:37, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
::::wth?, my pc is cutting off stuff when i go to edit. Seems to just cut off stuff past a certain number of characters. I'll restart. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 15:00, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
:::::Well that was weird? Seems to have fixed it now. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 15:03, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

== Ships seen in "LDYB" ==

With the release of the DVDs, it is easier for us to determine what the names of the ships are. However, with this arises the concern of having microstubs on ships. If it is all right with everyone, I think it might be best to create a "List of Fleet ships (RDM)" for those ships that we've seen on the tally boards on LDYB, and have the names of the ships as redirects to said article. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:00, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
:Sounds good to me. If a ship becomes more important in the future, and article can be done and redirected to it. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 17:28, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
:Doesn't this article already serve that purpose? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:53, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
::True. What I'm trying to see is whether or not the microstubs would be best turned into redirects to a list of ships, of which we know next to nothing about, such as those from LYDB. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:55, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
:::Shouldn't we have some side page for them because their could be other names we missed. [[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]]
:::I think we could simply have all these ships that we don't know anything about redirect to this page. I don't think that a separate List Of Ships page is necessary as it seems to me as redundant. --[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 20:05, 3 October 2006 (AST)
== Ships in the fleet ==

Shouldn't the TR-61482, a cargo transport that looks like Kimba Huta be in the list and Gemenon Traveler picture be changed? {{unsigned|CoreyDanian}}
:What episode was TR-61482 featured in? What's wrong with the picture of the Gemenon Traveler? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:30, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
::The TR-61482 was the transport in the mini-series that the Gemenon Traveler page is using. And with the Gemenon Traveler picture, have you seen the real Gemenon Traveler used in "Flesh and Bone". {{unsigned|CoreyDanian}}
:::Where did this name come from? Was is mentioned in dialogue or in writing? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:41, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
::::It's visible on the publicity render. I don't think that merits it an article. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:46, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
Why not? It is a ship that has been seen with a name. By the way, has someone seen "Flesh and Bone" and checked ''Gemenon Traveller''?--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]]
:Yes, I have. Why do you ask? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:45, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
::Can someone get a picture of the ''Gemenon Traveler'' from Flesh and Bone then?--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]] 10.31 24 October 2006
:::Yeah, I'll get one before I sack out tonight. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 19:52, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

:Hey, I just did alot of editing for this page by updating some information. Can someone also double check "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II" for ''[[Hittes Kan]]'' and ''[[Tarbadeck]]''s spelling cause I think they are actually called ''Hitei Kan'' and ''Tarbadek''. P.S. For a picture of the yellow vessel blown up in the [[Cloud Nine]] explosion, check [[Act of Contrition]], [[Miniseries, Night 2]] (as you see above the [[Botanical Cruiser]]), [[Flesh and Bone]], [[Scattered]] and [[Black Market]]. My computer doesn't have the tech to get screenshots from the DVDs to Computer.--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]] 16.15 Saturday 10 November 2007
::Hey I just checked for you with my Hi-Def and you're right on both counts. Interestingly enough, the ''Tarbadek'' is actually out of alphabetical order on Roslin's board. Using both the vote tally board, and the one on Colonial One, I found some others that need changing. For instance, the ''[[Picon Express]]'' is actually the ''Picon Princess''. There is another ship on Roslin's board that is clearly not the Mutem Wia, but I can't make it out (right column, second down). The ''[[Chiron]]'' is actually the ''Chrion''. I see a completely new one called the ''Azemenarius'' below the ''[[Astral Queen]]'' but because it's so hard to read I need conformation on that before it becomes an article. The ''[[Bretan]]'' looks more to me like the ''Breton''.--[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 23:59, 9 November 2007 (CST)
:::That also fits with [http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1608071055&size=o&context=set-72157602485969223 this] behind the scenes photograph of a clipboard with some of the names. The thing is that "Chiron" fits well with a character from Greek mythology, while "Chrion" doesn't. On the other hand, it's pronounced as "Chrion" in "The Passage", so I'll change that too --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:23, 10 November 2007 (CST)
::::Interesting, the Hyrrokin is actually a figure in Norse mythology. That photo is a wealth of information. Too bad we can't use it for more than reference. Can we at least use the population counts of the ships listed? --[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 14:31, 10 November 2007 (CST)
:::::Hey I still need an admin to move "Hittes Kan" to "Hitei Kan", and "Tarbadeck" to "Tarbadek". Thanks! --[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 17:34, 11 November 2007 (CST)
::::::I've given you move permissions, so you can make those changes. ;-) Just simply hit the "move" tab and follow the wizard. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 18:37, 11 November 2007 (CST)
:::::::Thank you!!! That means a lot. I'll get right on it.--[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 21:34, 11 November 2007 (CST)
:Question, Why is [[Chrion]] placed in her new position on the list if there is no picture? Besides, why do you think Chrion is a passenger liner, we only know that Thera Sita could be a transport-freighter because the shot zoomed in on Apollo's Raptor. P.S. Someone download a picture for [[Thera Sita]].--[[User:CoreyDanian|Corey Danian]] 13.25 25 November 2007
::Well i think what's important is whether or not the ship is seen on screen, not necessarily if we have a picture for it, and in that regard, the ''Chrion'' is a special case. If you watch "[[The Passage]]", in the scene with the ''Thera Sita'', you can barely see the ''Chrion'' just before Kat says that she's "got eyes for the Chrion". It's the part where you can see her Raptor from the outside, and you can hear her talking, there is the rear of a barely visible ship in the haze. You see enough of it to recognize that it's one of those luxury liners. Additionally, when the Raptors are lining up before the jump, one of them appears to be escorting the solid orange luxury liner, meaning that one of them was on the first jump. The visual from the episode where it is verified is too bad to put on the site, and we cannot positively verify that the orange luxury liner we see before the jump is the ''Chrion'' (two of them could very well have gone in), although it's very likely. But yeah we do need a pic for ''Thera Sita''. --[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 23:38, 24 November 2007 (CST)
:::I just watched Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II again and confirmed that ''Azmerak'' is actually ''Azmenarius''. Can someone deleted ''Azmerak'' so we don't confuse anyone?--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]] 14.50 November 28 2007
:::::Hey, I watched [[Maelstrom]] with subtitles and [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] told [[Kara Thrace|Starbuck]] that he was taking [[Hera Agathon|Hera]] to a psychiatrist on the ''Inchon Velle''! So that would confirm that [[Incron Velle]] is the wrong spelling. Can someone change that around so to confirm it was in the fleet as of Season 3.--[[User:CoreyDanian|CoreyDanian]] 2 January 2008 20.53 CST
::::::Done. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 21:06, 2 January 2008 (CST)
== Cleanup idea ==

I think we need to update it to show which ships have been confirmed as been in the fleet as of Season 3. Much Like this; 
''Astral Queen'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''[[Celestra (RDM)|Celestra]]'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Chrion'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Colonial One'' ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Cybele'' (mentioned) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Daru Mozu'' ([[Crossroads, Part I]])
''Demetrius'' ([[Season 4 (2008)]]) 
''Faru Sadin'' (mentioned) ([[The Passage]]) 
''Galactica'' ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Gemini'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Gideon'' (mentioned) ([[The Son Also Rises]]) 
''Greenleaf'' (mentioned) ([[Crossroads, Part I]]) 
''Inchon Velle'' (mentioned) ([[Maelstrom]]) 
''Monarch'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Prometheus'' ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Pyxis'' ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Space Park'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Striker'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Thera Sita'' (by sight) ([[Crossroads, Part II]]) 
''Zephyr'' (mentioned) ([[The Son Also Rises]]) 
A list for those destroyed or missing or evacuated 

''Pegasus'' destroyed in the [[Battle of New Caprica]] ([[Exodus, Part II]]) 
''Cloud Nine'' destroyed over [[New Caprica (RDM)|New Caprica]] ([[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II]]) 
''Olympic Carrier'' destroyed by Vipers ([[33]]) 
''Botanical Cruiser'' destroyed by Cylon Raiders ([[Miniseries]]) 
''Gemenon Liner 1701'' evacuated by ''Colonial One'' ([[Miniseries]]) 

And a list for those unknown {{unsigned|CoreyDanian}}

:I don't think that's necessary. Unless they are specifically mentioned destroyed, they can be assumed to to still exist. Yes, some were lost on New Caprica, but your list is just as incomplete, only in another way. The information just isn't that useful IMO. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 03:11, 9 January 2008 (CST)

:Thinking about this again, maybe the following would be neat. Take a look at [[Razor]] and note the "Razor DVD Only" template. We could have such a thing for the ships. One with "Destroyed" and maybe one with "Confirmed survived" or some such, if anyone else thinks that that information would be worthwhile to have. I'm not sure if it's possible to use colors, but red/orange vs. green might look good here to distinguish the two. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:42, 10 January 2008 (CST)
== Ship Populations ==

By adding up the votes on the tally boards in [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II]], we could get lower estimates on the populations of the ships. Is this a good idea, or would we be inferring too much from too little? (Interestingly, the [[Demetrius]] has a population of at least 530) [http://black-celebration.net/caps/displayimage.php?album=1359&pos=353 screencap] [[User:OTW|OTW]] 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:I'm going to bump this 'cos I think it could be kinda big. Another interesting thing is that the Gemenon Traveller votes [http://black-celebration.net/caps/displayimage.php?album=1359&pos=352 overwhelmingly in favour of Roslin] (presumably for religious reasons) [[User:OTW|OTW]] 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::Funny that ''Galactica'' also has a pretty good majority for Roslin. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think it would be taking the numbers a little too seriously. The prop/art department probably just made stuff up and paid attention that it adds up at the end. But if a later script referenced a ship population, I'm not sure that it would jibe. Although the writers clearly use that list of ships to take names from, we don't know if it includes the population numbers as well. Might be something to ask Bradley, but we can't expect a quick answer there. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::The point is we don't really know how realistic the ''Demetrius'' figure is. The ship might be roomier than what we've seen thus far, and it might also have been overcrowded (the election was before the population fall due to the occupation of New Caprica). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Maybe something to put in the "things that may as well be considered canonical if they haven't been contradicted by the end of the series" bucket? [[User:OTW|OTW]] 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::An idea! See if the votes from Pyxis add up to about 600. Unfortunately I haven't got a screencap with Pyxis' figures on it. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually, that's not such a great idea... seeing as there's been a loss of 5,000 + people between LDYB and "Exodus, Part II" (as we've seen in "Crossroads, Part I"). So the numbers for all these ships will likely be higher on the voting tally boards. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
== "Destroyed" template use ==

Whlle marking the destroyed ships is important, the use of the current template there, {{tl|ShipDestroyed}}, creates an awkward sentence fragment, making it appear that "Destroyed" is part of the ship's name. The "Destroyed" item should have something to set it off. I recommend parentheses at least. Better: Place the "destroyed" marker at the end of the description, or use another symbol (perhaps a cross as used for deceased characters in its master template) instead. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:Look at that the template looks like in [{{fullurl:The Fleet (RDM)|useskin=bsgbook the old skin]. I think that's one of the looks we could go for. While probably unintentional, it works. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 08:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, in the old skin, there was such a difference. When I borrowed the template from the Razor DVD one to use it here, I didn't realize that the other skin doesn't have a visual difference (I used bsgbook then). It's just a simple colored box around the text, which works very nicely. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, ''Shane''...! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
== Time for cleanup ==

I do think we need to convert the list of ships into a table-chart, similar to what we have on [[List of Vipers]]. Frankly, a lot of the articles on the ships we have are merely one liners. For instance, a bulk of the individual articles on the ships simply state "this ship's name was seen on the whiteboard in blahblahblah but hasn't been seen yet", which is extremely repetitive, and would be better served in a table-format. (We had the same problem earlier with the [[List of pilots]] and with every pilot having a one-sentence entry in a separate article, which Serenity was able to rectify several months earlier.) Obviously, the ships of importance or uniqueness would retain their own separate articles. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, that always bugged me a bit. However, many of the ships also contain a note about the origin of the name, even if it's a one-liner otherwise. That would become lost in a merge. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:: Well, a "notes" column would probably address that issue quite nicely. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
::: Or "origin of name". I had the same thought after writing that. For the "mentioned only" table that is. The rest are more important and generally have their own articles. Mentioned only ships that can have an own article include [[Adriatic]], [[Baah Pakal]], [[Freighter 212]], [[Greenleaf]], [[Inchon Velle]], [[Rising Star]], [[Salpica]] and [[Zephyr]]. These are either more prominent and/or mentioned in dialogue, rather than just the voting board. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:::: Ditto. Basically, the prominent ones would have their own section while the rest (mentioned-onlys) would have another. Then I was thinking of a "destroyed" section, similar to what we have for [[List of Vipers]] and [[List of Raptors]], which I just went through. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Bout time, I've been suggesting this since Razor.--[[User:CoreyDanian|Corey "Shadow" Danian]] 1.07, 16 June 2008 (CST)

Ok, I've started the cleanup process. I've organized the seen ships into a sortable table. Just need to work on all those pesky "mentioned only" ships, but that's for later. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:I'll get to that soon. The page looks good, but the "last seen" column is kinda annoying. Before that, the text mentioned prominent appearances and the entry was maybe updated once or twice every season. Now the list appears to be an accounting of every on-screen appearance. But keeping that list up-to-date is both unnecessary and has very little benefit for too much work. Aside from the uncertainties of New Caprica, unless a ship is explicitly destroyed, it can be assumed to still exist. For me, the episode citations weren't so much about a detailed episode-by-episode score-keeping, but a pointer towards an episode where the ship can be seen well. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:: Ditto about the last seen column. I was gonna go through and change it later to "First Introduced" (at least in the case of the active ships). The destroyed ships can keep the "last seen" thing. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Hey, I just looked at your revision of the fleet and you placed that ''Picon 36'' was destroyed. According to it's dialogue, the captain told ''Colonial One'' that he can't believe he wanted to leave the sublight ships' population behind. Personally, I like ''Picon 36'' and it may still be in the fleet, but it wasn't destroyed in the [[Miniseries, Night 2|Miniseries]].--[[User:CoreyDanian|Corey "Shadow" Danian]] 9.05pm June 16 2008 CST
::::It's not in the destroyed list, but in "mentioned only". If it were, it would have been an accident. Moving dozens of articles is hard work :s -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
== Daru Mozu destroyed? You idiots ==

:Everyone is assuming that the ''[[Daru Mozu]]'' was destroyed prior to [[Dirty Hands]] when in actual fact it is seen in [[Guess What's Coming To Dinner]], and [[The Hub]]. There has been two refinery ships in the fleet since Season 1. In [[Bastille Day]], a shot of the fleet over kimiko showed two refinery ships with the second one over ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]''. Also in [[Occupation]] and all the way through the scenes of New Caprica and ''Galactica'' you can see ''two'' refinery ships; one on New Caprica (that could be [[Hitei Kan]]) and the other in space ([[Daru Mozu]]). Both survive even beyond the Ionian nebula battle, Hitei Kan has that hammerhead section while Daru Mozu looks the same. Someone fix that up.

Also I got number of ships in fleet as from The Farm and (not very good) Revelations: I counted the number of DRADIS points for ships (except the Vipers) from Gaeta's board in The Farm and got 44 contacts, meaning that 24 ships left and 44 remained at Galactica, giving 69 (Note: In Home, Part I, on Adama's board, I got 45 contacts + Galactica, leaving 70). In Revelations, I got between 38 and 42 contacts on the DRADIS board when the fleet had arrived at Earth. This means that around 71 ships was the total numbers of ships in the fleet prior to settlement on New Caprica and around 30 ships have been lost since then.

Also, I watched [[The Ties That Bind]], and I thought I heard Roslin say the Picon delegate's name. She goes: "Jacob, Weiren (or Leiran), everyone please..." this was when they discussed Demetrius.--[[User:CoreyDanian|Corey "Shadow" Danian]] 20.52 18 August 2008

: Corey, there's only one refinery ship in the Fleet as of Season 4. There ''may'' have been two earlier, but no longer. "Dirty Hands" also confirms this, since the strike affects the ''Hitei Kan'', which is the refinery ship. (There may have been a retcon here. Or a simple production frakup.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

: Also, don't refer to the dradis... It's unreliable when determining ship count. ;-)

: As for "The Ties That Bind", I'll check the script tomorrow for the name. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:There may certainly be some sort of production mishap here, but "Dirty Hands" just doesn't make any sense with two refinery ships (and no one doubts that there were two earlier). Not only do they only mention one, but there wouldn't be a crisis about the strike if there were two. As noted in the article, it can't be confirmed for sure, but it's very strongly implied. I had preferred things as they were and the episode itself doesn't identify the ship, but it was there in the bonus scene all along (which was released on SciFi.com and we all missed it). And that circumstantial evidence - from an integral story - just weighs more than special effects shots, which aren't that reliable by themselves. Maybe placing it in the "destroyed" section isn't right, but it doesn't really fit elsewhere either.
:The only way out would be to assume that they deliberately removed the references to the ''Hitei Kan'' from the aired episode to leave it ambiguous. That would also explain the dubbing of Roslin's line. She says two words, which are probably the ship's name. And that would still leave us with the ''other'' refinery ship lost or destroyed. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

: Re: "TTB"... the script says "Aaron" (SC 51, 2nd Green REv 7/4/07). -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Mutem Wia ==

I think the ship Mutem Wia is a reference to a female member of a particular ancient Egyptian royal family, but this is the only source I can find that mentions her: http://books.google.com/books?id=MzVszHxO3JoC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=Mutem+Wia&source=bl&ots=RNoxmMSb71&sig=886fXFVZhSS32oRYQ1yo72DH_kg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA11,M1. --[[User:Kappamaki|Kappamaki]] 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

== Fleet Picture ==

Can we maybe replace the picture of the fleet with one from recent episodes and maybe place current in a small box that says original fleet. [[User:CoreyDanian|Snr. Lt. Corey "Shadow" Danian (got promoted despite being 19)]] 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

== Kodiak=Yellow-hulled vessel? ==

I think that the ''Kodiak''-type vessel and that yellow vessel i've been talking about for years are one in the same. Don't you think so? [[User:CoreyDanian|Snr. Lt. Corey "Shadow" Danian (got promoted despite being 19)]] 02:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Revelations/Archive2

2009-11-02T16:55:33Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 11 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:Revelations/Archive1.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Revelations/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

== Starbuck's expression ==

I just re-watched the last scene, I'm fairly sure that Kara's smirking, she's the only one in the scene who doesn't seem disappointed. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
: Neither does Tyrol, apparently. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

::Tyrol is clearly chuckling to himself; Starbuck to me looks like she has her mouth pursed as part of an overall expression of concern.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::: I don't think he was "chuckling" to himself out of humor, but in a cynical "of course it would turn out this way..." attitude. Rueful, just like when he was taken to the launch tube and he looks at Tigh and smiled because he '''knew''' Tigh gave them up. He smiled at Anders in a similar fashion because he knew that Tigh gave them up even then. On Earth Tyrol just had a non committal attitude because he is already cynical as hell probably thinking of the absurdity of the situation. Starbuck had somewhat the same attitude especially with the "harbinger of death" prophecy ringing in her head. [[User:Hunter2005|Hunter2005]] 09:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== Goof ==

In the scene in CIC where Felix gets up to retrieve the pills he knocked over, you can briefly see the shadow of his 'missing' leg and foot (tucked up behind him) cast on the floor just between him and his chair. . . oops! [[User:Centurion 51773|Centurion 51773]] 09:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
: Yep, big oops. Or is it a shadow from his [[Virtual beings|Virtual Leg]]? :P -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah. Gaeta's leg is definitely the final Cylon. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, other than Baltar's Baltar, nobody else has a virtual ''self'', so I think it's more likely that Gaeta has a virtual ''Tigh's'' leg. . . (Actually an eye disguised as a leg. Cylon projection. Wink wink nudge nudge.) :D [[User:Centurion 51773|Centurion 51773]] 14:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
----
::I believe that's already mentioned on our [[Continuity errors (RDM)#VFX Gaffes|continuity errors page]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:::So it is. Hadn't seen it. Here I thought I was being clever. Frak! ;D[[User:Centurion 51773|Centurion 51773]] 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== Temple of Aurora Mistake ==

I see that there's an ongoing mistake with the Temple of Aurora picture. Lee is looking at the picture of the Opera House on Kobol. Starbuck walks over and says it's the Temple of Aurora, but as she does so you can see Lee turning the page over. You catch [http://s36.photobucket.com/albums/e4/Werthead/?action=view&current=AuroraBook.jpg a very brief glimpse of the image he is looking at]: an open square structure inside a much larger chamber. It 100% resembles [http://s36.photobucket.com/albums/e4/Werthead/?action=view&current=AuroaWreckage.jpg the structure] at the end of Revelations. However, I keep seeing that people think the Opera House and the Temple of Aurora are one and the same and it's an error, which it isn't. It's actually slightly mistimed editing.--[[User:Werthead|Werthead]] 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
: Having rewatched my digital copy, I can see that you're correct. Lee does turn the page to what appears to be the structure on Earth in "Revelations", at least to an extent... What extent, I'm not entirely sure though, because, again, the picture that we see on closeup before panning upward towards Thrace is the exact same page used to depict the depiction of the Opera House on Kobol in Season 1 and 2. Which casts doubt on the intentions of that scene. It could be a simple editing mistake, or it could very well be an attempt to remove all reference to that page for some reason we don't yet know. While I'm up in Vancouver, I'll figure out what the frak is up with it, because that scene—and the sudden introduction of this so-called Temple—rankles my researching ass, personally. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
:I changed the note on the Aurora page to make it more clear where the real picture is. And I uploaded the picture above to BSWiki. It's now linked to in the same note. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== nyc? really? ==

i think the city shown at the end is sydney, look at pictures of it.
that would make sense of the whole roslin/athena/hera/six/baltar operahouse vision.
ya'know, the sydney operahouse! -- [[User:Popon|Popon]] 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
: Your speculation is about as valid at this point as anyone else's. And trying to pinpoint it to any one specific place would kind of take away from the basic visceral impact to each viewer — "That could be *my* city."-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Biers? ==

Is there a reason why the Three in this episode is referred to as Biers? It seems like it would make more sense to refer to her as Number Three, but was she called that in the episode or something. I didn't want to just change it because it's been so long since I saw the episode.
:She's often referred to as D'Anna, which is short for D'Anna Biers, although the reporter was almost certainly a different instance, so... -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 08:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
::Also the fact that she is the only Number Three left in the universe, and a particular one at that.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Revelations/Archive1

2009-11-02T16:55:23Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 11 thread(s) from Talk:Revelations.

{{talkarchive}}

== Lt "Gonzo" Pike ==

A "Lt. Gonzo Pike" is also listed on the [[:Image:GoBetween260607.jpg|casting sheet]] for "[[The Ties That Bind]]" for what it's worth. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:01, 18 November 2007 (CST)

The convention report attributes the forest scenes to episode '''11'''. Since other reports state that they have shut down after episode 13, this like means that they are the same by episode numbers. "Revelations" is episode 10 however! --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:57, 20 November 2007 (CST)
: Here's the thing though... is Katee counting "Razor" as one episode? If so, then that makes "Revelations" episode 11, by her count. Also, about 4.13... it seems that there are only 10 episodes "in the can", as far as I can determine. Also, production numbers can be taken out of order; it's happened before to series such as ''Babylon 5'' and even the original BSG. So, 4.13... Is ''that'' episode 11, or is that part of episode 10, which may be extended? Plus we have two missing episodes that are unaccounted for, 4.07 and 4.09.
: To be honest, it's a bit confusing. LOL -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 09:55, 21 November 2007 (CST)
::Right. Counting "Razor" as one episode makes this correct again. That's probably the case. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:36, 21 November 2007 (CST)

== 4.0 finale? ==

Is this the finale to the first half of the season? [[User:OTW|OTW]] 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

:I'd venture a "yes". Not only is the episode #10 out of 20 (excluding "Razor"), but the SciFi Channel doesn't list it either on the site in general or on their schedule. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 12:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:It's the mid-season cliffhanger... Should add that to the notes. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

== Advance screening ==

Since the episode apparently has an [http://syfyportal.com/news425104.html advance screening] tomorrow, maybe we should lock the article. I vaguely I recall that a similar screening resulted in the episode summary or analysis to be written. That's not so bad, but we have no way to verify the stuff. Plus, I don't think we should spoil it for everyone just because a handful of people have seen the episode already. It's probably not that likely that there will be massive edits, but taking precautions doesn't hurt. Someone might also read spoilers somewhere else and try to add them here. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
: I believe you are referring to "Razor". And, well, despite the advanced screening any content from it is still considered a [[BW:SP|spoiler]], since it hasn't made a nation-wide airing. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
::Ah yes, Razor. That was just an internet leak though and we could easily obtain a copy as well. That's not the case with a theater screening. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, if you recall, it was also screened in certain markets about a week before the air date. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

== Location on earth ==

To me the location on earth looked a bit like the ruins of Ellis Island with New York City in the backround. Am I way off? --[[User:Laisak|Laisak]] 10:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Brooklyn. [http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/913/bsgbrooklynbridgeyx0.jpg Check it out].--[[User:Werthead|Werthead]] 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I didn't think that was a bridge, just a girder. --[[User:Laisak|Laisak]] 12:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

== 5th Cylon ==

<blockquote>“Is Number Three honest in her claim that there are only four of the Final Five in the Fleet? If so, where is the fifth and last Cylon? If she's lying, is it because she still harbors distrust for her compatriots and the humans?”</blockquote>

Perhaps the 5th is already on the Basestar? [[User:Nerull|Nerull]] 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Were there any other major characters except Baltar and Roslin? Roslin is pretty much ruled out by the joke Five made. --[[User:Laisak|Laisak]] 13:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
: Karl Agathon was still on the baseship, but he's human, as far as we know. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, this is weird. Are there any major characters anywhere else? I mean, there are three Cylon models + Boomer in the Cylon fleet but they're not exactly good candidates. Did we leave someone behind somewhere? Surely, the final Cylon isn't dead. It has to be a major character. I guess it has to be one of Helo/Roslin/Baltar. I think that Roslin would be the most likely of those. The 3's question could have been meant in earnest. [[User:Haukurth|Haukurth]] 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm stretching this, but the five are supposed to find the way to earth. Chief, Sam and Tigh find the Viper (this could also make Starbuck a Cylon) and Roslin gives the final go for jump. There is a problem with Tory, she does nothing. --[[User:Laisak|Laisak]] 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

: Tory can't do anything because the call summons her to ''Galactica'', where Starbuck's Viper is. Obviously, she's disconnected from the rest of the Four, so she has the adverse reaction. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Hera? D'anna was only "interested" in the four, and that way opened the door for another less important (for now) cylon......

My thoughts were, D'anna says four are in the fleet. She also freaks out and apologizes to what is presumably the fifth cylon in her vision in a way that suggests it's personal. What if the fifth cylon is someone in the fleet who was killed either by her or the cylons as a group that she then recognized? Any people who were previously killed off by D'anna or the cylons in general that could fill that slot? I wanted to say Ellen Tigh, but Baltar did the test on her and if she'd come up positive he wouldn't be wondering who the fifth is like everyone else. --[[User:Ssiixx|Ssiixx]] 23:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Though this would be an anti climax I assume that the fifth final five is none of the caracters we already now. I think he is located on earth, maybe waiting in some bunker or whatever. He could also be on his own ship, not too far away from the cylons and humans, watching.
Since there is a lot more to explain about the time that passed from the end of the cylon war to their reappearing, I assume that the last cylon is also the link between the twelve human cylon models and the rest of the cylon race. Even if he IS the rest. [[User:Lincore|Lincore]] 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

:From a narrative perspective, it is improbable that D'Anna was being absurdly literal, excluding a character who happened to be on the basestar at the moment she said "There are four in your fleet." Since her goal was to get the final five to the basestar, it would make little sense for her to ignore one that was already there.
:I think the living human characters are fairly effectively ruled out, but that doesn't necessarily entail an anti-climactic revelation to come. On the contrary, revealing Adama, Apollo, Starbuck, Roslin, or Baltar to be a Cylon is exactly what is expected, and this is a show which is built on defying expectations. What is needed to create a suitable climax for the series as a whole is not simply a revelation of the sort, "____ was a Cylon all along!" Instead, it needs to be a revelation that lays bare the show's mythology, that explains what happened three thousand years ago and why all of this seems to have been manipulated into occurring today. To fulfill that function a non-central character that played a crucial role in the past actually works better.
:Of course, it could all be foilers, and it could just be Roslin.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

== Earth - Speculation ==

Kara Thrace is the harbinger of death, according to the hybrid. She is also the only character we know has been to Earth. What if she triggered a series of events that led to the destruction of the 13th tribe? She probably isn't the 5th, but she's something else. I think she's playing the character of Krishna for those of you who've read Bhagavad Gita, but at the same time her connections to the arrow of Apollo make me think she might be Arjuna. In either case, her counterpart would be the 5th.

What is hard to explain is her viper. How does it explode visibly and then come back in mint condition in the nebula? Vipers don't have FTL either, so everything seems weird.

* International Space Station and satellites probably wouldn't be affected by nuclear war
* They can't all be dead - there's got to be somebody alive from the 13th tribe.
* New York, sure, but who would waste a nuke on New Jersey? (*grin*)

--[[User:Smari|Smari]] 14:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ISS and other spacecraft in low-earth orbit will see their orbits decay within a decade (or even less) due to atmospheric drag without periodic reboosts (the demise of Skylab in 1979 is a perfect example of this). Even satellites in pretty high Earth orbit will fall back to Earth within a few hundred years - assuming that a significantly long time has elapsed since whatever happened on Earth, the only stuff left in orbit will be stuff out at the Clarke (geosynchronous) orbit.

--[[User:Qprmeteor|Qprmeteor]] 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not much time has passed in the fleet, yet the plants growing on the ruins suggest the event was a long time ago. However, there was a time discrepancy associated with Kara's previous visit.

--[[User:Xlynx|Xlynx]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "[...] the series is set in the future and not the past [...]." This is not necessarily true. That - what was his name again - hybrid in razor said, that this happens "again, again, again...", so I came to the conclusion, that this might as well be our past. Maybe next time, it goes the other way round and people are escaping from earth after it was nuked by cylons or - whatever is next in line - and the human race is looking for an ancient world called... caprica for instance. This would make the Galactica Noah's Ark. Just my two cents... [[User:Lincore|Lincore]] 01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

== Locating Earth based on just a bearing ==

There's a comment made in the main article stating that making a precision jump based solely on a bearing seems unlikely. It doesn't seem to me like this would necessarily be the case. Based on the bearing, Galactica should be able to scan in that direction, looking for solar systems. From there, they could scan for inhabitable planets. Assuming they truly are in our solar system, that narrows it down to one planet. We know that Colonial FTLs are capable of some extremely precise jumps, so jumping into orbit doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

The part that seems unlikely to me is that the fleet has been haphazardly stumbling around all this time jumping from point to point, several hundred jumps from the 12 Colonies. Now the Fleet is within jump range of Earth, without even knowing exactly where they were going.

--[[User:Scionic|Scionic]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think the Fleet jumped from their position to Earth in one jump. Getting to Earth probably took many jumps, which is what Lee meant when he said his course would have to be corrected as they went. The writers just skipped all these intermediate jumps and cut straight ahead to the final one. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
::Even given that, it would be more believable to jump somewhere into the solar system rather than directly into orbit on the final jump. That's really just dramatic license. However, as said above, it makes sense that they would use astronomical readings to determine the location of star systems in the direction. But, it wouldn't be the usual generic, faster-than-light sci-fi scans. BSG's stellar navigation is mostly more in line with real astronomy, i.e. using passive readings -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:::In watching the episode again, it looks like they very well might be inside the Sol System for their final jump, presumably to save time/fuel instead of slogging their away across the system at sublight. The last establishing shot of the fleet before the final jump shows a yellow star, fairly close. This is presumably our Sun. Plus, I have to say I disagree on the method of stellar navigation. For general in-system navigation and plotting, passive systems would make sense, but for FTL jumps (which have been indicated to be many light-years long), sci-fi faster-than-light scans would almost be necessary. Otherwise they'd be jumping into a region of space based on a scan that is many months or even years old. It would be like mounting an FTL drive on my car, and jumping into the middle of a busy freeway based on a picture I took a couple weeks ago - I could very well jump into the middle of another car, jump into a location that no longer exists, etc. --[[User:Scionic|Scionic]] 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Better sure, but such magical technology simply doesn't exist. And all serious works of sci-fi deal a bit with the lightspeed information lag. True, BSG makes jumps next to planetary bodies and especially ships way too easy sometimes, but now and then, it's also pointed out how dangerous such jumps are. And that whole thing is the reason behind the term [[Red Line]]. A limit behind which jumps can't be plotted (e.g. stellar movement extrapolated from known data) accurately enough to have a certain margin of error. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::The Universe is a very big and empty place... Using normal tools they indeed see outdated images, the way things were months maybe years before... But the movement of stars and planets can be easily observed and predicted accurately enough to jump in space and not inside a star or planet. Remember, they don't have to jump directly into orbit around Earth, probably not even in the solar system, just close enough to get a closer look and get more accurate coordinates... -- [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 11:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not just talking about the episode specifically, but the series in general. For planets that surely works. That's what I meant above. But they also jump extremely close to ships without problems. And their movement couldn't be predicted. That part is unrealistic. But never mind; it's pretty pointless to discuss this at such length. We kinda agree anyways :) -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::About jumping close to ships: I've got a little theory about that which I brought up in some long forgotten thread at Battlestar Forum: distance between ships is preserved through a jump. By this, I mean that the distance between e.g. ''Galactica'' and ''Colonial One'' after the jump will be equal to the one before it, because they made the exact same jump. For the same reason, you should be able to jump close to or even in the middle of the Fleet, provided you jumped away from that same spot. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

== Is it Earth at all? ==

Is the planet actually Earth? No recognisable land masses are visible from orbit, unlike in "[[Crossroads, Part II]]". The ruins look vaguely like Brooklyn and the Temple of Aurora, but it's inconclusive. The only thing conclusive is the star patterns match. Perhaps this is another pointer along the way. -- [[User:Xlynx|Xlynx]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:The scriptures say the dying leader wasn't supposed to survive to see their new home, although that's making two assumptions - that the dying leader is Roslin and the new home is the planet. --[[User:Xlynx|Xlynx]] 23:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
::"Inductive reasoning is the death of philosophy". You can never prove anything definitively based on observed evidence, but I'd be willing to bet my house (if I owned one) on that being Earth. Aside from the many, many on-screen things, it would be a huge slap in the face to viewers if this was just [[Terra]] or something. Consider that the writers have set up this exquisite concept that in the near future civilisation is destroyed, only for it to be revealed that this is just some arbitrary planet. (Plus a few spoilers for episodes ahead do say this is Earth). Sometimes a spade is just a desolute, lifeless and radioactive spade. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:::The discussion about the lack of recognisable land masses made me realise something - there's no sign of the Moon. I thing the writers have been very clever hiding any definitive traces that this is indeed Earth - there are after all 3 other Sun-like stars nearby to us, and the Fleet may be elsewhere. If we saw a recognisable land form or Luna herself, there would be no doubt - but an interesting door has been left open, I think. [[User:Qprmeteor|Qprmeteor]] 13:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
::::It's curious, but the destroyed city is clearly New York. And you don't necessarily see the moon even in a wide shot of space. That depends on the direction of the view. Besides, there are only 10 episodes left. There isn't really much point in such an elaborate deception when there are other story and character arcs to tie up. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Maybe it's clearly NYC to you, but only vaguely to me. But there's also the possibility they added so much cloud to keep the condition of the surface hidden until the revealing moment, and to have enough debris in the atmosphere for consistency with a nuclear winter. -- [[User:Xlynx|Xlynx]] 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::We won't resolve this one until the rest of the season. Starbuck made a big deal about the moon, photographed it, oddly called it a "yellow moon" and said that was a key clue from Pythia. We don't yet know why the moon would be yellow, but we can be pretty sure if the moon from Starbuck's photos and Pythia's legend were not there, they would have noticed it. "Uh, hey, where's the giant moon?" It's the yellow part that is interesting.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== The possible finale? ==

Back before the season started and during the Writer's Strike, Sackhoff made a comment that the last episode they'd filmed might have acted as a series finale if the strike had gone on long enough that they couldn't return to work. Now, according to the Wiki, it's the next episode that she was referring to, but I was wondering how sure we were of that. There seems to have been a lot of confusion about which episodes production people are talking about. And I feel, after watching Revelations, that it seems like a likely candidate for the episode she was talking about. Thoughts? [[User:Alpha5099|Alpha5099]] 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:I think we're pretty much certain. Sometimes a Great Notion was the last episode written before the strike and the last episode filmed before the break, and the scenes mentioned [http://roadrunnerdm.livejournal.com/84288.html here] take place after the end of Revelations. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

== Far fetched Jehovah's Witnesses connection? ==

To summarize: The Landing party appears to be on a plot of land that is very reminiscent of Brooklyn Heights looking out over to a land mass that has a similar topography of Manhattan Island with a structure to the extreme right that looks vaguely like a wrecked Tower of the Brooklyn Bridge Meanwhile in real life in that same area they appear to be in happens to have the Watchtower Building. The word "Watchtower" is part of the title of a Bob Dylan song in which four Cylons heard in their heads. Is it true for a fact? I don't know, but there is evidence for it and it would be a HUGE coincidence. Oh, I almost forgot: There is also the the fact that a off-shoot branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses has the word "Dawn" in its name and there is supposed to be a Temple called the Temple of Aurora for the The Goddess of Dawn? Hey, it could be all wrong, but at least I have evidence for it. To be clear I am not saying that RDM is bearing direct comparison to the Colonial situation but I think he using the JW as clues of some kind.[[User:Hunter2005|Hunter2005]] 08:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:I agree that the Watchtower connection could be notable, but the Dawn connection is going too far in my opinion. Thoughts? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. Also it's just too verbose for not adding much at all. At least it should be cut down. It's a tenuous connection to begin with and there is no reason to extrapolate so much from it. Just noting the fact should be fine. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with the cut down, however I don't agree that it is tenuous. This show is heavy with religion and deliberately so. I am NOT saying that RDM has a specific religious agenda, Jehovah's Witnesses or otherwise, he is a lapsed Catholic who is into the Eastern Asian Faiths, but it is hard to believe that the "Watchtower" building in real life being where the landing party is is a coincidence. It is meant as clue that it is ''really'' New York. I, as a New Yorker born, raised and lived my entire life take it as a HUGE slap-in-the-face-hint. [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/166/story_16650_1.html Anyway, here is a link to an interview on his use of religion in his version of BSG and the Mormon influences of the original.]The Watchtower building, where it is and Bob Dyan's song thing was NO accident or coincidence. And I don't think the Dawn thing between the Greek Goddess and the Jehovah's Witnesses faction is either although I admit there is much less objective evidence for it. [[User:Hunter2005|Hunter2005]] 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
::::It's clearly supposed to be in the same place as New York, but the timeframe of the series has not yet been established. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::My 2 cents is that, unless we see further JW links, this is probably a coincidence. It may be of note to say what currently stands on the bank where the crew are though. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 09:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Like I said earlier, the Watchtower note is not disputed. Regardless of whether it's deliberate, it deserves to be noted on this page. The JW/Aurora connection is much weaker, and I agree with OTW that unless more references to the Jehova's Witnesses pop up, it's too weak to be noted. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::To be clear again, I am not saying there is an actual JW/Cylon connection or RDM having an agenda. I think it is a clue as to where they are in New York if they are in New York. In a show that is heavily religously themed; to have a Bob Dyan Song with the word "Watchtower" in it and then show the Landing Party what could be an area around the East Tower of the Brooklyn Bridge which happens to be in the area where the Religous sect owned Watchtower building is in real life is VERY suspicious to me as a New Yorker, as to show that it is New York City. If it is a coincidence it is a '''''HUGE''''' one, a struck-by-lighting-three-days-in-a-row type of coincidence. 10:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't see a real connection aside from the name of our buildings; based on what I know of BG's religious inspiration, and comparing them to our beliefs, I think I can safely say that this is a surprisingly coincidence . That said, here is a footnote from our of our publications in regards to the origin of the name: The expression "Watch Tower" is no unique to Russell's writings or to Jehovah's Witnesses. George Storrs published a book in the 1850s called The Watch Tower: Or, Man in Death; and the Hope for a Future Life. The name was also incorporated in the title of various religious periodicals. It stems from the idea of keeping on the watch for the outworking of God's purposes - Isa 21:8,11,12; Ezek 3:17; Hab 2:1 - Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 48. Take that as you will. As for me, I may just stop by here every once in a while and giggle. :D -- [[User:Ibmjones|Ibmjones]]
::Note that if it's the Brooklyn bridge, it is an error because it has metal rods sticking out of it. Leaving aside the fact they should be r usted after so long, the Brooklyn bridge was built before reinforced concrete was used in the USA. The one to the right could be the Manhattan bridge, which was built later.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Who says they are reinforcing rods? The whole thing is black as if it is in shadow. You cannot tell details like that. I doubt from a dramatic point of view that they will use the [[W:Manhattan Bridge|Manhattan Bridge]] Who the hell knows about the Manhattan Bridge except New Yorkers like me who took the "D" and "N" subway trains over it LOL! The Brooklyn Bridge is iconic. Anyway it is undoubtedly a bridge. RDM says so in his podcast of ''Revelations.'' It contains a lot of oblique answers to questions. [[User:Hunter2005|Hunter2005]] 08:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

== Pardon? ==

I don't recall any pardon Lee Adama issued, and I couldn't find the word "pardon" in his article or in the episode guides for the episodes in which he was President. Am I missing something?
*It is not mentioned whether or not Lee Adama's pardon means the Final Four Cylons will, or can, remain in the Colonial military in crucial positions.
--[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:He gives them an "amnesty" - "free to go, free to stay". It's right after he announces that he hands all the information over to the Cylon rebels, when they stand around Starbuck's Viper. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::Right, now I remember. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of the pardon, and whether it extended to Caprica-Six, is answered here: http://www.comicmix.com/news/2008/06/18/battlestar-galactica-interview-mark-verheiden-on-cylon-amnesty-and-finding-earth/?cid=9445 -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pegasus (episode)/Archive 1

2009-11-02T16:54:59Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 36h) to Talk:Pegasus (episode)/Archive6.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 6
|algo = old(36h)
|archive = Talk:Pegasus (episode)/Archive%(counter)d
}}

== Proposed Episode Move ==

[[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]], Did you move the "proposed episode" stuff to another article, or just delete it? It should definitely be somewhere here. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 08:25, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
*I deleted it. It's completely, and I mean ''completely'', irrelevant to this episode. It belongs on the page for the original Living Legend episodes, if at all. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 16:35, 17 September 2005 (EDT)

== New Battlestar Image ==

There is a picture of the [[Mercury-class]] Battlestar in the preview after [[Flight of the Phoenix]]. We need a shot of Pegasus here on the page! [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:46, 17 September 2005 (EDT)
:I noticed they still don't have the trailer up on the SciFi BSG page. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 16:35, 17 September 2005 (EDT)
::It was put up on SciFi approximately 2-3 days before the episode. Mildly annoying. [[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 10:27 EDT, 24 September 2005

== SciFi's ''"Finale"'' Listing ==

Did you notice Pegasus advertised as the Season Finale of Galactica on SciFi channel last night? Did they split the run of 20 into two seasons? [[User:JohnReese|John Reese]]
*On closer study, it said "Summer Finale." No idea what that means. [[User:JohnReese|John Reese]]

::How many times must we re-explain this? A normal season for a show on Scifi (Stargate SG-1, Atlantis, etc) has 20 episodes. What they do is they take the first half of these and run them during summer, then run the second half during February-May. ***They've done this for like 4-5 years now. --->What may confuse you is that their ''advertisements'' in commercials refer to it as a "summer season finale". '''That's just a marketing ploy. One Scifi Channel fans are all used to'''. Season 1 only had 13 episodes so they didn't do that then, but it's going to be in this new format forever. ---Ricimer, 17 Sept, 2005

== Mystery Cylon Ship Speculation ==

Any guesses what the mystery Cylon ship is for? [[User:Danaucpe|Danaucpe]]

*My guess is that its a Super Basestar--a ship so massive that it can create Basestars from natural resources of rocky planets. Whatever it is, it will take the combined forces of Pegasus and Galactica to take it down. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 02:10, 24 September 2005 (EDT)
*That is, of course, if they can get past the two [[Cylon_Basestar|Basestars]] & various support craft mentioned in [[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]. The only reason that the Basestar went down in [[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I|Kobol's Last Gleaming]] is through sheer cunning (even part of which may be suspect, seeing as [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]] is a [[Humano-Cylon]]). [[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 10:11 EDT, 24 September 2005
*Well, if we are guessing. I'm going to look at the title of the next episode [[Resurrection Ship]] very literally. The [[Humano-Cylon]]'s have asserted that they can't be killed. When they die, their conciousness is downloaded into a new body, hence a resurrection of sorts. I would therefore speculate that this maybe a specialized vessel that helps facilitate these sorts of rebirths. --[[User:Feldspar|Feldspar]] 16:40, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

I got a itty bitty pic of it [http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4821/bscap2430lq.jpg here] Looks like an oval-ish shape, can't be too sure.
-Blacklight

== Blackbird FTL Capability ==

Any thoughts as to if the [[Blackbird]] is jump capable? [[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]]
*That's a good point - it'd have to be if it was going to jump to the location of the Cylon fleet, but we know that normal Vipers aren't jump-capable, and I imagine that a ship equipped with FTL wouldn't be as stealthy or speedy as the Blackbird apparently is...[[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 13:40, 24 September 2005 (EDT)
**I already updated "[[Blackbird]]" to say that it is presumably Jump capable, which makes sense if it's a stealth ship; if it has to be launched from a Battlestar that's not very stealthy because Battlestars are easy to see on DRADIS. It uses different engines which might be capable of limited Jumps. ---Ricimer, 24 Sept, 2005

: I think that the Blackbird may be Jump-capable, too--but until we see it, we shouldn't note it quite yet as fact. The point that Lee's Raptor was on its way to recon it suggests the Cylon fleet is aways off, and of course, if that fleet were in sublight range, we'd have a battle, so either Kara must have FTL, or has so much speed that she can approach and return on sublight within a reasonable time. Also, I strongly believe that FTL drives and sublight drives are NOT the same. Note Tigh's command in the Mini-Series to "spin up FTL drives 1 and 2." Since ''Galactica'' was already running on sublight engines at the time, the FTL drives are another mechanism and may not necessarily be within the same mechanism as the Blackbird's main sublight engines. Since we know that the Raptors DON'T use the same engines as the Blackbird, this gives more weight to the FTL drive being a separate box. Another wait-and-see point. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:04, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

*Also, seeing as we have not physically seen an [[FTL]] Drive, it's hard to say the size of the unit. It would be safe to say that it's proportional to the size of the ship, even in some cases, that multiple ones are used (as in [[Galactica]]'s case). -[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 13:24 EDT, 26 September 2005.

*The [[Blackbird]] is jump capable, as seen in [[Resurrection_Ship,_Part_I|Resurrection Ship, Part I]]. --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 02:54, 7 January 2006 (EST)

== Pegasus contingent discussion ==

Wasn't the ''Pegasus'' contingent of Vipers going to go on the mission as well? Maybe the ''Pegasus'' was going to jump in behind the moon and launch Vipers after Apollo and Pegasus-CAG scouted out the system. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 13:39, 26 September 2005 (EDT)

*Possibly, but the episode only gave us the fact that the Raptor was doing "photo recon only". Another possibility is that the Vipers would be stationed at a staging point where the Raptor would jump ahead and back to. This would be especially useful if things got hairy. -[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 16:57 EDT, 26 September 2005

== Summaries vs Speculation ==

We're all anticipating these episodes, of course. It's important to note that rumors, speculation and other unaired hearsay about this episode is not fit for summary entries. The summary is the factual summation of the '''aired content'''. If the episode has yet to air, then it is best to place only the information that could be confirmed from the official Sci-Fi Channel preview (being careful not to intepret it literally since they are always out of context) or official information from [[RDM]] himself. There was an entry of Cain's demise and Adama's rank change in this episode, while we also have similar information in the later ep, [[Resurrection Ship]]. Neither can both be right, so we need to wait until we have verified information, which, if the pattern continues from other eps, only happen when the episode airs. Rumors can be placed here in Talk at any time, but you may want to state your source. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:24, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

* Source of [[Spoiler]] [Cain's demise and Adama's rank change to Admiral] podcast http://podcasts.lvrocks.com/details.aspx?castid=5 (9-7-2005) Second half of podcast about (1hr 6mins) into podcast.

* Other podcasts have some interviews with Battlestar cast memebrs i.e (8-10-2005) (9-14-2005) etc

: Thanks. Who made this podcast? Normally we take just RDM's and David Eick's podcasts and videos as official, so cast member comments may or may not be accurate if RDM and Co. have to adjust schedules, episode airings and stuff. Can you elaborate? If you want to add the stuff I took off back in the meantime, please feel free--I'm not the police or anything; I just want to ensure we keep things to a credible-enough source. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:35, 21 September 2005 (EDT)

== Philwelch & Ricimer ==

On 20:26, 24 September 2005, Philwelch posted the following to the Analysis section:

:*''Aside from Cain herself, the crew of the ''Pegasus'' seems exclusively male. No other female crew members are ever shown, and the behavior of the drunken ''Pegasus'' crewmen isn't what we may expect from men who are accustomed to being around women. This may be a contributing factor to the behavior of the ''Pegasus'' 's crew—if they travelled through space as long as they did, believing they were the remainder of humanity, Cain's power over the crew would have been more than merely military in nature—as the only surviving human woman, Cain would hold absolute sexual power over her crew as well. In addition, the lack of women aboard the ''Pegasus'' and the resulting sexual frustration could have led to the overly regimented, authoritarian, and brutal culture the crew developed, culminating in the senseless, repeated gang rape of the Cylon prisoner [[Gina]].''
:*''It is interesting how the portrayal of Cally's killing Galactica-Boomer in "[[Resistance]]" contrasts with the portrayal of the brutalized Gina and the attempted rape of Boomer.''

On 20:53, 24 September 2005, Ricimer reverted it with the comments:

:''speculation; yes, there are female Pegasus crewmen seen in halls.'' and ''Cally's retirement f G-Boomer doesn't really contrast with the rape scenes here.''

Ricimer, I found those contributions to be interesting and valid, and would appreciate it if, in the future, you would amend them with your objections rather than deleting them outright. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:00, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

:I've added a rebuttal of sorts to the former contribution, as I find it (to be frank) preposterous... although I am wary of seeing an [[Battlestar_Wiki:What_Battlestar_Wiki_is|encyclopedic]] page turn into a debate, it rather bothered me to see it there, so I added [[Battlestar_Wiki:What_Battlestar_Wiki_is_not|another view]]. ~ [[User:Aero|Aero]] 18:48, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

::We can always refactor the argument and clean it up. I do consider it notable that aside from the Admiral, there are no female crewmembers on Pegasus with speaking roles in this episode. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

I picked up most of the idea from the Scifi.com forums, although it had occurred to me. If it was unintentional, then why not throw a woman in the background of the Pegasus CIC, or into the ready room? Why write the Pegasus deck gang as a group of crude gang rapists? Listen to the dialogue in that scene—that's *not* how men usually speak in mixed company, and the fact that they do speak that way in mixed company suggests they've forgotten how to act around women. I also find it amazing how many of us aren't quite as shocked at Boomer getting shot to death as we are at Boomer getting pinned down and almost raped by Lieutenant Thorne. The reason for that is probably that killing a Cylon has some sort of purpose, while raping one is just a sick and twisted way to cause pointless suffering. As for Ricimer, his edit warring and irrational vendetta against me must give some meaning to his life but I've learned to pretty much ignore him. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 22:00, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

:Please, no ad hominem attacks either. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:10, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

::Men don't act that way in mixed company? Must be I've been in college too long.. >_> ~ [[User:Aero|Aero]] 22:44, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

:::If the other guys at your college boast about what a girl's face looks like when they gang rape her, I suggest you transfer. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 23:31, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

::::That's not precisely what I meant... you miss my point, although I guess you do so intentionally. I was alluding to the fact that treating women as sexual objects, even in their presence, is not as unknown in our present culture as we might like to believe. ~ [[User:Aero|Aero]] 00:52, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::::: As I read it, he got you. Or, anyway, I get you both. I think his point was not about sexual objectification, but about dehumanizing and boasting about rape. That's a bit more than just saying, "Oh. Bro. I'd tap ''that''." You know what I mean? --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:10, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

Compromise suggestions:

:The paucity of female crewmen on ''Pegasus'' is interesting, compared to the crew of ''Galactica''. Apart from Admiral Cain herself, only a few female extras can be seen in various scenes, and none have speaking roles in this episode. (The extras in Galactica's ready room, for example, are usually about 50% female; only a couple women are visible in the ready room scenes on ''Pegasus''.) This stands in notable contrast to Ron Moore's egalitarian vision of gender issues in the military, and appears to have been an intentional decision made during production.

:The ''Pegasus'' pilots don't appear to be accustomed to speaking in mixed company, either - they either ignore or fail to understand [[Cally]] and [[Seelix]]'s disgust with their talk about gang-raping Gina.

No need to venture into "Mistress Cain" type "sexual domination" scenarios, in my opinion, but the lack of female presence in the lower ranks of ''Pegasus'' is a very distinct change from the rest of the series to date. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:46, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

:That's not really what it says, and I think my original point stands—where there's a shortage of women, the natural power of each individual woman within that society is greater. You have to realize that if maybe 1 out of 50 people aboard Pegasus is a woman, and everybody aboard Pegasus lived the months since the holocaust believing they were all that was left of humanity, that's an incredible disparity in numbers. I don't think the sexual power of Cain or anyone else aboard ''Pegasus'' was explicit, but it's a fair guess to say it was there, under the surface. I also think it's a fair guess to say sexual frustration is a contributing factor to the sort of culture that developed aboard ''Pegasus'', particularly the gang rape of Gina. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 14:24, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

== Cain vs. Civies ==

I think that the proportion of females among the ''Pegasus'' crew is interesting and all, but I think it's much more interesting that Cain has such a dismissive attitude towards Roslin. Her Deck Chief was (he hints) forceably drafted into service after being rescued from the station just before the ''Pegasus'' lit out. This, paird with Cain's general disregard for Roslin indicate to ''me'' anyway, that she doesn't like civies hanging about. She doesn't want them looking over her shoulder, she doesn't want them asking for parts or asking for defense and the ''certainly'' doesn't want to be held accountable to them. Before she ran across our RTFF, she was Ultimate King for Life of All Humans. I think she doesn't want to give that up. On a more personal note: I hope she gets dragged before a civillian court for some reason and I hope Tom Zarek is on her jury. >;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:40, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

: Spoiler information on the mid-season opener suggests a different fate for Cain, of course. But I'm looking forward to Roslin stepping up to bat in challenging Cain just as Roslin challenged Adama. We know how THAT one went. :) Since Cain's such a person for regs, perhaps Roslin can throw a few of her own since the President ''is'' the Commander-In-Chief (even in the Colonial worlds) and should be able to give an Admiral a direct order--as well as indicating that what Cain is doing is a coup, against regs, and that ''Galactica'' is working on the President's orders. Perhaps Roslin can even order Cain relieved of command. I'm making bets that Roslin resolves this really, really fast, even so much as placing Colonial One in the line of fire to stop both. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:17, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

:: I think the evidence from Kobol's Last Gleaming suggests that the Colonial President doesn't have those sort of broad powers over the military—Apollo is still guilty of mutiny even though he was acting to protect the President from an illegal coup, for instance. There seems to be a suggested separation of powers between the military and civilian governments. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 14:33, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: True but conversely you could make the argument for military personnel being subordinate to the president from the mini-series where Roslin sends an order for Adama and the ''Galactica'' to come and assist in rescue operations. Another example would be from the episode [[33]], where Adama is seen actively soliciting Roslin's input regarding the Olympic Carrier, [[You Can't Go Home Again]] where Roslin arrives on ''Galactica'' to unofficially reprimand Adama regarding the reckless nature of his ongoing search for Starbuck. I agree that Roslin and Adama have come to an understanding that military decisions go through him but fleet matters belong to her but if tradition were to hold she is his boss. I suspect that Spencerian is right. Roslin will likely be the only one capable of defusing the situation we saw being Cain and Adama. --[[User:Feldspar|Feldspar]] 16:34, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

== Guest stars ==

I updated the guest stars from the starting credits. The four credits included Forbes, Beckel, Pyper-Ferguson and Spence. I couldn't identify the name of Spence's character, but he is the pilot who brags about having 48 kills. Hope someone has a name for him. --[[User:Laisak|Laisak]] 08:37, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

== Guest Star Trivia ==

Trivia note: The Pegasus pilot with the scorecard was played by Sebastian Spence, who starred as Cade Foster on SciFi's First Wave (I was wondering why he looked so familiar). Interestingly, the first Marine to step off Raptor 861 happens to look just like Roger R. Cross, who played Foster's nemeses on First Wave - Joshua and (even more interestingly) ''Cain''. --[[User:Dreampilotomega|Dream Pilot Omega]] 00:03, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

== Analysis ==

:*''Apollo's shift to a Raptor pilot seems to have been perceived as a demotion by Starbuck. Yet, the CAG of the ''Pegasus'' was also going on the mission in the Raptor. Is this really a demotion or merely an opportunity for [[Taylor]] to evaluate a new pilot?''
:**''As CAG, it is assumed that Taylor would be a Viper pilot. Is his inclusion in the mission as a Raptor pilot do to the fact that he can only pilot a Raptor or that he feels he can more accurately direct the movements of the Vipers under his command with the advanced sensor gear available on a Raptor?''

I think this is quite clear. Taylor has essentially ordered Apollo to chauffeur him to the Cylon fleet, a duty easily fulfilled by someone of lower rank. As for Taylor himself, it's natural that he'd want a front-row seat on the recon mission.

:*''The behavior of the ''Pegasus'' personnel drinking on ''Galactica'' seemed unprofessional and more than a little rough. Are these actual military personnel or civilian personnel who were drafted into service after the Cylon's attack?''

They say themselves that they haven't had booze since the Cylon attack. They're probably out of practice holding their liquor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:09, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:I can see your point on this. However, I would state that if Taylor wanted a front row seat for the mission that he would've been just as likely to pilot a Viper. My take on it, and this is just my take, is that either way is speculative at this point. Taylor could've been trying to knock Apollo down a notch as he'd earlier in the same episode called him 'Daddy's boy.' --[[User:Feldspar|Feldspar]] 17:36, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:To be totally fair, I'm not sure any of my proposed analysis points were such that they required removal. They may not be the correct interpretation of the episode but I don't recall, any correct me if I'm wrong, anything that was displayed that would pre-empt them as being totally incorrect. --[[User:Feldspar|Feldspar]] 17:38, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Before I get to the point: It's hard to determine exactly who said what when you insert your comments inside someone else's, Feldspar. Just so you're aware. Anyway, the point. On the last bit, here, I agree that they were unprofessional and rough, but I would never have come up with the idea of that being because they're civilians ratehr than actual military on my own. There was nothing at all to indicate that and I don't think there's any kind of precedent set that would let us assume that because someone is unprofessional or rough or can't hold their liquor, that they're civilians, rather than military. That seems really out of the blue to me.

:: As for the first bit, if Cmdr. Adama had planned the recon mission (and, for some reason, not used the Blackbird), He'd prolly have had Apollo and Starbuck watching some no-name Raptor team. Piloting a Raptor is not so much a formal demotion as a standing demotion, I think. Vipers are where the glory is. It's like asking a pilot who flies an F-14 every day to fly an AWACS. They're slower, they're not in the middle of the action and they have no guns. As for the CAG from ''Pegasus'', I think he's either babysitting Apollo in order to keep an eye on him, or else maybe he's normally part of a Raptor crew. We don't know how it works, exactly, but I imagine that the CAG doesn't have to fly a Viper. It's whichever pilot is most senior. However, he seems to be doing ECO duty for Apollo, which is not a pilot's job, so... go figure. Probably more will be revealed on this point in January. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:51, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Cleaned up my followup, I agree the way I'd put it in there was far from intuitive. My apologies to any confusion this may have caused. My intention was not to pass off any assertions I may have had as someone elses. --[[User:Feldspar|Feldspar]] 17:58, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

::::Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be a Nazi, and I appreciate your contributions. I just considered these too obvious to be noteworthy. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:12, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

== "Pegasus": The Director's Cut ==

The Director's Cut version of Pegasus which will be coming out in the Season 2.5 DVD set will be radically different from the current episode. Indeed, after much internal pondering, I came to the conclusion that this presented a situation that is really *unprecedented* in the history of this wiki. An alternate version of an episode, with over 25% more material recut into it. My question is, for this new situation, should we create a ''separate'' page for "Pegasus (Director's Cut)", or should we create a (*large*) new subsection on the existing page? (The more I think about it, the more I think that tacking it onto the current page would make it very cluttered). Thoughts? Talk amongst yourselves. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:35, 29 December 2005 (EST)

:Oh, awkward. Tentatively suggesting a separate page, restricted to deal with the differences between the two cuts. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:44, 29 December 2005 (EST)

We could just add the events of the director's cut to the summary and asterisk them to indicate they only occur in the director's cut. (No new section, except for what we have already to indicate that there is a longer director's cut.) After all, the two versions aren't going to contradict, so the director's cut should be treated as the full canon episode anyway. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 18:50, 31 December 2005 (EST)

:Actually, I think that raises a new question for debate; should the Director's Cut of Pegasus be considered a "full [[canon|canon]] episode"?? In the past, we've always taken deleted scenes with a grain of salt; i.e. later episode ''can'' contradict them, though unless something else presents itself they are often our only source of information for some things that the writers fully intended, but simply lacked the time for. Other times this is not the case. Regardless, a "re-edited" episode changed to ''include'' such scenes has never happened before. Should we consider information in the Director's Cut to be automatically canonical?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 20:47, 31 December 2005 (EST)

:: I think that, because RDM likes what scenes are re-edited into the episode, he'll probably stick to it. I think adding the scenes in (maybe with something akin to the spoiler template, but without the text hidden) is a good idea, but we should also watch for contradictions. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:07, 31 December 2005 (EST)

:: Isn't Ricimer's suggestion the same way we treat regular episodes? E.g., the number of ships mentioned in the mini-series was canon until Home retconned it. --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 12:29, 1 January 2006 (EST)

:::Not exactly. Under the circumstances, anything from an earlier episode contradicted by the Director's Cut wouldn't take precedence. I'm torn on the issue, and my above-stated opinion should not be taken as a vote either way. Maybe a subsection on this page for the Director's Cut would be a better idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:01, 1 January 2006 (EST)

If the director's cut of Pegasus is being officially released as a BSG episode, it's canon. And there's no need for something as bulky as the spoiler template, just use an asterisk. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 01:24, 1 January 2006 (EST)

== Quality article candidate ==

I think this should be the first "quality article" because it's well researched, most debates have been fully developed, it's one of the more informative/pivotal/important pages, and it's one of the most popular. Thoughts? --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:00, 5 January 2006 (EST)
:I think it needs some concision badly. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:25, 5 January 2006 (EST)
::Like what? Why not change it now?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:30, 5 January 2006 (EST)
:::Actually, it's not as bad as I thought. CalculatinAvatar cleaned it up nicely. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:00, 5 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So the template's there... But, uh... the template doesn't exist. What should such a template look like? I'd create it, if I had a remote idea or could unscramble my brains enough to think well after watching the Rose Bowl just now. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:10, 5 January 2006 (EST)

:::::This page is far from our best. I was just browsing it and noticed many errors. I removed the template for now (it's not functioning right, anyhow) and made some edits that I'm still not satisfied about. I want to review it again--something doesn't strike me right about the page. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:54, 5 January 2006 (EST)

Talk:Pegasus (episode)/Archive6

2009-11-02T16:54:44Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Pegasus (episode).

{{archive-message}}

== Gina killed 800? ==

Can someone quote me where in the episode it's stated that Gina killed 800 men? I know this was widely speculated prior to the episode, but this is what I actually heard: 700 Pegasus crewmen died in the initial attack, and Gina killed 7 of Thorne's men. Where does the 800 figure come from? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:06, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

In the extended cut, Cain says that Gina helped a Cylon boarding party gain access to the ship. Apparently they were more successful than on Galactica and might have vented a few compartements into space. Cain also said there were fuel fires on the hangar decks, but that might have been related to the attack with nukes.
In any way that's probably how Gina was uncovered
--[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 19:57, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

: I remember hearing what you heard, Peter. I haven't had the time to go back and check, but I was going to and then bring it up. Just thought I'd mention that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:26, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: The 800 figure came from rumors regarding the ep. I've revised the numbers to suit the information revealed in this episode. Perhaps more will be revealed in "[[Resurrection Ship]]". -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 10:07, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

I think the 800 figure refers to Gina revealing to the other Cylons that the Pegasus survived. The Cylons then launched a follow-up attack on the Pegasus. The 7 figure would refer to the men killed capturing Gina. Granted, I only recall the 700-800 figure from Cain's report on the crew who died at Scorpion Shipyards, so perhaps the numbers are wrong -- [[User: mq59|mq59]] 7:17, 31 December 2005 (EDT)

:There's pretty much no basis for it, unless it was in a cut scene, in which case we won't know for months yet. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:28, 31 December 2005 (EST)

== Sharon and Helena ==

''According to an interview with James Callis (Baltar) in issue #197 of TV Zone, "There’s another cut scene where Cain is interviewing Sharon. She hardly says anything but she’s obviously furious that this Cylon has been treated so well. It sickens her, and that’s when Baltar realizes he’s dealing with a psycho."''
:Did Helena know how Sharon had betrayed the other Cyclons several times, and had saved the lives of the Galacticans several times? (helping Helo escape, rescuing Starbuck from the Farm, helping Roslin's crew on Kobol, resending the Cyclon virus back to the Cyclons, ect ect)
:If she didnt know, do you think knowing this would have improved her view on Sharon? --[[User:DrBat|DrBat]] 09:03, 18 January 2006 (EST)
::She did read all the ''Galactica'' logs. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 14:45, 22 November 2006 (CST)

== Removed "goof" ==

I removed the following paragraph originally placed by the Merovingian under the "goofs" heading:

*After Chief Tyrol and Helo burst in and Lt. Thorne gets killed, the pair are told to put their hands behind their head by Pegasus marines at gunpoint, after which Tyrol and Helo submit and put their hands behind their heads. When the camera cuts between viewpoints after this, Tyrol's hands switch between on and off his head several times.

Merv appears to believe this is an editing error, but if so it's a remarkably obvious one that would not have gone undetected. My interpretation of the scene is that the Chief does in fact change the position of his hands. The change in hand position is not abrupt, and he can easily have moved his hands from one position to the other while we cut away to different shots in the cell. Merv seems to assume that the Chief would keep his hands behind his head if a Marine with a gun told him to—clearly, Merv does not know Chief Tyrol particularly well. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 00:01, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:Well I think A) The Marine would really have shot him B) The edit cuts are just ''too'' quick. There's no way Chief would be moving his hands that fast. Check the DVD's. I'll leave it out if everyone still disagrees. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:30, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::Unfortunatly i dont get my DVD's until the 28th august so would appreciate someone else taking a quick look at this scene --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:04, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

I just reviewed the scene. Tyrol has several seconds to move his hands from behind his head to on his knees between shots, and later when it cuts back to him, he moves his hands WHILE THE CAMERA IS ON HIM. As long as his hands are in plain view the Marine would have no reason to shoot him. It's no editing error. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 02:53, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Watch the extended cut. It explicitly shows Tyrol moving his hands to his sides or into his lap and back to the head again. In the short version they cut that out.
So yes, it's an editing "error" (though there is enough offscreen time for Tyrol to account for it), but the full version is the definite one
--[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 20:04, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

== Unexplained Plot Point ==

Having watched both the standard and extended versions, I'm fuzzy on why Gina was on the Pegasus in the first place. If the Cylons expected all 3 battlestars at Scorpia to have the CNP online and launched a massive nuclear barrage to destroy them, why bother having a Cylon agent on board? With only 12 models available, the Cylons couldn't have put an agent on every battlestar in the fleet in case the attack failed (that's ten of each model in the fleet, radically increasing the chances of detection). Maybe they knew Pegasus would have its systems offline and they wanted to capture the ship to get their hands on a state-of-the-art human ship (since we know the Pegasus is much tougher than a basestar)? So they set up Gina on the Pegasus, waited unti it was powering down, then nuked the other two battlestars and then tried to storm the ship. However, the timing went wrong, Gina may have been exposed as a Cylon agent too early, and Pegasus was able to power up and get out of the firing line, although it still had to deal with the Centurions boarding the ship. The only problem with this is that the Cylons could have just used the CNP to order any of the other modern battlestars to shut down to be boarded, or even used the CNP to remotely vent their atmospheres into space.

Is it possible that the two actions were seperate? Gina just had the immense luck to be one of a handful of Cylon agents in the Fleet and just happened to be on Pegasus which escaped. She then set the ship up later to be boarded and taken over? The problem with this is that Caine's statements suggest the two battles happened simultaneously and there is no evidence of the Cylons knowing about Pegasus' existence until it pops up and starts blasting basestars to shreds alongside Galactica. Thoughts? And is this a question worth raising in the ep?--[[User:Werthead|Werthead]] 20:09, 26 November 2006 (CST)

: I never really raised this question myself, since I've always assumed that Gina was on ''Pegasus'' due to Cain's prominence in the Colonial Fleet. As seen in the extended edition, Adama tells Roslin about Cain and how she's managed to climb the ranks relatively quickly. Thus it comes as no surprise that a Cylon agent may have found their way on ''Pegasus'' due to Cain. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:17, 26 November 2006 (CST)

== Needs updating/cleanup ==

The information regarding the extended cut is all phrased with a "to be" tense. Since this version has been out for sometime, the information, or at least its structure and phrasing, needs to be updated. Anyone care to take a stab at it? --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 12:52, 17 December 2006 (CST)
== Step down to Condition 1 ==

In the very beginning after they positive establish the identity of the Pegasus, Adama says "step down to condition 1 throughout the fleet". I am confused. Is this a gafe? [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 23:40, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
:Mhhh, right; seems to be an error. I never noticed that, but not that you say it. I'll make a note about it. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:25, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
::Concur. Maybe they meant "from" instead of "to", but that's what they said. Looks like a goof. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 21:22, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

== Why interrogate Sharon? ==

I just rewatched this episode and something really bugs me. In Pegasus Extended Adm Cain is in Sharon's cell with Baltar. He explains how he didn't use any physical force but was able to get a lot of info from her. Seeing his success Adm Cain asks Baltar to work with their Number 6. Why then does Lt Thorne force his way into Sharon's cell with the Brute Squad and try to get into from her? It seems to me that Adm Cain's first line would be Baltar asking Sharon, since he was so successful. Of course having Lt Thorne's scene with the Brute Squad was a major plot maker and so they kind of ''had'' to write it into the script, but it bugs me and is a little bit intellectually insulting. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 17:34, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
: I've always thought that the act was more to sate Thorne's desire to rape her more than anything else. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 18:47, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
== General Comments ==

For some reason, I'm really excited about this episode. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 01:28, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)

== Ad Spammers ==

Oh, great. Now it appears that whatever is SPAMing us with ad links got a user name: "Boomer". Although I think it might be possible for a zombie computer to do this, I'm leaning towards the idea that it's an actual person. They must be subjected to live unsedated vivisection. ---Ricimer 25 Aug 2005
: Yeah, this is a real person. But they are likely still controlling another computer to do it. There are a few ways to go about reducing this stuff, but what I really don't get is that some yahoo actually wastes their time spamming a board that has thousands--THOUSANDS--of people who read and edit it deily, eliminating their "work" in seconds. They're wasting their time more than they get on our nerves. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:02, 25 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page/Archive6

2009-11-02T16:54:17Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Talk:Main Page/Archive5.

Talk:Main Page/Archive5

2009-11-02T16:54:15Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 7 thread(s) from Talk:Main Page.

{{archive-message|newarchive=5}}

== Airdates ==

The airdate for "Faith" needs to be adjusted. It's May 9'''th''', not May 9'''nd'''.--[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]]•[[User talk:Kevin W.|So say we all]] 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:For future reference: you can fix such things yourself. [[Battlestar Wiki:News/Airdates]] is editable by everybody (most other parts of the main page are not, however). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::That's strange. I knew about that page, but I could have sworn the error wasn't showing up there but was showing up on the front page. That's why I asked here. Hmm...--[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]]•[[User talk:Kevin W.|So say we all]] 01:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, even though the airdates page is correct, it's still showing up as "9nd" on the main page. --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]]•[[User talk:Kevin W.|So say we all]] 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Fixed that, that part was [[Template:Nextairepisode]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
== Grammar Problem ==

Problem I have describe should be ...have describe''d''.

[[User:Spockezri|Spockezri]] 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

: Thanks Spockezri! That's [[User:Shane|Shane]] for ya. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
:: It was fixed before the great crash of 08. :D [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
== Canada Dates ==

Canada's broadcasts for the last ten episodes of season for resume at the same time that the US does: http://forums.spacecast.com/forums/thread/370361.aspx This means that 4.11 is broadcast 10PM eastern 16 January 2009 on Space: The Imagination Station, can we get the front page updated please?
-- [[User:Xdroop|Xdroop]] 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks, Xdroop. Not to slight Canadians, but because of space and format limits as well as the "home port" of Battlestar Wiki (the US), we show the US air times there on the Main Page. On the episode guides, the air date for the UK is also shown, but because we'd be doing that for every nation, we limit it at that. Good that you don't have to wait like the Brits to see BSG (they normally have 1-3 months delay!) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== Blog ==

What happened to the blog? Just a big empty space I can see (monobook). [[User:OTW|OTW]] 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:Moved it to the [[Portal:Blogs]]. I can't find this empty space on monobook. Hard refresh. It was casuing slow downs being on the main page. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Last Aired Episode and Next Episode are both out of date. Don't know how to change this myself. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

== new movie - news worthy? ==

A new BSG movie seems official (not s4, not caprica), see:
http://community.livejournal.com/aarondouglas/113815.html and http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/08/battlestar-gala.html --[[User:Xlynx|Xlynx]] 16:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

== Question ==

Question: If hardcore Star Trek fans are called "Trekkers" or "Trekkies" and hardcore Star Wars fans are called "Warsies" then are BSG fans "Galacticans?"--[[User:Balator|Balator]] 01:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
* "frakers" or "motherfrakers" if you wanna shine em on. --[[User:Tritium|Tritium]] 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
*Actually that don't sound too bad...It's probably more official than "Galactican" as I thought it would be--[[User:Balator|Balator]] 01:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

== navigation pane? ==

just curious, where did the main navigation pane go? (main page, recent changes etc) this is just odd. [[User:Raziel Anarki|Raziel Anarki]] 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

anyone? maybe it's only me (ie: me=noob), but it's a lot harder to navigate the wiki without it... (or just make clicking the the logo take you back to the main page) thanks. [[User:Raziel Anarki|Raziel Anarki]] 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:Yup, not having a recent changes link etc. is pretty weird. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 20:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

== Episode ==

Why does it still say that the next episode to air is "[[Sometimes a Great Notion]]"? Shouldn't it be "[[A Disquiet Follows My Soul]]"? -- [[User:Space Lizard|Space Lizard]] 14:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:I went ahead and changed it, but it probably should wait and be change after the episode airs in the UK. Thoughts, anyone? -- [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::Good on ya, Frankie. The next episode box follows the US air schedule (as indicated by the little US flags in it). It's hard to accommodate all the different airing schedules (Canada, UK, etc.) and I think by far the vast majority of our audience is from the US broadcast region. It's not REALLY a big deal, in that it's pretty easy to navigate between eps when you get into them, but that's the way we've done it historically. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Updating Rerun and Special Airdates Section ==

On July 28, the Sci Fi Channel will rerun the episodes "Blood on the Scales" through "Daybreak, Part II." When someone with the authority to update the Rerun and Special Airdates section, please add this. Thanks --[[BlueResistance|BlueResistance]] 12:51 11 June 2009 (UTC)
: Blue, you should be able to edit the page in question by going [[Battlestar_Wiki:News/Airdates|here]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the guidance, Joe. It's up now--and without ruining the format, either! -- --[[BlueResistance|BlueResistance]] 02:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Happy to be of service! :D -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive4

2009-11-02T16:53:26Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive3.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|counter = 3
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{talk page warning}}

== You Will Know the Truth ==

I found a [http://jamesjacob77.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-is-final-cylon_29.html blog post] that links to [http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/youwillknowthetruth/ this page on scifi.com]. They've also got a [http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showtopic=2319583&st=0 forum thread] on it. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

== [[Zak Adama]]? ==

It's possible that Zak Adama is the final Cylon. The main reason I say this is because of [[Leoben Conoy|Leoben]]'s line in [[Flesh and Bone]]: "Adama is a Cylon." I don't think that it's William Adama, Apollo, or by extension Dualla. Is this viable enough for inclusion in the article? --[[User:JemHadar359|JemHadar359]] 05:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
:In this article on SyFy Portal[http://www.syfyportal.com/news425609.html], Michael Hinman claims that they have received confirmation of the identity of the final Cylon from multiple sources, and claims that the final Cylon is one of five characters listed in the article. Zak Adama is not on the list. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
: As I said before—and forgive me for soundin' like a broken record—but this article will be dead in its present (and the ColdBoot form) before the season ends anyway. ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

== Just a feeling. . . ==

that the final cylon will be someone that there's been no speculation about. Someone right out of left field. Personally, I'd like to think it's. . . Romo Lampkin. [[User:Centurion 51773|Centurion 51773]] 16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

== What about Number Seven? ==

Do we have any information about the existence or nonexistence of Number Seven? In many interviews and articles, it has been stated that the Final Five don't have model numbers, so it couldn't be any of them. Has the issue of Number Seven been addressed in any interviews? -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
: Not yet you don't. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Since the Final Five are actually older, Seven must have been a failed model. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 15:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Archiving rather than deleting ==

I can't say I'll miss all the fanwanking we did on this page and its sisters, but I think it'll be a hoot to leave these pages as of Ellen Tigh's reveal, locked with a note about the relative history of how contributors jerked themselves around trying to formulate a logic for the last Cylons. The main articles would be protected as well as the talk pages for people to smile and laugh at (especially the producers and writers who probably made ''sure'' we were wrong! ;) Thoughts? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
:Sure, archive it. Though I will point out that if you read the [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/ColdBoot]] replacement that I started for it 6 months ago, it would in fact have led the reader to probably pick Ellen. Not sure why my efforts to get it live never amounted to anyting, but "nyah, nyah, I told you so..." :-) So archive that too. --[[User:Bradtem|bradtem]] 09:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
::I'd say you'd get dibs on that prediction, Brad. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
***Ellen was on a LOT of shortlists. Her mysterious survival, and then Saul being a Cylon... [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive3

2009-11-02T16:53:16Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 8 thread(s) from Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation.

{{archive-message|newarchive=}}

== Archived Page ==

I had to archive this page as it was three times larger than some browsers could read. I know that this is a very popular page, but please limit the discussion to the criteria and reasoning behind a character's suspicion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:04, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

== Romo Lampkin's entry ==

I truncated Lampkin's entry to its basic points and moved him to "low' probability. By the nature of the show, almost ''everyone'' is a suspect. Lampkin's demeanor is suspicious, but so is/was [[Tom Zarek]], [[Phelan]], [[Valance]], and many, many other antagonists in the show. "Creepy" is not a qualifier, per se. The point of association with Joseph Adama is of particular note for possibie disqualification if we can verify his time of death. Based on conversations with the surviving Adamas, it appears that the senior Adama died some time (>2 years) before the Cylon genocide, but we can't verify a time. If anything, for someone who actually ''knew'' Joseph Adama to be a survivor of the Fleet, like [[Ellen Tigh]]'s mysterious rescue, is a matter of question. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:54, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

== Statement on Death ==

I have changed the following line:

<blockquote>''As only a humanoid Cylon can "return" from the dead, any human character that dies is instantly disqualified from suspicion. If the character returns in a manner other than being seen in a "flashback" scene or episode, then it is <strike>probable</strike> possible that the character is a Cylon.''</blockquote>

The reason for this is due to the return of Starbuck, who due to her arrival and Apollo's reaction, we are not sure if she is human, Cylon, or even a delusion in his mind at this time.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 21:13, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

== All Males Should Be In Low Probability ==

I think we should consider all male suspects to be in the lowest possible suspicion level since the number of males is already greater than that of females, and I doubt they would go as far as unbalancing it even more. Doesn't mean they can't be, but it does mean it's a lot less probable that they are Cylons. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 22:39, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
:Three's drawings were of three males and two females, yes? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:36, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
::I can't really tell, but I'm mainly basing my comment on the fact that it would be extremely disproportionate to have 8 Males and 4 females....--[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 23:41, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
:::Maybe it's meant to be the reverse of the human female to male ratio, where it's (as the Beach Boys have said) "two girls for every boy....". Seriously, there may be a reason why such a disparity exists, and in any case, I'm not sure that gender plays a factor in how things will transpire, as it hasn't played a factor in how things have happened thus far.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 00:13, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

== Major Revision Needed ==

I think this page should be replaced with an article concerning the remaining twelfth Cylon specifically. No character should be admitted to speculation without some sort of affirmative cause for suspicion - straight off the top of my head, that would include just Starbuck and Roslin. We should also re-evaluate our elimination criteria:
*Obviously biological offspring can no longer eliminate a character from suspicion, unless their partner is known to be a Cylon.
*Humanoid Cylons existed at least as early as 30 years prior to the third season, since that's how long Adama has known Tigh.
--[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:14, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

== Suggested name for the last Cylon "#1" ==

OK, we don't actually know the numbers of any of the new 4 Cylons or even for Simon and Cavil, and RDM has said they were essentially assigned at random.

But I'm proposing a fun name, in homage to the Prisoner, for the last Cylon on the wiki should be #1. Since I would be really, really surprised if that is not indeed the number and role of this last Cylon anyway. Better than "12th Cylon" though I guess "Final Cylon" is OK. Strictly speaking, RDM could create more than 12 but for now that's how many he's said are there. Of course, there is another possible special Cylon out there, namely a humanoid incarnation of the Cylon God, a Cylon Jesus if you will. (I would pick Baltar as this -- not a Cylon, but much more.)

Or are people against #1 as a designation on the off chance that might not turn out to be its number?--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 01:03, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
:While the ''Prisoner'' reference is valid, I think it'd probably be jumping the gun to assign a number. "Final Cylon" is OK for now, I guess. Especially as it relates to "Final Five". --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:37, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

== The Eight Cylons in the fleet ==

While recogizing this isn't a chat forum, I think the following is reasonable fodder for speculation. You'll remember in ''[[Resistance (episode)|Resistance]]'' that [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]] said there were eight Cylons in the fleet. Assuming that she somehow had access to this information despite not being able to identify any of the Final Five or even all of the original seven, let's try to reconcile this with present knowledge.

Cylons who are ''not'' in the fleet at the time include [[Sharon Agathon|Athena]], [[Samuel Anders|Anders]], and [[Gina]], as they arrived later. Those now known to Cylons who were in the fleet at the time are:

*Boomer herself
*[[D'Anna Biers]]
*The [[Cavil]] copy who later counselled Tyrol
*[[Saul Tigh]]
*[[Tory Foster]]
*[[Galen Tyrol]]

You'll notice this totals to six. Of the remaining two, one is probably the final unrevealed Final Fiver. Note this suggests that this Cylon is not [[Kara Thrace|Starbuck]], since she was on Caprica at the time.

As for the other, my best guess is [[Shelly Godfrey]], though if so she'd been hiding superbly well. I suppose there could also have been a [[Simon]] lurking about somewhere, though if so we ought to have been told after his cover was blown when Starbuck returned. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 09:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
:There may still have been a Simon hanging around somewhere, Starbuck didn't exactly take a picture of him. In a 45k-population, avoiding one person is not that hard to do. Also keep in mind that D'Anna wasn't unmasked upon Anders' return for the same reason. Both could've easily avoided Anders' resistance group during the year on New Caprica, after which they'd blend in with the other Cylons during the occupation. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 10:40, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
::Since the 7 know nothing of the identities or activites of the five, she _should_ have just been guessing. Sharon would know the total count of 12, but should have had no reason to know Anders was on Caprica and four others were on board, unless we have been incorrectly informed about their non-knowledge of the F5. #3 and #6 certainly know nothing of them besides their count.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 13:55, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
:::She might've known how many of the Five there were, after all the reason why the Seven don't know their faces is because of their programming. Baltar was seriously messing with Boomer's programming, and I wouldn't be surprised if he managed to access the deepest places. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 17:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
::Well, we don't know when Biers was caught out because it happened off-camera: it could have been anytime in the year interlude during [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II]] between Anders' arrival till the Cylon conquest. I would assume that, for both Ander and Starbuck, the Colonials would be smart enough to sit people down after they return and at least get police composites drawn. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 19:05, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

== article reboot ==

Due to the fact that everything we known about the Humanoid Cylons has been thrown into the loop, I've started work on a "rebooted" version of the article, which can be [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot|found here]]. Please discuss and modify this version as needed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 15:21, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
:Agreed. And when we finish the reboot we delete this version. 12:08, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
::Honestly we may as well delete this article. The fact that one of the Cylons ''fought in the first war on the human side'' really makes all of our points moot. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 13:02, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
:::I keep needing to point this out - Tigh's history cannot be verified prior to his meeting with Adama. The Cylons were able to place Boomer in the Fleet with a convincing backstory; they could have done so with Tigh just as easily. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
:I was never a fan of this article in the first place, but as said "Crossroads" really makes this pointless until we get some more information in Season 4 --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:05, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Agreed! Let us wash this away and start anew! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 13:31, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
::::[[w:Daleks|EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!]] (Dang it if I didn't start it all many moons ago with this [[Baltar as Cylon speculation|Baltar thing]]. Alrighty, then: [[w:Total Party Kill|rocks fall, everybody dies!]] --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:08, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
:I'll give this until the 15th to see whether or not anyone objects. Not that I see much in the way of that happening, myself. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 14:28, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Let me start the counter argument (against total deletion but for reboot.) I feel that BSG is both a mystery and an SF show, and an important function for a Wiki like this is to document facts from Canon, official sources and reality to help viewers appreciate and understand the show. That includes both the SF and mundane aspects, but also its mysteries. Many people fear that speculating regarding the mysteries will lead to too much fanwanking, and that's a legitimate fear, but it's a mistake to go too far out of fear and conclude documenting the mysteries and clues should not be done.

This page was a failure before, but from a sort of "reverse fanwanking." Many folks ignored strong clues that the rules for the final five were very different from the significant seven. They assumed that the Final Five followed the same rules as the existing 7, which turned out to be the ungrounded speculation. My own correct assertions that this was the case were removed, but I'm not simply trying to say "told you so" here. I'm trying to point out if correct (and it turns out highly critical) information is removed, the process that led to that should be examined. I'm trying to say that appreciating a show of this sort requires giving in a bit to imagination. One must find the right balance to moderate, rather than stamp out, speculation on the mysteries.

I would actually recommend a series of pages about the major mysteries of the show and encourage the collection of not speculation of the mysteries, but the documented "facts" that will allow viewers to come to their own speculations and conclusions. The wiki should provide the foundation for one's own personal speculation. Yes, some people will overdo it, and start putting in invented theories, but I think they can be handled -- especially if there is a policy page that explains that the way you express a theory is to summarize the canonical clues, but not the conclusions (except in a broad sense, such as you're in a section entitled "Cylon speculation for Character X")

(There are other approaches too. For example, heroeswiki does a remarkably good job by simply having associated 'fan theory' pages where people can go fairly wild, and they hardly get any of it in the main pages.)--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 17:48, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

: I suppose we could attempt this approach, but we need to run it through the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]] to gain a larger consensus. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:53, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

== Isn't "Reboot" or "Deletion" Jumping the Gun? ==

Sorry all, this is my first participation in the discussion here, but I felt it kinda necessary. We still don't know the Final Five or whether this "activation" really happened. The music never was playing when Boomer was activated, for example. We don't even know whether Kara died or what was in the cockpit. All of this is only assumption based on what we've been shown so far. I, personally, do not think that any of the main characters shown were the Final Five -- all the five were on New Caprica and we have yet to really know everything that happened down there. I'd leave this up until the facts have been corroborated that they are Cylons. Just my two bits, I'll quiet down now.--[[User:Tstevens20|Tstevens20]] 15:36, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:The producers have confirmed that they are Cylons in interviews. And the music didn't necessarily "activate" them. The two are connected, but the music is just the reason why they realized that they are or might be Cylons. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:43, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:RDM said the 4 are. Kara, I dunno. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 15:44, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
::Although I agree that in numerous sources we have all of the powers involved (Although Katee Sackhoff and RDM in interviews had said Starbuck was dead and not coming back when in reality she was returning) in the production of the show confirming that we know the identity of four of the final five I think it is premature to completely rid ourselves of this page. The page seems to be appropriately designed to allow for continued speculation on the Final Cylon. Once we know the identity of the last Cylon I would agree to the deletion of this page but since we still have one unknown I think we should keep this page as it is.--[[User:Zarek Rocks|Zarek Rocks]] 16:14, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:::We're only deleting ''this version'' of the article and restoring it with the version that's been worked on so far [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot|here]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:26, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
:RDM has consistently stated that the Final Five are fundamentally different than the "Significant Seven", and that Tyrol, Tigh, Anders and Foster were four of the Final Five. You have to remember that their activation is different from Boomer's activation in Season 1, in that they became aware that they were Cylons. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:59, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
::But it flies in the face of other things he has said previously. This is a sure sign of us being misled. Like, for example, he said Caprica was the first Cylon to ever murder another Cylon. I mean, look at the characters. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, so perhaps deleting this is premature. This discussion is at least healthy to be having. --[[User:Tstevens20|Tstevens20]] 18:18, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
:::It depends on how you define [[Wikipedia:murder|murder]]. [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]] destroyed a basestar full of Cylons in [[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 18:46, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
:::RDM's known to use retroactive continuity in the past, particularly if he believes the story would benefit from it. He's been guilty of this in ''Star Trek'', and he hasn't changed in that regard for the new BSG. To be honest, and as others (including Bradtem) have pointed out elsewhere, RDM only began running with the "Final Five" concept in Season 3 and it's painfully apparent that the four of the Final Five have been pulled out of his bum. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:26, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

== Laura Roslin ==

As a complete n00b to this, I'd like to see reasons why Roslin can't be a Cylon here. I think that the final Cylon has to be a pretty major character simply for reasons of dramatic effect, so of the ones listed, I'd say only Starbuck and Baltar qualify on that criterion. {{unsigned|SSH}}
: This is per [[Ronald D. Moore]]'s comments in the Frak Party podcast than anything else. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:15, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:: But someone says there that RDM didn't know who the final cylon was, but RDM says he does now, implying it was a recent decision and probably after the planning of the end of season 3, so the choice of the four was a very different and earlier decision to that of the very last one. --[[User:SSH|SSH]] 09:46, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
::: RDM saying he knows who the final Cylon is happened at roughly the same time as him saying Adama and Roslin weren't Cylons. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:10, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:: I have not listened to the whole podcast, but I heard part where he said he ruled out Roslin and Adama, and that was referring to who the 4 revealed Cylons would be, not about who the 5th one is. Did he say it again at a later point in the podcast? If not, I count this as strong evidence against Adama and Roslin but not an absolute rule-out. He likes to equivocate on these things, remember. It could very well be that he said that Roslin would not make sense (as one of the 4) because she's already planned as the 5th, for example.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 15:20, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:::From the Sci Fi forums:
::::QUOTE
:::::Do you already know who the fifth cylon of the final five is? If so, '''have you already left us some clues'''?
::::Yes and '''yes'''.
::::Ron
:::So not only does RDM already know, he also left clues in Season 3. This was posted March 26 2007 (the day after the finale aired). [http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/04/04/bsg-podcast-recap-battlestar-galactica-frak-party-qanda/ On TV Squad] we have:
::::Posted Apr 4th 2007 3:49PM by Keith McDuffee
::::(...)
::::While we await Ron Moore's commentary podcast for Battlestar's season finale, we were treated '''yesterday''' to a Q&A podcast between Moore, his wife and several fans at a viewing party in Berkley, CA.
:::So the frak party podcast was released on April 3rd (one week after the finale), and that's the podcast in which he says (paraphrasing) "there were two people we didn't want to make Cylons: Roslin and Adama". He also says this when discussing his choices for the Fantastic Four. I think that pretty much rules out Roslin and Adama as Cylons, although if you're still not satisfied yet, you can of course always [[BW:OC|ask Brad]] to be sure.
--[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:49, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
::::His words are "We didn't want Eddie, that would rob something from the show, didn't want Mary." I will need to go back and transcribe the surrounding dialogue, because as I said, he likes to equivocate about surprises. (He says he never lied about Starbuck, only equivocated.) I just want all the folks who were sure beyond a doubt that Tigh was no Cylon to be careful when you think you're sure!--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 18:10, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::This exactly what I was getting at. Revealing Roslin as a cylon at that point would take something from the series, but having the revelation late in the possibly-final series would not... --[[User:SSH|SSH]] 04:26, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
::::::I'm working on transcribing the Q&A podcast, which I hope to complete over the course of next week. By then we'll have RDM's literal words and the context black on white (or white on black actually).--[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 06:01, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

== Serpents Two and Ten ==

Might the Pythian prophecy referral to Serpents Two and Ten refer to those who planned the attack on the Tylium asteroid? Since this was Tigh and Lee, Tigh might be "number 2" or "number 10" and Lee would be the other one... --[[User:SSH|SSH]] 09:43, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:Nah, 2 and 10 means 2+10, 12. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 09:57, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
::Are you sure that's all it means? --[[User:SSH|SSH]] 05:51, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
:The analysis for the episode is [[The Hand of God (RDM)|here]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:04, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
::I've read it and it doesn't really answer my question --[[User:SSH|SSH]] 05:51, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
:"Serpents Two and Ten" could refer either to the twelve serpents Roslin saw, or to the twelve Vipers in Strike Force Two attacking the Cylon base in "[[The Hand of God (RDM)|The Hand of God]]". Those are (IMO) the most likely explanations. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 06:00, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
:It's "serpents ''numbering'' two and ten" if that helps. Thats just how you say numbers in olde-prophecy language really... [[User:OTW|OTW]] 18:07, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
::I don't doubt that ''sometimes'' it means twelve, I was just wondering if it had a double meaning. {{unsigned|SSH}}
:::To get back to your original theory, the identities of the final five (all five of them) were only decided on when Season 3 started to be written. Anything in Season 1 or 2 that looks like a reference to their Cylonness is coincidental. Although there are [[Talk:Final Five#Ironies and references|plenty]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 04:37, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
::::It's still possible that some of those coincidences in the first two seasons influenced the later decision. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 19:54, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

== Another possible rule? ==

RDM said that there were clues left all through 3rd season as to who the final cylon was. Which implies that they were heavily present in the third season, or at least heavily mentioned. You can't leave clues about a character who never comes up.

This unfortunately doesn't rule out any of the most likely candidates, but I would still say that it's a valid point, especially considering that it's not hinged on any assumptions beyond what RDM said himself, and we really don't have much to go on.

Thoughts? -[[User:Waxwings|Waxwings]] 16:36, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
:Well, crap. I guess that rules out [[Boxey (RDM)|Boxey]] after all... --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:37, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
:What's your source for "clues left all through?" I just know the interview where he said yes, he had picked the final Cylon and yes there were clues. Not that they were widespread. Was there another interview?--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 02:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
::According to the [[Podcast:Frak Party Q and A|Frak Party podcast]] the decision was made while they were discussing the season 3 finale. I can't find the interview where it was stated that there's hints about the last Cylon, I believe that RDM only stated that there are hints in the third season, without saying anything about their frequency. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 02:29, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
:::Oh, well then I guess I'm not as clever as I though. =/ I guess I was remembering wrong. It still does rule out characters who didn't appear at all third season, but I don't suppose that's much help. --[[User:Waxwings|Waxwings]] 18:53, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

== Deletion status ==

This article is still tagged as a deletion candidate. I think it's been reworked enough by now too warrant a keep. The Season 3 cliffhanger notice is probably outdated as well. What's the sitrep on reworking this article? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 04:46, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
:Yeah, the deletion tag can be removed. But the Season 3 notice is still valid, since the cliffhanger hasn't been resolved. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:24, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
::True. I'll do a major cleanup on this one later tonight. The Starbuck section is a mess, and the Dualla section is not yet Final Five-aware. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])
:::I've looked at it again, and the cleanup tag itself is indeed unnecessary after the cleanup. But the content of the article is still highly speculative due to the uncertain natures of "Crossroads". So a general note about that would be useful. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:02, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

== Cleanup ==

I have done a [{{fullurl:Humanoid Cylon speculation|diff=125476&oldid=120079}} major cleanup] on this article, which included:
* Slightly rewording the qualifiers for suspicion
* Putting the qualifiers in subsections
* Severely rewording and concising the sections about Starbuck and Baltar. All pre-Torn and pre-XR2 references are gone.
* Scrapping all other sections (Dualla, Gaeta, Seelix and Lampkin) entirely (for now), as there don't really seem like good suspects to me post-XR2. You are free to re-add these sections if you have evidence supporting their suspicion. The old version of the article can be found [{{fullurl:Humanoid Cylon speculation|oldid=120079}} here].

As I've written (and rewritten) entire paragraphs here (something I very rarely do), I recommend that [[User:Spencerian|someone]] someone take a good look at this cleanup of mine and tweak it where necessary. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 13:55, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
== "Death" qualifier ==

I find the "Death" section under "Needed Qualifiers" to be rather confusing. It starts out by claiming that only humanoid Cylons can return from the dead, which is rather a dubious claim considering Starbuck's return; it's far from certain that she is the final Cylon. It also claims that no dead character could possibly return to the show as the final Cylon, yet I don't see why this would be true at all. In fact, on the [[Humanoid_Cylon_speculation/Reboot|Reboot]] version of this page, both characters listed are dead characters. It also references [[Characters eliminated from suspicion]], but that article doesn't address the issue at all, or even list any "dead" characters as eliminated from suspicion.

Since Starbuck's return applies only to her very special case, it would make more sense just to describe her return as a possible indication that she is a Cylon, and remove the section entirely.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 15:29, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

:We can only go, when no other data is available, on what we know. The reboot page is filled with some specious arguments, some use unaired information, such as on [[Joseph Adama]], that are fanwanking since ''[[Caprica (series)|Caprica]]'' is unlikely to air (per [[Ron D. Moore]]'s wife). The logic that the original page gives is, "If a Cylon, they can return." The reboot article also revives [[Helena Cain]], although no such revival is taking place. The special episode ''[[Razor]]'' takes place in the ''past'', and this article assumes she returns by surprise, which no episode information supports; by that logic, ''any dead human character'' could return. Why would Cain be so special?

:I apologize for the confusion, Hylas. It's important that Battlestar Wiki never becomes a [[BW:CJ|source unto itself]], especially when it comes to the allowed, sourced original research we call here "[[BW:CJ#Derived Content|derived content]]" (which is the reason this article exists). I have not noted the content of this article before, else I would have made issue of it since myself and other [[BW:AN|administrators]] here are responsible for insuring articles stay sourced and (not or) plausible. I will be marking this article for major cleanup and striking the information that is not germane, replacing it with what is known, officially, and exploring the clues that Ron Moore has given in the series as to the identity of the last Cylon. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:00, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

::It's the importance of sourced researched that forms the foundation of my objections to the section. As it is currently written, the section is specious, self-contradictory, and contains two significant unsourced claims:
::*''As only a humanoid Cylon can "return" from the dead...'' - We don't know that this is true. (If it were, it would imply Starbuck must be the final Cylon.)
::*''...any human character that dies is instantly disqualified from suspicion.'' - This conclusion does not follow in any logical manner from the first half of the sentence. On what basis can we categorically rule out the possibility of a dead character returning? While there is certianly no reason to expect that Cain, Joseph Adama, Elosha, or any other dead character ''will'' return as the final cylon, we have absolutely no basis for saying that it absolutely ''won't'' happen.
::If we remove the problematic first sentence, we are left with a statement that a character returning from the dead might possibly be a Cylon, which really doesn't say anything, and contradicts claim made in the first part of the first sentence. The implications of Starbuck's return from apparent death can be discussed in the section relating specifically to her.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 19:20, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
:::Saying that someone returning from the dead greatly increases their odds to be the last Cylon sounds good to me. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 02:19, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
:::Well, first off, I'm not a fan of Starbuck's return in the first place, as it does fly in the face of all reason. Otherwise the note makes perfect sense. This isn't fantasy and dead humans need to stay dead. Starbuck should really be the one exception to this and they need to find a good explanation for her return (like that she didn't really die in the first place). Saying that humans characters can return from the dead at will, doesn't make any sense.
:::Either we do what Catrope says, or we make an explicit exception for Starbuck, as we don't really know what happened to her. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:02, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
::::''This isn't fantasy and dead humans need to stay dead.'' - But dead Cylons don't. Why would we assume that a character can't possibly be a Cylon, just because we have seen that character die? I can think of several plausible scenarios for a dead character being revealed as the Final Cylon. Perhaps none would be sufficiently well-supported to add to the article, but there's no reason that dead characters as a class should be categorically dismissed.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 10:25, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

:::::Technically, it doesn't say that dead characters can't be Cylons. It says that they shouldn't be considered Cylons ''unless'' they somehow return from the dead (which is why Starbuck is valid to speculate about). That was done to reduce the ridiculous amount of speculation that went on here. There is really no reason to suppose that any of the dead characters is a Cylon. They might be Cylons, but we have nothing to go on, until one of them shows up again through resurrection. I think that distinction is really the core of the problem here. You think the page states that dead characters can't be Cylons at all, which isn't really the case. They just shouldn't be considered Cylons - or Cylon candidates - per se for the purpose of the article. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:35, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

::::::''They just shouldn't be considered Cylons - or Cylon candidates...'' - That seems to be a very arbitrary editorial decision to me. As a hypothetical, let's say that a growing mountain of evidence is introduced in Season 4 pointing towards Elosha being a copy of the the final Cylon model. Why wouldn't we consider her to be a Cylon candidate just because she is dead?--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 11:08, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

: Let me add to this conversation, because I feel that we need to address the whole "dead" criterion. The reason such a criteria exists is clearly due to the fact that anyone who has died could easily be a Cylon, which is, on some level, true. Otherwise this page should just as well say that "anyone can be a Cylon, except Helo and Cally because they're parents of known hybrid offspring". However, we need to be realistic here; there's one Cylon left, and clearly the rules for the Final Five are different than the Significant Seven. Also, given the hints that RDM's given in interviews, it is already someone we know. But to specify who's a Cylon and why out of a whole bunch of people who've ever been seen on screen (and also died), which seems to an assumed discussion point from my POV, is just too much for even an article.

: Given that problem, I believe the page should be retooled to specify who isn't (or is ''least'' likely to be) a member of the Final Five. That would give us the smaller number and would be more to our benefit. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 11:40, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

::''The reason such a criteria exists is clearly due to the fact that anyone who has died could easily be a Cylon.'' - Certainly, I think we should be very strict in terms of the level of supporting evidence that should be required, and at this point I don't think there are any dead characters that have a strong enough case to warrant inclusion. I'm just saying there could be in the future, so they shouldn't be disqualified from consideration.
::In terms of retooling, I'd be in favour of removing any sort of conclusions as to the high or low likeliness of a character being a Cylon. We could, for example, simply state that Starbuck has apparently returned from the dead, and that Ron Moore said he didn't want Adama or Roslin to be a Cylon, leaving the reader to draw conclusions from that evidence.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 12:21, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
:::That's something I can agree with. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 14:41, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
== Kara Thrace ==

According to Katee Sackhoff she was one of the few actors told she wasn't a Cylon.([http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8547/redeye3copyci7.jpg Source]) I think this statement is enough to remove her from the list because Ronald D. Moore has already made up his mind as to who the fifth Cylon is (see note at the article about the [[Final five]]). --[[User:Gen00b|Gen00b]] 09:32, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

But, since [[Kara Thrace]] reappeared in [[Crossroads, Part II]], this adds more evidence that Thrace is a Cylon. It is possible that she is human, that she has discovered a method of human "Resurrection", but this is a highly dubious possibility. There is also a note on this page noting a section in the Battlestar Galactica Season Three Gag Reel where Katee Sackoff says herself that Starbuck is a Cylon and that she really dies in Maelstrom. We'll just have to see what happens in Season Four! --[[User:Stltcom|Stltcom]] 23:07, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
== Major re-write ==

I'm in the process of completely re-writing this article to bring it up to date with season 3. In particular, I'm removing any assessment or grouping into "moderate" or "low" probability but, for each leading character listing reasons for suspicion and reasons for doubt and letting the reader decide. Any ideas on what this article needs, now would be a good time to suggest. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 15:17, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
:Erm, are you working on an old version? This was already done a while ago. All the fanwankery and excessive speculation was finally removed. Some with the probabilities, which were really silly. Anyways, now the article only lists Starbuck and Baltar, who are the most likely suspects. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:34, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
::I'm working on assesing the whole "human" central cast, although its immediately clear who are the biggest suspects. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 15:48, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
:::The page was specifically cleansed to get rid of all the excessive speculation about everyone. This has been discussed on the talk page. Also see [[Characters eliminated from suspicion‎]] for why Helo and Cally Tyrol can't be Cylons and why the Adamas and Roslin probably aren't (has real-world reasons though). Baltar already has his [[Baltar as Cylon speculation|own article]]. Starbuck is mentioned here. So that's everyone covered. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:52, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
:OK, done it. Hope you like. I've limited the scope to the central characters (because "Oh, [[Hot Dog]]'s the Cylon" would be pretty much an anticlimax). I think this is clearer and more organised than before, and allows us to demonstrate why certain characters are unlikely to be Cylons, rather than not talking about them. I have NOT included

{{cite_rdm_podcast|episode=Frak Party Q and A|act=|id=adamaroslin|timestamp=15:57|totalrunning=78:27}}

because I think it is clear from the context that RDM was discussing Bill and Laura being revealed as part of the ''four'' in [[Crossroads, Part II]]. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 16:37, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

::Don't take this personally, but I don't. The old article was way better IMHO. Granted, it outsourced the eliminated characters to another page, which could be done away with maybe. But while your article is factually correct (*) with the pro and cons for everyone, I found the old one read more interestingly, because it was complete text and not just a list of a bullet points. That gave you the pointers to draw your own conclusions and links to pursue further indications.
::What yours has going for it is that it doesn't just rely on out-of-universe sources for the Adamas and Roslin, but the sacrifices for that are too high. I'd rather have the "eliminated characters" article edited to include those points, but restore this one. But I'm just one person, so don't be discouraged. Some other people can weigh in too. But with an article has hotly contested as this one - see talk pages - you should have solicited some feedback ''before'' editing. Also because it could have saved you work.
:::(*) Except for some things like Adama in "[[A Day in the Life]]". That is '''not''' projection, but a stylistic choice to show his inner monologue --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:53, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
::I more or less agree with Serenity. While you bring up some nice points in your revamped version of the page, it is just a bunch of bullet points. Text, like in the old version, is a much more comfortable read. ---[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 01:13, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

== Projection is a form of daydreaming ==

To be honest, the differences between "projecting" and "daydreaming" are sufficiently blurred here, since it's really the same thing. Also, it's really had to tell the difference between both, particularly in the Adama's case, so I'm not entirely sure of how we should approach that here. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 17:01, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
:Yeah. Bill Adama's "projection" was weak, so I've removed it. The problem is, I can't think of any other plausible reason for suspicion. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 17:07, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
:We already have it as non-projection on [[Virtual beings#Notes]]. I know that some people are crazy about anything that looks like Cylons, but I never saw it as anything but Adama's inner musings and imagination. Sure, it goes beyond what one might expect, but he doesn't really have any dialogues with his wife. She talks a lot and for me that works perfectly fine as a representation of Adama's thoughts and him re-hashing things his wife told him over the years. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:10, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
::I think that anything which could be projection is something which could be a hint. A single hallucination is weak evidence, since all five of the characters on the list have hallucinated and only one of them can be a Cylon, but it adds to the other evidence. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 19:42, 6 November 2007 (CST)

== Current Form ==

Whoever conceived of the current form of this page, I give you a standing ovation. Brilliant. I love the layout. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:53, 5 November 2007 (CST)
:It would be better by incorporating the Baltar and Thrace sections of the [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Humanoid_Cylon_speculation&diff=127811&oldid=127642 old version] at the start, since those are the most important and just read more interestingly than mere bullet points. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:22, 6 November 2007 (CST)
== Season 4 spoilers ==

According to [http://roadrunnerdm.livejournal.com/84288.html this blog entry], Kara Thrace believes she is a Cylon, but Katee Sackhoff believes otherwise. Should this be mentioned in the article, or is it too vague? -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 04:25, 27 November 2007 (CST)

I've included it in a spoiler box. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 06:06, 29 November 2007 (CST)

== Bullet points > text ==

Converted the bullet points to more readable text. I've also added a section for [[Virtual beings]] which is my favourite theory at the moment. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 05:57, 29 November 2007 (CST)
:Thanks. Looks much better now. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:52, 29 November 2007 (CST)
== Entertainment Weekly article ==

[http://community.livejournal.com/battlestar_blog/814818.html#cutid1 Entertainment Weekly #973] has an article that can be used for the speculation.

Refering to no. 10 of this article, all persons on the picture are either humans or cylons - The last cylon is not on the picture; its seat is empty. --[[User:Akagi|Akagi]] 20:27, 5 January 2008 (CST)

:Interesting. Perhaps in light of this (however slight) evidence to the contrary, the paragraph beginning "In terms of narrative, to prevent an anti-climax..." should be removed. It's too speculative; there are many ways to make the reveal dramatic.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 22:38, 7 January 2008 (CST)

::Okay, that leaves Cottle, Dualla, Gaeta, Hot Dog, Racetrack, Seelix and Zarek. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 00:26, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:::And Cally.--[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 00:49, 8 January 2008 (CST)
::::Only if [[Nicholas Tyrol]] being ''half'' Cylon was a half-truth like Kara Thrace getting killed off. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 01:28, 8 January 2008 (CST)

:::It could also be something entirely out of left field, like a dead character or a previously unseen character. It's impossible to predict what the writers have planned.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 13:22, 8 January 2008 (CST)

::::RDM does not come out and say this, he just comments that the magazine is clever to notice that. Since "who is the final Cylon" is one of the big mysteries of the show, if not the big mystery of the show, I think it's safe to say that as he did with Starbuck's "death" that RDM has no problem lying or equivocating when asked point blank questions on the matter, or even if not asked them.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 19:05, 10 January 2008 (CST)

:::::I definitely concur with Brad here. RDM's comments are in keeping with how he deals with these sort of revelations being unveiled before the episode airs. He was particularly protective and misleading in his DS9 days as well, which is something that most people tend to forget. Regardless, I'm happy that Aaron Douglas pretty much knocked the wings out of the whole EW picture speculation. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 19:36, 10 January 2008 (CST)
== In need of some major revamping ==

The speculation of the final humanoid Cylon is definitely a hot topic for Season 4, so I'd imagine this page will be getting a decent bit of traffic. In light of that, I think in it's current state it's pretty lacking, considering the fact that, if the EW bit is to be believed, only one of the characters listed on this page could be the final Cylon. I know that article was dismissed a bit earlier in this discussion, but I think that was done a bit too hastily, particularly after Ron Moore's additional comments in his interview with Mo Ryan in the Chicago Tribune [http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/04/ron-moore-on-ba.html] and the fact that, say what you want about RDM not being there to personally "direct" the picture or what not, Leonardo's The Last Supper features 13 people and BSG's last supper only features 12, despite BSG having, well, an abundance of cast to go around. Anyhow, I'm not saying we even have to remove the characters in the picture, but there's definetely room for a lot more speculation. -- [[User:ColonelKevin|ColonelKevin]] 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
== Odd Coincidence ==

I was discussing the Fantastic Four with a friend of mine when we realized that each of the Four have a name that begins with a "T": Saul '''T'''igh, '''T'''ory Foster, Galen '''T'''yrol, and Samuel '''T'''. Anders. On that nome, if the Final Cylon follows the same pattern, it seems that Starbuck (Kara '''T'''hrace) would move to the top of list. [[User:AarrowOM|AarrowOM]] 04:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
: I wouldn't put too much stock in ''that'' theory. (I've read a lot of crazy, off-the-wall theories. Frankly, if you look at something long enough, you can find a "pattern" in almost anything; like glorified inkblots.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
== To <s>quote</s> paraphrase Bill Pullman from ''ID4''... "Let's nuke the bastard." ==

To offer a different perspective from ColonelKevin's point, I think this article really needs to be airlocked and approached in a completely different light. I've really felt this way from the get go, but my feelings are reinforced by the fact that this is the last and final season, and the article will then enter a state of total and complete obsolescence, particularly from an "out of universe perspective".

What I am proposing is that the article be written to detail "in universe" Cylon speculation and how they've dealt with the threat of Cylons looking human. I'm looking at documenting the overall human reaction to this, which would include things like [[Sesha Abinell]]'s conspiracy theories, the Colonials attempts at a Cylon detector, the Fleet leadership's concerns about releasing the information before "[[Litmus]]", etc. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's "Nuke 'em. Let's nuke the bastards.". And.. I agree. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:: You're right, Mr. Quotables... I meant "paraphrasing". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Seems like a good idea. From what I can infer, most, if not all, of the in-universe early-S4 speculation will be on Starbuck, so we might need to decide where we draw the lines between this article, [[Kara Thrace]] and [[The Destiny]]. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

:I agree somewhat. We know that many people love this speculation and the survey also shows that some people expect it here. But IMHO, it's just inane and verges on the annoying. There are so many fan theories floating around out there, it's flat out impossible to reflect even a good part of it. The problem is also, that what started out as interesting and ''grounded'' speculation, has deteriorated into complete bullshit by now, also due to the introduction of the Final Five. Especially with the latter, we can't really know which criteria even imply for potential cylonicity. In that regard, I've always felt that this wiki is a place for fact, analysis and some well-founded speculation here and there; and that complete speculation - like this - is a matter for forums. There are dozens of forums with endless threads of Final Five speculation, so why does this have to be rehashed on a wiki?
:That said, the article has finally approached a state where it's readable and worthy of the wiki, by excising most of the specious speculation and concentrating on a few likely characters. However, as Joe said, its validity in light of the upcoming revelations - and also the uncertain basis for the arguments - is somewhat questionable. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::While I do think it's possible to do a speculation page properly, there's no doubt that it's a huge task to produce one that's relatively grounded and well sourced, particularly considering how just about anyone could be the final cylon. It's hard to say if such a task is really worth the effort. If I had to chose between leaving the page as it is now or nuking it, I'd definetely say nuke it. Maybe take the best bits (the comment from Bradley Thompson and the Hybird prophecy, maybe the last supper picture, none of the speculation) and just place it on the section for the Final Cylon on the Humanoid Cylon article? -- [[User:ColonelKevin|ColonelKevin]] 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I think collecting the pro/anti cylon clues for the characters is worthwhile. But perhaps it should be just done as two sets of bullet points per character -- reasons why, and why not they could be a Cylon. Tell people to stick to itemizing information from canon/official, leave it to the reader to judge what it means. Then add one broad section on non-character specific information (like the last supper etc.)--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 17:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article used to be a load of bullet points, but people didn't like that so we changed it to its current state. Despite writing about half of the article as it stands, I'm not a big fan of it. The problem is mainly with the in-universe clues, someone, somewhere will have some reason why pretty much any arbitrary scene means some character being a Cylon. There are some relatively good things to consider [Baltar's hallucinations, Starbuck's return from the dead], but eventually you have to draw the line somewhere [Some people take Leoben saying "Adama's a Cylon" as a clue, is that justified?]. It's all terribly subjective and messy and not really for an encyclopaedia. Having a comprehensive coverage of fan speculation is both impossible and undesirable.

I think the best thing about the article is that it stopped speculation spilling into other parts of the Wiki. An '''in'''-universe look at the issue would be better, and probably quite pertinent for season 4. Nevertheless, fan speculation on who is and isn't a Cylon has been an important part of the viewing experience (whenever I meet a Galactica fan the fisrt question I always ask is "Who do you think the last Cylon is?")

Consequently, it is worth considering if we can find a way to cover, out-of-universe, that element of the viewing experience in an encyclopaedic manner without necessarily joining in. At the very least we could include a line like: "Since the outset of the show fans have speculated on who could be a Cylon. Theories for practically every character exist, with fans drawing justification from events in both aired content and comments from cast and crew."

Also we need to consider what happens to [[Baltar as Cylon speculation]], which is a very detailed essay, but probably not encyclopaedic. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:So, what's the plan? [[User:OTW|OTW]] 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Well, as you noted, the problem is that we'll never be able to cover fan theories in an encyclopedic format... Fan theories are really a dime a dozen, and to cover even 10% of them would be extremely biased. It seems quite apparent to me that the best bet would be to put the [[Baltar as Cylon speculation]] page to pasture, and redo the "humanoid Cylon speculation" page from an in-universe perspective, as I had suggested. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:::What do you have in mind exactly? There isn't really any in-universe speculation for the final Cylon, expect for Baltar, which is covered in the other article. I guess we could cover the entire series and list people who were suspects at one time, which would be Boomer, Cmd. Adama, Ellen Tigh and Tyrol I guess. Maybe some more, but not a lot, and not really that interesting as it's common knowledge. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm more interested in how the humans have grappled with identifying "who's a Cylon?" throughout the series then the search for the "Last Cylon", which I really don't find that interesting. When all is said and done, finding out "who's a Cylon" isn't as interesting as people make it out to be. So, as I've stated before:
::::"What I am proposing is that the article be written to detail 'in universe' Cylon speculation and how they've dealt with the threat of Cylons looking human. I'm looking at documenting the overall human reaction to this, which would include things like [[Sesha Abinell]]'s conspiracy theories, the Colonials attempts at a Cylon detector, the Fleet leadership's concerns about releasing the information before '[[Litmus]]', etc." -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, covering all that would be good and goes beyond the tired "who is a Cylon?" guessing. I agree that that's way overrated. Good TV in general isn't so much about what happens as how it affects the characters. I didn't know you wanted to go into that direction, which is why I asked. A different article name might be appropriate then, though. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::With the addition of "one will be revealed" as the core of the main titles, I have to say I differ. It seems remiss not to have a page collecting the clues to what the producers themselves have declared is the central event and mystery of the season. And there's a lot of material around this -- the debate over the last supper page, various official statements etc.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 02:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've drafted a rebooting of this article, sticking to canonical clues with minimal speculation. The word "could" barely appears. What's the best way to introduce the new article? Created a rebooted page and later rename it if people like it?--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
: Yeah, you can create a rebooted version of the page... We can always rename it later. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 04:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
: Create it as subpage of this article. Like [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot]] -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With the in-show revelation that the final Cylon is not in the fleet (at least according to Three), Ron Moore's comment about the final Cylon not being in the picture seems to have been given much more credence. That would seem to suggest profound implications for this page, which is premised around a major character being the most likely revelation.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

== Karl ==

We were actually told that Hera and Nicky '''are''' hybrid children by Mr Moore (and Baltar tests Hera's blood for her hybrid nature in [[Epiphanies]]), hence Karl (and Cally) are definitely humans. This is unless RDM is just plain lying to us, which is quite possible. Nevertheless, I have a little faith, so I'm going to revert this edit.

Oh, yeah, weren't we planning to completely overhaul this article anyway? -- 09:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

: Yeah, but go ahead and revert it. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

== New theory about the final one: Benjamin "Ben" Linus from Lost ==

http://www.battlestarforum.com/showpost.php?p=15994&postcount=280 (posted into forum as suggested)

{{unsigned|Karamanthos}}

: Hi there, Karamanthos! If I might make a suggestion, you're better off adding your theories to the [http://www.battlestarforum.com Battlestar Forum]. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

== The Hybrids ==

It's a bit of a stretch, but they seem to meet most of the criteria.
*There are no Hybrids in the fleet.
*[[Tiffany Lyndall-Knight]] was not in the [[The Last Supper|Last Supper image]].
*They are definitely Cylons.
*They don't have a model number.
*Redemption can mean either atonement or liberation.
*They are arguably "still in shadow".
*The "howl of terrible suffering" could refer to how the Hybrid screamed before becoming lucid in [[Faith]].
*The Hybrids played a significant role in leading the Colonials and Cylons to Earth.
There are, however, a few problems.
*The Hybrids coming from Earth seems like a stretch.
*Although we don't know how long the Hybrid concept has been around, the Hybrids weren't introduced until early season 3, and IIRC they decided on the identity of the final Cylon in season 2.
Is there enough evidence to include the Hybrids under ''others''? What about under ''more esoteric theories''? -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "more esoteric theories" is quite applicable here. The purpose of the section is to list some of the more out-of-the-box ideas that people might have. I think it would be best to simply state it, rather than include the justification above, else the section will get cluttered (like the rest of the article). [[User:OTW|OTW]] 00:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

== Article [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot|rebooted]] ==

Ok, so I've written up a reboot of the article based on the information presented in "[[Revelations]]". That can be located [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot|here]]. If there aren't any major objections I'd like to move the reboot to the main article space no later than the end of this week. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 19:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
:Looks good :) -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
::Definitely an improvement. I don't know that I'd privilege the final cylon being on the basestar as a "main theory" above some of the other options like dead or unseen characters returning as the final cylon. It seems very unlikely to me that Three's words can be taken so literally, and implausible that she completely ignored a Final Five cylon already on the basestar. Debate over minor issues like that can wait until after the article is rebooted, however.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
::: True. Obviously, I have no problem with people modifying it for other speculation, such as dead characters or the like. The last permutations of this article went completely overboard, IMHO, and I really want to restrict that here as much as humanly possible. (Or at least find a balance between the two extremes.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Looks fine to me, too. The esoteric section is a bit "blogish", however. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
: While an improvement, it gives too much attention to Boomer (who is largely ruled out by D'Anna's declaration to Cavil that "There are five OTHER Cylons, Brother") and not enough attention to the dead characters, who seem to be all that is left. Now, I agree the article should focus only on real clues, and not "suspicious circumstances" and "wouldn't it be cool ifs" I do have a [http://ideas.4brad.com/battlestar/what-minor-character-final-cylon speculative article which you might find useful as source material on the dead characters]. Actual true clues (at the level of Tyrol's compulsion to seek the temple or his superior response to being spaced) of the sort we've seen before are few and far between, yet RDM promises they are there. Yet we see none for non-eliminated characters--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
::That post is a very interesting read, Bradtem, and could I think be adapted to wiki-article form with very little revision.
::Another way to go with this article, which is looking better to me all the time, would be to limit it to providing background information - everything from the rebooted article up to and including "General Factors for Consideration" - but not including any specific theories. As Bradtem points out, there is really very little to base plausible speculation on. The options all seem equally unlikely: a dead returning to the bewilderment of most viewers? Number Three having some hidden reason to ignore the fifth's presence on the basestar or in the fleet? A special copy of a Cylon model? A completely new character being offered as a satisfactory conclusion to a series-long mystery in the final episode?
::I actually have faith in the writers' narrative abilities to pull off any of the above, and to do so well, but I don't think at this point we have enough information to make plausible guesses as to what they ''will'' do. It's all "More esoteric ideas" at this point.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
:::And that is the problem. RDM has told us he's left clues, and he did -- for characters now eliminated by him. All that stuff in the draft article is "could be" style speculation -- as is also the case with my post linked to above. Right now it may be that all an article can do is list the general clues (specific, dramatic or offscreen), most of which eliminate characters. The stuff about Boomer is not only another round of "isn't this suspicious" that can be applied to almost any character, but goes against two elimination clues. Right now I am hard pressed to come up with actual clues on the order of the ones I cite above for Tyrol.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Sadly, this is the problem... you've nailed it right on the head. If I may be blunt, RDM has clearly pulled a lot of things out of his ass—such as the "Final Five", and the fact that those Cylons do not have numbers—which leaves a lot of inconsistencies in the overall story, which include the inaccuracy in the number scheme (no "Number Seven"?), the whole "Cylon Resurrection Hub", and that horrendous piece of PR garbage, "The Last Supper". A lot of this show is off the cuff, and it shows ''very'' badly. Frankly, I really wish they would've called J. Michael Straczynski or some ''B5'' alumni so that the show could be properly plotted storywise. (I'd be interested to see how well this series ages in 30 years; I don't think it'll age well at all in terms of storytelling, which is very hit or miss. As you can tell, I have a very "love/hate" relationship with this series, in addition to the original.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

== Another, broader reboot ==

I have provided another form of reboot for the article [[Humanoid_Cylon_speculation/ColdBoot|here]]. The thrust is to constrain clues to three types I outline -- actual extrahuman events, dramatic mentions of cylonhood, and outside sources. I've largely stuck to it, though I have got one or two clues that go outside it, such as noting how Ellen's arrival with the fleet was extremely suspicious.

What I hope to remove are "clues" of the sort I've seen before, that say, "Dualla has been keeping herself close to the seats of power" and other activity which is suspicious, but not actually extrahuman or Cylon related. I've also abstained from clues of the "It would be really cool if Cally were the Cylon because Tory murdered her." While these sorts of dramatic hints may well be clues, the show is too full of them. If Dualla's not close to power, then somebody else is. So I do think it's OK to bend the rules for the extremely suspicious, or the very obviously dramatic foreshadowings.

To help people understand this more, I have included a list of the clues from the past that turned out to be real clues. They are very few, but people can add if they saw some others.

Different tone from Joe's, but let me know what you think, and if you like it, let's promote it to replace the old one. {{unsigned|Bradtem}}

: I like this one. I do thing a merging of the two is in order, since I personally believe there should be an "in-universe" POV for how the Fleet dealt with their own suspicions on who a Cylon could be (Baltar's detector, the paranoia concerns in the first season, etc.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, the basics look good, but it still needs some tweaking here and there to fine-tune sentences, points, cites and such. And please, can we stop giving so much credence to Leoben's lie in "Flesh and Bone". At least it should be mentioned that it's most likely just BS instead of some "clue". -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, absolutely. Could use more cites and some cleanup here and there. However, I do rather think the more obvious false clue should be mentioned "Adama is a Cylon", since it does lead to in-universe speculation—and rather humorously dark moments between Roslin and Adama in "Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we just going to leave this old article up and have people keep updating it, or go with my reboot or one of the other reboots? Soon it will have been a waste of effort...--[[User:Bradtem|bradtem]] 02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

: It sadly already is. My earlier recommendation for an "in-universe" perspective still stands. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 03:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== Starbuck As A Cylon ==

'''''However she was also physically abused as a child and still carries the scars; Cylons seem to be more robust than humans and possibly may not carry such long-term injuries. The same may be said of the knee injury which put a stop to Thrace's Pyramid playing ambitions.'''''

What about Tigh's eye? He's a Cylon and his injury hasn't healed. that's a long-term injury that he still carries.

Starbuck can have scars and still be a Cylon.

: Yes, true. Well, this whole page will face a massive rewrite after S4.5 begins airing anyway. I'm just ready to delete this page, to be honest, since it's so bad as to be funny... and that's being generous. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

== After the final Cylon is revealed ==

Once the final Cylon is revealed, I feel that this article should cover the following:
*In-universe speculation within the show's storyline, such as the speculation on Baltar and Starbuck.
*Plausible clues that characters are Cylons at least one episode before they are revealed as such.
*Confirmed intentional hints that characters may be Cylons, including red herrings and remnants of abandoned plotlines.
-- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

: Sounds a lot better than what we have at present. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard

2009-11-02T16:52:01Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 28 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive8, Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive9.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 9
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Project|Admin Noticeboard|image=BSG WIKI Postit.png|shortcut=BW:AN BW:CN}}
{{Battlestar Wiki Admin Toolbox}}
__TOC__

This noticeboard is a location to discuss and coordinate administrative tasks for the Battlestar Wiki.

It is our hope that this place can serve as a location for administrators to coordinate their efforts on the maintenance tasks of the Wiki (it's not ALL fun and games), as well as a spot for our contributors to be able to bring things to the attention of the admins if something needs to be done. Need a protected page edited? An article or picture deleted? Admins will watchlist this page so that your request won't get lost in the shuffle.

{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

== Current Administrators ==

===Senior Chiefs===
Senior chiefs are, in Wikipedia's terminology, bureaucrats who have the ability to make other users into chiefs. They also have the ability to check user and other advance functions not under the purview of the chiefs.
Currently senior chiefs are:
*[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]]
*[[User:Shane|Shane]]
*[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]]
*[[User:NCommander|NCommander]] (Technical Issues Only)

===Chiefs===
Chiefs are administrators who have access to move, delete and restore pages as well as blocking malicious users. The current chiefs are:
* Active
**[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]
**[[User:Gougef|Gougef]]
**[[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] (PR Coordinator)
**[[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] (Primary Wiki Frakr! Contact)
**[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]]
**[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]]
**[[User:Serenity|Serenity]]
**[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]]
* Inactive
**[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]
**[[User:Day|Day]]
**[[User:Talos|Talos]]
See [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators|list of all chiefs on Battlestar Wiki]]

== Javascript Reported Vandals ==

''No recent reports.''
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Podcasts ==

To Steelviper:

Please continue the podcasts... Or else... ...how can we keep nerd talking about the series without knowing what's on Mr. Moore's evel mind? It's frakking difficult to understand Mr Moore's speech when english is not your native language. C'mon! Let the rest of the planet taste a little bit of that great series!

PS: Excelent work on episode 406 - Escape Velocity! Gonna start 407 this week! {{unsigned|Gnielsen}}

== Cubit Related Images ==

I have tried from 4 different computers at 4 different locations to view the "Related Images" section towards the bottom of the page. Each time a 100 cubit note pops up for about 5 seconds and then it vanishes. After that I am unable to see any of the pics in this section. Why? Is there some special kind of trick I need to use? Please help?

== Change the site over... ==

Hey Joe, sorry if im being an annoyance, but I am concerned about the Battlestar Pegasus site:

"Mercer, the site is now up. However, I do have plans to change the website over, since it never really lifted off as well as I'd hoped. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) "

I was wondering what you meant by this. I know I am one of the few users who uses it, but I have put alot of time and energy into the articles, ship files, character files, corporation files, and soon some technology files, AND my fanfiction as well. I would hate to see this go, and I am just wondering what your position on this is, and I just want to touch base with you on this.

Thanks,

Mercer

--[[User:Mercer|Mercer]] 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

: I've yet to finalize my plans / roadmap for the website, however none of the existing content will be adversely affected. So the content is safe, and there will always be a wiki component to it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. I thought by "change the website over" you meant take it down or something, but it seems you mean to change aspects of it. If it does so happen that you wish to remove it, PLEASE contact me and let me know at drew.shoemaker@gmail.com

Again, thanks for all of your responses and clarification on this matter...

Mercer
--[[User:Mercer|Mercer]] 02:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive9

2009-11-02T16:51:44Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 3 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard.

{{talkarchive}}

== Robots for redirection pages ==

Redirection pages are generally considered ugly; but uglier yet is a ''missing'' redirection. In the German version we have quite a few pages with suboptimal names which won't get fixed because after the move the clicked links would be redirections. It would be cool if there was a robot which would take care of this and update the links to pages which were turned into redirections; like this ("old name" being a page which was renamed to – and now redirects to – "new page"):
* <nowiki>[[old name]]</nowiki> —> <nowiki>[[new name|old name]]</nowiki> (''or'', maybe, simply <nowiki>[[new name]]</nowiki>)
* <nowiki>[[old name|new name]]</nowiki> —> <nowiki>[[new name]]</nowiki>
* <nowiki>[[old name|other name]]</nowiki> —> <nowiki>[[new name|other name]]</nowiki>
The visible text should not be affected (with the possible exception of the simple link w/o adjustment of the visible text). Possibly there is such a robot already, because the reduction of redirections might be a quite common need.
Such a robot could run once a week and take care of all ''new'' redirections only. Would this be possible? --[[User:Bruno-the-questionable|Tobias]] 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:Not that I know of. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Battlestar Pegasus Site ==

Hello, I dont know if this is even the correct place for this, but I remember that Joe ran the Battlestar Pegasus Fanfiction site, or had something to do with it, and I was wondering why it was down. When I click the link or type in the saved link to the page with my story on it, it shows as a blank white page with nothing on it.

If the site has been shut down, I would like to ask that I be able to retrieve my story and all relevant ship/character information from the different pages.

Again, I am very sorry if this is the wrong place, but I am looking for any information.

Thanks.{{unsigned|Mercer}}

: Hey Mercer! Sorry for this, but I'll get the website back up and running over this weekend. At least, that's the plan anyway. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I thought it was just down for repairs or something, but I was quite worried that it had been shut down for some reason for good, which was quite distressing because I put so much into that story.

Thanks though, I look forward to it. {{unsigned|Mercer}}

The site is still down, I just thought I would let you know in case you tried to fix it.

: I've been busy, so I wasn't able to really tackle it last weekend. I don't know if I'll make any head-way this weekend either, but I'll make the attempt. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
::I will take a look at it also. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mercer, the site is now up. However, I do have plans to change the website over, since it never really lifted off as well as I'd hoped. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. What do you mean by change the website over?

== IRC ==

Hey there! Despite the fact that, to this site, I'm relatively new, I've edited on Wikia for a while beforehand. Now, both Wikia and Wikipedia use something called "IRC", which stands for "Internet Relay Chat". More information can be found on the Wikipedia page for such a thing. Basically, it's a chatroom, that allows discussion over Wiki matters to be easier and quicker, a place for private conversations, and a place where relationships with other users can be strengthened. Admins and selected users could have something called an "op" status, which would allow vandals/trolls to be kicked/banned/muted and whatnot in the channel. Other users could have voice, to show that they're trusted and stop them from being muted. Freenode is a big and good server for this - this is the one Wikia/Wikipedia users. If you'd like me to set up a channel, please do respond. All channels have a # prefix, so this could be something like #battlestar-wiki or something. If you already have one, and I've merely missed it, I apologise. Cheers! :) --[[User:SILAS|SILAS]] [[User_Talk:SILAS|(talk)]]

: We've discussed this before. [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Think_Tank/IRC|Here's a link to that discussion.]] Any new ideas on this subject would, of course, be welcome. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, in response to the first point; you don't ''need'' to have everyone together; people can just join as and when they wish. If you don't want to make Wiki wide decisions in an IRC channel, which I can see where you're coming from, that's no real issue. It's not really a chatroom for random chatting, but can be used to find quick answers to coding issues, continuity issues, canon issues, etc. Also finding out if someone else has access to a source you'd like information from for an article. That's all I've really to say. :) --[[User:SILAS|SILAS]] [[User_Talk:SILAS|(talk)]]

: Well, "quick answers" heavily depends on how many active users are on at the same time. We're not as big as Wikipedia, so we don't literally have hundreds of editors "on call" at the same time. It's just better to use talk pages for this sort of thing, since it's transparent and people can join in on the conversation, regardless of the time zone. I see where you're coming from as well, and we do have an IRC chat on the Battlestar Forum that we can always utilize from time to time, if needed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really heavily depend; I'm in channels with often just two active users or so, and that works just as well. All it takes is one knowledgeable person to help. :) --[[User:SILAS|SILAS]] [[User_Talk:SILAS|(talk)]]

: Mostly, we just communicate through GTalk. When I need something technical, I just send a message to Shane. Otherwise, 95% of the communications are all done via talk pages. As I said, we do have an IRC channel available via the Battlestar Forum, and it might be worth considering if used only for "quick answers" and not policy changes and items of that nature. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive8

2009-11-02T16:51:39Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 25 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard. (ARCHIVE FULL)

{{talkarchive}}

== simple.battlestarwiki.org ==

Just like they have over on the EN wiki, this would be basically a cliff note version of the English translation only. If we do it right, we could have simple have universal "cliff note" type entries from all the languages now that we have SUL working. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 06:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
: It's a bit more complicated than a "cliff notes version", it's basically an entry-level English-language version. [http://simple.wikipedia.org This is the "Simple English Wikipedia], and [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles here]'s a primer on how to write articles in simple English. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
== June 2 ==

We lost 5 days of changes to the databases. Anything that happened till 0400 hours June 2, 2008 is lost. Sorry! We are trying to recover, but this is as good as we can get right now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As a precaution, I've converted most of the MediaFrak tables to InnoDB and working on a new backup script which will dump each table faster, without locking up the site. [[User:NCommander|NCommander]] 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
== Upload errors ==

So, we're having upload errors... I haven't a clue how to fix it right now, but what I get is this:

: Could not rename file "/tmp/http/phpPZkJNu" to "public/7/7f/Genevieve_Buechner.jpg".

Now, the prefix should really be "/home/bsgwiki/public_html/media/images" and not "public" (no slash in front)... I wonder if there's a configuration setting fubared somewhere in one of 1.13's files? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 05:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

: Ok... this is what happens when the disembodied spirit of Jar Jar Binks inhabits all of us... what caused this issue was the fact that the partition was close to (or at) 100% full. We cleaned it up... and, besides, we're moving to a better server with more room to it anyway. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

== Subscription ==

Hi!
I have just paid the subscription fee for a year, but I can still see the ads after having logged out and in again. Is there anything I have to do to confirm it? Have I done anything wrong, or is it just a question of time for the subscription to go through and change my status?
Thanks a mill in advance for your help. -- [[User:Mouan|Mouan]] 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
: Hi Mouan, I've confirmed your subscription and will set you up here for ads-free viewing in a few minutes... By the way, do you have an account on our [http://www.battlestarforum.com Battlestar Forum]? If so—or if you want to make one—please send me that info so I can enable ads-free viewing of our forums as well. Thank you for helping us out! :D -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Mouan, you are all set for both places. Cheers! :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you guys. One thing - is the subscription valid for other language versions of the wiki or do I need to buy another one for the Spanish wiki? Because I have just checked and it still displays ads. Perhaps it needs to be set up like you did with this one? :) -- [[User:Mouan|Mouan]] 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Shane added you to the local (English) sponsor group, but he should've added you to the global sponsor group. @Shane: you can do that through [[Special:GlobalGroupPermissions]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I got a permission error. Same with Joe. :( [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 02:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::It tells me I have to be a Senior Chief, which I'm not and you are. What error do you get? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Interestingly, it gives me the same message, despite the fact that I am a senior chief! Whoa! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 09:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all. Works like a charm! :)-- [[User:Mouan|Mouan]] 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== Everything has been updated... ==

Including all base extensions. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]])
:Global groups have been messed up again, though, meaning all global groups and their permissions are gone. I'll restore all that after dinner. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah. Minus that. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'm going through and fixing a few of the extensions. For instance, the hide sitenotice extension needs to be modified to allow for unregistered users to hide the message. I'll update this page when I'm done. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::My bad. Roger that joe. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't sweat it. :) Fixes were simple. Everything I needed to do is done now. LOL -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Alright, global groups are back up. I've also promoted all sponsors to global status. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 16:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== Minor DB issue on Media ==

Getting this whenever I post a new article:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "efUpdateCheckUserData". MySQL returned error "1146: Table 'bsgwiki_media.cu_changes' doesn't exist (athena.frakmedia.net)".

The article edits still go through though... Probably a case of just needing to run the update.php app. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yup, update.php says "cu_changes table added and populated". Should be fixed now. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 16:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Great! Thanks! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== Unified logon for other non-BSG Wikis ==

Also, while I'm at it, can the unified logon work for the other non-BSG Wikis? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:The fact that Wikimedia has cross-domain SUL (*.wikipedia.org, *.wiktionary.org, etc.) means it's possible. I'm [irc://freenode/#mediawiki stumping Brion] right now about the lack of documentation for CentralAuth and asking him how to do cross-domain SUL. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::Alright, it turned out to be a configuration variable in CentralAuth.php that I overlooked. Which wikis would you like to add SUL to? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Letterman List:

#http://www.battlestarpegasus.com
#http://en.eurekawiki.org
#http://media.eurekawiki.org
#http://wiki.frakr.com
#http://www.sanctuarywiki.org

That's it for now. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:OK, will do those tomorrow afternoon if I have time. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::Doesn't all MediaWiki's then have to be the same version then? Minus the EurekaWiki, everything else has it's own mediawiki installation.. which is a bit crazy. :x [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Having all wikis share the same codebase would help a great deal in setting this thing up, yeah. All wikis don't necessarily have to have the same version, as long as they all have and support CentralAuth. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'd like to work on that before we did anything with the CentralAuth. The LocalSettings.php and the media folders we have to keep correct, but I think that would be the better move right now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Of course, I'd love it if you put all wikis on one codebase before I even touch CentralAuth. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'll be away until Monday, so once you've finished migrating all wikis to the same codebase, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll get to it when I get back. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

== Skin breakage (again) ==

Somewhere in the last few days (probably related to the recent upgrade), the user options bar (Catrope / my talk / ... / log out ) started overlapping the pages tabs bar (article / discussion / ... / purge). This doesn't happen in the battlestar (default) skin, since they're miles apart there, but does happen in [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|useskin=bsgbook}} bsgbook] and [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|useskin=bsgmonobook}} bsgmonobook]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
: Yeah, I can confirm that. Frak. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

== Main Page Header Redesign ==

I worked on a re-design of the Main Page header on the [[BW:MAIN]] page. I also removed the airdates section. I have yet to add it to the design, but it be a bar under the two images. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
: The header is now bloated with the redesign. The header really needs to be as small as possible. To accomplish that, remove the airdate stuff from the header, and I think it'll be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Help with the French Battlestar Wiki ==

Addressing Shane: I read about the request to help with the French page of Battlestar Wiki. I'm not sure what sort of help is needed, but I'm reasonably fluent in French and a fan of the re-imagined BSG. If this makes me qualified, perhaps I can be of assistance. I'm new to Wiki, though, which is why I'm posting this here (couldn't find a link for a personal post). Waiting to hear from you. -chimere
:You can post personal messages (sort of, everyone will be able to read them) on a user's talk page. For Shane, this is [[User talk:Shane]]. To start a new section, click the + sign next to the "edit" button on top of the page.
:As to helping with the French wiki: I suggest you browse around the wiki to see what has to be done there (which articles have to be created, improved, etc.) and start doing it. By signing up here you've already got an account on the French wiki as well, and you should be logged in automatically by just [[fr:|visiting it]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Movie ==

We need an article on the BSG movie, now that it has been announced. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'm searching about for the announcement, so now I know I'm blind. I did create an episode guide for the [[Caprica (pilot))|Caprica pilot]], however. There could be as many as three BSG movies if Grace Park's comments are to be believed.--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 04:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:There is an article about it called [[Proposed TV movies]] from the time when there were just rumors about it. Given that there is only one movie for the moment, but greenlighted, we should probably take that and move/rename it. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Right. I thought we already had an article... and that was it. Just couldn't find it. We could simply name it the "Cylon TV movie", since that's what it's gonna be about anyway according to the press release. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
::: Ok, now that we have [http://www.bcfilmcommission.com/about_us/film_list.htm?film_type=mow a name] for the movie that's officially been released (it is called "The Plan", at least for now) we should get cracking on the article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

== What image in [[Scattered]]? ==

What image do the credits in "[[Scattered]]" refer to?
:Atlas Image Obtained As Part Of The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2Mass), a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
--[[User:DrWho42|DrWho42]] 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== TV.com ==

Should we include links to [[w:TV.com|TV.com]] on the infoboxes of cast and crew?--[[User:DrWho42|DrWho42]] 14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

: No, I don't think that's really worth our trouble. IMDb already has the same info that TV.com does, if not more. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== DVD Menu Pictures (and so on) ==

Would it go against any copyright policy to upload any images/video(?) of the ''BSG'' DVD menus? I think it would add a certain layer and provide for those who have yet to buy the DVDs, are just curious to see how the other Region DVDs look, or wanted to compare how the designs for each changed over time (i.e. the difference between [[Battlestar Galactica - Season One (Region 1 DVD)|Season 1 (Region 1 DVD)]] and [[Battlestar Galactica - Season Three (Region 1 DVD)|Season 3]]).--[[User:DrWho42|DrWho42]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:A good question. Stills of the menus should be OK. Videos may be excessive from a size standpoint unless the interface has a definitive look that's appealing and unique. The differences between the regions (which is possible since the studios may license the packaging and interface to different companies in the world for distribution) would a benefit. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 02:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Concerning some of the planets ==

OK, since the message I left on [[Category talk:Planets]] has been ignored for nearly a week, I though I would leave a message here to express a concern, that some of the "planets" on the planets category are actually moons. So I am wondering if we could either move the category to "Planets and Moons", or just simply start a Moon category. What do you admins think. I thank you all in advance. -- [[User:Matthew R Dunn|Matthew R Dunn]] 00:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
: We could do either. Six of one, half dozen of the other, IMHO. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 01:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

== Credit lists ==

Before I go ahead and transcribed more, is it against any sort of policy to have the credits listed here as they appear on the show?
Here's the lists I have so far:
*[[User:DrWho42/Miniseries End Credits|Miniseries End Credits]]
*[[User:DrWho42/33 End Credits|33 End Credits]]
*[[User:DrWho42/Razor End Credits|Razor End Credits]] (''incomplete'')
--[[User:DrWho42|DrWho42]] 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

: Nope. We may need to beautify the lists though, in the way that the [[List of pilots]] or the cast and crew lists already are. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Firefox Add-on ==

Is there a possibility of having a Battlestar Wiki search engine for Firefox (as it isn't listed here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:4/cat:all?sort=name )?--[[User:DrWho42|DrWho42]] 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:Who would program it? Is there a "kit" of sorts to do so? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, in Firefox, if you click on the drop down item next to the search bar, you should see something like '''Add "Battlestar Wiki (en)"''' in the drop-down menu. Just click on that, and you should be able to search the wiki via Firefox's built in search apparatus. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
::Sadly, when I did that with 3.0.4, I got an error message in trying to add it. I've been loving the idea of creating an iPhone/iTouch app that would be a search engine for BW-En as well...I might write a developer to see if he can extend one of his products. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::''"Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
<nowiki>http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/opensearch_desc.php</nowiki>"''- Annoying, cos I could do it in Firefox 2. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 23:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

== Links on the left ==

Anyone know why I have more useful links below the search box when I am logged out than when I am logged in? When logged in, I only have one box named Projects, but when logged out, it is replaced by Navigation, Series and Support. [[User:Caldumidoan|Caldumidoan]] 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
: It's a configuration issue with one of the mediawiki extensions that we use to generate the sidebars... I'll try to look into it over the holiday weekend. Working on final corrections to the auction catalog right now, so that's why I haven't fixed that issue yet. ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== Skin problems ==

Since the [http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/12/27/new-skin/ monobook-based skins were disabled], several users have been getting blank pages or error 500s while logged in. This seems to be the result of having a disabled skin selected, this problem can be solved by going to [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Preferences&useskin=battlestar http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Preferences&useskin=battlestar]. Is there a large-scale solution? For example using a mediawiki extension which uses the the default skin if a user's current skin is disabled, or going into the user settings and do an automated mass search and replace to give everyone who currently using a disabled skin the new default skin. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 06:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:Crap.I have to ru a database comand to fix that. I will do that now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, that's my fault. Sorry about that. Shane, let me know the sit rep on that, OK? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:::After 10 days... everything should be good. I used a mass. command to reset everyone back to the default skin. Including our own admin peter. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 14:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

== Featured Article and Featured Pic ==

Any objections to someone just "executively" deciding to update them before next week? -- [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:If you don't get to it, I'll try in the next 24. Joe is a little busy with the auction, and hopefully other admins will jump back on to aid a bit. I'll be putting in more time here to keep the cruft down. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::Looks like it's "Return of the Admins" week. :D [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 05:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== No Navigation ==

So, uh, I can't see the thing on the left with things like "recent changes" and stuff in it anymore. Using default skin. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to work now [[User:OTW|OTW]] 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And now it's gone again. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Still not there. I get it if I log out though.--[[User:OTW|OTW]] 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:Hmm. That makes me wonder if it has something to do with the logic that switches up the contents of the navigation bar based on your user group. Sounds like a Shane or Joe question to me. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:I concur. I'd hate for someone to do edits and find that they didn't save because they used the browser's back button or something. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll double check. But under my 'Navigation' when I do a preview, 'Recent Changes' is still there... [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 04:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Maybe assign yourself to the same group as OTW? (Or create a dummy account that mirrors OTW's privs?) Seeing as how you're in the sysop group (amongst others), the results might be different. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::It's still not there. I am missing the entire navigation box, not just RC [[User:OTW|OTW]]

:I have this same issue and have for a while now. It happens on all the different skins. --[[User:Pearse|Pearse]] 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

== Hulu content ==

While rolling the dice, I've run across quite a few of the pages with Hulu content that are broken or are pointing at videos that no longer exist. Just an FYI, we need to do some cleanup on these. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::Ok, I've fixed all the original series Hulu links. The 1980 and RDM episodes we had no longer exist on Hulu, that I can find. Those pages should probably be deleted and the links removed from episode guides. There are new RDM episodes but I'm hesitant to create pages/link them as I don't know about the shelf-life (how long will they remain available?). Thoughts? [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::Ok, cleaned up all Hulu content. Unavailable stuff is gone and episodes that are available are linked. I even got wild and linked "[[The Face of the Enemy]]". Also, I appear to be having a conversation with myself ... I'm so lonely ... [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 01:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Yeah, I can relate. You should see some of the conversations I have over at the podcast project. I can be a bit of a taskmaster sometimes. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== Content being copied to Wikipedia ==

Do you guys have any opinion on your content being copied and pasted to Wikipedia? If I understand correctly your content is covered by a non-commercial only license, so I don't think it's allowed. Right? [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:Correct. Our content is mostly CC:NC, so it's not license compatible w/ Wikipedia. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

== Strange behavior in Recent Changes ==

Since last week I noticed that the advanced recent changes format (which shows collapsed entries for me) disappeared. Cycling the setting and refreshing the browser did nothing.

And now the new users pages show filled pages and double entries, instead of the standard red new pages and single entry if someone's welcomed them.

The wiki's not falling apart like ''Galactica'', is it? Shane? :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
:hah. It has to... we follow Galactica into Battle! I think it's because there was an extension loaded called 'NewUserLog' before it was built into 1.14.0. That might be causing you problems. I just disabled the other plugin, but we won't see if that fixes until a new user. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
::No joy. I don't see ANY red links in Recent Changes...and new user's talk pages continue to show non-red, even before we splat a welcome message there. Do we need some Cylon plug-in glue? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Oops. Didn't communicate here very well. It's currently WAD (working as designed), as they got rid of the red from the RC (in part because Shane hates seeing red there). The only consolation I could give on that front (outside of trying to wrangle with Shane over the color schemes) is that if you mouseover the talk pages it will show whether a page is not created (at least it does in Chrome, so I'd assume it applies to Safari). But Shane DID fix the double entry for the new user thing. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Okie-dokie. The show's characters aren't the only ones not dealing with change well... :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::No worries. Major updates to wiki once we finsh this airing. We got lots of cleanup to do. Mops get ready.. GO! :D [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:Ok. Fine. You all win! RED is now all uncreated pages or visited links that don't have any page as well. Hard refresh for it to show up. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

== Is this news? ==

Or: where to put this
[http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20090322] {{unsigned|Faile}}

:It's not really news. You're welcome to add a link to it on the Battlestar Forum. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

== Capitalized Headlines ==

The first headings on each page are "capitalized" (The First Character Of Every Single Word Is Transformed To Upper Case); this is done [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/skins/battlestar/battlestar_template.css via CSS]. At least for the German Battlestar Wiki, this looks awful. Even with all Battlestar Wikis sharing the same set of stylesheets, there is a solution:
''Please'' change
#content .firstHeading {
...
border: none; /* No border for page title */
text-transform: capitalize;
}
to something like
#content .firstHeading {
...
border: none; /* No border for page title */
text-transform: capitalize;
}
#content :lang(de) .firstHeading {
text-transform: inherit;
}
(or do it the other way round, activating the transformation for specified languages only). This should fix it for all modern, standards-conforming browsers. Thank you! --[[User:Bruno-the-questionable|Bruno-the-questionable]] 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:Will do. Sorry for the long update. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Major gripe at spoiler insensitivity. ==

I have been left angry and frustrated at this wiki's lack of sensitivty and spoiler alerts. I have just finished watching season 1, as I am late to the series. Typically after watching a lot of episodes, I read up on them online in case I have missed any subplots, just as a quick reminder of what is happening. And after years of looking at the star trek wiki, I decided that I would read about the first season here.

I should not find out key information about upcoming seasons when reading a season 1 episode page without significantly placed spoiler alerts. I have learnt of 2 of the main cast who are later revealed to be cylons when I certainly did not want to know. This has significantly spoiled some major plot points, and things that would shock and amaze me will be anti-climatic. I cannot adequetely express how truelly angry I am at this site. (And frankly I'm astonhished that I have managed to aviod cussing).
:I agree that no episode page should blab facts from newer episodes; this rule ''should'' be easy to follow.
:Other spoilers might be more difficult to avoid. In the German version, we have serious spoiler problems because the end of season 3 is currently broadcasted, but some know parts of season 4 from the English version already. Many spoiler warnings are missing, and others are outdated; especially the latter are difficult to track.
:I'd suggest reluctance when putting spoiling information in boilerplates; it is not necessary for a page about a cylon to tell about all of its/his/her colleagues. Things like this can be done using categories which tell their story only when explicitely viewed. --[[User:Bruno-the-questionable|Tobias]] 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::It's a challenging, but not impossible suggestion. There will be many people who have not watched the show. While the Re-imagined Series was in production, episode guides were the primary method to stay spoiler free until airing. Now, all the "dirty laundry" is out. But a good point is raised. Information could be made more sequential, so that, through a simple visual cue, a reader could know that this so-and-so is a season 1 character from the episode "Blah-blah". Then the hard part; writing articles to detail not their "current" status, but their chronological details, preferably by season so a reason knows when to stop reading as to not be spoiled. This doesn't stop a reader from clicking on any link they see, but if we can redo articles on this premise, we could--MAYBE--format things to minimize revelations from Season 4 that are written in episode and character summaries at their article's start. I'll want to think about this and get other's comments; it would be a massive wiki formatting challenge, but it would minimize over-spoilage (but never eliminate). A lot on many pages are cruft, anyway, and this could also help simplify content throughout. I'm thinking over it. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:May I ask which two characters and on which page/s you learned this? -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::The Analysis for Tigh me up, Tigh me down in season 1 clearly states two human cylons. An earlier episode analysis makes a suggestion of a another character who is revealed, but I am not going back to re-read it - because I've somehow managed to convince myself that it was only a suggestion.--[[User:Flinty82|Flinty82]] 07:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2009-11-02T16:51:07Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive5, Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive4.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

== Images ==

I'd like to add a provision in regard to the image galleries, since they are becoming more prevalent now. While the wording can be debated, the following points should be made:

# Image galleries are to be used sparingly. On smaller articles, such as those for ships, it is common to see a gallery composed of the top, bottom, and side views of the subject, in addition to other images that may note a peculiarity worth noting. This is acceptable. On pages for characters, episodes, and other articles, image galleries should '''never be used''', due to fair use concerns and the fact that [[BW:NOT|Battlestar Wiki is not an image gallery]].
# The only exceptions to the above should be with regard to the comics (and books) that have multiple covers, in addition to other merchandise, such as the [[Minimates]].
# Otherwise, Battlestar Wiki prefers that images be within the prose of the article, thus abrogating the need for image galleries.

We should also note that images in the infoboxes should be:

# High quality with a minimum dimension of 200px in width.
# Be the newest image available.

The above should have the explicit caveat that common sense prevails in such cases. For instance, we wouldn't want to upload a screen shot of Kara Thrace every time a new episode airs, because that would be ridiculous.

Ok, that's all I have to say for now on that subject. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:42, 16 February 2008 (CST)
:Looks like a plan. I recently killed an image gallery at [[Kara Thrace]] consisting of one image :D --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 16:04, 17 February 2008 (CST)

== Cleanup and Organization ==

I'm done with the cleanup and organization of the Standards and Conventions. I've also added summaries of each section to the main page, so to help people know what to do about certain things without reading paragraphs explaining the whys and wherefores. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:Looks good. This split was long overdue. One thing I always wondered is why do we have different standards in the Quotes? For no apparent reason, episodes are italicized and not put in quotes there. That whole section could be cut drastically, if we used the same rules as everywhere else. Though changing that now would be too much work. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::I've always wondered that myself. But now it's too much to go through and change... call it a quirk, I guess. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

== Numbers ==

"Numbers less than 11 should be spelled out, "five" for "5", etc."
May I suggest that when we find out who "Number Eleven" and "Number Twelve" are we continue to write out their numbers in full for consistency (so we don't have "Number Four and Number 11 meet" [[User:OTW|OTW]] 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
: Done. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

== Name and Callsign Standardization ==

I know that there have been some recent concerns over phrasing a character's full name to read 'Lee "Apollo" Adama' or 'Alex "Crashdown" Quartararo'. Therefore, I wanted to start discussion on this, seeing as a lot pages on the wiki need to be standardized to get rid of the over-use of callsigns in favor of standard given last names.

To explain where I'm coming from, I feel that the characters should ultimately be introduced with their full name (first and last name) and callsign, simply because viewers sometimes don't get the fact that "Apollo" is a callsign for Lee, particularly if they are new viewers. Also, the lesser known characters (such as [[Skulls]], [[Racetrack]], and [[Crashdown]]) are referred to mainly by their callsigns, but do have names that we know of. Therefore, we there needs to be an effort to standardize them across the board, ergo the above idea.

I know some of you object to this, as I've seen in your edit summaries, but I wanted to discuss it here just to make sure everyone knows where I'm coming from. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:Why don't we just link Apollo to Lee Adama? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::We could do that, but it just disjoints the prose. Also, it's not really encyclopedic to refer to people by nicknames or callsigns when we have their actual names, even for the sake of convenience. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:My personal annoyance with this is mainly that it sounds somewhat artificial to me (it's probably just me and I'm overreacting...), especially when it's done two or three times in a row. It actually reads like it's a standard. One character is generally fine, but particularly with Racetrack/Skulls, Racetrack/Athena or Boomer/Crashdown it's always something like "Later, Margaret "Racetrack" Edmondson and "Hamish "Skulls" McCall fly in their Raptor". It's just the sound of that that I don't particularly care for, for some reason :s You talk about bad prose with disjointed references. For me, ''always'' noting the full name and the callsign inbetween is bad prose too.
:I can see the point with lesser known characters, for example Racetrack who is generally referred to more by her callsign than her name. That's one reason why I left that in the recent edit. I just think, rather than making it an ironclad standard, that some case-by-case judgment should be used about when to use names only and when to add the callsign. With the [[Battle of Kobol (RDM)]] article, I felt that it's not necessary to do it for Apollo and Starbuck, since they barely play a role in that section. Apollo is only mentioned as her wingman, and only plays a role during the boarding later, and Thrace only steals the Raider. The section is really about Crashdown, Boomer and Racetrack, so it's better to introduce them fully, since their names are used more often and in both variations.
:At the same time, I think we kinda agreed that callsigns are appropriate for piloty actions. So using Racetrack exclusively in the battle article would be appropriate (though she can be introduced with callsign + name), whereas, in a scene in Joe's bar for example, her real name should be used instead. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::The pilot vs. other stuff convention is a long-standing one that's followed pretty closely. However, I should reiterate that even ''if'' we decide to introduce people as Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, we should only call them that ''once'' and use their callsign or surname (whichever is appropriate) from there on, just like we do when introducing normal people (i.e. "William Adama ... Adama ... Adama"). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::No one is suggesting to use it several times for one character. It's just about the introduction, and what you say is more or less what's done at the moment. But I think doing it in every introduction already creates formulaic sentences, because it's generally done either at the beginning of a paragraph and/or a sentence. IMO this isn't something that should be standardized so clearly that it needs to be done every time, but only when really needed, so that it doesn't impede the prose. For example it's superfluous when a character hardly plays a role in the text, or if subsequent references only use the real name anyways. At least with main characters. As said, when talking about people like Racetrack or Hot Dog, who are really referred to by their names, noting the callsign makes some sense. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== Logical punctuation ==

After seeing the link in the edit summary I just noticed that [[w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation|Wikipedia uses logical punctuation]]. Interesting. I thought they used American punctuation, but in practice it's probably completely mixed just as here.

I was under the impression that we mostly used American punctuation here, but it appears that the Season 4 articles, at least, use logical punctuation almost exclusively (before Passivity changed them). While the SAC says we use American punctuation, in fact there is a lot of logical one as well. Personally I generally use that as well, because I'm used to it and American punctuation just doesn't make the slightest lick of sense. It's just a stupid holdover from the days when the publications where typeset and there was a technical reason to print them inside. These days, many scientific publications for example are switching over to what the rest of the rest of the world does: place the punctuation marks where they actually belong.

While I'd prefer logical punctuation everywhere, I'm not really saying that we should change it over officially. Just pointing out that we have an inconsistency here. People use different styles and while one article may be consistent in itself, some others are formatted differently. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

: It's a mishmash, in practice. Generally speaking, putting commas ''outside'' of quotation marks makes tremendously more sense, and is far better stylistically. As with everything else American, we aren't exactly the greatest at making things efficient. For instance, we still haven't implemented widescale use of the Metric system, despite the fact that we're only one of maybe two or three countries who still use the "English" garbage while everyone else has converted some time ago. Anachronisms die hard, unfortunately. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive5

2009-11-02T16:51:03Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 7 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions.

{{talkarchive}}

== Summary issue ==

Starting from "[[The Eye of Jupiter]]", I've noticed that we've broken down the episodes by acts, instead of summaries. Is this something we want to continue doing? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)
:It was done in "The Eye of Jupiter" because that episode really needed a chronological summary instead of breaking it down by places. Now that the baseship storyline is over, it's not necessary to deal with each plotline seperately anymore. So yes, we can keep it that way --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:29, 30 January 2007 (CST)
:: Right, so that means we have to go through and re-summarize "[[Rapture]]" and "[[Taking a Break from All Your Worries]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:59, 30 January 2007 (CST)
:::Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant we can keep the breakdown by acts IMO. No re-organizing needed. Before EoJ many episodes had "On Galactica" and "On a baseship", but that was largely because there were really widely different settings that weren't connected at all (or the Fleet and Caprica in Season 1).
:::However, even before that some episodes had different sections with "On Colonial One" if a recall correctly. But I don't think that's very useful if the scenes are just set on another ship in the Fleet. So I'd say we only break apart episodes by locations if there are really two or more unconnected plotlines. Otherwise a breakdown by acts is fine. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:08, 30 January 2007 (CST)
: Actually, what I was referring to was that we have each act broken down in its own section under "summary", such as in "[[Rapture]]" (Teaser, Act 1, Act 2, etc.). In earlier episode guides, such as "[[33]]", we merely created sections for "On ''Galactica''" and "On Caprica". I see the point for doing the act-by-act breakdown in "[[The Eye of Jupiter]]", since there was a lot there story-wise. However, "Rapture" and "Taking a Break..." don't have this issue, and I was merely wondering if we wanted to have an act-by-act summary instead of an overall episode summary. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:23, 30 January 2007 (CST)
::Oh yeah. Not a big issue then, but listing the acts helps to break up such a huge chunk of text. You'll also notice that the earlier summaries were also far less detailed. These days we summarize every single scene instead of just the most important ones (though some like "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]" would really benefit from some expansion). I find that the use of "Act.." headers makes it a bit easier to read than just a long stream of bullet points --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:47, 30 January 2007 (CST)
:::I concur. The more of them I've made lately, the better that using Acts work. Easier to write too, chronologically. I'll add it to my to-do list to rewrite summaries for better cohesion. Do we want to do TOS articles in the same fashion? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:06, 30 January 2007 (CST)

O.K., let's see what everyone else thinks before we go off and rewrite summaries, though. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:15, 30 January 2007 (CST)

:Way back in the day, I suggested that we do it by acts, however, I can see where this might not be usefull. Interlaced acts that have nothing to do might be better by location. Just like the early episodes where Helo was on Caprica and Galactica was in space, I can see where it is useful. Acts are good for intercrossed locations. (i.e. "Occupation", "Exodus, Part II"). The advantage is with acts is that we can follow Podcasts better. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:29, 30 January 2007 (CST)
:The problem with doing it by acts is that on DVD there are no breaks. People might be unsure what bit is the end of act two or the beginning of act three --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:48, 31 January 2007 (CST)
::I believe that even on the DVDs, you can skip between acts, the player display's number increments for every act, and there should be a short fade to black. Even if there isn't, a wide shot of the fleet often announces a new act.--[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 08:49, 31 January 2007 (CST)
:On topic, I think that breaking up summaries in acts should actually be the '''default''' way to do stuff, unless we have a good reason not to do so (i.e. completely seperate storylines, like Season 1, early Season 2 and the first half of Season 3). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 08:49, 31 January 2007 (CST)
::Is this just for RDM episode summaries, or is it retroactive to include TOS and 1980? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::: I would make it retroactive and universal. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:44, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::While the 1980 episodes I have are broadcast (and so we've got acts to go by), I only have TOS on DVD's. Will we just guestimate act breaks based on scenes? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:01, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Just a couple of comments: For new episodes, it could be discussed and decided before the editing freeze is lifted. May want to write-up a Think-tank proposal (or maybe just a policy page) just to get organized and set guidelines. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 17:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)

=== Vote ===

I guess I should just put this to a formal vote. Using {{tl|support}}, {{tl|oppose}} or {{tl|neutral}}, please vote below:

To summarize, we are voting on changing the summaries to act-by-act summary breakdowns, unless there are two distinct storylines (such as the Fleet and Cylon-Occupied Caprica storyline in season 1 and in the first half of season 2 -- or "Season 2.0").

# {{support}} -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:21, 31 January 2007 (CST)
# {{support}} --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:26, 31 January 2007 (CST)
# {{support}} --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)
# {{support}} [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:05, 31 January 2007 (CST)
# {{support}} We need to mark which is which before diving in, but otherwise, it's cool. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:21, 1 February 2007 (CST)
# {{support}} --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 11:40, 1 February 2007 (CST)
# {{support}} Don't forget about Season 3.0. @Spencerian: I think in most cases it will be clear which is which, and if the summary-writer(s) get(s) it wrong, we can always call a vote. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:00, 1 February 2007 (CST)

== stating the ship type all the time ==

What I mean is that a lot of articles start with or contain sentences like "...is a pilot assigned to battlestar ''Galactica''". Maybe it's just me, but it sounds odd, and most of all very repetitive.

I don't think that in real life many people say "assigned to aircraft carrier so and so". If anything I feel it should say "...the battlestar ''Galactica''", with a definite article.

But all in all, I think that it is unnecessary to specify the ship type every single time. Everyone knows it's a battlestar. It doesn't have to be repeated ad nauseum. The succession boxes is another place where that is not needed. I don't know how this developed, but it seems to be some kind of quasi-standard. And I've removed it many of my latest edits, only leaving it where it has really a point. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:12, 1 February 2007 (CST)

:A lot of contributors appear to like doing that. I allow it once in an article with full wiki links to both "battlestar" and "Galactica", and remove any others. Similarly, some editors want to wikify "Galactica" every time. I'm ambivalent of the use of "the battlestar ''Galactica''" but I definitely crack down on the use of "the ''Galactica''." We can add a simple line to the definite articles section about the overuse and recommending not to. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)

::Yeah, I'm against "the ''Galactica''" too (it's used on the show, but it sounds a bit odd there too). But "the battlestar Galactica" is ok for me. It sounds right to me because the "the" refers to the ship type. Just "...battlestar ''Galactica''" makes it sound like "battlestar" is part of ship's name -- though oddly, that is alright in the role field of character boxes.
::I can't really bring forth many real arguments though; it's mainly a feeling. Though even with that, I think it's unnecessary to automatically use it, unless there is a really good reason to say that it's a battlestar. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

:::One of the reasons you might see battlestar appended to ''Galactica'' is that it is the name of the show, and so I think in some people's mind that might sound a bit more dramatic (coming full circle with the name of the show). What they may not see, however, is all the other places where it is also done, and how the effect (if there was one to begin with) quickly loses its effect when repeated ad infinitum throughout the site. I don't really feel too strongly on the issue myself, other than to note that the redundant use of battlestar is less concise, which might anger (or sadden) the "concision fairy". And we don't want that. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:59, 15 February 2007 (CST)

::::IMO "the Battlestar ''Galactica''" is OK in some cases, but in all other cases "''Galactica''" should be used. "The ''Galactica''" is said only in the Miniseries, IIRC. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 10:18, 15 February 2007 (CST)
:::::Am I the only one who doesn't really have any problem with using "the ''Galactica''?" --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 12:15, 15 February 2007 (CST)
::::::It's not REALLY that big of a deal, and they used to do it all the time back in TOS. However, in order to provide a uniform viewing/reading experience we needed to pick one way and stick with it. We chose to go with the US Navy writing convention of not using the "the" in front. Also (although this didn't factor into the decision, I don't think) if you count up the characters saved by NOT using "the" in front of every instance, you're probably saving a startling amount of storage space (maybe even several kilobytes... :P) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:31, 15 February 2007 (CST)
:::::::Those saved KBs will allow two extra visitors before the server crashes (if we ever get Slashdotted :P). Seriously, we chose a convention to go with, so for the sake of consistency we should use it everywhere. BTW, is this particular convention mentioned in [[BW:SAC]]? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 14:42, 15 February 2007 (CST)
::::::::Yeah, the use - or not - of the definite article is mentioned --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:47, 15 February 2007 (CST)
:::::::::But the use of the ship class (which this entire section is about, see its title) is not mentioned --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 14:57, 15 February 2007 (CST)

All, this argument has been already discussed, ad nauseum, over a year ago. The primary reason, as noted by many, is for consistency here for the wiki. Characters in both shows say "Galactica" or "the Galactica." But here, to keep an article from sounding like it's written in many voices, we stick to one constant. Yes, this is already an established policy. See [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Standards_and_Conventions/Archive01#Ship_Naming.2C_Abbrevation_and_Capitalization_Standards this link] for the previous archived discussion on this talk page, and the subarticle of the parent, "Ships". The only time that "battlestar" should be capitalized is in the show name, although a sentence that begins (and appears) like "Battlestar ''Galactica'' hit a pothole near the Ionian system" is acceptable. I used to capitalize it myself, it seemed more "dramatic." But since I become of the Body, I know I'll be stoned if I say otherwise--and not in a good way. We should have a really good reason to change an established policy; it's gone through the crucible once already. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:03, 15 February 2007 (CST)
:The sidetracking above aside, this is neither about using the definite article, nor is about capitalizing the word "battlestar". Both things which I'm well aware of and agree with. It's about the constant use of the word in front of ship names. Though I removed it in many articles by now --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:18, 15 February 2007 (CST)
:<nowiki><toomuchcoffee></nowiki>OK, I understand. I recommend that we add to the Ship section: "It is unnecessary to use the modifier of "battlestar" (as in "battlestar ''Galactica''") more than once (and only at the start of the article) for the same reason it is unnecessary to say "starship ''Enterprise''" or "battleship ''Yamato''" throughout any text. Using the ship's classification repetitively in this fashion is distracting and also adds unnecessarily to the size of an article." <nowiki></toomuchcoffee></nowiki> --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:40, 15 February 2007 (CST)
::Support. Keep it up with the coffee. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:44, 15 February 2007 (CST)
::Done. It says everything that needs to be said. But I removed the part about "only at the start of an article", as there can be instances when it's alright or even necessary to use it later too. For example you're writing about a character and need to say "was transferred to the battlestar..." halfway down. Or it could say "The Fleet was joined by the battlestar ''Pegasus''".

== Episode Guide Sections ==

Current convention is Questions, Analysis, Notes. I think this should be reversed to Notes, Analysis, Questions. Rationalle:

Notes are simple pieces of noteworthy information that do not require explication. Analysis discusses inferences and ramifications of aforesaid notes, and Questions explores missing information which cannot be covered in Analysis. The logical reading order is from most factually established information to least, not the other way around. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:42, 17 February 2007 (CST)
:It's sensible, and may prevent repetitive data as the most imformative stuff is more to the forefront of the article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:45, 17 February 2007 (CST)
:Add Official Statements after notes? Otherwise Ditto. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:53, 17 February 2007 (CST)
::Could go either way on that. On the one hand, they often answer questions that the audience would otherwise be left wondering about, so they should be located beforehand. On the other, they aren't actual episode content, so it makes sense to demote them to the end of the article with a "see official statements" link in the relevant question. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:06, 17 February 2007 (CST)
:I think that analysis and notes are the most important and interesting. Questions aren't that important and often too trivial IMHO. Putting them more towards the end makes sense from both an objective and my subjective point of view. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:56, 17 February 2007 (CST)
::I support Peter Farago's plan, but I do propose we postpone it until after the end of this season. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 14:35, 18 February 2007 (CST)
:::Why? It's a three-hour project at most. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:52, 18 February 2007 (CST)
::::You'd be surprised how much difficulty we have in getting the regular podcasts done before the next one appears. Currently, we're still missing Act 4 from [[Podcast:The Woman King|The Woman King]], while the podcast for [[A Day In The Life]] is probably up already. Steelviper and I are doing what we can, but we appear not to have enough spare time. More stuff to transcribe is the last thing we want right now. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:08, 18 February 2007 (CST)
:::::All we're talking about doing is changing the order of sections in an episode guide - it has nothing whatever to do with transcription. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CST)
::::::I'm sorry, I typed my reply in a hurry and mixed up this discussion with the one about transcribing Q&A's. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 08:34, 19 February 2007 (CST)
: Sensible. I'm go for it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:34, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Is this still on? It's something that could be done now. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:17, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
:Yep. It's on the "[[Battlestar_Wiki:Community_Portal/Goals|List]]". I even solicited for members of "Project Rewatch" on scifi.com to lend a hand with this (since they'll be rewatching them all anyway), though I haven't seen anything come of that yet. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:29, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
::You are referring to a conversion of everything to act breakdowns. This is about a re-ording of the different subsections like Analysis, Notes and Questions. But I can do that later today. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:37, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Size|Wikipedia:Article Size]], Part 2 ==

:''[[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Standards_and_Conventions/Archive4#Wikipedia:Article_Size|Archived Location]] on discussion.

We need to implement this. Bios are getting to big to handle on one page. Look at [[Lee Adama]] and [[Galen Tyrol]]. There are over 24 subheadings on bio between the two of them. Now, thank god I read fast, but if I wanted to get to the point real quick, I have to read each characters by day. I expect "lists" pages to be long (i.e. [[Special:Longpages]]) but not bios. So... what should we do? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:45, 26 February 2007 (CST)

:I don't see the problem just yet. Yeah, some of the character bios are getting very long, but for now I can live with it. The headers help to break up the text into smaller chunks. But how do you propose to break it up into smaller articles? Going by seasons would probably work best. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:57, 27 February 2007 (CST)

:I still say summarize. Not every last activity about a character is important - for example, who cares about Kara Thrace's activities in the last episode, "Dirty Hands"? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:06, 27 February 2007 (CST)

== Proper nouns (or not) ==

For technical reasons all articles need to start with capital letters. What I noticed quite a bit is that people then treat it as a proper noun instead of recognizing the technical limitation. "Algae planet" for example. Or worse "Algae Planet", as often the second word is also capitalized for no reason. So, should we mentioned that article names should only have one capitalized word and that the links should not be capitalized either (unless it's really a proper noun of course). Or would that just create more red tape, as we already have tons of rules about small stuff? Might seem like too much for new people. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:52, 27 February 2007 (CST)
:Easier to fix, than to implement. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)
::Doesn't [[BW:TERM]] already implement this? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:04, 27 February 2007 (CST)
:::Not really. That just lists terms for stuff that hasn't been given a name. But Shane is probably right, that it's easier just to edit articles than make a rule about it. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

== Book titles ==

The advice in this project page to put quotes around book titles (and "other publications" to the extent that it refers to complete publications, not articles or other subcomponents of a publication) not only conflicts with itself (because it says later to italicize newspaper titles and those of other "larger works"), but also conflicts with pretty much every English-language style guide ever published. Book titles are italicized, as are magazine names, and other titles/names of self-complete publications and productions (movies, stage plays, TV series). Book chapters, TV show episodes, newspaper/magazine articles, named stage play acts, and other such subcomponents of larger works get quotation marks. Having book titles in quotes in here looks very amateurish and sloppy. :-( 17:49, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
:True. Books are generally italicized. But don't we do this already sometimes? Case in point [[Encyclopedia Galactica]]. Or the footnotes in [[Filming locations (RDM)]] for example. Though some other articles (about the books themselves) use neither quotes nor italics. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

== Date Standard ==

We we talking about this before, somewhere else, can't remember where, but any-who -- we should come up with a date standard. most of our stuff has 3 different date types. Broadcast data, episode guide (mostly BIO), and then the template in which we have for broadcast information with links and time of the broadcaster. So.. uniformed dates. Any ideas throw them out. I follow the consenus because I am almost ready to work on a new set of these broadcast templates from the redesigned [[md:Template:Master screencap|Template:Master screencap]] on the media wiki. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 03:28, 28 January 2008 (CST)
: For infoboxes and templates, I would prefer the use of '''YYYY-MM-DD'''. For citations and regular prose, I would prefer that we stick to '''DD Month YYYY''', thus getting rid of the comma. Although it's common to do the reverse, it simply reads better. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:29, 16 February 2008 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive4

2009-11-02T16:50:52Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions. (ARCHIVE FULL)

{{archive-message
| start = April 25th, 2006
| end = December 29th, 2006
| newarchive = 05
| sig = [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:34, 31 January 2007 (CST)
}}

== Battlestar Wiki should be... ==

...always in ''italics''. If it happens to become bold, that is fine, but always ''italiced''. Any comments --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:32, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

:That strikes me as annoying, not particularly useful, and exceedingly hard to impose on the vast number of existing instances. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:23, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

:: Concur. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 11:55, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

:::Is there not a word censor feature on the wiki, to perhaps change all instances of Battlestar Wiki into ''Battlestar Wiki''? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:16, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

== Outline rules ==

I've mentioned this before [[#Cast pages Overview section|on this page]], but it's getting really annoying now. It seems so stupid to have an "Overview" section and force the TOC above it in every article. The first paragraph should be the overview or introduction section. It doesn't need a header. For example: In [[Greek mythology]], the "Introduction" Section should just be the first paragraph. And look at [[Dean Stockwell]], Someone has added an "Overview" section and the used _ _TOC_ _ to force the wiki to behave badly. That article should not even have a TOC! Another example: [[Donner]], should not have an "Overview" header, but at least they didn't add a TOC. This is most obvious in episode articles like [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I]]. The "Overview" section should just be the first paragraph. Is this a policy? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Can someone explain why we ignore standard wiki format, standard outline rules, and common sense?

If this is talked about somewhere else, please point me there.

--[[User:Bp|Bp]] 10:55, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

: No, it is not a policy. Merely a style choice that was never really hammered down. Now, with articles like [[Donner]], I don't see the point of a header (which I removed). Now, on the other hand... in regards to the episode articles... the primary format was taken from [http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5], which [http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/022.html includes the overview header]. So that's where ''that'' came from. And it makes sense there, in my view. By the way, and I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but what is "standard Wiki format"? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 12:11, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
::Standard wiki style is the style that MediaWiki was designed to use. It isn't a coincidence that the TOC is added after the first paragraph by default. The overview should be an immediately available brief summary or introduction in a standard place in every article: the very first line. It is more efficient for quick browseing because it doesn't require any extra clicking or scrolling, and it makes more sense. The Dean Stockwell article is a perfect example of ''breaking'' the design by forcing the TOC to the top. What also makes it standard is it's use on Wikipedia. Not trying to be a jerk, --[[User:Bp|Bp]] 12:24, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

:: Good point. :-) What has everyone else to say about it? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 12:59, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree with Bp. It's a pity we haven't been more zealous about this. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:57, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree: headers have been somewhat zealous. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:20, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
::::I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:06, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

::::Let me s'plain. My father was killed by a six-fingered man...---[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 17:08, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
::It's been about a week now and it doesn't look like there is any objection, so what is the next step? Can I just start changing them? --[[User:Bp|Bp]] 18:55, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

:::I would be fine with your going ahead with the changes... except for the episode pages, as moving the overview above the TOC there appears quite disconcerting, in my view. (I've tried it, and I was adverse to it from an asthetic point of view, likely because of the Lurker's Guide.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 21:46, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

:::: I agree with BP. I prefer not saying "Here's an introduction:". It's kind of like, "Can I ask you a question?" No need to introduce the introduction. Peter and I had gone through a handful of pages a long time ago and written introductions, or moved stuff up to make an intro paragraph. I think it might have been characters mostly, but I honestly can't remember. Maybe I dreamed it. Anyway, I went and played with Lay Down Your Burdens, Pt. 1 (since the link was handy) and, at least in preview mode, I think I like the overview to have no header and appear above the TOC. However, I acknowledge that others might disagree, so maybe we should have a vote, singling out Episode pages. If you're really wanting to get going on doing a lot of these edits, BP, I'd say start with non-Episode pages until we get that sorted. Lord knows there's plenty of 'em. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:15, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

== "Battle" Pages Format and Guideline Proposal ==

Per the [[Fall of New Caprica]] talk, the "Battle" pages do require standardization, so I propose the following qualifiers for the future.

"Guidelines for creating a "Battle" page:

* Any major military confrontation in an episode should have a Battle page.
* Battle pages are generally ''military conflict summaries'', NOT episode summaries. Use the episode articles to summarize events and conversations not related to the Battle page's focus. Likewise, avoid the use of quotes unless it has critical importance to the page. Use narrative format as a general rule.
* The content of the article should only include battle summaries, tactics, ship movements, major decisions of key political or military characters related to the welfare of the ships, their crew or the colonists.
* Battle pages are appropriate for troop-level fighting (such as the [[Battle of Kobol]]), but focus must be kept on the relevant events and less on the general mood and actions of all characters.
* Battle pages should not include real-world Earth discussions, comparisons or contrasts. If a particular tactic or technology is used that has an Earth equivalent that deserves clarification, place that information in a relevant existing or new article and add the link to the Battle page as appropriate.
* A Battle page works best with direct military conflict (whether or not fire is exchanged between combatants), but can be adjusted for certain political events that have a serious military consequence with direct conflict potential. While the "Fall of New Caprica" event is not a battle, the change of power is in effect a "win/lose" consequence that could have grave tactical ramifications.
* Each Battle page uses a summary template. If you have difficulty in defining the content of the summary template, then it is likely that the content is inappropriate for a Battle page, and should be entered in another article.

Battlestar Wiki's "Battle" articles are based on a similar design used on Wikipedia. Two useful examples to aid contributors include Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:World War II|World War II]] article and the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]] article."

Comments on this? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:58, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

:I originally wrote a rather long treatise on how to handle Battle pages, towards the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions#Battle pages|top of our discussion]] here at #11. Anyone might want to read that for my previous expounding on the subject. Anyway, my guideline for what to include was based on Wikipedia, but once again I find myself looking at Memory Alpha for their articles on the Battle of Wolf 359 or Battle of Cardassia, etc.

:Here is where I must disagree: battle pages should only be made for when shots are actually exchanged. I didn't think "Galactica Vs. Pegasus" should be an article, though it got voted in it was with much contention, and sort of shows the "borderline" of the most extreme case which might be in here. But "Fall of New Caprica" should be deleted or heavily altered. It wasn't a battle at all. I like SteelViper's thoughts on the subject, that "Fall of Saigon" is an "even" in wikipedia but not a battle, so we should remove battle template boxes and such from it at the very ''least''. Still, a lot of work needs to be done on these and I'll find time in the next few days.

:Nextly, --->It looks really awkward to put the entire battle article in the present tense/active voice, and we should not do that. Look at how Memory Alpha or Wikipedia writes battle pages. It sounds very awkward, and unlike a character bio or episode guide, a battle is one finite event and really should not use this. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 19:22, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
:: I totally agree with Spencerian. One point, though that I want to comment on, anytime an Episode shows miltary personal consipring and uses force against any target (weather that would be Galacicia v. Peaguas). That's about it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:57, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

:::Would you want to include the Galactica's boarding of Colonial One or the GIdeon then? I think that's a little excessive (although I agree with the inclusion of the fall of New Caprica, as I've stated above, and don't think that's seriously up for debate) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:27, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

::::Really excessive, there. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:54, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
::::Even I think that is "excessive". But that is not vs. a miltary target. It is civilian. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

:::::I think we were confused by your use of the phrase "any target" above. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:02, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
::::::On a side note... {{tl|Battle Data}} is up for review. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:58, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

:::::::It looks good to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:03, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

::::::::I'm not keen on the phrase "Attacker/Defender" in there. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 06:11, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

::::::::I can understand using "attacker" and "defender" from a differentation standpoint, although it may be better to use something more generic. But how does this new template differ from the previously used template? I'm unclear why this template would be used. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:17, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
:::::::::Color scheme. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:47, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
::::::::::More specifically, a central location where you could control/maintain the color sheme (and "classes" for the css) rather than having to individually update individual battle boxes each time a change needed to be made. The current pages use a "hand-made" table, rather than a template (which made sense when there weren't many battles). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:59, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
:::::::::::Got it. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:53, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

===Battle Page Verb Tense===

''An earlier thread also appears on [[User talk:The Merovingian#Battle Pages Verb Tense|The Merovingian's user talk page]].''

If you look, [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Verb_Tense Standards and Conventions] for Verb Tense says that historical events are excepted: Battles are an exception, as they're not in the episode guide but written as a historical event. They have awkward flow when they're in the present tense. I like what SteelViper said a while ago: Galactica vs. Pegasus represented the '''extreme'' "borderline" of what constitutes such a page, but really what justifies a battle page I wrote in my treatise above at #11: shots actually have to be fired, and it has to be just more than a minor skirmish; something resulting in the loss of a viper ''might'' qualify: for example, the Skirmish over the Red Moon counts, shooting only two Raiders in "Final Cut" with no Viper loses does not, and the events of "Scar" don't count as a battle because it was low-level fighting drawn out over a month (wikipedia would never list "battle of that mission where one American pilot shot down one Japanese pilot", etc.) It kind of depends on the scale. I'm cleaning these up...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 19:49, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

:Your interpretation is not correct, Merv. "Historical events" are flashbacks or other events that occur outside of the "start" of the aired chronological events of the show in the "present" time of the characters just before the Cylon attack. The historical range is the start of the miniseries to the end of season 2 right now. Any flashbacks of events that occur prior are indeed "historical." The flashback of Adama and Tigh's first meeting as shown in "Scattered" are historical. The events of '''all battles''' shown to date are in the "present" and are NOT historical, per the reason we use present tense in fiction and the reason for our policy. If the show were to show a battle that occurred before the series and miniseries, then that works for past tense. Many character bios also speak in past tense under the same guidelines with their flashback history. Wikipedia does what it does because it (1) has that as its policy and (2) is speaking of actual human events of the past. I don't want to even go into what Memory Alpha does (how they keep the chronological, retconned, and contradictory world of ''Star Trek'' together in a wiki is more magical than logical) except that they have their own rules. And we have ours, here, that have been discussed and established as consensus, and thus policy. Consensus does NOT expire, but can be reentertained for change at a later time--again, through consensus. You cannot change a page just because no one has talked about the ''idea'' of changing the tense. You really need to ask the group first before making such dramatic changes against the policy. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:52, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

I'm revisiting these articles. I still find the "historical" writing of these articles to be distracting, but (with Merv no longer here) I'm hoping other voices will be heard on whether we should keep battle pages to past tense and not our typical present tense. I'm a bit ambivalent about it, but I also don't want to make exceptions to our present-tense policy without making it crystal clear. Merv went through all the pages not long ago to put them in past tense, with no consensus as shown in this thread. Comments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:19, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
: Sure, I'll chime in here. I think that bringing the battle series of pages in line with the verb tense we've established at S&C is fine. I've always found that the battle series seemed to feel "outside" of the Wiki for some reason -- and that reason may very well be because of the verb tense issue. On another subject, I would also like to entertain the prospect of including major ground assaults as well, given that we may likely see ground asasults in the ''Caprica'' mini series and so forth. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 12:38, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
::I don't think there was any major consensus against ground assaults in general gaining battle recognition, just that the "Fall of New Caprica" (as far as we've seen anyway) didn't constitute a significant battle. As for tense, I'd lean towards maintaining uniformity regarding reporting on episodic content. Otherwise you have a rule that says "always use active voice for episodic content, except on battlepages, tuesday's, and Joe's talk page (where past progressive subjunctive should be used (was being used, perhaps?)". --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:53, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
:Concur. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:21, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

::SV's take on it is spot-on; we seemed to have too many exceptions to in-universe articles. I won't rush into it (awaiting here for any further dissent or comment) but may redo these in a month or so. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:47, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

:Non-concur. That is, if you want the opinion of someone who is not an admin but a fan of military history and also a US military officer. It simply makes more sense to have battles in past! I recently made a bunch of edits to [[Battle of New Caprica]], among them, writing the page in past tense. Not long after, I was reverted, so went back and made the tense changes to my edits and reapplied them. I can understand the allure of having all the "present" events written about in that tense, for that keeps the energy level of the descriptions greater than the general consensus of "some historical account." Battles are afforded some special level of awe in our English language, however, even those we are discussing that only occurred on Friday evenings. Writing battles, specifically, in past tense would give them the more respected "what grandpa told me" factor. True, this could be extended to political battles, Raptor rescues, and all the various things that we see on a regular basis on the show, so I do not pretend to know a clear way of delineating the limits of what would be good fodder for past tense. That, I suppose, is the greatest argument for having the standard be uniform. The reason writing battles in present tense feels so unnatural is that writing is supposed to be an organized practice. Battles, on the other hand, are inherently not organized. Giving structure--"now factor"--to battles gives them a false sense of perspective. Present tense implies that someone, somewhere on or viewing the field of battle has an holistic understanding of all that is occurring. This has not been the case since the 18th century. Witnesses or participants describing what they saw are often gruesome and/or shocking narratives, but they are rarely more encompassing than the limited breadth of their adrenaline-induced tunnel vision. Battle accounts being in past tense lends weight to the credibility of the study of what happened, that because the author has taken the time to analyze the significant actions and critical points of the battle, only then is it able to be put into a cohesive story. Putting battles, only, in past tense, would be affording them the added level of dignity that our society traditionally provides them. - [[User:Keithustus|Keithustus]] 11:25, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

::Thanks, Keithustus. As you can see from this long thread, there has been sizeable discussion on the matter. My adminship just involves extra cleanup and policy management, so otherwise don't take my comments with any extra level of authority than any other contributor. A past contributor reverted the convention of present tense in the series of articles without consensus, which I returned to their current status.

Your comments are pretty eliquent and may bring new arguments against the convention use, so rather than debating the merits, let's review the notion again with comments from other contributors on these particular pages, should anyone care to comment again. For now, as all other battle pages follow the current convention, let's avoid revert wars and leave things as they are until consensus deems otherwise. A week may be sufficient for this, and you can drop a note on the [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum]] to draw attention to this question. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:58, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

== "The" Galactica ==

This is discussed in the front page of this policy, #5 "Ships". It says we shouldn't refer to ''Galactica'' as "the ''Galactica''". We've usually eliminated this from new articles. However, I've been rewatching much of the series in marathon recently, and I've realized that in ''practially every episode'' someone (even Admiral Adama) refers to it as "the ''Galactica''. ***They actually use both terms '''interchangeably''' on the show. This is really just a minor point and not drastically affecting anything, I'm just saying that in light of this we should loosen up on the restrictions on that; seeing as "Galactica" (with no definate article "the") is also correct, that means we don't have to go through every article in the entire wiki and change things. I'm just saying, in all future articles, we should be more lax about this. Because I've asked aquintances who served in the Navy and they've told me that vessels were referred to as "the Indianapolis", "The Los Angeles", etc. etc. Agree, disagree?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:25, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

:They (the writers) may make the characters say anything they wish. However, since we are intended as a reference, we need to stick to one way of doing things to keep things from looking odd, at the least. Thus, no definite articles on ship names. Now, there is a convention problem on the TOS pages where we have exactly this problem, which calls for us to conventionize it--despite that almost all times the term used on the show is almost always "the ''Galactica.'' The RDM show, as with all things, will fall out of its own convention, but for our purposes of keeping things orderly, we cannot take that luxury. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:22, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

::Well, I really don't understand what you're trying to convey: the writers and the show itself doesn't have a convention, so we should try to establish an arbitrary convention? My big point is: you're saying that "the show might fall out of its own convention"....but I was never convinced that this ''was'' a convention. At what point did it become apparent that there was a "don't use the definative article" rule in existence? Is what I'm asking. And If BSG TOS almost always refers to it as "The"....wouldn't that mean that, purely within the realm of TOS, saying "The Galactica" is a convention? I don't understand why just "Galactica" is currently supposed to be a convention---->I mean, do modern navies say that? Because I've checked around and US Navy vessels use the definate article "The" as well. It doesn't make a difference.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:31, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

::: When we were originally discussing this (it was one of the earliest discussions of this project), I thought we determined that the US Navy did refrain from using the definite article when refering to a ship, at least in official documents. I'm not saying there's no way we could have been/are wrong, but I'd be much more interested to see how various news papers, Navy press releases, etc. refer to ships. In speaking, people tend to be much more lax, but I'd prefer to borrow from, say, the AP handbook on this. In fact, I have a friend who is a journalist and keeps track of this kind of thing. Should I ask him what the AP rules on this? Does anyone care what they say? --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 22:33, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

::::Oh yeah, Day, exactly; if you can find some thing that says official documents do not use "the" that would be great confirmation. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 10:23, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

::::: Got it. The relevant text will follow, but the Navy has a whole [http://www.news.navy.mil/tools/view_styleguide.asp?sort=S Style Guide].

:::::: '''ship names''' - For first reference always include USS, the ship's name and the hull number: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).

:::::: Exceptions: Do not use "USS" for ships before 1909; or if she is not yet in commission; or she has been decommissioned and you are referring to the ship in her present state.

:::::: There is no hyphen in the hull number. In All Hands text, the ship name is in italics. On second reference, use only the ship's name. Do not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose," not "the USS San Jose."

:::::: Ships are to be referred to as "she" or "her."

:::::: Ships' nicknames are placed inside quotation marks on first reference only. USS LaSalle (AGF 3), the "Great White Ghost," sailed into San Diego.

:::::: Ship names are not in all caps. Use USS Seattle, not USS SEATTLE.

::::: So that's what the US Navy has to say about it, anyway. We can take it or leave it, but it would be pretty easy just to steal it wholesale. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 21:21, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

::::::Steal it wholesale :) Thanks: that's a definative answer. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:58, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
:::::::Concur. Steal it and cite it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 22:04, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
:::::::Whatever floats the boat, gentlemen, so long as it keeps us to a standard. Mind you, what the US Navy uses is not necessarily what the Colonial Fleet uses, so if I were to see a conflict (based on consistency of usage in episodes), this is something we should review. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:25, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Incorperated into the Ships section. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 03:47, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

== American vs British English Style Usage ==

This wiki started with several initial contributors from the U.K. As such, these contributions were written in the Queen's English (things such as ''centre'' and not the American English ''center'', for example). As ''Battlestar'' season 1 aired in the U.S. and American contributions increased, there is a predominant usage of American English in the wiki. I noted that [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|one user]] had recently edited a page, correcting some misspellings but also changing correct American English words to their British counterpart. I asked Joe about this very early on in my editing last year, and he noted that we should use American English. I commented on None's talk page about this, adding the following (which I recommend as policy):

*Please use American English for wiki contributions in the English version of ''Battlestar Wiki'' whereever possible.
*If you are British, please feel free to add your contributions in the "Queen's English" as this will make it easier for you to contribute. However, please do not re-edit correctly spelled American English edits to their British counterparts unless you are rewriting whole paragraphs, sections, or articles.''
Commments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:47, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
:I must say I am to blame as well for doing this once or twice. When going through pages correcting typos using spell checkers I also found myself accidently "correcting" american spellings for british. Oops --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 15:14, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

::I believe this policy is already stated on the main S&C page, but you can feel free to clarify it if you feel that's necessary. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:49, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

::: Yeah. I thought that was pretty clear, but go ahead and make it more so, if you want, Spence. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 19:59, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

:I agree completely, Spencerian. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:30, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Clarified the existing policy. I didn't see the phrase "American English" in my scan. This doesn't apply to the non-English versions of the wiki, so someone with proper or appropriate fluency should restate the policy for these wiki versions so we don't have European Spanish and Mexican Spanish confusions, to take one example. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:13, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

== Comics Canonicity ==

I'm worried about information from [[Battlestar Galactica 0]]. I'm not sure it's entirely canon (i.e. aside from just that it's a comic, they've got Cylons making cloned copies of humans before "Pegasus" when Ron Moore said that they haven't done that ''yet'', and if they didn't they'd make a big deal out of it). ---->Anyway, I like what Memory Alpha does: we shouldn't remove the actual articles for things found in the comic, "[[Third Colonial Conflict]]", etc., however, they shouldn't find their way into normal RIC articles, like the Timeline, character bios, etc. etc. You know. So I don't think these articles should be deleted, but I think we should develop a new template to put at the top of each that says "This is from a comic, not canon", and that we shouldn't mix them into standard articles. What's everyone else's thoughts (after seeing the stuff)?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ;sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:14, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
: I concur. We should keep the stuff, but note that it isn't canon and ensure that it doesn't spill over into the canon articles. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:29, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
: We could also move these articles as subpages of the comic, so they don't proliferate the canon namespace. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:32, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
::I agree, but I don't know how to do that. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:37, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
:::That's not a problem. I could do that, if there's consensus to do so. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:49, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
*The comics are fully within BSG canon. The writer and producers have said that several times and it says so in BSG 0. However, since you have made it clear that this "encyclopedia" is not interested in anything except episodes that have already aired, I'll save you the trouble of doing anything further with it. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 13:58, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
**All we can do is ask about it directly in the blog, but seriously, I think what RDM did was give it a 5 minute once over, realize they weren't killing off Baltar by making his head explode or say that Apollo and Starbuck are long lost brother and sister, and then gave it the go-ahead for merchandise/publicity. Until we get more word from RDM on the particulars, I don't think a "holding pattern" of keeping it segregated could hurt. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:18, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
** Kuralyov, where have the producers and writers said that these works are canon? Please provide some links to interviews and so forth. Thanks. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 14:38, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

::This is a simple issue. The comics are canon within their own continuity. Where they interesect the main continuity in a purely perfunctory manner (such as [[Zak Adama]]), it should be fine to footnote the incident. When large liberties are taken, we can resort to namespaced articles as necessary. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:43, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

:::I concur with Peter on this. I really loved the first issue, but what happens in the comic may not necessarily reflect what's aired in the main series and should be labeled or tagged as such. I'm even OK with using the episode template to further define its continuity (which forces "episode" pages to delineate things) and we already have all the tools, and it also invites discussion. I may move this first comic page to this format just to kill several birds with one stone about this topic to show what I mean. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:59, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

::: Then we need to define what a "large liberty" is so that we know it when we see it. I'd be fine including these events as full cannon if someone can show me RDM saying it's cool. Otherwise, we might take a hint from Lucasarts and develop a kind of "level" of cannonicity, or else treat the comic kind of liek the video game: strangely related in some ways, but not really... right. If you take my meaning. If not, I'll try to explain again. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:16, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

::::Hm. Good point, and Merv's concern makes more sense to me in terms of the edits on [[Timeline (RDM)]]. What if we put all semi-canonical plot points (comics, novels, etc.) in their own section of the concerned articles, to avoid mingling content? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:29, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

::::"like the video game: strangely related in some ways, but not really... right." My thoughts exactly. Well I don't really agree with your idea Peter, though I would not actively oppose it if you decide to do it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 07:44, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::The difference is that the video game does not take place in the same continuity as RDM at all, whereas the comics do have to acknolwedge RDM continuity - just not vice-versa. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:45, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::: I've not played it, but my impression was that the video game was supposed to have happened to Bill in the Cylon War, right? So, isn't it supposed to be part of the continuity? Or does it have some kind of big details that make it obvious that it wasn't, really, intended to be in-continuity (as opposed to things like Twelve Colonies = 12 planets vs. TC = 1 planet that would show it being related, but at an early stage in development of the show)? --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:35, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::::I wish it were that easy. The game created or added elements that were to be used in the Singer/DeSanto revival and derived elements from TOS. The William Adama there is actually the one that works more like the original Adama of TOS. There is an Imperious Leader there, with a name, and he seems more like an organic being TOS Cylon. So for the sake of keeping things together, the VG is its own continuity that's really neither TOS or RDM. See [[Video Game]] for more. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:18, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

== Our Name ==

I note that shane has been italicizing "Battlestar Wiki" wherever he includes it. Do we like this? I suppose it's the style we'd use if we were referring to, say, ''Britannica'', but it seems a little self-important to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:17, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
:To note, for reference, I started doing this after I saw a few other places (got to be back around count 40 in my contribs). When Battlestar Wiki refers to itself, "Battestar Wiki uses the etc etc." it not supposed to be quoted, but if a verb follows or preceds (i.e "These are images used exclusively on ''Battlestar Wiki''.") with "on" being the verb refering to the site. If Battelstar Wiki was talking, yes it be non-italixized. But most of the times we refer to ''Battlestar Wiki''. A great place that ''Battlestar Wiki'' is italicized is {{tl|Project}}. "This page is one of ''Battlestar Wiki'''s many projects." implying Battlestar Wiki. Am I making any sence? :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
:In different places on this page it's used several different ways.. ''Battlestar Wiki'', BattlestarWiki, and Battlestar Wiki. I don't know, but I can tell you that having ''Battlestar Wiki'' as two words, needs to standout instead of Battlestar Wiki. Wikipieda can get away with this because it's just one word. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:43, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
:Another note, [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Standards_and_Conventions#Battlestar_Wiki_should_be... above...] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:45, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
::It seems like consensus was against italics above. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:57, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
:::I ''still'' feel that it should be italizied, and I know joe agreed with CA, but if I had to talk about this issue now, this is how I feel. Granted there are occatiosn when it shouldn't but in most case it has been italiced. I really think its of option in style. Just typing this, I relzied why we should italized. The namespace Battlestar Wiki. This can make it stand out if it's in a project page or text seperate from the namespace. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:05, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

:::: As ever, if we do something other than whatever's default (normal text, in this case) I think we should find some outside convention and steal it. When quoting the title of a web page for a bibliography (or Sources Cited page), [[Wikipedia:MLA style manual#Citation|MLA Style]] mandates the use of underlining. This is somewhat problematic, since current XHTML/CSS standards advise the use of or over or and sometimes browsers interpret em and strong differently (though we should theoretically be able to over-ride this by specifically styling them in our style sheet). I'd rather, I think, just do without the italics (or any other special styling), if for no other reason than it's easier. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 03:33, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

== Quotes ==

Since we been doing this alot, the "Action" before a quote... should it be in...

<pre>
<nowiki>
''[ Action ]'' 
Line 1
Line 2
-- [[33]]
</nowiki></pre>

--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:42, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

:It seems neater without the brackets. Is the brackets a standard we follow? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 13:25, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
::I seen it two different ways. I think the Brackts have it "stand out" if it was an action before any text and () actions that are in a line of a quote, should be done that way. "(Sarcastic) shane's a geek" -- shane --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:29, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
::I don't think there IS a standard yet (which is what Shane was pointing out). So let's figure out how it should be done, and apply that. The transcripts from sadgeezer use italics, but we do use an awful lot of italics already in our quotes. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:34, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
:::Just thought that there may be a pre-existing standard on the brackets. Is italics used for more than the episode name? I glad that we I having this discussion. I have been working on quotes and trying to guess how to do things ( not in the existing standards) by looking at the existing quotes. Also, after thinking about Shane's () in the quote, the [] makes sense. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 15:09, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

:::: Has anyone ever worked with play scripts and/or screen plays? I bet there's a standard there we might be able to jack. If we don't like it, maybe the AP has a standard for out-of-flow quotes (or maybe not) and we could steal/adapt that. I'll go looking for the AP rules, if someone else happens to know about scripts, that would be awesome. Then, we'll at least know what other, "official" things are doing. If we don't want to do what they're doing, we don't have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:23, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

::::: Okay. Apparenly the AP guideline is to avoid this style of quoting. So... I looked at a screenplay, and it is ugly... or, as you might say, frugly (or however we'd alter that so the F is for Frak). So, I was thinking that, in the case where the "action" is actually contextual information, rather than real movement or verbs, it could be placed in the attribution. You'll see this a lot with single-speaker quotes in dropquotes in, say, Newsweek. Example:

::::::: "Blah blah blah." 
::::::: --Administrator [[User:Day|Day]], regarding all this quotes formatting discussion (''[[The Battlestar Galactica Drinking Game|This is Not an Episode]]'')

::::: For multi-person quotes, this would look like this:

::::::: '''Captain [[Lee Adama]]''': Nobody's expecting a miracle. 
::::::: '''Chief [[Galen Tyrol]]''': Maybe that's the problem. 
::::::: --Regarding the construction of the [[Blackbird]], ''Laura'' (''[[Flight of the Phoenix]]'')

::::: What do you guys think about that? That still leaves up in the air things where the action really is action, but mayeb we should be including different quotes than those, anyway. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 01:15, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::: Never thought of that.... maybe three different styles... the orginal way, my action way, and the day way (group "think" process). --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:46, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

== Adjustment to Links to Episodes ==

The current policy appears to be missing a significant item. I recommend adjustment to the policy as follows:

:When referring to episodes in text, use quote marks. This helps keep them distinct from other text. This is especially useful for unwieldly episode name such as "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]".
:*Example: "In the episode "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]", ''Galactica'' finds ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''."

:When using an episode to cite a source, use parenthesis, but do not place quotes around the episode name. Citations go inside the sentence's punctuation.
:*Example: "''Galactica'' finds ''Pegasus'' ([[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]])."

:When referencing successive episodes within parentheses, place each episode name within quotes, separating them by commas placed within the quotes. (Do not place quotes around the name of Miniseries, as this is a designation and not an actual episode name.)

:*Example: Lee Adama is moody often ([[Miniseries]], "[[33]]," "[[Water]]," "[[The Hand of God]]").

This convention is widely used throughout most articles and greatly aids in identifying episode names within a lengthy citation. If it seems contrary in that we add quotes to successive episodes within parentheses but not in a single episode citation, a consistent convention may be to place quotes around ALL episode citations, parentheticals or not. I dinged Shane on this, not realizing we still hadn't properly defined this in policy. In any case, quotes are important when we have titles that are identical to other objects: Pegasus is a prime example, as is Resurrection Ship. Comment? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:01, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

:if these are source, which in which () is being used for, and since only things in quotes should be something in text, it would be bad to do this within the () inline ref symbols. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
:Plus just adding "" makes it confusing. If it is going to happen, it should be around all of them, but I think it is an unnessary format. It will also look bad in the middle of text. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:23, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
:I have no problem in adding this convention in, as we already use it anyway. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:49, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
::where? I don't see any article like this. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:52, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree. We've been using this convention in an unofficial fashion for a long time. We should make it official--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:33, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

:::: You know? I thought this ''was'' a convention. I think Merv and Peter (primarily) hashed this idea out on some talk page way ago. It may have been CA and Spence. This is how well I recall the event. Anyway, I think the above, just as it's written, would be awesome. Does anyone think we should note that the Miniseries doesn't get quotes because it's not a title (not because it's the first in the list), or shall we trust people to glean that? I'm generally a fan of being explicit, personally. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:44, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::OK, then. Since time and practice has created this standard ''de facto'' and a consensus appears reached, I will add/amend the proposed text I wrote earlier as policy. No quotes in single-episode references, but do so in multi-episode parentheticals. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:06, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

== Revising the Episode Guide re Analysis sections ==

Some of our Analysis sections in the episode guides some more like reviews...and several from season one sound...''deeply'' POV. There's this user that hasn't been around for a year called ernestborg9 who just wrote his own mini-reviews of each episode. Case in point "[[Colonial Day]]", he starts off by saying "This is the most poorly-conceived and executed episode in BSG's first season.". Not only is this POV....it's blatantly wrong. I mean it's POV for me to say it, but there *is* room to critique episodes for their faults, but this was I think consensus will agree one of the better scripts: I mean even Ron Moore in the podcasts thinks that like Bastille Day was the worst because it was the early season and they were still finding their footing for a few episodes. And "comparatively worst" doesn't equal "actually bad". Yes, we could say "Black Market was not well put together", but that's more of a report on consensus, and either way we phrased it more gingerly----->My point in all of this is, '''a lot of the Analysis sections sound more like reviews''' especially ones from season one, which I tended to not try to fix up before as they were "done" already, but now that I sit through and read them again, I can't believe we've kept these up as long as we have. What is a "good" Analysis, if "Colonial Day" has a bad one? Well I think by [[Pegasus (episode)]] we'd worked out what can and cannot be in an Analysis section...I remember MORE stuff in there that we cut out (stuff going off on that Cain is the only visible woman on the ship and has some dominatrix like jungle queen hold on her crew...read the history page, this was actually in there at one point) but we edited it down. ----->'''Yes, we do "play it loose" with the Analysis section and should on the whole continue to do so, on a consensus-led case by case basis'''. Analysis *is* the section for making theories...though theories grounded in *evidence*, that is, no wild speculation, but from something in the episode. It should still be a "we play it loose" section of the articles, but they shouldn't sound like POV mini-reviews. We can't say "this episode was bad", though we CAN say "this episode was poorly edited together, major plot points were confusing or poorly presented" (i.e. Black Market) or even for Epiphanies "the Roslin cancer cure was very abrupt and a little quick". Such things are fine. Major thing is that it's supposed to be a "bullleted list" like you see above, not a long three paragraph review of sorts (unless, say, one bulleted point actually runs on that long, which they can, but what I specifically mean is that if you look at Colonial Day and ones like it, it's just a "prose" review, rather than bulleted point by point analysis. --------------------------------->We should retain a "Bloopers" section, such as on "[[Scattered]]", only if needed (there normally aren't a lot of mistakes, but occassionally it can be put in). However, we should remove the "Nitpicks" section from all articles and just merge it into "Analysis".

A lot of the early episode guides on BattlestarWiki, not to mention for the Miniseries, don't fit the standard format that we kind of worked out by the second season.

I would like to try to revise all of these, however I don't want it to be *my own* POV, so I'd like to work on this with everyone to bring these sections back into standardization. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 17:33, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

== Category's - A, B, and C ==

While I been working on my articles on Wikipieda, I found out alot of the article's category's are in A, B, C order. Templates don't seem to matter, but user created templates are in A, B, and C order and I think we should adopt this here. Templates like {{tl|featured article}}, {{tl|featured picture}}, and {{tl|quality article}} should be placed below user created categories so they are dead last. Anyway.. that's about it. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 04:08, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
:What does that mean?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:28, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
:I'm curious, too, Shane. Note that this idea appears to a system-wide configuration, not a policy consideration. It may be more appropriate to suggest this on the Think Tank first. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:56, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
::Maybe he is talking about the order in which category tags (and "tag" templates) are added to individual articles? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:59, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
::Not really since the cat's are already there. For example... on the [[Kara Thrace]] page... you have these categories here:
<pre>
[[Category:A to Z|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:Characters|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:RDM|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:People from Caprica|Thrace, Kara]]
</pre>

would change to do:

<pre>
[[Category:A to Z|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:Characters|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:People from Caprica|Thrace, Kara]]
[[Category:RDM|Thrace, Kara]]
</pre>

:No really impact other than it's in alphicaltiial order from: 0-9 to A-Z by first character. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:02, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

::Although the current situation doesn't bother me, I have no objection to Shane's suggestion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:43, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
::Also helps with the "programs" that read webpages for the deaf. :) [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:46, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

::: Man. If you'd've used the phrase "alphabetical order" rather than "A, B and C" I'd have understood from the get-go. Anyway, now I get it, I see no reason not to have this as a convention. Tangentally, Shane: Why "programs"? Are they not simply programs? Are you implying that they are somehow less of a program than any other utility for some reason? I'm baffled. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 17:01, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Misspelling for me... --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:14, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

::: *bump*

:: I approve, due to a deep love for the sorting of lists. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 16:57, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

:: Great idea. I find myself doing this on articles that I edit, but that's probably because I tend to alpha sort things every day anyway. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:02, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

== Episode "Guide" Format ==

:''See also [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Episode_Standardization#Structure_Change]]'' --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:32, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

== "Original Series" vs. "original series" ==

I've been running across pages, such as the [[Sublight Propulsion]] article, where the original series is treated as a proper noun (i.e. "Original Series"). The same with "Re-Imagined Series". I propose that we stick to a format and keep with it. Preferrably, as neither examples are proper nouns, I propose that they not be treated as such. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 15:45, 11 August 2006 (CDT)
:All lower case. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:15, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

:Disagree. Title Case. The name of the show isn't "battlestar galactica." The terms "the Original Series" and "the Re-imagined Series" serve as proper nouns we use here in lieu of typing "original 'Battlestar Galactica'" and "'re-imagined "Battlestar Galactica'" all the time. They may not be true proper nouns, but they are useful shorthand here, are clear in usage, and easier on the eyes than the "e.e. cummings" style. They must have an article, however. Further, they visually serve as well as the fully typed out name with its capitalization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:00, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

:: That's a good point... <s>A question though, are you saying that we must have articles (namely redirects) for [[Original Series]] and [[Re-Imagined Series]]?</s> Nevermind. I just visisted those and discovered that I created redirects using those names... Where's the dunce hat? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:12, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

:::Umm. Merc has to create one. :) {{tl|duncehat}} --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:44, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

I disagree with Shane and Joe and agree with Spencerian: "Original Series" and "Re-imagined Series" are proper nouns and should be capitalized, always. Indeed, up until now I've actually always corrected "original series" (lower case) to "Original Series" when I encounter it. Sort of like "Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)", BSG TOS is a proper noun. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:50, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

:I concur based upon the principle that ''proper noun'' means "a noun identifying a unique entity." As I interpret that, it should be ''Original Series'', as it names a unique entity. (This is not synonymous with uniquely naming an entity, e.g. ''John'' is a proper noun by any account.) The same reasoning would apply to ''Re-imagined Series'', though the ''i'' should not be uppercase by the rules for capitalization of hyphenated words. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 05:00, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

== Proper notation of TV, book, and movie titles ==

We're pretty inconsistent in properly marking titles of shows, books and films. Unfortunately, my online research on MLA style hasn't yielded much to help, nor does what I found appear to work, since underlining isn't a good idea here.

I recommend the following be added in the standard of citing film, TV, and book titles on the wiki:

:"When citing a film or television show, place the title in italics.

::"The new ''Battlestar Galactica'' series is dark and dismal compared to the Original Series, and is a far cry from the utopian view in ''Star Trek''."

:When citing an television show's episode title, a book or other publication such as a comic, or other merchandise title, place the title in quotations.

::The new book, "[[Battlestar Galactica: The Official Companion]]," tells more about the series, but lovers of collectibles might like the "[[Hasbro Titanium Collection]]."

:::or

::In the episode, "[[Valley of Darkness]]," Apollo is anything but moody.

Comments? Or have I missed this convention elsewhere? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:22, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
:Good call. I've missed it also if it exists. I've been wanting one, though, for all the references to TV, books, and movies that RDM makes during podcasts. Italics will probably work fine, with the only place it would be confusing being when RDM refers to the series as Galactica (not talking about the ship). Pretty isolated scenario, though, and it shouldn't spoil it for all the other shows. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:41, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
::For him, I think we can make an exception. :) Any other comments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:45, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Sounds good. If we agree, I will update the cite templates so they are up to date also. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:21, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
::::I know I'm not one of you senior guys, but I agree too. And yeah, for RDM we can sure as frak make an exception. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 18:12, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::You have just as much a voice as anyone. We admins are just [[Mop Boy]]s with no extra weight in opinions. Thanks for adding your comment! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:36, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Current convention appears to use quotes from episode titles. How do we feel about this? Should we switch those to italics? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:39, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
:<s>Poop. To keep it consistent, we should, although I remember when we debated and decided on the episode quotations convention. It might be a good thing as episode titles in parentheses will stand out a bit more. I say, "Yeah, those too."</s> I rescind that. We should treat episodes of a television show as a book, so we should keep them in quotations. Thus, no change. I adjusted the text above to reflect that. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:41, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

== [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article size|Wikipedia:Article Size]] ==

Led me to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Summary style|Wikipedia:Summary style]]. I think we should work on this for us. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 05:30, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
:Neat. Worth looking into at least. Especially with the work that Spence has had to do on some of the more prominent characters... --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:37, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
::Yep. Definitely deserves some reading. We probably have another 2-4 years of the show, and we have to manage the character bios at least. My rule has been that, if the info is already in the episode summary, then it needn't be in the character bio UNLESS the reason details the character's motivations based on their history. Character motivations, in turn, are too much to add to episode summaries, thus the "balance." --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:47, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

== American style punctuation with episode titles ==

This has already been shortly discussed before, but this is slightly different. The wiki uses the the American convention of always placing commas and periods inside the quotation marks. Nevermind that this makes no logical sense whatsoever, as the writer should distinguish if the puntuation mark actually belongs to the quote itself or the containing sentence. But I don't want to go into that here.

I think there should be one exception to this: episode titles

The rule is inconsistently applied in this case, but most people place commas after the title. Every now and then though you'll see something like 'When Tyrol did something in "[[Fragged]]," or....' Which just looks silly IMHO. It's not even a real quote. The quotation marks are just used to make clear that it's an episode title. So the comma should go outside.

Maybe this could be added to the page. That American rules apply in all cases but episode titles (if anyone else agrees of course). --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:36, 29 December 2006 (CST)

: I haven't any problem with this. (I honestly don't care for the commas or periods inside the quotation marks, either, as I agree that it makes no sense when reading.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 06:40, 29 December 2006 (CST)

::As with everything else, a convention is to keep consistency, the hobgoblin of an encyclopedia. The placement of the comma within an episode title may not seem to matter if one is consistent about it. Right now we move to place them within. If we say, "It's OK not to do so for episodes, but everywhere else should do so," then we give our contributors one extra hobgoblin to remember. I understand if it makes little sense, but trying to stick to one placement (1) keeps visual consistency, and (2) prevents having to remember all the ABA/MLA and other rules. I'm in favor of leaving it as-is as we will have to scour most of our articles to undo that. I guess I don't see the gray here when it comes to consistency, but it won't be the end of the world if we adapt Serenity's suggestion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:16, 29 December 2006 (CST)

:::You do have a point about conventions becoming too complicated, but as far as I can see, many if not most people place them outside already even if they use the American rules otherwise (This isn't a huge problem). It would be far, far more work to "correct" articles by moving them inside than making an exception for titles and moving them outside when necessary --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:11, 29 December 2006 (CST)
== Notes and Analysis ==

What should be the difference between Notes and Analysis sections? It should be stated in this article. {{unsigned|Cyborg}}
:I have no idea if it's actually stated anywhere, but traditionally, Notes concerns noteworthy things (like "Before this episode aired, Actor confirmed that Character would return to ''Galactica'' in this episode"), whereas Analysis, well, analyzes events in the episode. BTW, remember to sign your comments with two dashes and four tildes (<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:32, 28 January 2007 (CST)

:Analysis is more for explaining and perhaps speculating about events in the episodes. Things that need to be elaborated further. Notes should be small, obvious things, that don't require any explination or interpretation. Moreover, all behind-the-scenes information goes there. For example information gleaned from podcasts or actor interviews; things that aren't evident from watching the episode alone. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:49, 28 January 2007 (CST)

:: I acknowledge your comments. However, I think many articles don't follow them. In my opinion that calls for a new section in this "Standards and Conventions" article. -- [[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 13:06, 29 January 2007 (CST)
:::I added a bit explaining it. It took some time to develop those quasi standards, so you will find discrepancies especially in Season 1 and maybe up to mid Season 2 or so. But by then I think the admins figured out what they wanted. Though there might some overlap between Analysis in Notes in some cases. In any case, Season 3 probably adheres the closest to what it's supposed to be. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:19, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Featured articles

2009-11-02T16:50:14Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki talk:Featured articles/Archive1.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki talk:Featured articles/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

Added image to talk page so that it doesnt show in the [[:Special:Unusedimages|Unused images]] page. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 05:59, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
:What?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:38, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
::Mercifull is acutely aware that images that are on the unused images report quickly end up on "the island" (or even disappear). That image was uploaded for potential use as the "logo" in a "Featured Article" template. However, it seems a bit small for that purpose. It probably belongs on the island, or maybe even deleted/reuploaded/reworked. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:43, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Okay. One day I really want our front page to look like Memory Alpha's front page. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:56, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I think v1.6 of mediawiki will allow some of the Portal-like features they have on their main page with out all the ugly html. Although, honestly, if we could get it to look like memory-alpha WITH ugly hacks and html (even without v1.6) I'd be up for it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:07, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::I don't understand computers at all. Just scifi shows. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:09, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

== Featured Candidate Requirements ==

I swiped most of the text from the "quality articles" project, and added a few other requirements as a potential springboard for what a featured article might need. Feel free to hack and slash at it, or discuss it on this talk page. There wasn't much activity on this, so I hoped this would help get the ball rolling. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

This isn't really important, but why are featured articles and pictures supposed to be picked by the 7th of each month? Wouldn't it be simpler just to make them due on the 1st of every month? Confusion. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 09:00, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
:Already passed. 7th is one week. Gives us time to decide 6-days to pick and debate. Plus, the 1st comes at werid times. Usually the 7th will allow the same ammount of time for each article on the front page. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:05, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

:Oh okay. Weird times?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 09:13, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

::So do people want to debate this or do we all like it as is? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 19:03, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

== Silly Pages ==

They are funny, but should they really be considered for FA status? The best of the best? This next time is a pass, but for afterwards. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:06, 8 January 2007 (CST)

:Well, the way I see it, the silly pages, while not serious and excellent in the way the other articles are, are still great in their way. In my mind, the point of nominating an article for FA status is because you think it's a great article and you think it should get attention because of how good it is. Also, I think the silly pages in general need more attention, because they are sorely underappreciated. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:13, 8 January 2007 (CST)
::I don't see the harm in having one as an FA every once in awhile (a great while), if the article itself is worthy. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 07:21, 9 January 2007 (CST)
::I don't think that anybody is questioning their quality. If anything, silly pages are held to a higher standard of quality than normal articles, as only the really good ones are kept. There are no [[Greenback]]'s of silly pages. They're well conceived, well executed, or they're [[toaster|toast]]. However, that being said, I think one of the reasons some of the contributors are leery of having them featured is because they don't really represent the main mission of the wiki. If some Ferrari engineers put together some awesome go-karts or bumper cars just to have some fun and blow off some steam, they might go the whole nine yards. Put the prancing horse logo on it, all kinds of detail work, etc. And it'd be a blast. However, you wouldn't see those on a showroom floor. Because the company would want to be sure that when you see Ferrari, you think of incredibly powerful, performance racing machines. Not go-karts or bumper cars. Likewise there are contributors that want people to see the wiki as a source for incredibly detailed, well cited information regarding the ''Battlestar Galactica'' sagas. Which is not to say that the silly pages in any way take away from that, or that some of them aren't incredibly detailed and well cited. Just that they represent the (less than) 1% of the articles, rather than the 99% that everyone is contributing to. I'd support a silly page that was 100% grounded in canon citations, but I think at that point it'd be hard to make it silly. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:24, 9 January 2007 (CST)
:::Hmm... You make a damned good point. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 13:59, 9 January 2007 (CST)
:::I've just thought of a silly page that refers to canon and is still quite silly - [[The Battlestar Galactica Drinking Game]] --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 10:04, 10 January 2007 (CST)
::::Touche! While not everything is necessarily cited, it's definitely grounded completely in canon. (If it wasn't, there wouldn't be anything to drink about.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:56, 10 January 2007 (CST)
::I can't argue with any of the above, you're right. I expected other articles besides Silly ones to be nominated, as they had been in previous months. The month is still young, I suppose. When I'm [[Special:Random|rolling the dice]], I'll look for some. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 08:31, 9 January 2007 (CST)

== ''Brief intro to article here. Include a picture, if one is available.''



'''[[{{{current|}}}|...continued...]]'''
 
<div align="right">[[Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Archive|Archive]] - [[{{{previous}}}]]</div>
==

[[Template:FAT]] (which is referred on the BW:FA page) doesn't seem to exist. Is there another template that acts like it that we have already or what? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 14:51, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
:I just noticed the same. What's up with that? --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:17, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
:: I don't know. I'll put it on my to-do list, unless Shane or Catrope gets to it before I do. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 17:17, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

== New Featured Article ==

Shouldn't there have been a new FA a while ago? The [[Delphi|current]] article has been featured for two months now, going on its third. -- [[User:Veepz|Veepz]] 10:41, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
:Yeah, we had a command frakup there. Feel free to vote or make new suggestions [[Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Current Debate|here]]. We already have something going, but it isn't finalized. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:07, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

== FA revamp discussion ==

Once of the many recurring comments from the [[BW:SURVEY|survey]] has to do with the lack of updates to the front page. Basically, people would like to see the featured articles and [[BW:FP|featured pictures]] updated on a consistent basis.

Now, to make this easier on us, I suggest that we vote to elect two or three articles for Featured Article status every two or three months. This would allow us to build a list of elected Featured Articles already, so we don't get any featured articles (or pictures) that last more than a month.

Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 12:13, 22 February 2008 (CST)
:Sounds feasible. One the one hand, I think that there aren't that many really outstanding articles. However, I certainly noticed a great disinterest in even voting for a featured article or featured picture lately, to the point where we hardly got any votes, if any at all. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:34, 22 February 2008 (CST)
:: I've noted that as well. That may change when S4 hits the airwaves, since things pick up during the first-run airings. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 12:43, 22 February 2008 (CST)
:: Kinda like how wikipedia does it? Where a whole bunch get voted on and then that "guy" tells everyone if it's going to be a FA? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (CST)
::: What I was thinking was this: every three months, we vote on various articles for "featured article" status. The top three with the most votes get to be FAs, but are spread out so that each is featured for only one month. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:25, 22 February 2008 (CST)
:::: I typed up some changes on the main page. If everyone wants to comment, go ahead (and edit). However, in my version the FA choosing would now strictly follow the FA criteria. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (CST)
:::::Shane's draft text sounds good. We can't have everything defined democratically, so allowing us to pick amongst ourselves or from a long list of articles put up for nomination and later posted by vote score sounds fine to me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:36, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Clearly, Shane's plan isn't working all that well. So, I'm thinking of the following: A small group of people nominate 12 or more articles. We go through those, pick which ones are FA worthy. Then we create a list of 12 per year, and we assign each article to a particular month. When that month comes along, we simply swap it out. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds good. The only issue then would just be remembering to swap out it out each month. Maybe if we could have a system generated email or other notification to remind us. A lot of time I just flat forget that it's the beginning of the month. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Shouldn't be that difficult, using the <nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}</nowiki> magic word in the template call, the page would automatically update. We'd just need to write all the articles the page would call before hand. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 17:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Ack...this is what I get for missing too many staff meetings. I've created the [[SDS]] page as the FA, but my wiki skillz fail me. It needs to be added to the main page to complete. I think I've cleaned up much of the archive stuff... --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::No problem. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 00:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Woo, after messing up first, I remembered it. It's just one step too much. Why create a separate article and then link to that from a template? The article could really just be copied to "Main Page/Featured Article" directly. Anyways, it works now :) -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Actually, including the article contents using the brackets is called [[w:Wikipedia:Transclusion|"transclusion"]] in that case. It buys you easy archive displaying (see [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Wiki:Featured_articles/Archive2008&curid=19458&diff=166134&oldid=166085 the edit I made to update the 2008 archive]). That said, it is really complicated, easy to screw up (or forget a step), and not user-friendly. We need to either automate that process, or simplify it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

== Case Orange ==

While I like the plan outlined on the page, where a different Chief is in charge of the FA process each month, it looks great on paper and hasn't really been working in reality. For instance, the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]] was FA for, oh, most of 2008. I pretty much declared a [[Case Orange]] at the beginning of this month and took the matter into my own hands. We've had very little contributor input (Chiefs or otherwise) in this process of late, or in the quality article process, and I'm wracking my brains on how to rectify that. Anyway, I'm going to keep suggesting FA and QA candidates, hopefully others will get involved, if not I'll just take unilateral action and hopefully I won't get executed by firing squad for it later. :) [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:I can't shoot ya; you've all I've got, soldier! :) Seriously, I think that perhaps we can take advantage of the polling feature of the forums to let its' contributors help decide an FA from selections we have selected. That way we don't beat ourselves up for non-original thinking, maybe. We've also had far fewer admins around on average to make many of the selection tools work. I might remedy that for one user ''ad hoc'' but for now, I'm cool with unilateral stuff, letting others complain (and put the work in to change a choice) if they don't like a selection. How's that? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Featured articles/Archive1

2009-11-02T16:50:11Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 2 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki talk:Featured articles.

{{talkarchive}}

== What should be the Standards? ==

Me and Silverviper talked about it for a short while (See below) and came up with those ideas. Now I know we been discussion [[Battlestar_Wiki:Quality_Articles]], but there is a difference. QA are articles that are good enough to be a QA, but not enough to be Featured on the Main Page of the site. Some of the same Criteria for QA can also be established for FA, but FA most go through a more different process for it to be posted on the Main Page. That's all I can think of now. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:46, 19 March 2006 (CST)

:I don't know, they seem like exactly the same thing to me. I prefer the "featured article" name in any case. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:29, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

::I really think "Quality Articles" is redundant. "Featured Article" makes sense. Memory Alpha just uses "Featured Articles". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 19:52, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

== Google Chat Discussions ==

=== Mar 17: Me (Shane) and Matt (Steelviper) ===
<pre>
Matt: I'd lean towards deletion
in its stated form, it's pretty redundant with featured article
1:37 PM in order to be a featured article, an article must possess a certain standard of quality
(wow... you can quote me on that)
1:38 PM me: (saved! looved google talk)
Matt: maybe list out some criteria...
no broken links
no spelling/grammar issues
me: Some images
Matt: citations for all info
yeah
images are a must
me: More than one
1:39 PM Size
Matt: at least one
me: To large
hard to read
to small.. not enough content
Matt: I wouldn't hold size against a page
that would have dq'd the miniseries article
1:40 PM stubs are definitely out
me: aye
Matt: it'd be good to quantify a minimum size
</pre>

:Just a note: Matt==Steelviper. Sylverviper is a far more artistic soul on the skiffy boards. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:58, 19 March 2006 (CST)

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.

2008-07-09T05:07:28Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive7.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 7
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive7

2008-07-09T05:07:18Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr..

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.

2008-07-08T05:07:29Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive7.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 7
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

== re: Which Richard Thompson? ==

Hi Joe,

I don't think Richard is currently listed on the IMDb. However, he and I were sitting on the set the other day, and he was trying to remember the name his character had been given. He couldn't think of it, so I decided to do a search of the Marines on the wiki, and lo and behold, there he was.

Richard started playing a Marine in season 1, and has continued to do so right up through the finale, which we're filming right now. {{unsigned|Zeppo}}

: Very cool. Nice to know! Thanks! -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr./Archive7

2008-07-08T05:07:16Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr..

Talk:Pegasus (TRS)/Archive 1

2008-07-04T05:05:11Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Talk:Pegasus (RDM)/Archive1.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:Pegasus (RDM)/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

== Battlestar Pegasus ==

Holy frak!!! Look at the SIZE of that thing! I love the look of this advanced battlestar, and hope we get a few more good looks at her and how good a fighter it is--but not against Adama, please. Pictures, pictures, pictures needed, particularly interior shots as well. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:46, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

: I think we should reference that it bears a similar shape of the original Galactica. [[User:QX100|QX100]] 16:32, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

::Don't all Battlestars? Or do you mean more similar than the new ''Galactica'' herself? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:40, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

:::What I Meant was that the pegasus and all ships in the Mercury-class have the same bulky resemblence of the Battlestars from the original series. [[User:QX100|QX100]] 22:48, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
::::Well, if you look at the end portion in that one pic, you can see the 2 hull-mounted engines which is the original structure of the battlestar in the original series and it seems like the 4 other sublight engines are "attached" to it. [[User:Blacklight|Blacklight]] 00:00, 30 September 2005 (EDT)

== Fleet unit ==

I couldn't make it out - I believe the Pegasus was assigned to the [[62nd Battlestar Group]], but I can't be sure. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 13:34, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

== Pegasus Battle Group ==

It belonged to BSG 62

[[Image:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]

:That's what I pointed out on the 87th BSG page before it got deleted. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:56, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

::That's what it looks like to me as well. I think that we should move the BSG 75 page to just "BSG" and note it there, though, not on its own page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:56, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

Its BSG 62...not BSG63.--[[User:Strato|Strato]] 11:56, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

== the CNP ==

Did pegasus have it and when do you think they got rid of it?
--[[User:Alex mcpherson|Alex mcpherson]] 13:02, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

Ron Moore's podcast mentions that in a cut scene, Cain explains that their computer systems were offline for the refit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:50, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

: Actually, that scene was in the aired show when Adama, Roslin, and Cain sat down over drinks. Cain indicated they the ship jumped since, without the other computers, they were defenseless--the only thing online, apparently, were the navigation and/or FTL computers. Does this mean that Pegasus never had the CNP? They probably did. I bet they learned quickly and retrofit their ships immediately as they likely got the same information about the fleet's failure rates over wireless as did Galactica. It would have been impossible for Pegasus to fight Cylons otherwise. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:22, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

::The CNP was quite new at the time of the mini-series. Maybe it was scheduled to be installed during the refit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
::: Thats all i needed to know. so ''Mercury''-class dont have it for those that hadnt been refitted yet. that means there could be other battlestars out there..
::::This is only speculation on my part. Spencerian's explanation is also plausible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:37, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

== Gina's Origin ==

Gina's origin was never stated in the episode. I know that this was widely speculated on spoiler sites prior to the episode, but that doesn't count for much. Maybe we'll learn more about her later. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:59, 1 October 2005 (EDT)

:In the Gina section of wiki states and I quote, "'''Gina is a Humano-Cylon who was "rescued" by the Pegasus, claiming to be a survivng civilian dock worker'''. After befriending the crew, she betrayed them to the Cylons, whom summarily boarded the Pegasus and terminated 800 of her crew. " That was why I put that in. --[[User:Blacklight|Blacklight]] 20:45, 1 October 2005 (EDT)

::Believe it or not, we're not actually a very reliable source. I'll fix that up. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:45, 1 October 2005 (EDT)

Talk:Pegasus (RDM)/Archive1

2008-07-04T05:05:01Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Pegasus (RDM).

{{archive-message|newarchive=}}

== Pegasus Fleet ==

Should we post information on Pegasus's fleet in the Pegasus article? I know we don't know very much so far, except that there were 15 ships and one of them was the Scylla, but it stands to reason that we'll probably learn about some of the other ships as the new season progresses and if we get to meet other civilian crew members of Pegasus.--Ltcrashdown 01:51, 7 January 2006 (EST)

:Best place, as I see it. Probably less confusing here than [[The Fleet (RDM)|The Fleet]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 7 January 2006 (EST)

::I definately agree on that front. The 15 ships certainly won't be showing up to join the fleet so there's no reason to include them there. I'll add the info we already know about the ships (aside from the mutiny stuff which we can add later).--Ltcrashdown 02:12, 7 January 2006 (EST)

In the process of adding info on the Pegasus fleet, Ricimer added his own details. Rather than rudely delete his comments, I'm just going to post what I wrote here, sot hat it doesn't go to waste. I'll probably incorporate some of what I wrote into the current article later, but for now I'd like to leave it here. Hope that's not a problem.--Ltcrashdown 02:24, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Shortly after the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]], Pegasus picked up 15 civilian ships which Admiral Cain sought to exploit for military use. Some of the passengers were drafted into ther Pegasus's crew, while just about any useful equipment and parts were stripped from the craft.

The ships included:
:The [[Scylla]] - civilian transport
:14 other ships of unknown design

An interesting note about the ships of Pegasus's short-lived fleet was that several of them had weapons which were later removed on Admiral Cain's orders.

Also, the FTL drives on the ships were removed, but for unknown use (it can be assumed that the FTL drives would probably be too small for Pegasus and too big for Vipers/Raptors, so maybe they were used for parts in the event that the FTL of the Pegasus or a Raptor might break down, Note that this is pure speculation).

== Pegasus Images ==

There's a ton of close up Pegasus shots in the file list that aren't being used. Flyby's, zoomins on various components, etc. Should we use some of them here (or elsewhere)? I'm on something of a campaign to clean up (delete) pics that aren't being used (due to [http://www.frappr.com/?a=viewtopic&gid=77846&tid=75618 this discussion]), and this was the biggest pattern I could find. If they're worth keeping around, I won't object, but it seems like if they were worth using they would have been linked to (especially since some of them have been around since September).--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:It might be sensible to list them by subject and see if any of them can be used in picture-wanting articles before we trash them all. Worth the effort? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:24, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::Sure. I'll work on an [[Battlestar Wiki:Island of Misfit Images|"Island of Misfit Images"]] to see if we can't find a home for them. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:28, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Vipers ==

What about vipers? What model do they have? --[[User:PhoenixHacker|PhoenixHacker]] 20:47, 16 January 2006 (EST)
: Mark IVs. As did a majority of the Colonial Fleet. (The only reason Galactica has any Mark IIs is because they were museum displays.) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 20:55, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::That's Mark VII. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:57, 16 January 2006 (EST)

== Pegasus Registry Number ==

I am nearly positive that Pegasus' registry number is BS-62, however, I will present my evidence before (and if) I make an edit to the article.

A. Pictures:

[[Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown3.jpg|thumb|left]]

B. Reasoning: We know that Galactica's registry number is BS-75. Galactica was also a member of BSG-75. I think that its safe to say that Battlestar Groups are numbered after the registry of their Battlestar, or else this is a pretty big coincidence. Pegasus' was a member of BSG-62, and the registry in those pictures looks like BS-62.

Thats why I made the orignal edit to the article. If we still think this isn't enough evidence, I won't edit it again. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 17:58, 25 January 2006 (EST)

:But your reasoning is utterly irrelevant. Ron D. Moore has stated, in his blog, that it is not a registry number but the number of their Battlestar Group. The number written on their hulls and ship emblem on their seals and patches seen since the miniseries say "BSG 75". They just like to display their Group number instead of registry; not exactly like Earth military now, etc. I'm sorry, but none of us will probably say this is good evidence; you haven't been here for a while BMS, but this has all be gone over a lot already. '''More importantly''', Ron D. Moore said that MORE THAN ONE Battlestar is usually in a Battlestar Group. It's like a navy carrier battlegroup. it ''can't'' be "Groups are number after the registry of their battlestar", because that would be ONE Battlestar, singular. There are multiple Battlestars in each Group.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:17, 25 January 2006 (EST)

::Ricimer, I am completley aware that there is a difference between BS and BSG. And I am fully aware that BSGs can have multiple Battlestars, I read that blog too and have seen that article within the wiki. But, the Galactica BSG is clearly named after Galactica's registry - BS-75. You can see BS-75 emblazoned on the flight pods below "Galactica" in high-res captures. If you want to extend the battle group analogy that RDM brought up, its notable that modern carrier battle groups (battle group is actually an obsolete term, they are now called "carrier strike groups" - thought CVBG is still used as an acronym) are named after their flagship. For instance, the battle group with the USS Abraham Lincoln as the flag is called the Abraham Lincoln Strike Group. Pegasus was the lead of her BSG. The flag officer commanding BSG-62, Cain, made her flag on Pegasus. Therefore, just like BSG-75 is named after Galactica BS-75, BSG-62 is named after Pegasus BS-62. But if you still don't believe me, I've uploaded a clear screencap of the flightpod, showing the text "Pegasus BS 62" from Resurrection Ship, pt. 2. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 23:15, 25 January 2006 (EST)
:::Obviously the facts speak for themselves, but I'm going to chime in in BMS' defense here. The evidence is unequivocal. Thank you for researching the issue so thoroughly. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:38, 26 January 2006 (EST)
::::Thanks Peter. During my research, I found it interesting that modern carrier strike groups are almost never refered to as "CVBG 71" or something similar, like they are in the Galactica universe. I bet that it's because RDM thought "Galactica Strike Group" sounded unweildy, but BSG 75 sounded cool. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 13:00, 26 January 2006 (EST)

:::: Bada-bing, bada-boom. Case closed. No need for drama folks. Either it was shown or it wasn't. Before, it looked like it wasn't shown, but this cap seals it. Nice research. --[[User:Day|Day]] 07:15, 26 January 2006 (EST)

:I agree that it's BS-62. It's visible in the CIC wall in "Pegasus" and "Resurrection Ship" and visible on the podium in the pilot briefing room. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 18:13, 25 January 2006 (EST)
:Whether or not Pegasus is "BSG-62" is not in question: the page for BSG-62 was updated and confirmed as soon as "Resurrection Ship, Part I" came out, some time ago.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:17, 25 January 2006 (EST)
::Perhaps the BSGs are numbered after the lead ship in the group, like the flagship. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 18:28, 25 January 2006 (EST)

== Four Landing Strips? ==

Did I just notice four landing strips in The Captain's Hand? one right side up and one upside down (relative to the rest of the shape, this is space after all, everything is relative). This would make sense with the images of the upside down launch tubes. Something commenting on the extra landing strips should be put in --[[User:Antagonist|Antagonist]] 03:08, 18 February 2006 (EST)

:No. We addressed this in the talk for Captain's Hand; the camera was upside down to reflect to the viewers that the ship was twisting around, etc. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:53, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Yes, the Pegasus was flying "inverted" relative to the Cameras POV...however the Pegasus does indeed possess 4 landing strips, @ 2 strips per Flight Pod. look at the following image: http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Pegasus01.jpg you can clearly see 4 landing strips in that image.As well as the fact that when she is recalling her vipers you can clearly see Vipers entering the Port Flight pod on both sides of the center line. Rewatch that sequence again its pretty obvious.--[[User:Strato|Strato]]

== Random ''Pegasus'' Name Trivia ==

I randomly came across the fact that there has been a [[Wikipedia:HMS Ark Royal (1914)|aircraft carrier named ''Pegasus'']]. Originally commissioned as the ''Ark Royal'', she was renamed ''Pegasus'' in order to free up ''Ark Royal'' for a new carrier being developed. I wonder if it's bad luck to rename a ship while still in service... --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:19, 24 February 2006 (EST)
:Only if you give it an assignment against extremist Islam and their basesta-- I mean, Zodiac boats. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:55, 24 February 2006 (EST)

== Weapons ==

I believe that luanched craft should be excluded from weapons based on e.g. [[Wikipedia:USS Midway (CV-41)]] and [[Wikipedia:USS Nimitz (CVN-68)]] (and less strongly [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Akira_class]). I wouldn't object to a new template item parallel to "Aircraft" on the Midway entry. (I dislike the "Aircraft and aviation facilities:" naming of that item on the Nimitz article.) --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 15:23, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:Well I guess someone should add the separate category for aircraft, like the one on "Midway". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:27, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::I could go either way. Technically speaking, I don't think it's wrong to refer to an aircraft as a weapon - then again, so is the battlestar itself. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:27, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

== Battlestar Group ==

Ok I changed the battlestar designation to '''BSG62''' ('''B'''attle'''s'''tar '''G'''roup) before looking into the histroy to see that its been changed and reverted several times before and there is a discusison above but im still none the wiser. In the background of ''Pegasus'' it [[:Image:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg|quite clearly says BSG]] just as the official "Battlestar Galactica" [http://www.unificationfrance.com/IMG/jpg/logo_galactica.jpg logo] shows '''BSG75'''. Before I change the ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' article or anyone reverts this ''Pegasus'' page Id like to have a discussion about it please. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 09:23, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
:BS 62 is the ''hull number''. Think of it this way - in WW2, USS Saratoga (Hull number: CV-3) was the center of Task Force 38. In this case, the Group number (BSG) happens to coincide with the hull number of the lead ship (BS), but they're still separate designations. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:33, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
::Thats what i thought, except it seems odd that the hull number would also be the same as the group for Galactica too? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 09:43, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
:::Perhaps Peggie was the group flagship and the BSG is numbered after her, afterall she had a flag officer in command. Galactica could also be the same, in the Navy the USS Constitution, the oldest ship commisioned in the Navy is a flagship. Galactica might have had a similar role in the colonial fleet, compare how big the decommisioning ceremony was to the one for the USS Oriskany, the last of the WWII era Essex-class fleet carriers in active service (ironic because Oriskany was just sank a few days ago). --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 09:47, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
::::I agree with Mercifull and his point of view. As with the designation, BSG stands for Battlestar group, NOT battlestar galactica. We can determine that the BSG assignment is on the battlestar's seal. BS75 could be a hull number as also mentioned. --[[User:Lgamser|Lgamser]] 21:35, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
:::::Whatever. This argument was settled months ago. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:45, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

== Reverse Gravity? ==

A recent edit added a mention of the 4 landing strips and then talked about gravity. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, ''Galactica'' uses magnets, not gravity for landing Vipers. I would assume, then, that ''Pegasus'' does, as well. Thus, moving from any of the five available flight pods would be the same, since the magnets would little affect the non-metalic pilots. Anyone else think the same way? --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 02:44, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
:Agreed: we aren't actually sure if there's a different graviety field or not; they land using magnets. For all we know they climb out upside down (though this would be odd, maybe they have a platform that 180's I dunno): point is, it's speculation and might not necessarily be different gravity fields so we shouldn't assume its that. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:03, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

:: Well, the way I envision it all working is that you land you fighter and then sit in it through some kind of retreival process that all happens in zero-g except for the end which transitions you to gravity and sets you down on the hanger deck. That gives plenty of time for The Beast to flip half her fighters over before they're under noticable gravity. All of that is, of course, speculation. It's just what made sense to me. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 08:06, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Yes, I like that theory. Probably what happens. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:18, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
::::That was the EXACT theory I had! Good job! Maybe this is another thing we could ask on [[BW:OC]]... *ponders* --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 07:56, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

:::::Does anyone have a theory about the hangar decks on the ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''? --[[User:Antagonist|Antagonist]] mentioned the inverted lauch tubes farther up on this page, and u can clearly see some [[Viper Mark VII|Vipers]] launching upside down at the end of the [[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]] episode. They then twist in flight to orient themselves with the rest of the squadron. This seems to me, that there are 2 [[hangar deck]]s, one upside-up and one upside-down, for each [[flight pod]]. The bottom one would use reverse gravity. If there was only one upside-up hangar deck I don't know why or how they would wheel a Viper into an upside down tube to launch, especially since the pilot can just twist in flight anyway. If every other lauch tube had a track that twisted the Viper 180° like a roller coaster you could get away with the one hangar deck, but I don't know. Any theories? --[[User:EnsignXI|EnsignXI]] 07:44, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Well i was thinking the two "lower" landing pods were for combat landings. So you have extra room for vipers to land. Then when the ship is jumped, the vipers exit the emergency pod and land on the fully equipped one. --[[User:Lordmutt|lordmutt]] 08:07, 26 December 2006 (CST)

== Not the First Pegasus ==

I was looking through the first issue of the BSG magazine, and in the section where it talks about Battlestars and names quite a few, it names that before the Cylon war there were 5 original Battlestars, and one of these is called "Pegasus". Is this another Battlestar, perhaps having being destroyed and the new one was named in it's honor, or was it refitted? --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 03:32, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
:Possibly an error maybe? ''Pegasus'' is a Mercury class battlestar comparared to the original Galactica type so we can rule out a re-fit and as its not known as ''Pegasus II'' so would seem to also rule out a previous incarnation of the same name. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:57, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
::US Navy ships are not named with a "II" when they share a name with a previous ship, so I see no reason to assume such about the Colonial Fleet. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 04:43, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Exactly. We are on our second USS Enterprise aircraft carrier (similar fleet function). In the Navy, the difference between the two is only that one is the Enterprise (CV 6) and another the Enterprise (CVN 65). There is no II in the name, we've watched to much Star Trek. Of course, there is a good chance we will see Enterprise (CVN 78) in about 10 years. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 05:35, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
::::My bad, I was thinking about civilian ships --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 06:01, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I think the magazine was in error: that "first 5 battlestars" stuff is information from [[Zoic]], which we eventually decided to ''remove'' from BattlestarWiki as its canonicity is dubious. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 09:25, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
== Tense of article ==

We write pre-Miniseries events in the past tense which is perfectly fine. However much of the history of ''Pegasus'' will be told in "Razor", like the escape from the Colonies or the attack which leads to the XO being shot. Probably the stuff about the civilian fleet too. I think this should be changed to present tense after the airing (needs to updated and rewritten anyways). Otherwise it would read a bit weird, since those events are actually shown on screen.

For that matter, it might be a good idea to lock the article when the movie airs, so it doesn't come to edit conflicts and a mishmash of styles. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:51, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

: I concur on all points. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 09:54, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
== Crew size ==

The crew size number given here is a little confusing, is this before or after the significant losses they endured? [[User:OTW|OTW]] 09:54, 7 December 2007 (CST)
:That's the number as of the episode "Pegasus". A footnote can clarify it :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:07, 7 December 2007 (CST)
== Retconned model ==

I know this is probably a moot point considering the girl's been gone some time, but it seems for Exodus II they used a different model for Pegasus.

Compare this image from The Captain's Hand:

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:PegasusForeBatteries.jpg

With this one from BoNC:

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Pegaus_firing_forward_batteries.jpg

In the newer image the shape of the main batteries has changed and there are only four, as opposed to 8. Also, when it's making its appearance at the battle, I'm fairly sure they added a gun turret on the top of the flight pod (though I could be mistaken), it seems to be firing at 2:00 on this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R9nleO5IRrM&feature=related

And I'm fully aware that this matters very very little in the greater scheme of things, this is just boredom taking hold :)

[[User:YIIMM|YIIMM]] 12:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

: This is unsurprising, as all the CGI models underwent updates, since Zoic no longer did the special effects at that point. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Humanoid Cylon/Archive4

2008-06-30T05:03:52Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Talk:Humanoid Cylon/Archive3.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 3
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:Humanoid Cylon/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

Talk:Humanoid Cylon/Archive3

2008-06-30T05:03:42Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Humanoid Cylon.

{{archive-message|newarchive=}}

== Term "significant seven" ==

We've used various names for the original faction of 7 Cylons seen in the show. RDM revealed that the internal writer's term for them is the "significant seven" (a pun on the movie title) so I got the impression we try to use the internal terms rather than trying to make up a term, but I've seen edits in both directions. Likewise the term "final five" which is actually used in scripts (though I have always though it odd as a term the 7 would use for themselves.) If people don't like the writer's term we should standardize on one term which may even get a page -- first seven, original seven, "the seven," "genocidal seven" etc.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 02:42, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
: We try to use the same terms that the writers use, more often than not. So, yes, "Significant Seven" and the "Final Five" should be the terms we use -- until something better comes along. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 05:09, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
::OK. I've updated the page with the reference in the "Final five" section (where its most germane) and created a redirect for any uses of "Significant seven" to go to that section. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:30, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

== Listing death of Cylon humanoids? ==

I was under the impression that Cylons can't die unless they can't resurrect. Death is permanent, is it not? The "Death" listings are only destructions of the body, not of the mind. As far as I'm concerned, only those that didn't resurrect after suffering bodily destruction are dead.

In the Elder Scrolls fantasy universe, the Daedra are a group of higher beings immune to death in a similar manner (though not reliant on some apparatus for resurrection). They are not considered "killed" when they suffer destruction of their corporeal form, but are called "Banished", because of their immunity to death.

I propose that individual cylon humanoids have "death" and "resurrection" made separate from each other, as they don't truly die unless they can't resurrect upon loss of their body. --[[user:MadCat|MadCat]], 2:11 PM CDT June 4, 2007

: I'm not opposed to removing the various models' deaths from the "death" portion of the infobox, unless they die permanently (i.e. they're not able to resurrect). Deaths of their bodies, whether they were shot, doesn't count as true "death" to Cylons. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 13:57, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
: Even listing resurrections is not necessarily desirable. We had that with Leoben, and he "died" so often that it was just clutter and thankfully removed. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:00, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
::I removed the death list for [[Caprica-Six]], and I suggest we remove it for the other Cylons as well. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 14:43, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
:Something I just thought up that may be a gray area in this regard: What of Boxing? Would that be considered death in this context? Or is it not because the consciousness wasn't lost? --[[user:MadCat|MadCat]], 3:22 PM CDT June 4, 2007
::In my opinion, boxing is death. The only "deaths" we've got left for humanoid Cylons are for [[Gina]] (who actually died without being resurrected) and for [[Number Three]] (whose entire line was boxed). I've removed the death list for [[Sharon Valerii]], as she's still alive. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:12, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
:::I remove death references for Cylons unless permanent ([[Gina]]) or boxed. Too much clutter in that template, which for concise bullets on a character, not for extensive lists of anything. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:04, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
::The only "death" we know of for certain would be Gina, since her consciousness has absolutely no way of being retrieved or reintegrated. As I understand it, boxing of a Cylon model isn't "death", but merely putting a Cylon in "cold storage". While it might be doubtful that the Cylons would "unbox" a boxed Cylon, there is still a possibility that it can be done. With that, boxing isn't really full and total death, a la Gina. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 16:05, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
== Link Problem ==

Our links to the RDM interview on www.thefandom.com don't seem to be working anymore, and this has caused people in the fan community to doubt the veracity of the interview and the information contained within it. Given how the interview is so important to the nature of Cylons, I thought I should mention it. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 14:10, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

== My Twelve Gods Theory ==

I have a Theory that the Humano-Cylon Model represent the Twelve Gods. I will have to research and decide which ones they represent but hey It's a good Idea. [[User:Silversword|Silversword]] 02:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
: You're welcome to talk about it on our [http://www.battlestarforum.com Battlestar Forum]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
== Number of Cylons ==

Sorry if this is already in the article (I couldn't see a reference to it) but I think there are an equal number of each Cylon model.

Spoilers for season 4, episode 2 follow:

Since there is a deadlock with the vote between the 7 Cylon models, we can infer that there are as many Ones, Fours, and Fives as there are Twos, Sixes, and Eights.

Either there are an equal number of the pro/anti-lobotomy Cylons models _just_ on the baseships concerned with the Raiders (since it would be unlikely for _all_ the Cylons to vote, but this implies that there is a 'rule' against, say, a Six trying to find an equivalent to Boomer on another baseship), or _all_ Cylons voted and there are an equal number the pro/anti models.

I think it's safe to infer that if there are equal numbers of pro/anti models, then there are equal numbers of each Cylon model on each baseship (this implies you can't have 'outside' voters), though I don't think it too much of a stretch to say there are an equal number of Cylon models.
[[User:FredTheDeadHead|FredTheDeadHead]] 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
:That's not how the voting process works. First they vote within their models to determine the total vote for one model, then that vote is tallied with the votes of the other models. It's not that each individual ''copy'' has one vote towards the end result, but only towards the ''model''. The copies can only influence how their model votes in the final vote. Sort of like the US electoral college. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I understand your explanation, and I'm a Limey so I don't understand US politics too well. In 'Six of One' a Cavil says that Boomer has "voted to reconfigure", so each copy has a vote to spend. Do you mean that each copies vote goes toward determining the model's consensus, rather than the decisions? So Boomer's vote would put the Eight's in a state of contention, so they have no vote since there isn't a consensus? [[User:FredTheDeadHead|FredTheDeadHead]] 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Boomer goes against her model's wishes. The other Eights voted ''no'', but Boomer goes against that and votes ''yes''. That's why the others make such a fuss about her decision. That there is only one vote per model in the final vote, which in turn is determined by another voting process within each model was previously established during the New Caprica arc. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Do you have some specifics about the New Caprica vote? I must admit I find what happened unclear. What I read was that all the copies of a model have always been unanimous, but Boomer broke that rule. Though Sharon/Athena obviously is an even bigger break of the rules than Boomer, so I am not sure why she was so shocking.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::In "Precipice" they take a vote about cracking down in the insurgency. Every model present says "'''We''' agree", and at one point Caprica-Six says to another Six "Most of us do, anyway". So it isn't unanimous there. As they are individuals with sometimes different views, that probably isn't practical either. For me, the issue is that Boomer votes against her model line. More Eights votes against reconfiguration, but she - as the apparent spokesperson - says yes. Though why they don't just use the total vote if they know it, isn't that clear with this interpretation, but that Boomer's vote would supersede all the other Eights' votes doesn't make sense either. Unless she somehow has the power to speak for all Eights. And that's also what we have noted on [[Precipice#Analysis]] -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
:What we have seen over the course of the show is the gradual breakup of Cylon society, owing largly to the human influence upon them. To me the line "Consensus always used to be so easy" (I forget the episode) implies that disputes and divisions were rare (possibly non-existent). "There's no law, there's no edict" to me implies that the Cylons, believing themselves to be without sin, hadn't constructed a social system that could adequately deal with such disputes. In particular the boxing of D'Anna made a system which was just about tenable into one that [[Cylon Civil War|fails absolutely]]. My suspicion is that there's no written law that says that Boomer could or could not do what she did, but it was sufficient for Cavil to cynically claim a majority, morally justified or not. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
== Article needing cleanup ==

I've cleaned parts of these articles, the "Known Cylon Models" and the "human/Cylon hybrids". Are there anything for me to clean up and revise? [[User:Starkiller|Starkiller]] 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Fleet (TRS)/Archive 1

2008-06-28T05:03:24Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Talk:The Fleet (RDM)/Archive1.

Talk:The Fleet (RDM)/Archive1

2008-06-28T05:03:14Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:The Fleet (RDM).

Talk:The Eye of Jupiter/Archive3

2008-06-28T05:03:00Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 22 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:The Eye of Jupiter/Archive2, Talk:The Eye of Jupiter/Archive1.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:The Eye of Jupiter/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

I wonder if it has to do with that big red spot... *rollseyes* --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:48, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm more reminded of that Writer's Podcast thing, you know when they're saying "How many more times are we going to find an artifact like the Arrow of Apollo and have to search for them all? That feels like going back to the well too many times, I mean what are we going to say, "Athena has 10 sacred toenail clipping scattered across space, you have to find them all...?" :) --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 18:49, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
:i'm thinking along the lines of some jewelry. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:57, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

::It sounds like a good plotline actually. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 19:05, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Merv - you just made me spill forth mein coca cola whilst reading the section about the sacred toenail clippings - thats too much for 3am on a sunday morning! Still, plot looks good, just wish Season 3 would hurry up and AIR dammit! :) --[[User:Fordsierra4x4|Fordsierra4x4]] 21:08, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
::::No, really, they make a joke about "Athena's toenail clippings" in that writer's podcast thing. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:12, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

I have a few possible meanings for 'eye of Jupiter' --[[User:starryniteynite|starryniteynite]]

1) Relatively obscure name for NGC 3242, a planetary nebula (A ring of illuminated gas expanding out from a sun-like star that's exhausted its fuel, and has lost its outer layers) a few thousand light years from Earth. Most astronomers call this 'the Ghost of Jupiter' instead, though some Hubble images have used this name. Its not a very unique PN (tho it has some gas streamers we can't quite explain), but it could be used as a navigational marker like M8 (the lagoon nebula). It is a very pretty nebula :)

2) "Eye of Jupiter" was the Greek/Roman name for the sun, which lead to today's 'all seeing eye' symbol of the free masons and on the pyramid in US currency

3)Adama=Zeus=Jupiter...yes, they tend to use Greek vs. Roman names, but the titles are not always consistent with this convention, and we have also seen evidence for non Greek mythological names (Isis, for example). The rest of it could be wordplay too...'eye' might refer to someone acting as Adama's eyes, rather than his eyes literally (just as 'The captain's hand refereed to Lee acting as Gardner's XO, or his hand, rather than some captain's literal hand)

4)A reference to Jupiter's big red spot, a huge hurricane-like storm on the planet's surface. Just like the "bastille Day" title, this could reference something in the episode, but not directly...they might travel through a similar storm. This has actually been done before in the miniseries, when Galactica travels into the storm at Ragnar

5) The tried and true, ancient object meaning...just like the arrow of Apollo directly references a character, but has no link to the character himself, this could just be a pretty piece of bling..

Personally, I would love #1, but only because it'd make me 2/2 for BSG objects in my thesis and I'm a total, unabashed geek. I think its probably #2, however, and they find some sort of navigational means of finding Earth (like a picture of Earth w/ distances& directions to three pulsars or very unique objects

== Music ==

Could some1 tell me what was that ''song'' at the end of the episode. There were no lyrics, just music, and it was a really good choice, it shows nicely how the tension grows at the end. Plz if u know what song it is write it... TNX ;) {{unsigned|DedMed}}

:http://bearmccreary.com/
:Check out the blog for example, though it doesn't refer to that particular piece. It's no particular song, but like nearly all of the music on BSG an original composition. You can find similar pieces on the soundtracks for the first two seasons and it might even have been reused from an earlier episode --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:01, 28 January 2007 (CST)
::I searched through his site, all he talks about regarding that episode was the track "The Temple Of Five". He must not be the one who wrote/directed that piece. That's an excellent track, and I'm shocked it wasn't on the soundtrack for season 3. I would have gladly paid for a single of it. [[User:Ghostalker|Ghostalker]] 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Eye of Jupiter/Archive2

2008-06-28T05:02:50Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 6 thread(s) from Talk:The Eye of Jupiter.

{{talkarchive}}

== Missile Tubes ==

Where exactly are they and shouldnt that be an article in "Galactica Areas" Snorkel378

:They are located on the dorsal side of the ship, slightly forward of the four guns ahead of the Colonial seal, and sit in two rows of six. And sure, why not create an article in that section? -[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 19:12, 29 December 2006 (CST)

== More Nested Analysis ==

*The [[tylium]] planned for the mines could only come from their single Raptor. This supports the [[Substances in the Re-imagined Series#The Tylium Question|high energy yield of the fuel]] that, at the same time, would not sacrifice the Raptor's flight ability.
**It's also possible that the tylium used was fuel stored at the camp to power its generators and/or refuel the Raptors and other ships involved in the harvest.
Please resolve these into either one or two single-level bullets, then re-add to the article. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:56, 21 December 2006 (CST)
:Done. I also updated the nuke count in this section. Admiral Adama orders launch tubes four through ten loaded, which means he's prepared seven nuclear warheads, not six. --[[User:Slander|Slander]] 09:05, 22 December 2006 (CST)
::Nicely done. Thanks! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:51, 22 December 2006 (CST)

Major Point:
Note that Hera is the wife of Roman God Jupiter, the derivative of the Greek Zeus. {{unsigned|PhoenixFlight}}
:Yes, Hera's counterpart in the Roman pantheon is Juno. The association is noted over many episodes to date. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:22, 6 January 2007 (CST)

== Playing with the date? ==

In Kobol's Last Gleaming, they stated the ruins on Kobol were 2000 years old, "around the time of the exodus of the 13 tribes". When they found the beacon at the Lion's Head Nebula, they said it was 3000 years old, and now they're saying the Temple of Five is at least 4000 years old. Each time they give a new date a thousand years earlier, it seems to still coincide with the exodus date of the thirteenth tribe.

Am I the only one noticing this inconsistancy?

: My memory may be off, but I was under the impression that the 13th tribe left Kobol long before the other twelve. So... maybe the 13th tribe left 4k years ago, and the rest left 2k years later. Fanwankery? Spotty memory on my part? --[[User:Drumstick|Drumstick]] 02:08, 25 December 2006 (CST)

::Both, sort of. The date in "Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I" refers to all thirteen tribes collectively. In "A Measure of Salvation" and "The Eye of Jupiter", they refer to the thirteenth tribe alone.
::'''Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I'''
:::Roslin: How old are the ruins?
:::Billy: We won't know for sure until they send a ground team, but the initial estimates have it on the order of approximately 2,000 years.
:::Elosha: That's around the time the thirteen tribes first left Kobol
::'''A Measure of Salvation'''
:::Adama: According to Cottle, the virus was an exact match to one reported over 3,000 years ago. Right around the time that the Thirteenth Colony left Kobol.
::'''The Eye of Jupiter'''
:::Tyrol: Our initial radiocarbon dating suggests that the temple's at least 4,000 years old, which lines up with the exodus of the Thirteenth Tribe.
::--[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:16, 26 December 2006 (CST)

:::Here's a thought. What if this isn't an accident? We've speculated already that humanity might have emigrated from Earth to Kobol before the thirteenth tribe returned. If the further away from Kobol we get, the older the artifacts we find, what does that tell us? That the thirteenth tribe was traveling not from Kobol to Earth, but from Earth to Kobol. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 06:03, 28 December 2006 (CST)

::::Well, it may not be an accident, but the Colonials seem to think that the 13th tribe left Kobol for Earth. So why, upon finding that the artifacts get older as they journey further from Kobol/closer to Earth, would they conclude that the dating analysis confirms their scriptures? Put another way, if they dates say the tribe went from Earth to Kobol, but the scriptures say they went from Kobol to Earth, why aren't the Colonials confused? It's an interesting idea, nonetheless. --[[User:Drumstick|Drumstick]] 19:29, 31 December 2006 (CST)

:::::Okay, it could also be that we're giving the Colonials too much credit in their dating. Elosha is a priest. Maybe her date of 2,000 is based on scripture, not fact. Also, the date of 4,000 could just mean that it predates the time that they knew the other 12 colonies left Kobol, thus it had to be built by the 13th tribe. The 13th tribe may have had outposts all throughout the galaxy while still calling Kobol home. Furthermore, since there are apparently 21,000 years of recorded history, maybe to the Colonials a few thousand years of inaccuracy in dating don't really make a difference. You could compare it to modern day humans who confuse the 15th and 16th centuries. Of course, now I'm fully in the territory of fanwanking/making up excuses. The seven months/nine months disparity with regard to the Colonial election was never even acknowledged, so there is a good possibility these inconsistent dates are just a product of sloppiness. --[[User:Drumstick|Drumstick]] 19:40, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Nut we Don't know how long it took to get everyone from earth off of kobol because it would take awhile to get huge civilizations away from a planet.Snorkel378

== Dichotomy of Signs to Earth ==

I find it rather interesting that the first real sign to Earth that they found was a satellite/probe (first found by the Cylons). This would represent the high tech sign-post to Earth. The second sign to Earth is this hidden "Temple of Five" which is plainly a spiritual sign. Anyone else thing this is very interesting? I wonder what was on the satellite. Too bad RDM didn't allow them to examine it. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 21:57, 26 December 2006 (CST)

== The G-4 ==

Hey how come in the summary it doesnt mention the G-4 about to go off right by Tyrol? Snorkel378

:*Unaware how events are escalating around and above him, Chief Tyrol illuminates the carved writings of the Temple with his flashlight and reads the inscriptions, trying to locate the actual resting place of the Eye. At one point, his flashlight's beam moves close to the target-shaped symbol in the center of the central spire.
:How about we make that:
:*Having strapped explosives to the central spire of the temple, Chief Tyrol...
:--[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 06:17, 31 December 2006 (CST)

No I mean the activation light on 1 of the explosives is blinking which means it is going to detonate.The article does not mention that.
Snorkel378
:There is nothing to suggest that the blinking lights don't simply mean that it is armed rather than about to explode. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])

Yes but the music can easily tell u what is happening and it has a danger coming sound to it-Snorkel378
:Thats fanwanking. We have seen nothing to suggest that the explosives are about to detonate. All we know is that the explosives are armed and the flashing light could simply be to note that fact. You may very well be right but so far there has been no aired information to say that you are and until the next episode airs we wont know. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:24, 3 January 2007 (CST)

You are right I geuss im some crazy kid huh :) Snorkel378

:The explosives set by Tyrol and Anders in Occupation have a light that blinks, but the explosives only go off when the detonator is activated. The light is in no way indicative of and impending explosion -[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 15:51, 12 January 2007 (CST)

== Last name in the credits ==

Okay, after a month, I think I finally found the last remaining actor/character in the closing credits. Thanks to the inane sense of necessity in scrunching the credits (so they can apparently advertise the same things they do 23 times a day in normal commerical airtime) I was unable to read the last name, getting the first two through squinting and deduction. I skimmed one last time and believe I found the last, unreadable name. According to
[http://www.thelogbook.com/logbook/series/battlestar-galactica-new/newgalactica-season-3/page/2/ this site] it's [[Tygh Runyan]] as Pvt. [[Byers]]. I looked at the guy at IMDb and although he's not given the credit (no surprise), he ''can'' be spotted in the episode. Even [http://tv.yahoo.com/battlestar-galactica/show/the-eye-of-jupiter-part-1/episode/111786/castcrew Tv.Yahoo], a considerably more reliable source, has him listed (sans character name). Any disagreement in adding him? I'm sure someone here has clear visual access to the credit, but I'm going through a consensus since it hasn't been added by said "someone". --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 00:04, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:Do you have a screenshot for us to look at? Might be best to wait for it to air in HD then it will be much clearer. Alternatively ask on the [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques]] page. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:27, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:: TYoJ Will be airing in HD over here in a few weeks, not sure about America though. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 03:32, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:::I have the iTunes copy of this: I've confirmed the same names and spelling. Do we know where he is (on the planet?). That would be enough to make a stub. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:23, 16 January 2007 (CST)
I've only spotted him in one scene. It's at the start of Act 4 when Anders is dividing them up into two teams. He is among those Sam is talking to, wearing a cap and at one point, he's given an entire frame (with Anders' shoulder in the foreground). He appears mainly in a shot where he is at the very left, with Lee, Barolay, and Anders to his right. I hope that paints a good enough picture since I'm unable to get a screencap. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 13:59, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Talk:The Eye of Jupiter/Archive1

2008-06-28T05:02:40Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 16 thread(s) from Talk:The Eye of Jupiter. (ARCHIVE FULL)

{{talkarchive}}

== Duelling Sharons ==

So did anyone else get a sense of animosity/jealousy between the two Sharons? While it seems that Boomer has accepted her place amongst the Cylons and no longer considers herself a part of the humans, it also seems that she's a bit jealous of Athena's "taking her place", if you could call it that. Likewise, it also seemed that aside from her duties as a Colonial officer, Athena's refusal to let Boomer in with Adama was also somewhat out of personal distrust, ironically the same distrust of the Cylons that her fellow Colonial colleagues have.

Also, while Boomer told Athena about Hera's condition out of possible concern of the child (possible strain of humanity left in her? Cylon imperative? Or something else?), seems to me that Boomer enjoyed bursting her "sister"'s bubble on that. Talk about sibling rivalry there.

It'll be interesting to see if there will be any further Sharon vs. Sharon confrontations in the series.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 23:55, 15 December 2006 (CST)

:It was a very, very interesting dynamic. In any other show, we would have had a knock-down dragout "catfight." You hit the nail on the head. This episode was prime stuff. And, we on the wiki should be commended: our ''Galactica'' nuke count is right on the money! (Either that, or the show is using ''us'' as a source! :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:20, 16 December 2006 (CST)

::Does that mean we can finally change the "Class-D Nuclear Warhead" to something completely different, since their nukes ''aren't'' Class-D? :P --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 10:42, 16 December 2006 (CST)

== Image ==

Let's find an image that actually occurs in this episode. Maybe the wide shot of Tyrol in the temple? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:43, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Heh which one? to me it seems the Chief was a bit wide in ALL shots ; how could he gain weight while the fleet was starving? the chief definitely deserves the Lee Adama Fat-Ass trophy --[[User:Lordmutt|lordmutt]] 03:10, 16 December 2006 (CST)

:Maybe it was Chief, and not Dr. Cottle, that got all of Kat's energy bars from the last ep.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 12:25, 16 December 2006 (CST)

So... is someone with the means actually going to replace the image with one relevant to this episode? --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 21:12, 20 December 2006 (CST)

:Silly joking aside, I agree that the picture should be replaced. I'd do it, but I don't have a good screencap --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:34, 23 December 2006 (CST)

:I happen to have the episode, so, it's done. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:57, 23 December 2006 (CST)

::Well, I still see a thumbnail of the old image here and there (e.g. on the main page or on Mercifull's user page). -- [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:09, 27 December 2006 (CST)

:::You may need to purge your browser's image cache to see the new image. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:12, 28 December 2006 (CST)

::::I've just purged my Maxthon's image cache a moment ago and I still see an old thumbnail. Tried that also with Opera and Firefox -- all the same. -- [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:27, 28 December 2006 (CST)

== Did Starbuck survive? ==

Horray for the carelessness of adverts! Within ten minutes we knew the answer to that one. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 09:14, 16 December 2006 (CST)
:Aside from that, it's going to continue the cycle of Soap Opera unease there, if Dee's the one sent to go get Starbuck back. Can't wait to see the uncomfortable stares on that one, especially if (as I suspect) Dee set up Starbuck to be the "eye in the sky" '''hoping''' the Cylons would shoot her down.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 11:43, 16 December 2006 (CST)
::Who else was supposed to fly the mission? Looks like Lee and Kara are the only two qualified pilots on the ground and Lee is needed in overall command. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:34, 16 December 2006 (CST)

== Nuking the Planet ==

Does anyone else think that the nuclear missiles have the ability to be detonated remotely, before they reach their target? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 10:44, 16 December 2006 (CST)
:Not to mention abort code transmissions, etc. Makes you wonder if the missiles were set for "one shot, one kill" mode, where they could not be recalled.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 11:39, 16 December 2006 (CST)
::Or perhaps the missiles can be aborted, until they reach a critical flight time. Could make for a ''very'' tense moment or two. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 14:51, 18 December 2006 (CST)

:Is it just me or didn't he actually give the order to fire. He said "release of nuclear weapons is now authorized". That might sound strange, but I took that to be a preliminary order to firing. For example that now even Tigh would be able to launch them on his say --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:03, 18 December 2006 (CST)
::No, you're correct on that; essentially all they were doing was opening the "barn doors". I was discussing the hypotheticals of the missiles, if they should be launched in the next ep.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 19:33, 18 December 2006 (CST)

:::Aye, we're just jumping the gun a little, and discussing possibles ways out of it, if Adama does indeed decide to launch :) --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 02:17, 21 December 2006 (CST)

::::Am I the only one who thinks he might be targeting the nukes for the Raiders on their way to the surface? --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 18:53, 21 December 2006 (CST)
:::::Then why this-
:::::'''Adama''':Load target package three-bravo. Set ground zero for the underground structure.
::::: -[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 19:19, 29 December 2006 (CST)

:::::: Damn, I missed that. Consider me stumped, then. -[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 05:17, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I watched the episode for the first time last night. I had this theory after the show ended...If the star of this system is going to go supernova, as Gaeta has described,

("Gaeta: Could be tomorrow. Could be next year. There's no way of knowing for sure, sir. When it does happen, the only warning that we're likely to get is a fast helium flash, at which point we'll have to jump out of here before it obliterates the entire planetary system. Sir, I am not one to look for religious signs. But I can't get my head around these odds. That human and Cylon both converge on this planet at this exact moment just as the star's about to go supernova…")

there most likely is an abundance of solar phenomena being emitted from the sun, maybe an increase of solar flares even. Solar flares have the "energy equivalent to a billion megatons, traveling normally at about 1 million km per hour"..."They produce electromagnetic radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum at all wavelengths from long-wave radio to the shortest wavelength gamma rays:(solar flare wiki ref.) I know that Solar Flares can disrupt electronics on and orbiting earth, and I'm sure Galactica's systems are somewhat protected from bursts of electromagnetic energy...but somehow I had the idea that the nukes are probably not as well insulated. Since there is so much solar activity in the region, I had the idea that maybe something like a flare (not the helium flash Gaeta talked about) would happen just as the nukes were launched..causing them to blow in the upper atmosphere directly over the temple. This would allow for quite a light show, and perhaps could allow that light shaft in the Temple of Five to be intensified. On the BaseStar with Baltar and Three, the Hybrid mentions something about "the five lights of the apocalypse" here:

"Hybrid: ...I don't care if it rains or freezes, as long as… the five lights of the apocalypse rising... sins revealed only to those who enter the temple, only to the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one, end of line. Until next time … the eye, the eye, the eye, look into the eye to know thyself."

Maybe this is the way the temple is activated, maybe this is how the eye of Jupiter (Jupiter/Zeus/Adama's nukes) appears over the temple and activates the key...and Hey, maybe the solar flare would take care of the Heavy Rader flight systems too...Who knows, just an idea I had wished to share.

"Chief: And the heavens opened up, and they saw the Eye. But where is that frakking Eye?"

--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (CST)

:Holy crap that's a good theory. Wow. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 12:06, 3 January 2007 (CST)
:Nice theory indeed. Maybe the five lights of the apocalypse are actually five nukes? Nukes would qualify as lights of apocalypse, but then so would a supernova. Also, I revisited the Hybrid's prophecy: ("Find the hand that lies in the shadow of the light, in the eye of the husband of the eye of the cow"). The light is most likely the bright star cluster (although it could also be the nukes, the supernova or the helium flash), but "in the shadow" hasn't really been explained properly. Now I just realized that since the temple is an underground structure, it would be in the shadow all the time. Might be something, might not be something, we'll see. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 13:47, 3 January 2007 (CST)

== WTF moment ==

I was on the [[Karl Agathon]] page, updating it for this ep's news, when I came across [[:Image:Valley_of_Darkness-Starbuck_Helo.jpg|this old picture]]. Considering how Kara's painting looks and that she's religious (though not indoctrinated in any sort of clerical form, unlike Chief Tyrol's parentage), does anyone think that (in hindsight), this may have been a hint to the Eye itself?--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 12:37, 16 December 2006 (CST)
: It actually makes a lot of sense... Taking Zeus to mean Admiral Adama, and that Kara Thrace is the go-to pilot for reconnaissance missions, AND the paintings on the walls, we have a plausible theory in the works! —The preceding '''unsigned''' comment was added by {{User|Alcibiades}}.
: Are you kidding me?! They set this episode up a year ago! --[[User:Galactageek|Galactageek]] 19:39, 16 December 2006 (CST)
: I find it pretty hard to believe too, but that painting ''really really really'' looks like the art in the temple. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 20:41, 16 December 2006 (CST)
::Maybe they though it would be a nice idea to take that painting, put it in the Temple more than a season later, and see if we notice. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 09:20, 18 December 2006 (CST)
:::It's a painting in her room and part of the column in the temple. :) --[[User:Galactageek|Galactageek]] 01:31, 19 December 2006 (CST)
: So Starbuck is an artist. She paints The Eye of Jupiter. Is it a known symbol or is this the first time anyone else has seen it? If it's not well-known, what does that say about Starbuck? Doesn't it make her prescient? Maybe her true calling is as an oracle. --[[User:Galactageek|Galactageek]] 01:29, 19 December 2006 (CST)
::I'm with Catrope here. If I'm remembering my "Valley Of Darkness" podcast correctly, Tahmoh and Katee painted the apartment themselves, without any direction from Ron or the rest of the show crew. It's quite possible that someone noticed that particular pattern and decided to make it significant. And, hey, maybe she ''is'' an Oracle who just hasn't realized that she has the gift. Give the girl some chamalla and see what she can do. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Starbuck found a spiritual calling to fill the enormous gaps in her soul that she tries to fill with sex, booze, speed, duty, and violence. --[[User:Slander|Slander]] 13:33, 19 December 2006 (CST)
:A friend of mine told me he though the painting and the decoration looked a lot like a star or an explosion, and then brought up the word "supernova". Could this picture be some sort of reference to the star going supernova? (I must admit I'm contradicting myself here, because I said earlier I thought the similarity to be some sort of an inside joke. Of course it's possible that Sackhoff&Penikett accidentally painted something that looked like an explosion, and that's why the writers chose that particular painting.) --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 09:36, 22 December 2006 (CST)
::I've updated the [[Cylon agent speculation]] article on Thrace's entry with the two pictures in question. This is not a coincidence; there is some connection, but we have to wait to know what. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:45, 12 January 2007 (CST)
Well it turns out Mitsukai was right, and a lot of others were not!--[[User:Alcibiades|Alcibiades]] 05:43, 23 January 2007 (CST)
:Mitsukai was right, brilliantly found indeed, but don't forget about me and my friend :P (see comment above). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 07:30, 23 January 2007 (CST)
::Catrope, you were dead on. Ron Moore confirms on the podcast that Sackhoff painted it on the set and the writers, looking at that shoot sometime during the writing of this episode, decided to incorporate it. It's kind of scary how the parts fit together so neatly even though they ARE coming up with stuff by the seat of their pants. --[[User:Galactageek|Galactageek]] 01:37, 24 January 2007 (CST)
:::Aye it is. Don't forget that the entire Starbuck-storyline pretty much goes back to [[Flesh and Bone]], when [[Leoben]] says she's special and she has a pre-written destiny. In [[The Farm]], [[Caprica-Sharon]] repeats it, meaning that it's not some of Leoben's usual crap. And now we finally get a clue as to what he meant. It all fits perfectly, yet Season 1 and 2 can hardly have been written with this episode in mind. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 03:34, 24 January 2007 (CST)

== 18 Casualties & Relevance to "The Passage" ==

If 18 people were lost from '''The Passage''' episode, that means that 17 (at most) were aboard those two lost civilian ships, right? I'm only bringing this up to clarify what transpired — from that, and what we saw, the Raptors would pair up with a civilian ship, and that ship's passenger complement would be transferred onto ''Galactica'' (more heavily shielded, combat FTL drive) for the ferry run through the cluster. The civilian ship would then be crewed by an absolute bare minimum number of crewers. Then, when the group reached the other side of the cluster, the passengers would be transported back to their ships (if they survived the passage), the ships would remain at "Algae-planet", and ''Galactica'' would turn around and go back to the original side to repeat the cycle over again for a new group of civilian ships?

Am I reading/viewing this right? -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 13:53, 16 December 2006 (CST)

:The ships were manned by skeleton crews. That was even mentioned in "The Passage" --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:01, 16 December 2006 (CST)

: Don't forget that 14 days have transpired. there could have been more births in the fleet. I just came up with the difference from the two episodes--[[User:Quig|Quig]] 16:10, 16 December 2006 (CST)

== Humanoid Cylons recognize each other on sight ==

While back on New Craprica, Number 3 knew right away that it was Sharon Agathon. Of course, who else would be trying to remove the ship's launch keys?

This episode, we see that Athena knew on sight that this Number Eight was Boomer. Interesting.

Can Cylons tell on sight which of the copies they are? It's already established that the bulletheads can't.

Note in last weeks episode, Baltar was able to pick The D'anna number three out of the hallway on sight, even though there is an identically dressed number three in the same hallway. [[User:Belay-down-your-burdens|Belay-down-your-burdens]] 16:50, 16 December 2006 (CST)
:Those two instances do prove that they do recognize one another, which was hinted at in the "[[Cylon Agent]]" page. I guess now it's more than a hint. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 16:54, 16 December 2006 (CST)
:I thought it could be something like recognizing a computer by its IP address, y'know, like the Cylons are all tied into one network and they've got like a special ID code on that network. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 05:45, 24 January 2007 (CST)

== Names of marines ==

Has anyone heard (or seen in close captions) the names of the marines that were with Starbuck and Dualla? I know one of them is [[Fischer]], but the other three? I heard something like: Criggs, Verek, Ditko. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 17:43, 16 December 2006 (CST)

:According to the caption, it's Griggs and Varrick; the spelling/pronouncation of the third lad is anyone else's guess. For some reason, the closed caption for this episode doesn't pick up everything for me. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 09:48, 17 December 2006 (CST)

::OK, we know that it's [[Fischer]], [[Griggs]], [[Varrick]], [[Henick]] and [[Ditko]]. Since after she says "Henick and Ditko" the camera centers first on the black guy and then on the bald guy, can we assume that the first one is Henick and the latter one is Ditko, and the one in a hat is Griggs? It's conjectural, but looks reasonable to me and it would be nice to add pictures to their articles. [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 14:46, 22 December 2006 (CST)

== Location of the Eye? ==

At the end of the episode, Tyrol says something about "the sky will open, and the eye will be revealed." Did that make anyone else think of the star going nova? -- [[User:Benabik|Benabik]] 22:15, 16 December 2006 (CST)
:Good idea, but is it possible that such a "blowup" could be predicted in the sacred scrolls thousands of years ago? -- [[User:SuperMMX|SuperMMX]] 01:15, 17 December 2006 (CST)
::Why not? A race of humans capable of traveling from Kobol to Earth probably knows at least as much about stellar evolution as the Colonials [[User:Xenophon10k|Xenophon10k]] 07:39, 17 December 2006 (CST)
:: The [[Sacred Scrolls]] have so far contained information about [[Laura Roslin]] being sick, [[Sharon Agathon]] helping them to find the [[Tomb of Athena]], and more... In addition to various prophetic dreams... Sure, they could have predicted it. -- [[User:Benabik|Benabik]] 11:26, 17 December 2006 (CST)
:When Tyrol commented about blowing up the Temple, I already thought "What if the Eye is INSIDE the pillar and they have to blow it up to get it out?" But surely an explosion destroying the entire system would destroy the Eye as well? And if it didn't, the Eye would not be easy to find between the debris of an entire planet. But blowing up a pillar doesn't exactly qualify as "the sky will open"... Maybe it refers to blowing up the roof or something like that... --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 12:04, 17 December 2006 (CST)
:: Note the shaft of light streaming across the central pillar in the final scenes of the episode. Perhaps something will be revealed when it becomes centered upon the prominent symbol seen there. --[[User:Spidey3|Spidey3]] 12:29, 18 December 2006 (CST)
:::That was the way my mind was working. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 14:39, 18 December 2006 (CST)
I believe that the Sky Opening Up will be the explosion of the nuclear weaponry activating or destroying something which will then reveal the Eye. --[[User:Teal Thanatos|Teal Thanatos]]

== Boomer in the brig? ==

Did Boomer get thrown in the galactica brig once Athena pointed her out? Was she allowed to return to the Basestars? [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 01:49, 17 December 2006 (CST)

I doubt it because they probably would have it done right there rather than holding her outside first. I'm sure they let her leave with the others and advised her not to let the door hit on the arse on the way out. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 09:46, 17 December 2006 (CST)

:Besides, the least thing they need on ''Galactica'' right now would be Boomer to break out of the brig, throw on a uniform and have a "Guess the Sharon" contest. Aside from that, I expect that kind of trite plotwork I just mentioned from lesser sci-fi series, not this one.--[[User:Mitsukai|み使い]] ''[[User_talk:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]]'' 19:37, 18 December 2006 (CST)

== Summary ==

We really need a longer summary up there, the only point it currently mentions is kind of random -_- --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 10:58, 17 December 2006 (CST)

== D'anna's search for the five vs. the Temple of Five ==

I haven't seen much discussion on the connection between "the five" Cylons and the Temple of the Five. Since the Temple was built by the 13th tribe, a connection doesn't seem likely in a conventional linear timeline; but like the painting in Starbuck's apartment, it's hard to dismiss as a mere coincidence.

Such a connection does, however, clear up some verisimilitude issues for me – namely, the rate at which the Cylon's biological technology advanced in relation to both Cylon and Colonial conventional technology.

In less than 40 years' time, the Cylons were able to develop the Cylon Agents – and in such a way that made indiscernable from humans – and all of the ressurection technology that went with it. Meanwhile, their conventional, mechanical technology hasn't made nearly the same leaps. And Colonial technology hasn't advanced much at all. Pegasus was a much more formidable vessel than Galactica, but only in terms of size and firepower. Technologically speaking, they weren't that dissimilar. Everyone's still using nuclear missles as their most advanced form of weaponry.

Clearly, the Cylons have had a little help. Now, with dual references to a group of five that must not be named, we're starting to get an idea of from where that help may have come.

I'm not sure how that jibes with the Cylon's monotheistic religion (also established within those 40 years), versus the Colonies' polytheism, but I'm sure Mr.Moore has it worked out.

How great it is to have a show with a fleshed out story line already established, as opposed to the "make it up as we go" approach to shows like Star Trek (all incarnations), X-Files and Lost over our last 40 years. {{unsigned|Tylonius}}

:To ''Battlestar's'' credit, it did take a while to flesh out the story from a viewer's perspective, but what we know is quite intriguing. Their God and the Colonial gods may be one and the same, and may change how the Cylons treat the Colonials and vice versa. I don't think the five faces will be all shown, but we might see one. And yes, it is good to enjoy a show that makes a greater effort to maintain a consistent storyline. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:01, 18 December 2006 (CST)

::Time may not be an issue. Remember the Colonial Scriptures are full of prophecies, it wouldn't be too farfetched to assume that the Temple of Five could've been constructed for something before it happened, for the purpose of making it happen in due time.

::The Five could do whatever releated them to the temple much like Roslin is directly related to finding the tomb Athena, even though she lived thousands of years after everything else was set.

::This is all speculation, of course, but oh well....--[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 13:59, 19 December 2006 (CST)

:::The Final Five are directly connected to the Temple of Five: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/12/one_of_the_cent.html -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 16:16, 20 December 2006 (CST)

::::“Essentially the Temple of the Five is directly connected to the five Cylons we have not seen.” - RDM
::::I've been thinking about the ambiguous ''sins'' the [[Hybrid]] mentions, that appear to be in regards to the Five. My working theory is that the five priests who served "The One Who Cannot Be..." and the Five Cylon Models who served the Cylon God both committed the ''sin'' of Rebellion, and that both dieties they rebelled against are one and the same. I also (big leap now), think that Model One is among the Rebel Five. Being rebel ''Angels of God'' (as Virtual-Six refers to herself), that would make One the RDM-equivalent to TOS-Lucifer, now wouldn't it? Chief and first of the (from the cylon perspective) "fallen" angels (as opposed to speculation that One ''is'' the Cylon God) --[[User:Viperetto13|Viperetto13]] 02:16, 23 December 2006 (CST)

== Human Nicknames ==

I cropped the following from the episode summary. Nothing against either point, just taking it off until somebody can figure out how to reconcile it into a single level deep bullet point (or points).
Cropped text:
*This is the first time the Cylons use "human" names on the basestar when not speaking to Baltar. D'Anna is named by Caprica-Six and another Number Three. Cavil's name is used by D'Anna.
**It is possible that these names are nicknames for the Cylons who've been amongst the humans (much like Caprica-Six), but it could also be the writers weaseling out of coming up with numbers for Cavil, [[Leoben Conoy|Leoben]] and [[Simon]]. In ''[[The Passage]]'', D'Anna even mentions having a discussion with "one of the Simons".
Thanks. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:51, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Err how about:
*This episode marks the first time the Cylons use "human" names when not speaking to Baltar: Caprica-Six and another Three call D'Anna by her human name, who in turn uses Cavil's name. These could be nicknames for Cylons who've been living among humans (cf. [[Caprica-Six]]).
*Once again, the writers have dodged the issue of [[Cavil]]'s, [[Leoben Conoy|Leoben]]'s and [[Simon]]'s numbers. In "[[Torn]]", Caprica-Six says "The ones you know as Leoben...", in "[[The Passage]]" Number Three mentions having a discussion with "one of the Simons" and in this episode a Three simply calls one of the Cavils "Cavil".

Please correct my style here, I didn't know exactly how to quote/paraphrase things like "one of the Simons" etc. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 09:12, 18 December 2006 (CST)

:One bullet point might be enough if the second part is connected with a word like "thus". However we shouldn't use "weasling". It sounds too negative and critical where criticism isn't really needed. Maybe something like "dodging the issue" or "circumventing"? That means the same and isn't as POV.
:Btw: episode names aren't italicized, but put in quotation marks --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:12, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Edit first post, episode titles quoted instead of italicized, second bullet point reprashed and "weaseling" changed to "dodged".
I don't think joining the bullet points with "this" between them is going to make this any clearer. I also don't think it's necessary, as both points may be related but analyse different things (the remaining numbers vs. Cylon naming convention). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 10:28, 18 December 2006 (CST)
:I think the writers are working with established names for convenience. They may not want to create a number yet to not confuse some viewers or there may be a grand scheme of introducing more numbers later in the season or another season that involves the 5 unknown cylon models. They could be maintaining flexibility for themselves in this case. They also know that the people who care the most are us die-hard fans and they can drag us through the mud without giving us more info, but I don't think so with as generous and courteous as Ngarenn is on BW:OC.--[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 11:10, 18 December 2006 (CST)
::It wouldn't be too hard to introduce a new number though. We've heard plenty of statements like "We Threes think we can't take the risk.", ideal statements to introduce new numbers with. Of course these numbers aren't a big deal, but die-hard fans tend to like to know these details. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 11:37, 18 December 2006 (CST)
:::True. Though the more detail the introduce, the more chances they have to get it wrong. Even with the few model numbers we have revealed RDM sometimes has [[Podcast:The_Passage#Act_1|difficulty keeping them straight]], confusing the Eight's (Sharons) with the Three's (D'annas). Either way, we'll be here, documenting. I sometimes wonder if we're (the die-hard detail documenters) aren't his worst nightmares (if we even bothers thinking about us). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:52, 18 December 2006 (CST)
::::I always thought it was a nice nod to buckaroo banzai where all the villains had the same first name. [[User:Azselendor|Azselendor]] 22:05, 18 December 2006 (CST)
:::I believe it would make sense that there is a plan with rolling out the remaining agent numbers. For example, whether or not "One" is one of the missing Five has a great deal of bearing on the development of the cylon narrative, and so would be kept quiet until the episode revealing that fact. If He/She is one of the missing Five, but "Two" is not, then Two's identity ([[Cavil]], [[Leoben]], or [[Simon]]) also has a great deal of bearing on the narrative. Cavil has been shown using some leverage on Three. He's got my money for being Two. I think One is with the missing Five.--[[User:Viperetto13|Viperetto13]] 22:58, 25 December 2006 (CST)

== Question on article ==

*When did [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]] go over to the [[Cylons (RDM)|Cylons']] way of thinking? In this episode she clearly doesn't seem to think of herself as human anymore like she did in "[[Downloaded]]."
:I had assumed that by LDYB, II that the Cylons had gone over to Boomer and Caprica-Six's way of thinking, hence their (C-six and Boomer) sudden rise to power as well as the sudden Cylon cease-fire. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:24, 19 December 2006 (CST)
::I think it's been established that somewhere along the way she realized that humans and cylons can't mix, and I believe she says something to that effect in Rapture. Where exactly this revelation came I'm not sure, or my memory is lacking, but she has had a lot of shit happen to her. On the latest podcast, Moore says they cut a lot of story on the basestar with Caprica, Hera and Boomer's surliness towards Tyrol. --[[User:Galactageek|Galactageek]] 02:19, 25 January 2007 (CST)

== Hera ==

I cannot believe that Adm. Adama has apparently no idea what happened to Hera. He was involved in this discussion in [[Downloaded]]. He should knew that Hera and her foster mother moved to [[New Caprica]]. I am very surprised that he became so angry after Roslin told him that she kept the child in her school. --[[User:Akagi|Akagi]] 17:21, 19 December 2006 (CST)
:Adama and Roslin only agreed in "[[Downloaded]]" that Sharon cannot be allowesd raise the baby. Maybe he assumed/was told that Hera was killed by Cottle? [[User:Ausir|Ausir]] 17:34, 19 December 2006 (CST)
::That they concluded at the discussion that the child should be killed would fit with this episode events and Baltars look at the end of "Downloaded" when being chided by his internal six. However that option was mentioned onscreen and the entire tone of the conversation at that point makes it seem somewhat unlikely that this would been the final decision. Given that Baltar was never in on the adoption-plot (he apparently didn't know Hera was alive on New Caprica) and we now know Adama didn't know about it either the discussion outcome must have been either to kill the child or to postpone the decision (with Heras apparent death solving the problem). I'm quite willing to buy that Adama believed the child had died a natural death, given that complication in a hybrid between man and machine were to exspected. But I have troubles with Roslin doing it all behind Adamas back (why did she have to do that?) and Adama not making a decision whatever immediately (in Downloaded). [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 17:40, 21 December 2006 (CST)

== Recent Summary Reorganization Problems ==

I'm normally OK about reorganization of a summary, but the recent one handled by SgtPayne creates more work and confusion. Links previously added are missing, conventions once there are missing, and the narrative flow of the summary is extremely confusing. Normally we can break up events by location (events on Galactica, basestars, planets) because they are mostly separate events that don't directly connect, but this episode has both Cylons and Colonial events occurring in response to each other and in "real-time." I am ''this close'' to rolling back the summary and adding edits made afterwards to restore both narrative flow and conventions, but I wanted comments from others first. As an admin I would just roll it back because of all the wikilinking and convention breakage, but it's more than that. Comments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:36, 20 December 2006 (CST)
:This is one that I might suggest we do "Act" reporting summary. So the events are intertwined. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 09:56, 20 December 2006 (CST)
::::I believe that's exactly what the summary contained before that infamous edit: a chronological report of the events in this episode. Since everything and everyone interacts with eachother and is at the same place, that would be a logical choice. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 10:03, 20 December 2006 (CST) (I hate edit conflicts)
:I haven't checked it for style and links, but I agree that the summary should be chronological. Splitting up the locations is fine if they aren't related. But as you said, here they are heavily interwined and dependent on each other --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:57, 20 December 2006 (CST)
:'''Revert.''' It looked better the way it was. The new split makes for a very confusing read. --[[User:Slander|Slander]] 11:22, 20 December 2006 (CST)

I have reverted the article and restored relevant edits made after that reorganization. One persistant edit that I keep changing involves the "shaft of light" in the Temple as Tyrol is inspecting the symbology in the Temple. That "shaft" is Tyrol's flashlight beam. While that direct light ''might'' do something unexpected as it approaches the central target-shaped symbol, it's not coming from some mystic source within the structure. I've clarified this in the article. Contributors are always free to edit it, but its fairly clear, so analysis should be used to interpret what it might do. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)

In light of the recent reversion, I should drop my two cents in regarding the "reorganization". When I first read the article, I felt that it was too "narrative" rather than "summary", which is what the section suggests. The consolidation was an attempt to make the information as concise as possible. I also attempted to keep as many reference links as necessary. In regards to the location split, this was done in line with previous articles, which had definitive locations. My apologies if it confused readers, but it should be said that summaries are just that, and should not be play-by-play accounts of the episode. --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 12:18, 20 December 2006 (CST)
:The location split you introduced is good practice when there are multiple storylines that do not interfere with eachother. A nice example of that is "[[You Can't Go Home Again]]". In most episodes this is the case (end s1-begin s2 even had 3 or 4 separate storylines), but in this particular episode the three locations affect eachother so greatly that the split you introduced makes for extemely confusing reading: a bullet point in the basestar story references events told in the Galactica part, and viceverse. (Let's not even start about the Algae Planet part). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 12:45, 20 December 2006 (CST)
::You bring up a good point. In trying to put it together, there were some areas where I wasn't sure where to put it. On the whole, I was looking to clean it up a bit. Trying to read it line-for-line blurs out after a while... --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 14:22, 20 December 2006 (CST)
:::I've broken up the summary into acts. It seems to solve both problems. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:24, 20 December 2006 (CST)
::::aye. nice job. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:34, 20 December 2006 (CST)
:::::I concur. It definitely cleans up the look of the page. --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 22:55, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard

2008-06-27T05:05:07Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive8.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 8
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Project|Admin Noticeboard|image=BSG WIKI Postit.png|shortcut=BW:AN BW:CN}}
{{Battlestar Wiki Admin Toolbox}}
__TOC__

This noticeboard is a location to discuss and coordinate administrative tasks for the Battlestar Wiki.

It is our hope that this place can serve as a location for administrators to coordinate their efforts on the maintenance tasks of the Wiki (it's not ALL fun and games), as well as a spot for our contributors to be able to bring things to the attention of the admins if something needs to be done. Need a protected page edited? An article or picture deleted? Admins will watchlist this page so that your request won't get lost in the shuffle.

{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

== Current Administrators ==

===Senior Chiefs===
Senior chiefs are, in Wikipedia's terminology, bureaucrats who have the ability to make other users into chiefs. They also have the ability to check user and other advance functions not under the purview of the chiefs.
Currently senior chiefs are:
*[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]]
*[[User:Shane|Shane]]
*[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]]
*[[User:NCommander|NCommander]] (Technical Issues Only)

===Chiefs===
Chiefs are administrators who have access to move, delete and restore pages as well as blocking malicious users. The current chiefs are:
* Active
**[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]
**[[User:Gougef|Gougef]]
**[[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] (PR Coordinator)
**[[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] (Primary Wiki Frakr! Contact)
**[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]]
**[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]]
**[[User:Serenity|Serenity]]
**[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]]
* Inactive
**[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]
**[[User:Day|Day]]
**[[User:Talos|Talos]]
See [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators|list of all chiefs on Battlestar Wiki]]

== Javascript Reported Vandals ==

''No recent reports.''
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Upload errors ==

So, we're having upload errors... I haven't a clue how to fix it right now, but what I get is this:

: Could not rename file "/tmp/http/phpPZkJNu" to "public/7/7f/Genevieve_Buechner.jpg".

Now, the prefix should really be "/home/bsgwiki/public_html/media/images" and not "public" (no slash in front)... I wonder if there's a configuration setting fubared somewhere in one of 1.13's files? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 05:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive8

2008-06-27T05:04:56Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard.

Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive4

2008-06-27T05:01:21Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive3.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|counter = 3
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{talk page warning}}

== To <s>quote</s> paraphrase Bill Pullman from ''ID4''... "Let's nuke the bastard." ==

To offer a different perspective from ColonelKevin's point, I think this article really needs to be airlocked and approached in a completely different light. I've really felt this way from the get go, but my feelings are reinforced by the fact that this is the last and final season, and the article will then enter a state of total and complete obsolescence, particularly from an "out of universe perspective".

What I am proposing is that the article be written to detail "in universe" Cylon speculation and how they've dealt with the threat of Cylons looking human. I'm looking at documenting the overall human reaction to this, which would include things like [[Sesha Abinell]]'s conspiracy theories, the Colonials attempts at a Cylon detector, the Fleet leadership's concerns about releasing the information before "[[Litmus]]", etc. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's "Nuke 'em. Let's nuke the bastards.". And.. I agree. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:: You're right, Mr. Quotables... I meant "paraphrasing". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Seems like a good idea. From what I can infer, most, if not all, of the in-universe early-S4 speculation will be on Starbuck, so we might need to decide where we draw the lines between this article, [[Kara Thrace]] and [[The Destiny]]. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

:I agree somewhat. We know that many people love this speculation and the survey also shows that some people expect it here. But IMHO, it's just inane and verges on the annoying. There are so many fan theories floating around out there, it's flat out impossible to reflect even a good part of it. The problem is also, that what started out as interesting and ''grounded'' speculation, has deteriorated into complete bullshit by now, also due to the introduction of the Final Five. Especially with the latter, we can't really know which criteria even imply for potential cylonicity. In that regard, I've always felt that this wiki is a place for fact, analysis and some well-founded speculation here and there; and that complete speculation - like this - is a matter for forums. There are dozens of forums with endless threads of Final Five speculation, so why does this have to be rehashed on a wiki?
:That said, the article has finally approached a state where it's readable and worthy of the wiki, by excising most of the specious speculation and concentrating on a few likely characters. However, as Joe said, its validity in light of the upcoming revelations - and also the uncertain basis for the arguments - is somewhat questionable. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::While I do think it's possible to do a speculation page properly, there's no doubt that it's a huge task to produce one that's relatively grounded and well sourced, particularly considering how just about anyone could be the final cylon. It's hard to say if such a task is really worth the effort. If I had to chose between leaving the page as it is now or nuking it, I'd definetely say nuke it. Maybe take the best bits (the comment from Bradley Thompson and the Hybird prophecy, maybe the last supper picture, none of the speculation) and just place it on the section for the Final Cylon on the Humanoid Cylon article? -- [[User:ColonelKevin|ColonelKevin]] 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I think collecting the pro/anti cylon clues for the characters is worthwhile. But perhaps it should be just done as two sets of bullet points per character -- reasons why, and why not they could be a Cylon. Tell people to stick to itemizing information from canon/official, leave it to the reader to judge what it means. Then add one broad section on non-character specific information (like the last supper etc.)--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 17:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article used to be a load of bullet points, but people didn't like that so we changed it to its current state. Despite writing about half of the article as it stands, I'm not a big fan of it. The problem is mainly with the in-universe clues, someone, somewhere will have some reason why pretty much any arbitrary scene means some character being a Cylon. There are some relatively good things to consider [Baltar's hallucinations, Starbuck's return from the dead], but eventually you have to draw the line somewhere [Some people take Leoben saying "Adama's a Cylon" as a clue, is that justified?]. It's all terribly subjective and messy and not really for an encyclopaedia. Having a comprehensive coverage of fan speculation is both impossible and undesirable.

I think the best thing about the article is that it stopped speculation spilling into other parts of the Wiki. An '''in'''-universe look at the issue would be better, and probably quite pertinent for season 4. Nevertheless, fan speculation on who is and isn't a Cylon has been an important part of the viewing experience (whenever I meet a Galactica fan the fisrt question I always ask is "Who do you think the last Cylon is?")

Consequently, it is worth considering if we can find a way to cover, out-of-universe, that element of the viewing experience in an encyclopaedic manner without necessarily joining in. At the very least we could include a line like: "Since the outset of the show fans have speculated on who could be a Cylon. Theories for practically every character exist, with fans drawing justification from events in both aired content and comments from cast and crew."

Also we need to consider what happens to [[Baltar as Cylon speculation]], which is a very detailed essay, but probably not encyclopaedic. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:So, what's the plan? [[User:OTW|OTW]] 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Well, as you noted, the problem is that we'll never be able to cover fan theories in an encyclopedic format... Fan theories are really a dime a dozen, and to cover even 10% of them would be extremely biased. It seems quite apparent to me that the best bet would be to put the [[Baltar as Cylon speculation]] page to pasture, and redo the "humanoid Cylon speculation" page from an in-universe perspective, as I had suggested. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:::What do you have in mind exactly? There isn't really any in-universe speculation for the final Cylon, expect for Baltar, which is covered in the other article. I guess we could cover the entire series and list people who were suspects at one time, which would be Boomer, Cmd. Adama, Ellen Tigh and Tyrol I guess. Maybe some more, but not a lot, and not really that interesting as it's common knowledge. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm more interested in how the humans have grappled with identifying "who's a Cylon?" throughout the series then the search for the "Last Cylon", which I really don't find that interesting. When all is said and done, finding out "who's a Cylon" isn't as interesting as people make it out to be. So, as I've stated before:
::::"What I am proposing is that the article be written to detail 'in universe' Cylon speculation and how they've dealt with the threat of Cylons looking human. I'm looking at documenting the overall human reaction to this, which would include things like [[Sesha Abinell]]'s conspiracy theories, the Colonials attempts at a Cylon detector, the Fleet leadership's concerns about releasing the information before '[[Litmus]]', etc." -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, covering all that would be good and goes beyond the tired "who is a Cylon?" guessing. I agree that that's way overrated. Good TV in general isn't so much about what happens as how it affects the characters. I didn't know you wanted to go into that direction, which is why I asked. A different article name might be appropriate then, though. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::With the addition of "one will be revealed" as the core of the main titles, I have to say I differ. It seems remiss not to have a page collecting the clues to what the producers themselves have declared is the central event and mystery of the season. And there's a lot of material around this -- the debate over the last supper page, various official statements etc.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 02:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've drafted a rebooting of this article, sticking to canonical clues with minimal speculation. The word "could" barely appears. What's the best way to introduce the new article? Created a rebooted page and later rename it if people like it?--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
: Yeah, you can create a rebooted version of the page... We can always rename it later. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 04:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
: Create it as subpage of this article. Like [[Humanoid Cylon speculation/Reboot]] -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With the in-show revelation that the final Cylon is not in the fleet (at least according to Three), Ron Moore's comment about the final Cylon not being in the picture seems to have been given much more credence. That would seem to suggest profound implications for this page, which is premised around a major character being the most likely revelation.--[[User:Hylas|Hylas]] 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

== Karl ==

We were actually told that Hera and Nicky '''are''' hybrid children by Mr Moore (and Baltar tests Hera's blood for her hybrid nature in [[Epiphanies]]), hence Karl (and Cally) are definitely humans. This is unless RDM is just plain lying to us, which is quite possible. Nevertheless, I have a little faith, so I'm going to revert this edit.

Oh, yeah, weren't we planning to completely overhaul this article anyway? -- 09:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

: Yeah, but go ahead and revert it. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

== New theory about the final one: Benjamin "Ben" Linus from Lost ==

http://www.battlestarforum.com/showpost.php?p=15994&postcount=280 (posted into forum as suggested)

{{unsigned|Karamanthos}}

: Hi there, Karamanthos! If I might make a suggestion, you're better off adding your theories to the [http://www.battlestarforum.com Battlestar Forum]. :) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

== The Hybrids ==

It's a bit of a stretch, but they seem to meet most of the criteria.
*There are no Hybrids in the fleet.
*[[Tiffany Lyndall-Knight]] was not in the [[The Last Supper|Last Supper image]].
*They are definitely Cylons.
*They don't have a model number.
*Redemption can mean either atonement or liberation.
*They are arguably "still in shadow".
*The "howl of terrible suffering" could refer to how the Hybrid screamed before becoming lucid in [[Faith]].
*The Hybrids played a significant role in leading the Colonials and Cylons to Earth.
There are, however, a few problems.
*The Hybrids coming from Earth seems like a stretch.
*Although we don't know how long the Hybrid concept has been around, the Hybrids weren't introduced until early season 3, and IIRC they decided on the identity of the final Cylon in season 2.
Is there enough evidence to include the Hybrids under ''others''? What about under ''more esoteric theories''? -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "more esoteric theories" is quite applicable here. The purpose of the section is to list some of the more out-of-the-box ideas that people might have. I think it would be best to simply state it, rather than include the justification above, else the section will get cluttered (like the rest of the article). [[User:OTW|OTW]] 00:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive3

2008-06-27T05:01:11Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation.

User talk:Shane

2008-06-20T05:04:41Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Shane/Archive12.

User talk:Shane/Archive12

2008-06-20T05:04:28Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from User talk:Shane.

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard

2008-06-15T05:57:54Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive8.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 8
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Project|Admin Noticeboard|image=BSG WIKI Postit.png|shortcut=BW:AN BW:CN}}
{{Battlestar Wiki Admin Toolbox}}
__TOC__

This noticeboard is a location to discuss and coordinate administrative tasks for the Battlestar Wiki.

It is our hope that this place can serve as a location for administrators to coordinate their efforts on the maintenance tasks of the Wiki (it's not ALL fun and games), as well as a spot for our contributors to be able to bring things to the attention of the admins if something needs to be done. Need a protected page edited? An article or picture deleted? Admins will watchlist this page so that your request won't get lost in the shuffle.

{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

== Current Administrators ==

===Senior Chiefs===
Senior chiefs are, in Wikipedia's terminology, bureaucrats who have the ability to make other users into chiefs. They also have the ability to check user and other advance functions not under the purview of the chiefs.
Currently senior chiefs are:
*[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]]
*[[User:Shane|Shane]]
*[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]]
*[[User:NCommander|NCommander]] (Technical Issues Only)

===Chiefs===
Chiefs are administrators who have access to move, delete and restore pages as well as blocking malicious users. The current chiefs are:
* Active
**[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]
**[[User:Gougef|Gougef]]
**[[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] (Primary Wiki Frakr! Contact)
**[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]]
**[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]]
**[[User:Serenity|Serenity]]
**[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]]
* Inactive
**[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]
**[[User:Day|Day]]
**[[User:Talos|Talos]]
See [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators|list of all chiefs on Battlestar Wiki]]

== Javascript Reported Vandals ==

''No recent reports.''
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

== June 2 ==

We lost 5 days of changes to the databases. Anything that happened till 0400 hours June 2, 2008 is lost. Sorry! We are trying to recover, but this is as good as we can get right now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As a precaution, I've converted most of the MediaFrak tables to InnoDB and working on a new backup script which will dump each table faster, without locking up the site. [[User:NCommander|NCommander]] 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard/Archive8

2008-06-15T05:54:17Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) from Battlestar Wiki:Chiefs' noticeboard.

Talk:Main Page/Archive6

2008-06-15T05:25:12Z

ArchiveBot: Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Talk:Main Page/Archive5.

{{Template:Archive-bot
|archiveheader = {{archive-message|newarchive=%(counter)d}}
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive%(counter)d
}}{{ArchiveTOC}}

__TOC__

What happened to the blog? Just a big empty space I can see (monobook). [[User:OTW|OTW]] 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:Moved it to the [[Portal:Blogs]]. I can't find this empty space on monobook. Hard refresh. It was casuing slow downs being on the main page. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|talk]]) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)