Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

John Dykstra

2006-01-29T07:59:52Z

Mayosolo: some more info & fixes

[[Image:bsg-jd.jpg|thumb|John Dykstra (credit: Publicity shot)]]
Full Name: John C. Dykstra

D.O.B: June 3, 1947

Place of Birth: Long Beach, California

Spouse: ?

Children: Daughter, [http://imdb.com/name/nm1640124/ Chloe]

Position: Producer and Visual Effects Supervisor the [[Battlestar Galactica (TOS)|original Battlestar Galactica]]

{{imdb name|id=0004375|name=John Dykstra}}

One of the leading figures in modern film special visual effects, John Dykstra may be most important for his contribution to the unprecedented level of "realism" achieved in such 1970s sci-fi landmarks as ''[[Wikipedia:Silent running|Silent Running]]'' (1971) and ''[[Wikipedia:Star Wars|Star Wars]]'' (1977). He learned much of his craft collaborating with the legendary Douglas Trumbull at his Trumbull Film Effects. Dykstra was a special effects cameraman and industrial designer working on the intricate space stations required for Trumbull's ''Silent Running''. After a hiatus from entertainment projects, he reteamed with Trumbull, at the latter's Future General Company, to work on various projects including commercials, theme park attractions and experiments in three-dimensional filmmaking effects.

Dykstra subsequently served as the first head of [[Wikipedia:Industrial Light and Magic|Industrial Light and Magic]], [[Wikipedia:George Lucas|George Lucas's]] FX company, supervising visual effects photography for ''Star Wars''. Dykstra demonstrated a distinctive flair for designing and photographing complex models and miniatures with such painstaking attention to scale that he could create a convincing illusion of great size and mass.

The memorable opening images of ''Star Wars'', in which immense and multifaceted ships pass over the camera, qualifies as classic Dykstra. He shared a richly deserved Oscar for Best Visual Effects for his efforts (beating out the FX team headed by his mentor Trumbull on ''[[Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Third Kind|Close Encounters Of The Third Kind]]''). Dykstra received another memento from the Academy that year-a Class II Academy Technical Award for the invention and development of the Dystraflex Camera, an important tool in the craft of motion control photography.

Dykstra reteamed with Trumbull to design the elaborate FX for the artistically problematic but hugely successful ''[[Wikipedia:Star Trek the Motion Picture|Star Trek: The Motion Picture]]'' (1979).

He has since complained that the special effects team got involved in the project so late that director Robert Wise had to film long sequences in which the befuddled actors were shot reacting to special effects that had not even been conceptualized. In addition to undermining the performances, this poor planning served to make the effects stand out rather than blend into the dramatic whole.

Typically, for big special effects-oriented productions, the visual effects coordinator is brought aboard quite early in the production-often before there is even a finalized screenplay-to collaborate with the producer, director, art director, costume designer, director of photography and other behind-the-scenes personnel. Nonetheless, Trumbull and Dykstra shared an Oscar nomination for their collaboration.

Around 1979, Dykstra left ILM to form his own state-of-the-art FX company, Apogee, Inc.

Dykstra's first major project with Apogee was the [[Battlestar Galactica (TOS)|original Battlestar Galactica]], in which he also served a producer.

Apogee has subsequently provided FX for a variety of TV-movies and miniseries including ''Alice in wonderland'' (CBS, 1985), ''Out On A Limb'' (ABC, 1987), from Shirley MacLaine's spacey memoir, and ''Amerika'' (ABC, 1987). The latter, set ten years after a hypothetical Soviet takeover of the US, featured a memorable sequence-courtesy of Dykstra and Company-in which the US Capitol is bombed.

Dykstra has lent his talents to such diverse film fare as ''Caddyshack'' (1980), Clint Eastwood's ''Firefox'' (1982), Tobe Hooper's remake of ''Invaders from Mars'' (1986), the comedy ''My Stepmother Is An Alien'' (1988), two of the "Batman" franchise: ''Batman Forever'' (1995) and ''Batman and Robin'' (1997); and ''Stuart Little'' (1999).

''Spider-Man'' (2002) represented the biggest hit with which he has been associated since the halcyon days of ''Star Wars''.

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category: Crew (TOS)]]
[[Category:TOS]]

Black Market

2006-01-29T07:34:43Z

Mayosolo: IMDb links, population

:''For information on the black market itself, see [[Black market (organization)]].''

{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Black_Market-Lee.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Black Market
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 14
| Guests=[[Richard Hatch]] ([[Tom Zarek]]) [http://imdb.com/name/nm0006419/ Claudette Mink] ([[Shevon]]) [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004886/ Bill Duke] ([[Phelan]]) Hayley Guiel ([[Paya]]) Unknown ([[Weller]]) Unknown ([[Beach]]) [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0065320/ Graham Beckel] ([[Jack Fisk|CMDR Fisk]]) [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Leah+Cairns Leah Cairns] ([[Margaret Edmonson|Racetrack]]) [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Amy+Ciupak+Lalonde Amy Lalonde] [[Gianne]] John Mann (Linden) [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Brad+Mann Brad Mann] (Pegasus Marine) [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+James+Ashcroft James Ashcroft] (Security Officer) [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Gustavo+Febres Gustavo Febres] (Herbalist)
| Writer=[http://imdb.com/name/nm0894156/ Mark Verheiden]
| Story=
| Director=[http://imdb.com/name/nm0372138/ James Head]
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=January 27 2006
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=49,597
| Prev= [[Epiphanies]]
| Next= [[Scar]]
}}



== Overview ==

: ''Captain [[Lee Adama]], battling haunting demons of his own from a spurned love lost on Caprica, investigates the murder of new ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' commander [[Jack Fisk]], and uncovers a black market that strains the resources of the Fleet.''

== Summary ==

*The recovered President [[Laura Roslin]], feeling behind in her work since her absence, discusses her plan to eliminate black market problems with internal trade of supplies within the [[The Fleet (RDM)|Fleet]] in Adama's quarters with Admiral [[William Adama|Adama]], ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' Commander [[Jack Fisk|Fisk]], and Dr. [[Gaius Baltar|Baltar]].
*When he arrives back in his quarters on ''Pegasus'' (Cain's old quarters) Fisk is garroted by several black market gangsters. One in particular stands out as a well-dressed "businessman".
*[[Lee Adama]], severely depressed since his ejection from the [[Blackbird]], has apparently been nurturing a relationship on ''[[Cloud 9]]'' with a woman named [[Shevon]], who has a young daughter named [[Paya]].
*In a "morning after" talk, Lee and Shevon talk in tones that hint towards his wanting of a serious relationship. Shevon appears to dodge these, and requests 100 extra cubits as Lee is leaving since he "stayed the night".
*In flashback scenes, we see a past love of Lee Adama on Caprica. She's exceptionally pretty, and the scenes revolve around a rendevous between Lee and this girl, which resolves with her running away. The details and intensity of these flashbacks increase as the episode progresses.
*Unaware that Fisk was murdered, Baltar stumbles into Fisk's quarters to see him but finds Lee Adama on the scene. After stating (correctly) that he had nothing to do with Fisk's murder, he storms out. Apollo deduces correctly that Baltar was actually trading for a hard to find commodity: "Caprica Imperials" [[Fumarella leaf|fumerellos]] that Fisk had.
*Apollo finds a small fortune of luxury goods in Fisk's closet, including a gold bracelet with the monogram "E.T" on it. Apollo realizes it's [[Ellen Tigh]]'s, and confront's Col. [[Saul Tigh]] about it in his quarters. Tigh says that it was he and not his wife who traded it to Fisk for good liquor, fruit, etc. for Ellen and himself. Tigh explains that Fisk was deeply involved in using ''Pegasus'' as a hub to fence black market goods.
*Dr. [[Cottle]]'s autopsy finds cubits jammed in Fisk's mouth, perhaps as a warning. Adama realizes that Fisk was trying to undercut one of his black market suppliers, and they took revenge. Adama is angry that Tigh would use the black market, but Tigh counters that almost everyone does some trading with it to get things they need, even Adama, who responds that just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right.
*On ''[[Colonial One]]'', President Roslin, piecing together her [[Epiphanies|near-death recollections of Caprica]], becomes aware of Baltar's pre-holocaust contact with a copy of the Cylon agent known to the Fleet as [[Number Six|"Shelly Godfrey" and "Gina"]]. She candidly asks Dr. Baltar, her vice president, to resign.
*Baltar's pride is wounded. While he never wanted any political power in his life or the office at first, he wants to stay VP now. Roslin tells him it's not an offer she'll make again, but he leaves anyway.
*Off duty, working out in ''Galactica's'' gym, [[Anastasia Dualla]] comes to [[Lee Adama]] to bravely ask if their flirtation while working out is leading somewhere. Adama has no idea what to say, and Dualla takes the quiet hint.
*Lee Adama rushes to Shevon's quarters on ''Cloud 9'' after she calls for help. He finds the bruised Shevon and Paya, and decides to take them to ''Galactica''.
*As Lee is packing things up to leave, he is ambushed by thugs, who nearly garrote him. As he is held within a breath of his life, he is confronted by a well-dressed, blunt "businessman", who warns him to back off of the investigation. A pistol-whip to the head knocks Lee out.
*Apollo awakens to find an empty room, and calls for a medic and security team. Only then does he notice the corpse of the man that garroted Fisk.
*[[Tom Zarek]] drops by the scene in Shevon's room later, and discusses the black market with Apollo. Zarek says that he's not actually not involved with it, because he needs to keep his hands clean, but he also won't help Apollo shut it down (giving ship names, contacts, etc.) because Zarek doesn't want it shut down; it's evidence that Roslin was unable to establish a utopian society in the Fleet, and successfully dismantling it would just prove her right.
*Zarek points out that the black market does get supplies where they are needed. Nonetheless, Zarek mentions the central hub of the black market, ''[[Prometheus]]'', a ship so lawless it's practically "off the grid", where you can supposedly get anything. Zarek gives a name to the "businessman" -- [[Phelan]] -- and tells Apollo that he probably took Shevon there. Additionally, he points out that Phelan has given Lee the murderer -- the thug with a bullet in his head -- and that it should be considered "a way out."
*On ''Prometheus'', alone, Lee Adama searches and finds Paya and other children locked up.
*Apollo encounters Phelan in the ''Prometheus's'' bar. Apollo warns that ''Galactica'' is fully aware of his location, and that the battlestar would vent ''Prometheus's'' air into space unless he gets Shevon and Paya back, and the black market is shut down.
*Phelan counters that the Fleet needs the black market; it's like a pressure valve. Whenever a ship falls behind in the supply schedule, the black market fills the need. Phelan states that they sell all things to fill all wants, including ''child'' prostitution. Adama is horrified. Shevon is dragged out and admits to her work for Phelan as a prostitute.
*Phelan illustrates to Apollo that the only way Shevon was able to obtain life-saving antibiotics for Paya was the use of the black market. Taking a gun from one of Phelan's guards, Adama points it threateningly at Phelan. Surprisingly, two other guards behind Lee neither help or hinder him.
*Apollo says to Phelan that he may be right, maybe he shouldn't try to shut down the market, but that there are lines that should never be crossed, and Phelan has crossed them. When Phelan confidently tells Adama that he won't shoot him, because he's not a thug like Phelan, Adama contemplates. Lee then cycles through another series of flashbacks of his lost relationship on Caprica... and pulls the trigger. With a look of shock frozen on his face, Phelan slumps into his chair and dies.
*Apollo turns to Phelan's guards, also in shock, and tells them that he's not going to shut down all black market trade because the Fleet needs it for vital supplies whether he likes it or not. However, they continue their business at his whim only. If there are more killings, hold back essential medicines, or use children, he will annihilate them without restraint.
*In tears, Shevon refuses Adama. She rightly proports that Lee was trying to replace his lost Caprican relationship -- where the girl had either gotten pregnant or wanted to get pregnant, and Lee had become afraid and reserved -- with Shevon and Paya. In straightforward terms, Shevon states that she and Paya cannot replace that loss.
*Back on ''Colonial One'', the Adamas present their reports to the President. Roslin is upset that Apollo did not shut down the black market, but Apollo counters that they will never have a perfect system and there will always be a black market. At least this way, they know where and who they are, and can monitor it to keep a measure of control. Admiral Adama fully supports Lee, but Roslin isn't at all happy with this and dismisses them rudely.
*Tom Zarek is seen walking through a crowd on the ''Prometheus'' with one of Phelan's old henchmen in tow.
*Admiral Adama and Lee Adama sit casually in the admiral's quarters over a drink, discussing the results of the black market issue. Admiral Adama tells his son that Lee has changed since the Blackbird ditching, but when the younger Adama declines to talk about it further, the older one relents. However, and somewhat amusingly, the elder Adama adds that he is disappointed that he did not disclose the nature of his relationship with "that woman" to him earlier, something Lee was not aware his father knew.

== Questions ==
*How were the black market gangsters able to penetrate ''Pegasus''' security, causing the death of its second commanding officer in a short period?
**It is likely that ''Pegasus'' draconian command structure allows for abuse, and Fisk's own use of the market led to tacit protection of it, including its figurehead, Phelan.
*At the end of the episode, Zarek is seen walking in a crowd on the ''Prometheus'', with one of Phelan's old men nearby. Is Zarek going to try to fill the power vacuum left in the wake of Phelan's death? Was it just showing how everyone needs to use the black market, even someone like Tom Zarek who claims to wash his hands of involvement with it?
**Did Zarek somehow set up the entire incident to get Apollo to kill Phelan for him, allowing him to take over control of the black market?
*The woman that William Adama (father) discusses with Lee Adama (son). Is it Shevon, the prostitute (the obvious, close-at-hand issue)? Or, is it the girl back on Caprica (the deeper-seated, much more affecting issue)?
*Why hasn't Roslin openly accused Baltar of collaborating with the Cylons after "[[Epiphanies]]"?
**Possibly it is because she has no actual "evidence", and she remembered seeing him when her mind was in shambles dying of cancer, so she may not feel confident enough in this revelation to act on it more openly. However, it does seem to have influenced her to the point that unoficially, she no longer trusts Baltar.
*Did Apollo's pregnant former love on Caprica actually die, or is she perhaps one of the handful of survivors? Or worse, a prisoner in one of the Cylon [[Farms]]?
*Who will take command of ''Pegasus'' following Fisk's death?
**Answer in spoilers text box
{{spoiltext|An officer named [[Barry Trammel]] is promoted to replace Fisk as commander of ''Pegasus''. ("[[The Captain's Hand]]").}}

== Analysis ==

*Ron D. Moore admits in his podcast that this episode did not live up to his expectations. The long complaint about failed goals he made in his blog was actually about this episode, and not "[[Downloaded]]", as speculated by other unofficial sources.
*It may be that Moore was attempting to work the story as a detective mystery, but fell short of the goal.
*Apollo's recent angst may appear to some viewers as rather hastily added to the character, much like the issues involving [[Laura Roslin]]'s miraculously fast recovery from her cancer in the [[Epiphanies|previous episode]].
*The Apollo-Dualla relationship, a story thread running since "[[Resistance]]", appears to have been stopped very abruptly, with only Adama's angst as an excuse in ending their flirtation. The manner in which Dualla and Adama speak to each other appeared out of character. Dualla later appears with [[Billy Keikeya]], where he says little, and Dualla appears ready to give Adama up and continue things more seriously with Billy. Actor Paul Campbell (Billy) has been filming a lot of TV pilots and other projects, so he hasn't had much to do this season. But, in comparison to [[Cally]] or [[Kat]], who now seem better developed, Billy's character appears underused.
*Much of the regular cast, including [[Kara Thrace]], [[Sharon Valerii]],[[Helo]], [[Felix Gaeta]], [[Galen Tyrol]], and [[Cally]] do not appear in this episode. Baltar's virtual [[Number Six]] is seen in what some may feel was a distracting appearance, taunting Baltar on ''Pegasus'' and in the meeting with Roslin.
*Col. Tigh is merely a person to be interviewed in Apollo's investigation. Dr. [[Cottle]]'s screen time has increased in the last two episodes, although his character's contribution may be too short for some.
*Like many "pulp" murder mysteries, the episode appeared without a special point or purpose other than to unravel the mystery. Perhaps the writers were attempting to stress the ''realism'' of living in a "Rag Tag Fugitive Fleet" of civilians; yes, there would probably be gangsters carving out fiefdoms who would run drug, medicine, and prostitution rackets. The show took a really dark turn when it made mention of child prostitution. Once again, this isn't anything that several police-dramas airing at the same time of night as BSG haven't done, and nothing is "shown"; a character just mentions in dialog that he runs a ring of this, and the "good guy" promptly kills him and shuts it down. However, the entire idea of the drug rings, etc. is a little disturbing, even if entirely logical.
*The storyline of Apollo's pregnant girlfriend on Caprica was intriguing. However, confusion entered in with Shevon's line of Adama's old flame "want(ing) to give you a child". Many viewers may not have understood that Adama's old love was actually already pregnant. The repetitive flashback, which did not vary, did little to advance the plot and may have made viewing less comfortable.
*The plausibility of [[Jack Fisk]] being killed as easily as Cain was implausible. Admiral Adama is now escorted by marines at all times. With Cain's [[Number Six#Gina|killer still on the loose]], it would rational for Fisk to have some paranoia.
**Phelan and his men clearly had access to Fisk already, so it may not be all that implausible.
**Considering that an attempt on Adama's life has already happened once, marines should have been escorting him from the very beginning. With Fisk and Cain now both dead, there may be a standing Fleet or Colonial military order in place that automatically activates, similar to such real-world orders in the US military.
*The scene between Baltar and Roslin was interesting in its scripting and acting. Roslin is determined to be ''extremely'' polite, forceful, and cheery despite the fact that she's making a power play and now ''knows'' Baltar has something to do with the fall of the Colonies. Viewers should probably expect this revelation to come to a head at the close of season 2.

== Notes ==
*Survivor count for this episode was 49,597. That's one less from last week's episode, "[[Epiphanies]]" in which a suicide bomber attacked the tylium refinery. However, bodies are seen blasted into space, and Adama actually says in dialog "people are dead", so more than one should have died. However, this number is occasionally offset by new babies born in the Fleet, which can account for some small discrepancies.
*Zarek notes that he is the representative of the ''Astral Queen'', although in "[[Colonial Day]]", he was elected to represent the colony of Sagittaron. Given the nature of the conversation, however, he may have been speaking of his responsibilities in a less-than-official capacity.
*Central characters [[Kara Thrace|Starbuck]] and [[Sharon Valerii]] do not appear in this episode.
*Fisk, Phelan, and Apollo all use the term "cigar" in this episode. The use of the term "cigar", as opposed to the normal term of [[fumarello]], was a curious find in the episode. Like the mistaken use of "RADAR" instead of [[DRADIS]] in a past episode, this is likely a problem involving writers who apparently missed doing their homework on terminology from the [[series bible]] and past episodes.
*As seen in [[Final Cut]], there are occasionally meetings of all the ships in the fleet.
*Bill Duke (Phelan) also appeared in the scifi film [[Wikipedia:Predator|Predator]], and will play Bolivar Trask in the upcoming [[Wikipedia:X-Men_3|X-Men 3]].
*Helo does not appear in this episode. This is only the second episode that he has not appeared in; the other was "[[Fragged]]".
*Tyrol does not appear in this episode. This is only the second episode he has not appeared in; the first was "[[Home, Part I]]".
*The "R&D Animation" skit during the credits is a parody of the scifi film "[[Wikipedia:The_Thing|The Thing]]": David Eick transforms into a horrific multi-tentacled monster from the film and attacks Ron Moore.

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

*"You're not gonna shoot. You're not like me. You're not gonna--(''Apollo shoots him in the chest midsentence'')--Uhuhhh..."
:—''The last words of Phelan''

== Official Statements ==

*''In an interview in issue #197 of TV Zone, James Callis (Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]]) said'': "Mary and I had a great deal of fun doing a scene where the President tells Baltar in no uncertain terms that she doesn’t like him and wants him to resign. He’s not very happy about that."

== Statistics ==



{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Margaret Edmondson

2006-01-27T21:01:54Z

Mayosolo: /* Biography */ rm redundant link

{{Character Data|
|photo= [[Image:Bscap432.jpg|200px]]
|age=
|colony=
|birthname= Margaret Edmonson
|callsign= Racetrack
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role= [[Raptor]] [[ECO]], assigned to [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
|rank= Lieutenant (Junior Grade)
|actor= [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Leah+Cairns Leah Cairns]
|cylon=
}}

'''Lt. Margaret "Racetrack" Edmonson''' is a female [[ECO]] aboard [[battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''. She harbors a deep hatred of the Cylons, almost certainly because of the loss of loved ones during the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]. In her job she is competent and trusted, although she is willing to put her personal beliefs above duty.

== Biography ==
Racetrack accompanies [[Sharon Valerii|LT (j.g.) Sharon "Boomer" Valerii]] on a mission to destroy a Cylon [[basestar (RDM)|basestar]]. She witnesses Boomer's attempted [[assassination]] of [[William Adama]] in ''Galactica's'' [[CIC]] ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]). Immediately after, she informs the CIC staff that Boomer returned from placing the nuclear warhead inside the basestar orbiting [[Kobol]] without her helmet on, and that she probably gave away ''Galactica's'' position to the Cylons ("[[Scattered]]").

Racetrack pilots the Raptor carrying [[Lee Adama]]'s [[SAR]] mission to Kobol, encountering fire from Cylon anti-aircraft missiles. [[Galen Tyrol]] fells the missiles' [[DRADIS]] dish on the surface, and they fail to lock on. Racetrack's Raptor then destroys the [[Cylon Centurian|Centurian]]s on the ground with a volley of missles, and recovers the trapped ''Galactica'' crewmen. ("[[Fragged]]")

Racetrack aids the escape of President [[Laura Roslin]] from the brig by falsely claiming that her Raptor was having technical problems, enabling the furloughed Lee Adama to report to the hangar bay instead of the brig per his arrest. She then helps prep the Raptor used as the escape craft for launch, but remains on ''Galactica'' ([[Resistance]]). On Boomer's death, Edmonson becomes the only person in the Fleet who has seen the inside of a basestar.

Racetrack serves as ECO on [[Raptor 1]], plotting the best point of orbital entry when taking Commander Adama to [[Kobol]] to find and meet with President Roslin ([[Home, Part II]]). Since then, Margaret flies basic supply runs between ''Galactica'' and [[The Fleet (RDM)|the fleet]]. She continues to light candles for fallen comrades in the Cylon attack. She is almost certain she will eventually die on a mission, and is more focused on taking out as many Cylons as she can before that happens ([[Final Cut]]).

Racetrack, along with many other pilots, intially snubs [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] upon his return because of his romantic relationship with the Caprica-originated copy of Sharon Valerii. After she insults [[Kara Thrace]] over the matter, Starbuck pushes Racetrack face-first into a card table ("[[Flight of the Phoenix]]"). Racetrack later congratulates Helo on his help with the [[Blackbird]], whose [[DRADIS]]-absorbing carbon composites Helo suggested, which serves as a quiet apology for her earlier rudeness.

[[Image:Racetrack2.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Edmonson on Raptor duty.]]
Racetrack is particularly overjoyed when ''Galactica'' encounters the [[Mercury class battlestar|advanced battlestar]] ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''. While she socializes with ''Pegasus'' pilots in the hangar bay, she fails to understand Starbuck's contempt for the "scorecards" on which they tally their kills ("[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]"). Racetrack's raptor rescues the unconscious Apollo during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], and she revives him using defibrilator paddles in her emergency gear ([[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]). When Racetrack transports Apollo and a squad of Marines to check the ''[[Daru Mozu]]'' for signs of sabotage by Cylon sympathizers, her vessel narrowly escapes the ensuing explosion ([[Epiphanies]]).

==Notes==

*Racetrack was probably created as a replacement for [[Crashdown]] and his role as ECO of the Raptor a given episode focuses on (as Crashdown himself was created as a replacement for [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] after he was stranded). Racetrack was introduced in the first season finale and the seeds of Crashdown's demise - signs of his incompetence for command while stranded on Kobol - were already planted in that episode.
*Racetrack's name was revealed in the episode "[[Final Cut]]".
*Ron Moore noted in his [[podcast]] of Racetrack's debut episode "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]" that she was only meant to be a one-shot character, like [[Karl Agathon|Helo]]. But, just as with [[Tahmoh Penikett]]'s performance in the [[Mini-Series]], the production staff and [[TPTB|the powers that be]] were so impressed with actress Leah Cairns' performance in the episode that they decided to keep her on as a new recurring character.

{{Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z|Edmonson, Margaret]]
[[Category:Characters|Edmonson, Margaret]]
[[Category:RDM|Edmonson, Margaret]]

User:Mayosolo

2006-01-25T18:07:50Z

Mayosolo: /* Current Projects */

{{Character Data|
|photo=[[Image:Mayosolo_pix.jpg|220px]]
|age=23
|colony=California
|birthname=Tim Carras
|servicen=
|callsign=Mayosolo
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=Girlfriend who loves science fiction!
|role=Contributor
|rank=
|actor=
|cylon=
}}

'''Tim Carras''' is a freelance [[Wikipedia:Visual effects|visual effects]] artist and [http://hollywoodtrash.net/ local] [[Wikipedia:Rock (music)|rockstar]] in [[Wikipedia:Culver City, California|Culver City, California]]. His guiltiest of secret pleasures is to correct other people's spelling, punctuation, usage, and grammar. Not surprisingly, he considers [[Wikipedia:Wiki|wikis]] a godsend.

== Current Projects ==
*Filling in gaps in screenshots and credits for episode entries.
**I would also like to expand the boilerplate to include the number of survivors listed in the opening credits (Season 2 only, I suppose).
***Done! And done adding the blank tag to all the other episodes that use the template... *whew* -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:42, 20 January 2006 (EST)
*Designing an alternative color scheme for the wiki.
*Shouting my opinions on the Standards and Conventions to anybody who will listen.

[[Category:Wikipedians|Mayosolo]]

Margaret Edmondson

2006-01-25T09:16:22Z

Mayosolo: Add headings, condense and reword newset prose. Do we need a larger blurb at the head?

{{Character Data|
|photo= [[Image:Bscap432.jpg|200px]]
|age=
|colony=
|birthname= Margaret Edmonson
|callsign= Racetrack
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role= [[Raptor]] [[ECO]], assigned to [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
|rank= Lieutenant (Junior Grade)
|actor= [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Leah+Cairns Leah Cairns]
|cylon=
}}

'''Lt. Margaret "Racetrack" Edmonson''' is a female [[ECO]] aboard [[battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''.

== Biography ==
Racetrack accompanies [[Sharon Valerii|LT (j.g.) Sharon "Boomer" Valerii]] on a mission to destroy a Cylon [[basestar (RDM)|basestar]]. She witnesses Boomer's attempted [[assassination]] of [[William Adama]] in ''Galactica's'' [[CIC]] ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]). Immediately after, she informs the CIC staff that Boomer returned from placing the nuclear warhead inside the basestar orbiting [[Kobol]] without her helmet on, and that she probably gave away ''Galactica's'' position to the Cylons ("[[Scattered]]").

Racetrack pilots the Raptor carrying [[Lee Adama]]'s [[SAR]] mission to Kobol, encountering fire from Cylon anti-aircraft missiles. [[Galen Tyrol]] fells the missiles' [[DRADIS]] dish on the surface, and they fail to lock on. Racetrack's Raptor then destroys the [[Cylon Centurian|Centurian]]s on the ground with a volley of missles, and recovers the trapped ''Galactica'' crewmen. ("[[Fragged]]")

Racetrack aids the escape of President [[Laura Roslin]] from the brig by falsely claiming that her Raptor was having technical problems, enabling the furloughed Lee Adama to report to the hangar bay instead of the brig per his arrest. She then helps prep the Raptor used as the escape craft for launch, but remains on ''Galactica'' ([[Resistance]]). On Boomer's death, Edmonson becomes the only person in the Fleet who has seen the inside of a basestar.

Racetrack serves as ECO on [[Raptor 1]], plotting the best point of orbital entry when taking Commander Adama to [[Kobol]] to find and meet with President Roslin ([[Home, Part II]]). Since then, Margaret flies basic supply runs between ''Galactica'' and [[The Fleet (RDM)|the fleet]]. She continues to light candles for fallen comrades in the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|Cylon attack]]. She is almost certain she will eventually die on a mission, and is more focused on taking out as many Cylons as she can before that happens ([[Final Cut]]).

Racetrack, along with many other pilots, intially snubs [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] upon his return because of his romantic relationship with the Caprica-originated copy of Sharon Valerii. After she insults [[Kara Thrace]] over the matter, Starbuck pushes Racetrack face-first into a card table ("[[Flight of the Phoenix]]"). Racetrack later congratulates Helo on his help with the [[Blackbird]], whose [[DRADIS]]-absorbing carbon composites Helo suggested, which serves as a quiet apology for her earlier rudeness.

[[Image:Racetrack2.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Edmonson on Raptor duty.]]
Racetrack is particularly overjoyed when ''Galactica'' encounters the [[Mercury class battlestar|advanced battlestar]] ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''. While she socializes with ''Pegasus'' pilots in the hangar bay, she fails to understand Starbuck's contempt for the "scorecards" on which they tally their kills ("[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]"). Racetrack's raptor rescues the unconscious Apollo during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], and she revives him using defibrilator paddles in her emergency gear ([[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]). When Racetrack transports Apollo and a squad of Marines to check the ''[[Daru Mozu]]'' for signs of sabotage by Cylon sympathizers, her vessel narrowly escapes the ensuing explosion ([[Epiphanies]]).

==Notes==

*Racetrack was probably created as a replacement for [[Crashdown]] and his role as ECO of the Raptor a given episode focuses on (as Crashdown himself was created as a replacement for [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] after he was stranded). Racetrack was introduced in the first season finale and the seeds of Crashdown's demise - signs of his incompetence for command while stranded on Kobol - were already planted in that episode.
*Racetrack's name was revealed in the episode "[[Final Cut]]".
*Ron Moore noted in his [[podcast]] of Racetrack's debut episode "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]" that she was only meant to be a one-shot character, like [[Karl Agathon|Helo]]. But, just as with [[Tahmoh Penikett]]'s performance in the [[Mini-Series]], the production staff and [[TPTB|the powers that be]] were so impressed with actress Leah Cairns' performance in the episode that they decided to keep her on as a new recurring character.

{{Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z|Edmonson, Margaret]]
[[Category:Characters|Edmonson, Margaret]]
[[Category:RDM|Edmonson, Margaret]]

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-25T08:56:22Z

Mayosolo: /* Discussion of Proposals */ fix indentation

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::The Cylon-Human Hybrid article cannot be created until after the episode in which it is born. It is BattlestarWiki's firm policy to categorically deny the "life begins at conception" viewpoint and instead support the life at birth viewpoint. An embryo which is little more than a clump of cells, the potential for life, yes, but not life. Regardless, following the tenets [[Naturalistic science fiction]], BSG supports "realistic" ''science'', as opposed to "opinions". Creating the article ''before'' the child is born would undermine ''BattlestarWiki's'' established stance against "life begins at conception", and creating it before the birth would be like holding up a big sign saying "we support Life-At-Conception". --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::I hope I'm not stepping into a political debate here, because that is not my aim at all. But can you provide support for your claim that BattlestarWiki has a firm policy on this topic? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 15:00, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::''Battlestar Wiki'' has no policy on the matter of the status of a fetus, Ricimer. This is a ''non-sequitur'' that actually worsened your position, not reinforced it. In short: Don't make stuff up. Everyone here can see and (and in most cases, edit) all policies. That said, jumping down to new thread and clarification... --15:37, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::No, no, sorry; I was being really sarcastic. Sorry, I thought everyone could tell. Well, if not, "that life at conception is a policy thing I just wrote was just a sarcastic joke". I appologize for the inconvenience. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:06, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:To Spencerian's points on terminology: (1) The lack of a solid canonical term is a valid argument for keeping the old term ''only until a new term is agreed upon''. Clearly we do not wish to frivolously or rashly change the Wiki; hence this discussion. (2) The difficulty of the task is not a disqualifier, as Ricimer has stepped forward to take it on, and I'm certain others of our cadre will pitch in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but could not a search-and-replace bot easily change such a unique term as "Humano-Cylon"? (3) I don't see how this represents an exception for Sharon Valerii. I believe we're talking about replacing the term globally. Can you elaborate on this point? (4) If you are waiting for the characters to realize cylons are not merely machines to be shut down, I assume you are referring to the mainstream colonial opinion. There are plenty of characters (Helo, Baltar, all of the Cylons, and [[Demand Peace]], who give them a bit more credit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:57, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Thanks for the clariification. On the work front, of course, the changing of the terms throughout isn't an impossible undertaking, but note that once a term is in use, it's hard to stop. In the case of the Cylons of RDM, an article is already there. To make the changes, we have to go all the way for all pages or not at all to ensure that referencing info, as well as the info itself, remains consistent. Ricimer's point #4, which I've suggested on the Valerii page, using [[Sharon Valerii]] as a disambig/parent page where subarticles for supporting characters that have appeared should keep article sizes down while organizing data well. I'm all for this idea the more I think of it. "Sharon Valerii" is like a class of ship (all generally the same), but each ship has a characteristic identity (Boomer, Caprica-Valerii), thus the parent page and subarticles for all major players. Sorry if I confused you on my thoughts on this.

::The Cylons, be they truly biological and not to be treated as machine, are still the central adversary of the Colonials. While the characters can make their judgements on what they see the Cylons to be, we as wikipedians just report what we see, ultimately--we don't make the "news". In other words, if Adama (who runs the Fleet) sees the Cylons as a threat, they still have to be reported here in that light. Helo and others may have differing opinions, which should also be added. We must spin interpretation very cautiously and not to interpret it as fact. With that, I'm in favor of "Cylon agent" (the most commonly used term in the show, IMO) for a H-O replacement, but still, "Cylons (no suffix)" may also have merit. Current aliases are still OK, but the convention would be for that. I also suggest that we form parent/child pages for each of the Cylons (see, I'm doing it already now that I understand the subtle point) to avoid confusion and oversized articles. This also prevents issues with over hyphenations: Picon-Valerii, Tauron-Valerii, Cheese Whiz-Valerii..you get the idea. And when/if the baby is born, she gets her own page as she will be quite unique (I hope). To keep from this thread going crazy again, let's go for support/oppose tags at your replies from here, with your suggestions on how or what to do with terms and page design. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:37, 24 January 2006 (EST)

===Proposal===
There will be no special term for the human models. All references to Cylons in the Re-imagined series will be taken to refer to the humans, unless prefaced with "Centurion" or other relevant distinguisher. This is in line with the show's own usage, and avoids creating a non-canon term.

The article [[Humano-Cylon]] will be deleted. Its content will be merged into [[Cylon Models]], the individual overview pages for each cylon model, and a new page on potential cylon agents, with the previously discussed "whitelist" and "graylist" sections, as relevant.

Links to Humano-Cylon will be redirected to the [[Cylons (RDM)]] article cover-page (which will be spruced up, but probably remain fairly spare), or to various subsections, as appropriate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:55, 24 January 2006 (EST)

===Counter-Proposal===
The human-appearing models of Cylon are indeed distinct enough that they deserve a special term. All references to Cylons in the re-imagined series don't necessarily refer to the humanoid models (we have no idea how these things are deployed, and in context, whe Lt. Gaeta shouts "Cylons incoming!" he's not talking about humanoid Cylons floating in space). Plent of times on the show they have made a distinction between the "mechanical variety" and "the human variety", so the "Proposal" would not, in fact, be "in line" with the show's own usage.

The article "[[Humano-Cylon]]" will remain entirely intact, but have its ''name'' changed to something else (my suggestiong would be "humanoid Cylons", but someone else might be able to come up with a better name and some ideas were tossed around above, etc). The contents of "Humano-Cylons" will not be merged. The ''already existing'' overview Character pages for the humanoid Cylon models will remain intact as they are now. There will be no new page for potential humanoid Cylons; it will remain a sub-section of the article dealing with the humanoid Cylons (as it is now). If by "whitelist" and "graylist" it is meant "people we suspect of being humanoid Cylons" and "people who it has been proven could not possibly be humanoid Cylons", such sub-headings will be added into the list of suspected Cylon Agents on "Humanoid Cylons".

Links to "Humano-Cylon" will be redirected to the new term ("Humanoid Cylon", for example, pending consensus on name). Humanoid Cylons models that have developed distinct personalities that have made them unique Characters on the show will be separated into having their own Character pages, while a stubb about these individual copies will be made in the article dealing with that particular "model" (as well as a link). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:38, 25 January 2006 (EST)

===Discussion of Proposals===
I think we may be trying to decide too many things at once. I think it would be much easier to make this decision in a couple of steps:

: A. Move all discussion of creating copy-specific pages on specific models to [[Talk:Sharon Valerii#Keeping Track of the Valeriis]], just so it doesn't get so confusing here. Really, that's the only character we're considering doing this to and once we make a decision on her, we can make that a policy without much discussion here.

: B. Do we want to change the term?

: C. What do we want to change it to?

: D. What does that entail?/Plan of Action/Enact PoA.

Now, I would not be opposed to changing the term. I agree it could be a bit confusing when/if Sharon delivers us a little halfling. One thing that's not been brought up when speaking of work load is the fact that not all references to Humano-cylons are links. So they'll be harder to track down than, say, all occurances of "Thrace, Kara". So, there'll be a lot of hand-searching, if you take my meaning, to be done. That being said, I don't think that's a reason not to change, really. What we ''do'' here is edit stuff.

On the point of C (really we could do my steps B and C together, without ''too'' much confusion), I support the change to simply Cylon. In a vast majority of cases context will make it readily apparent whether we're talking about Simon or a raider. In the few cases where we'll have to be more specific, then I think we could use "humanoid Cylon" or a "human-type Cylon" or "a Cylon of the human variety" (if you're not into the whole "brevity" thing) or any number of other circumlocutions that need not be standardized. As for changing the article name, we could make it "Cylon (human type)". I think it should continue to be an independant article because raiders and basestars have articles of their own... We just don't know what to call it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:15, 25 January 2006 (EST)

:What about putting it on the front page of [[Cylons (RDM)]]? We could list capsule descriptions of the known models there, just like The Twelve Colonies lists the individual colonies. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:21, 25 January 2006 (EST)

:For me, part of the elegance of using the simple term "Cylon" is that it doesn't limit itself to the human-looking ones, but that context will take care of that for us nearly every time. Clearly, "cylons approaching" does not mean space-walking humanoids. But neither does "Tigh is a Cylon" imply Tigh may be a centurion, or a Basestar. Let's give folks some credit. Also, I must have been confused - I didn't realize we were only discussing branching the pages for Sharon. I think at the very least, Baltar's-Psychosis-Six and Gina have different enough agenda to merit different pages. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:51, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-25T08:51:34Z

Mayosolo: /* Discussion of Proposals */ simple Cylon

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::The Cylon-Human Hybrid article cannot be created until after the episode in which it is born. It is BattlestarWiki's firm policy to categorically deny the "life begins at conception" viewpoint and instead support the life at birth viewpoint. An embryo which is little more than a clump of cells, the potential for life, yes, but not life. Regardless, following the tenets [[Naturalistic science fiction]], BSG supports "realistic" ''science'', as opposed to "opinions". Creating the article ''before'' the child is born would undermine ''BattlestarWiki's'' established stance against "life begins at conception", and creating it before the birth would be like holding up a big sign saying "we support Life-At-Conception". --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::I hope I'm not stepping into a political debate here, because that is not my aim at all. But can you provide support for your claim that BattlestarWiki has a firm policy on this topic? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 15:00, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::''Battlestar Wiki'' has no policy on the matter of the status of a fetus, Ricimer. This is a ''non-sequitur'' that actually worsened your position, not reinforced it. In short: Don't make stuff up. Everyone here can see and (and in most cases, edit) all policies. That said, jumping down to new thread and clarification... --15:37, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::No, no, sorry; I was being really sarcastic. Sorry, I thought everyone could tell. Well, if not, "that life at conception is a policy thing I just wrote was just a sarcastic joke". I appologize for the inconvenience. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:06, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:To Spencerian's points on terminology: (1) The lack of a solid canonical term is a valid argument for keeping the old term ''only until a new term is agreed upon''. Clearly we do not wish to frivolously or rashly change the Wiki; hence this discussion. (2) The difficulty of the task is not a disqualifier, as Ricimer has stepped forward to take it on, and I'm certain others of our cadre will pitch in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but could not a search-and-replace bot easily change such a unique term as "Humano-Cylon"? (3) I don't see how this represents an exception for Sharon Valerii. I believe we're talking about replacing the term globally. Can you elaborate on this point? (4) If you are waiting for the characters to realize cylons are not merely machines to be shut down, I assume you are referring to the mainstream colonial opinion. There are plenty of characters (Helo, Baltar, all of the Cylons, and [[Demand Peace]], who give them a bit more credit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:57, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Thanks for the clariification. On the work front, of course, the changing of the terms throughout isn't an impossible undertaking, but note that once a term is in use, it's hard to stop. In the case of the Cylons of RDM, an article is already there. To make the changes, we have to go all the way for all pages or not at all to ensure that referencing info, as well as the info itself, remains consistent. Ricimer's point #4, which I've suggested on the Valerii page, using [[Sharon Valerii]] as a disambig/parent page where subarticles for supporting characters that have appeared should keep article sizes down while organizing data well. I'm all for this idea the more I think of it. "Sharon Valerii" is like a class of ship (all generally the same), but each ship has a characteristic identity (Boomer, Caprica-Valerii), thus the parent page and subarticles for all major players. Sorry if I confused you on my thoughts on this.

::The Cylons, be they truly biological and not to be treated as machine, are still the central adversary of the Colonials. While the characters can make their judgements on what they see the Cylons to be, we as wikipedians just report what we see, ultimately--we don't make the "news". In other words, if Adama (who runs the Fleet) sees the Cylons as a threat, they still have to be reported here in that light. Helo and others may have differing opinions, which should also be added. We must spin interpretation very cautiously and not to interpret it as fact. With that, I'm in favor of "Cylon agent" (the most commonly used term in the show, IMO) for a H-O replacement, but still, "Cylons (no suffix)" may also have merit. Current aliases are still OK, but the convention would be for that. I also suggest that we form parent/child pages for each of the Cylons (see, I'm doing it already now that I understand the subtle point) to avoid confusion and oversized articles. This also prevents issues with over hyphenations: Picon-Valerii, Tauron-Valerii, Cheese Whiz-Valerii..you get the idea. And when/if the baby is born, she gets her own page as she will be quite unique (I hope). To keep from this thread going crazy again, let's go for support/oppose tags at your replies from here, with your suggestions on how or what to do with terms and page design. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:37, 24 January 2006 (EST)

===Proposal===
There will be no special term for the human models. All references to Cylons in the Re-imagined series will be taken to refer to the humans, unless prefaced with "Centurion" or other relevant distinguisher. This is in line with the show's own usage, and avoids creating a non-canon term.

The article [[Humano-Cylon]] will be deleted. Its content will be merged into [[Cylon Models]], the individual overview pages for each cylon model, and a new page on potential cylon agents, with the previously discussed "whitelist" and "graylist" sections, as relevant.

Links to Humano-Cylon will be redirected to the [[Cylons (RDM)]] article cover-page (which will be spruced up, but probably remain fairly spare), or to various subsections, as appropriate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:55, 24 January 2006 (EST)

===Counter-Proposal===
The human-appearing models of Cylon are indeed distinct enough that they deserve a special term. All references to Cylons in the re-imagined series don't necessarily refer to the humanoid models (we have no idea how these things are deployed, and in context, whe Lt. Gaeta shouts "Cylons incoming!" he's not talking about humanoid Cylons floating in space). Plent of times on the show they have made a distinction between the "mechanical variety" and "the human variety", so the "Proposal" would not, in fact, be "in line" with the show's own usage.

The article "[[Humano-Cylon]]" will remain entirely intact, but have its ''name'' changed to something else (my suggestiong would be "humanoid Cylons", but someone else might be able to come up with a better name and some ideas were tossed around above, etc). The contents of "Humano-Cylons" will not be merged. The ''already existing'' overview Character pages for the humanoid Cylon models will remain intact as they are now. There will be no new page for potential humanoid Cylons; it will remain a sub-section of the article dealing with the humanoid Cylons (as it is now). If by "whitelist" and "graylist" it is meant "people we suspect of being humanoid Cylons" and "people who it has been proven could not possibly be humanoid Cylons", such sub-headings will be added into the list of suspected Cylon Agents on "Humanoid Cylons".

Links to "Humano-Cylon" will be redirected to the new term ("Humanoid Cylon", for example, pending consensus on name). Humanoid Cylons models that have developed distinct personalities that have made them unique Characters on the show will be separated into having their own Character pages, while a stubb about these individual copies will be made in the article dealing with that particular "model" (as well as a link). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:38, 25 January 2006 (EST)

===Discussion of Proposals===
I think we may be trying to decide too many things at once. I think it would be much easier to make this decision in a couple of steps:

: A. Move all discussion of creating copy-specific pages on specific models to [[Talk:Sharon Valerii#Keeping Track of the Valeriis]], just so it doesn't get so confusing here. Really, that's the only character we're considering doing this to and once we make a decision on her, we can make that a policy without much discussion here.

: B. Do we want to change the term?

: C. What do we want to change it to?

: D. What does that entail?/Plan of Action/Enact PoA.

Now, I would not be opposed to changing the term. I agree it could be a bit confusing when/if Sharon delivers us a little halfling. One thing that's not been brought up when speaking of work load is the fact that not all references to Humano-cylons are links. So they'll be harder to track down than, say, all occurances of "Thrace, Kara". So, there'll be a lot of hand-searching, if you take my meaning, to be done. That being said, I don't think that's a reason not to change, really. What we ''do'' here is edit stuff.

On the point of C (really we could do my steps B and C together, without ''too'' much confusion), I support the change to simply Cylon. In a vast majority of cases context will make it readily apparent whether we're talking about Simon or a raider. In the few cases where we'll have to be more specific, then I think we could use "humanoid Cylon" or a "human-type Cylon" or "a Cylon of the human variety" (if you're not into the whole "brevity" thing) or any number of other circumlocutions that need not be standardized. As for changing the article name, we could make it "Cylon (human type)". I think it should continue to be an independant article because raiders and basestars have articles of their own... We just don't know what to call it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:15, 25 January 2006 (EST)

:What about putting it on the front page of [[Cylons (RDM)]]? We could list capsule descriptions of the known models there, just like The Twelve Colonies lists the individual colonies. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:21, 25 January 2006 (EST)

::For me, part of the elegance of using the simple term "Cylon" is that it doesn't limit itself to the human-looking ones, but that context will take care of that for us nearly every time. Clearly, "cylons approaching" does not mean space-walking humanoids. But neither does "Tigh is a Cylon" imply Tigh may be a centurion, or a Basestar. Let's give folks some credit. Also, I must have been confused - I didn't realize we were only discussing branching the pages for Sharon. I think at the very least, Baltar's-Psychosis-Six and Gina have different enough agenda to merit different pages. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:51, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T20:07:40Z

Mayosolo: /* Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon" */ clarifying my point

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::The Cylon-Human Hybrid article cannot be created until after the episode in which it is born. It is BattlestarWiki's firm policy to categorically deny the "life begins at conception" viewpoint and instead support the life at birth viewpoint. An embryo which is little more than a clump of cells, the potential for life, yes, but not life. Regardless, following the tenets [[Naturalistic science fiction]], BSG supports "realistic" ''science'', as opposed to "opinions". Creating the article ''before'' the child is born would undermine ''BattlestarWiki's'' established stance against "life begins at conception", and creating it before the birth would be like holding up a big sign saying "we support Life-At-Conception". --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::I hope I'm not stepping into a political debate here, because that is not my aim at all. But can you provide support for your claim that BattlestarWiki has a firm policy on this topic? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 15:00, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:To Spencerian's points on terminology: (1) The lack of a solid canonical term is a valid argument for keeping the old term ''only until a new term is agreed upon''. Clearly we do not wish to frivolously or rashly change the Wiki; hence this discussion. (2) The difficulty of the task is not a disqualifier, as Ricimer has stepped forward to take it on, and I'm certain others of our cadre will pitch in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but could not a search-and-replace bot easily change such a unique term as "Humano-Cylon"? (3) I don't see how this represents an exception for Sharon Valerii. I believe we're talking about replacing the term globally. Can you elaborate on this point? (4) If you are waiting for the characters to realize cylons are not merely machines to be shut down, I assume you are referring to the mainstream colonial opinion. There are plenty of characters (Helo, Baltar, all of the Cylons, and [[Demand Peace]], who give them a bit more credit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:57, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T20:04:18Z

Mayosolo: /* Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon" */ remove my gentle reminder

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::The Cylon-Human Hybrid article cannot be created until after the episode in which it is born. It is BattlestarWiki's firm policy to categorically deny the "life begins at conception" viewpoint and instead support the life at birth viewpoint. An embryo which is little more than a clump of cells, the potential for life, yes, but not life. Regardless, following the tenets [[Naturalistic science fiction]], BSG supports "realistic" ''science'', as opposed to "opinions". Creating the article ''before'' the child is born would undermine ''BattlestarWiki's'' established stance against "life begins at conception", and creating it before the birth would be like holding up a big sign saying "we support Life-At-Conception". --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::I hope I'm not stepping into a political debate here, because that is not my aim at all. But can you provide support for your claim that BattlestarWiki has a firm policy on this topic? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 15:00, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:To Spencerian's points on terminology: (1) The lack of a solid canonical term is a valid argument for keeping the old term ''only until a new term is agreed upon''. (2) The difficulty of the task is not a disqualifier, as Ricimer has stepped forward to take it on, and I'm certain others of our cadre will pitch in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but could not a search-and-replace bot easily change such a unique term as "Humano-Cylon"? (3) I don't see how this represents an exception for Sharon Valerii. I believe we're talking about replacing the term globally. Can you elaborate on this point? (4) If you are waiting for the characters to realize cylons are not merely machines to be shut down, I assume you are referring to the mainstream colonial opinion. There are plenty of characters (Helo, Baltar, all of the Cylons, and [[Demand Peace]], who give them a bit more credit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:57, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T20:00:25Z

Mayosolo: /* Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon" */ documentation, please

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::The Cylon-Human Hybrid article cannot be created until after the episode in which it is born. It is BattlestarWiki's firm policy to categorically deny the "life begins at contraception" viewpoint and instead support the life at birth viewpoint. An embryo which is little more than a clump of cells, the potential for life, yes, but not life. Regardless, following the tenets [[Naturalistic science fiction]], BSG supports "realistic" ''science'', as opposed to "opinions". Creating the article ''before'' the child is born would undermine ''BattlestarWiki's'' established stance against "life begins at contraception", and creating it before the birth would be like holding up a big sign saying "we support Life-At-Contraception". --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::::I hope I'm not stepping into a political debate here, because that is not my aim at all. But can you provide support for your claim that BattlestarWiki has a firm policy on this topic? Also, please recall the distinction between "conception" and "contraception." -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 15:00, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:To Spencerian's points on terminology: (1) The lack of a solid canonical term is a valid argument for keeping the old term ''only until a new term is agreed upon''. (2) The difficulty of the task is not a disqualifier, as Ricimer has stepped forward to take it on, and I'm certain others of our cadre will pitch in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but could not a search-and-replace bot easily change such a unique term as "Humano-Cylon"? (3) I don't see how this represents an exception for Sharon Valerii. I believe we're talking about replacing the term globally. Can you elaborate on this point? (4) If you are waiting for the characters to realize cylons are not merely machines to be shut down, I assume you are referring to the mainstream colonial opinion. There are plenty of characters (Helo, Baltar, all of the Cylons, and [[Demand Peace]], who give them a bit more credit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:57, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T19:57:28Z

Mayosolo: /* Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon" */ terminology

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::::The Cylon-Human Hybrid article cannot be created until after the episode in which it is born. It is BattlestarWiki's firm policy to categorically deny the "life begins at contraception" viewpoint and instead support the life at birth viewpoint. An embryo which is little more than a clump of cells, the potential for life, yes, but not life. Regardless, following the tenets [[Naturalistic science fiction]], BSG supports "realistic" ''science'', as opposed to "opinions". Creating the article ''before'' the child is born would undermine ''BattlestarWiki's'' established stance against "life begins at contraception", and creating it before the birth would be like holding up a big sign saying "we support Life-At-Contraception". --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:To Spencerian's points on terminology: (1) The lack of a solid canonical term is a valid argument for keeping the old term ''only until a new term is agreed upon''. (2) The difficulty of the task is not a disqualifier, as Ricimer has stepped forward to take it on, and I'm certain others of our cadre will pitch in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but could not a search-and-replace bot easily change such a unique term as "Humano-Cylon"? (3) I don't see how this represents an exception for Sharon Valerii. I believe we're talking about replacing the term globally. Can you elaborate on this point? (4) If you are waiting for the characters to realize cylons are not merely machines to be shut down, I assume you are referring to the mainstream colonial opinion. There are plenty of characters (Helo, Baltar, all of the Cylons, and [[Demand Peace]], who give them a bit more credit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:57, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T19:39:06Z

Mayosolo: /* Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon" */ Fetal bio

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:: Well, yes, I think it would be a bad idea to expect all Wiki contributers to know how to follow strict and to take the time to do it (we use tables for a lot of our formatting stuff), but While we have the Transitional Doctype, I think we should try to do at least that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:33, 24 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)
::That is a good point, and a surprisingly elegant solution. I approve. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 09:54, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::This is long, so forgive me, but there are important issues that change our nature that I cannot agree to.

::Let's deal with the terminology change first. I had my qualms about "humano-Cylon" when I first saw it, but it is an efficient term to differentiate these beings from robotic Cylons here, especially given that the show has not really furnished a unique term. "Cylon Agent" is the closest that the show has used, with "human models" and "Cylon humans" after that. ''Battlestar Wiki'' has many articles that use descriptive terms as placeholders in lieu of a canonical name: "[[Presidential security service]]", "[[Identification Tags]]", and "[[Colonial wireless alphabet]]" are other examples. "Cylon agent" can be used as a placeholder redirect if one is tired of typing it, but we need more reason than "we don't like the term" to change "Humano-Cylon" now, as it appears on many, ''many'' articles here. And frankly, it's grown large enough that purging it will be very difficult. Our naming conventions are here for a reason, so making exceptions for the Sharon Valeriis diminishes our effectiveness as an encyclopedia, which MUST NOT be ambiguous, strive to keep to the basic definition and not wallow about in subdefinitions as an unnecessary article into itself--which is what you are proposing. "Humano-Cylon" is ''very'' popular here, and what goes on in the "outside world" doesn't really matter in the context of maintaining this wiki, so long as others can use their own terms and we provide appropriate redirects to our article as appropriate. I understand the spirit of what you're suggesting, but we lack a sufficient "why", in my opinion. Although I see a good reasoning between what are "Cylons" in RDM and what are "robot Cylons" that can withstand further debate, I think we should adjust the wiki as the characters do: when the characters begin to see the Cylons with human traits and not a machine to be shut down, our data here should reflect it. Otherwise, differentiating them to any large degree would be like writing bios on the "Borg" drones from "Star Trek." No point, as they are all generally the same.

::Two: Sharon's baby has '''not been born yet'''. Do ''not'' assume it will come to term. Imagine the holy hell that the Cylons will unleash if they learn that it ''doesn't''. Imagine the political hell in the Fleet if it ''does''. Either way works well for the writers, so we can't make the assumption. Ron Moore has promised some radical changes for the Fleet at the end of this season, and much of this could involve that child to be. Once we know for certain that this hybrid is born and is even given a name, then a page is quite appropriate and necessary. But until then, creating an article for this or any other hybrids or proposed character to-be goes against our sourcing policies (it's speculation until shown in an episode) and is premature (no pun intended).

::Three: To differentiate between the Valerii's and other Cylon agents is asking for trouble at present. They are identical in creation and mission; if they begin to vary on that mission, a subarticle is written. The [[Number Six]] article shows at least three variations and it appears to work well. Now, a number of articles are becoming long, true. But, as a wiki, we haven't created a policy yet as to how to break up or concise such data as it relates to these character bios. We ''have'' worked out a process for the [[Cylons (RDM)]] and [[Twelve Colonies (RDM)]] article series, which could be adopted for the characters with some thought. Changes that are more POV or assumptive like these, and less in form to the wiki's overall format or mission are detrimental, IMO. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::I don't think the show has yet provided a canonical term to distinguish the "human models" from the more mechanical models. I think "Cylon Agent" would be a good placeholder/redirect, but that's based on the writing on a folder and not consistent adoption within the show. One thing that hasn't been established well (at least in my mind) is WHO the Cylons are. Are the humanoid-cylons the new, REAL cylons (with centurions, raiders, etc. serving their interests)? Or are all models part of a true "Cylon collective" (resistance is futile) where everybody is considered equally "Cylon". If the humano-Cylons prove to be the "real" Cylons, then I would see them taking more of a prominent role at Cylons (RDM). Until then, I think that any term we use is just serving as a placeholder.

:::Even if Sharon's offspring (I'm not sure if baby is the right word) comes to term and is born, I'm not sure that Cylon-human hybrids deserve an article of their own. Peanut butter gets an article, and jelly gets an article. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches even get an article (being a distinct, important, and common combination of the other two). However, just because somebody once made a peanut butter and tuna sandwich doesn't mean that it necesarily would merit an article. The offspring would DEFINITELY merit its own article, but until proven otherwise would be a unique proof-of-concept. All information about her would represent the totality of what we know about the hybrids, until such time that more hybrids come into being. (That is if she even comes into being. Adama may yet "drown the baby in the pond.") --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::::A note on the offspring: perhaps it would be fun to create a short, amusing-but-still-relevant biography page for the fetus ("prebiography"?), noting its (can we say "her" because Sharon said so?) unique physiological properties, Baltar and Six's fascination with her, political ramifications of her delivery or lack thereof. A nod, if you will, to the "life begins at conception" faithful. I realize such a page could easily become political, insulting, or trivial, but I think it's worth a shot. Treating the subject like a regular character bio affords plenty of oppurtunity for ironic humor as well, as with the [[Toaster]] article. Yeah? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 14:39, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:::As for the Valerii problem... I think that's going to be a tricky issue. "Caprica" Valerii does seem to behave distinctly differently from "Galactica" Valerii, and both of those differently than the other "Caprica"/command Valerii. I'm not sure it has been definitively proven whether they are unique individuals, or whether they are just playing different roles based on what the mission calls for. Personally I like the current grouping by "model", though I might more seriously rethink if their individuality/uniqueness is eventually proven. I think "Downloaded" would be pretty decisive (if it hasn't been canceled as rumored).

:::Feel free to copy my sig to any of these if you need to repond to an individual issue. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:38, 24 January 2006 (EST)

A few points to clarify:

'''One''': I didn't suggest this simply because I "don't like" the term "Humano-Cylon". I was actually okay with the continued use of it, until the Hybrids came along. The ''*ENTIRE*'' reason I have raised this issue of changing the name is officially "'''I think it will get confused with the Cylon-Human Hybrid'''". Just wanted to clarify that.

'''Two''': I did not expect the pages to be changed immediately, and I understand that Caprica-Sharon's daughter hasn't been born yet: The reason I ''put foward'' the issue now, is so that we could have a lenghty amount of time to debate the issue and set up parameters and rules for this change here, in advance, so there will be less confusion later. Never too early to debate. I wanted to get the ball rolling.

'''Three''': Regardling the popularity and practical removal of "Humano-Cylon": How do we know it was ever "very popular"? I only used it because it was the term that this wiki was already using when I got here. Curious, can we have a show of votes here of who actually "likes" the term enough to keep it? (largely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just saying; How can we quantify it as "popular", when in the earliest days ("In the Long-Long Ago"...) BattlestarWiki used that name and redirected all future references to these begins to that page. ''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc''.

What I meant by stating that it's "not used much outsite of BattlestarWiki" is that I mean it isn't based on anything outside of this wiki, ***so we can feel free to change it without being fettered by external constraints. I mean that changing it will not contradict other material out there.

As for "practical removal", recently we gutted this entire wiki updating "Commander Adama" to "William Adama" following his promotion to Admiral. If such as pervasive name as Commander Adama can be replaced and revised, surely there will be not so great difficulty in replacing "Humano-Cylon" with "humanoid Cylon", etc. (That's my personal choice, but any other name that ''doesn't'' sound like "Humalon" or something (the Hybrid confusion, etc) would be okay after a vote).

'''Four''': The separation of Cylon copies with distinct personalities into different character pages. I was willing to ignore this through season 1, but after hearing about "Downloaded" I realized that we'd have ''two'' copies of Sharon, each distinct from both the other standard Sharon-copies AND each other, on the show. And the more I thought about it, the more I think they have finally reached the point where they need to be considered separate major characters with their own pages. ***Again, we can do this after "Downloaded" airs, I just wanted to get discussion started now, so we know what to do ahead of time. Yes, I did PLAY AROUND with creating separate pages for both two days ago (after which made the request here in standards and practices), but at the time I wanted to raise interest in the issue and experiment with how this would work.

Thoughts?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T10:21:05Z

Mayosolo: /* Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon" */ Chiming in. Ricimer, I copied your sig to all 3 paragraphs to address them individually.

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)
:I agree that Humano-Cylon should go. The term initially struck me as clumsy, though I didn't question it because it was so widespread in the Wiki. I wonder if we could get by with plain old "Cylon" when the context is clearly RDM; Centurions, after all, are usually called out as such. Within the world of the show, the usual term seems to be Cylon. I also feel we should avoid adopting other contrived portmanteaux (Humalon et al.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

:I also agree we should split the Cylon copies. Perhaps (using your example) the "Sharon Valerii" page might well be nothing more than a disambiguation, and contributers would be encouraged to link directly to "Sharon Valerii (Galactica)" or "Sharon Valerii (Caprica)". Migrating all the links would be a substantial project, but one I feel is worth taking, and sooner the better. As for naming convention - it might not work every time, but perhaps the location where that copy is first introduced? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 05:21, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Template talk:IPA

2006-01-24T09:36:55Z

Mayosolo: my say

== IPA Style ==
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#IPA style|Wikipedia]] recomments placing a link before IPA text becuase the underscore makes reading the characters difficult. Is there a way to modify this template to comply? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 16:41, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:Yes, but I think that would look cluttery. What would you think of selectively removing the underline on IPA spans? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:49, 23 January 2006 (EST)

::Cosmetically, I agree about the clutter, particularly where there are several IPAs in a row. But I'm torn against my (perhaps undeserved) loyalty to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I'm unsure whether it's technically feasible to change the CSS for all skins (including users' custom skins), though I am admittedly not an expert. From a design standpoint, it seems incongruous to change the appearance of one specific class. But none of these objections is going to drive me crazy. Honestly, it was a fairly picayune complaint in the first place. I've said my piece, and I cast it upon the winds of consensus. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:36, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Felix Gaeta

2006-01-24T09:27:30Z

Mayosolo: /* Note */ I missed one.

{{Character Data|
|photo= [[Image:Kobols_Last_Gleaming_pt2-Gaeta.jpg|200px]]
|age=
|colony=
|birthname= Felix Gaeta
|callsign=
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role=[[Tactical Officer]], Senior Officer of the Watch, [[CIC]], [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
|rank= Lieutenant
|actor=[[Alessandro Juliani]]
|cylon=
}}

Lieutenant '''Felix Gaeta''' {{IPA|ˈgeɪ.tə}} is a young, capable officer in the Colonial military. For the three years prior to the [[Cylon attack]] on the [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)|Twelve Colonies]], he has served as [[William Adama]]'s Senior Officer of the Watch aboard battlestar ''[[Galactica]]''.

Prior to the attack, he was studying biogenetics and planned to get a degree through the military extension program ([[Water]]).

He exhibits a strong attention to detail and is highly efficient. These tendencies and his overall ability have led William Adama to rely heavily on him as a member of ''Galactica's'' command crew, despite his relative youth and junior rank.

As well as performing the role of Tactical Officer, Gaeta also manages the ship's [[FTL]] systems, including the calculation and initiation of Jumps. Gaeta also manages the needs of the various primary [[Computers|computer systems]] used on the battlestar.

==Remarkable Brillance==

As a result of his studies in biogenetics, Lt. Gaeta is selected by Adama to assist Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]] in the development of the much-needed [[Cylon detector]] following the Cylon attack([[Water]]). During his time working with Baltar, Gaeta develops a certain respect and liking for the doctor - despite the latter's apparent eccentricities. When a woman called "[[Number Six#Shelly Godfrey|Shelley Godfrey]]" arrives on-board ''Galactica'', Gaeta works hard to prove Baltar's innocence of the charges levelled against him ([[Six Degrees of Separation]]). Although he is ultimately successful, Gaeta fails to follow-up on the fact that the photographic evidence supplied by "Shelly Godfrey" looked as if the evidence itself had been faked in a way that ensured it was exposed as a forgery.

Gaeta shows his remarkable brilliance after ''Galactica'' mistakenly Jumps to a different set of coordinates than the rest of [[The Fleet (RDM)|the Fleet]] to escape a Cylon attack ([[Scattered]]). The [[FTL]] computers compensate for spatial changes, but due to the chaos after [[William Adama|Commander Adama]] is shot by [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]], Gaeta does not have time to synchronize the spatial positioning with the rest of the Fleet, whose FTL computers had collectively different information. Complicating the issue, if ''Galactica'' returns to their original position, the Cylons would destroy the ship before it could retrieve the correct Fleet coordinates using standard procedure.

Gaeta blames himself (although [[Saul Tigh]] did not), but later realizes that by networking four computers of the ship (something Commander Adama may never have approved), he could reduce the coordinate calculation time from hours to minutes. Knowing the Cylons would try to crack his ''ad hoc'' network, Gaeta sets up five [[Wikipedia:Firewall (networking)|firewalls]] in the network to slow their progress while the ship's guns and Vipers buy the needed time to calculate. Unfortunately for Gaeta, the firewalls are not completely effective. Several power and CIC systems were disabled by a Cylon infection while [[Cylon Centurion]]s board the ship ([[Valley of Darkness]]). Gaeta scrambles to purge the systems of any remaining traces of the [[Virus|virus]].

==Under Pressure==

Gaeta's calm exterior shows signs of wear when his interview with [[D'anna Biers]] shows him somewhat drunk, smoking, and brandishing a rather garish tattoo of a tiger ([[Final Cut]]). Viewers learn from the footage that Gaeta's first name is Felix.

The Cylon virus rears its ugly head once more a few weeks later when shipboard malfunctions increase to a point where consoles begin to sputter and short out. Gaeta confirms that the same virus they thought they had removed from the formerly-networked computers had metamorphized into a heuristic program--a [[Logic bomb|logic bomb]]--that studied and probed flaws in the battlestar's computers and the hardware that each system manages. The logic bomb threatened to disable the ship's human control on a Cylon fighter's command--and a Cylon attack force was imminent.

After Colonel Tigh's command to perform the daunting task of inspecting many lines of computer code for a Cylon virus, the young lieutenant completely loses his cool:

:'''Gaeta''': A power surge energized the board. System's been twitchy ever since the Cylons infiltrated our network. 
:'''Tigh''': Commander's right. I don't care if you have to go through this program line by line; fix it. 
:'''Gaeta''': Excuse me? 
:'''Tigh''': You heard me. 
:'''Gaeta''': Sir, I'm running every diagnostic we've got. Checking each line of code could take days. 
:'''Tigh''': I am not interested in excuses. Fix it! 
:'''Gaeta''': It's not an excuse, sir. It's a [[frak|frakking]] fact! 

Everyone on the bridge, especially Commander Adama, is shocked by Gaeta's highly uncharacteristic outburst, but Adama is not particularly surprised, knowing that everyone on ''Galactica'' has low morale after working for months with no relief or change to their routine.

Gaeta has a solution for the logic bomb: Wipe all computer hard drives and restore them from backups made before the Cylon attack. The problem in doing this is that ''Galactica'' will be completely vulnerable to attack, save for her Viper fighters, for several minutes as her computers are rebuilt.

Against his instincts and on [[Laura Roslin]]'s advice, Adama opts to use the unique abilities of the cooperative Caprica copy of [[Sharon Valerii]] to aid them. Gaeta gives the humanoid Cylon a fiber-optic data link with access to the battlestar mainframe computer and the ship's communications. After a few tense moments, Valerii asks Gaeta to perform the computer hard drive wipe after taking into her computer/brain a copy of the Cylon virus. She manipulates it and transmits to the massive incoming Cylon fleet, disabling the entire Cylon fleet in the same way that the Colonials suffered in the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]. The Colonial forces [[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot|destroy the entire Cylon force]] without a single Colonial casualty ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]).

Gaeta is among the tense officers and crew in CIC that witness a standoff between their battlestar and the heavily-advanced battlestar ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'', whose commander, Admiral [[Helena Cain]], has opted to execute two ''Galactica'' crewmembers after she tried them herself and against Adama's requests for the rights of his crew to have a fair, open trial ([[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]).

==Note==
*While Gaeta is described as the "Tactical Officer", his role is closer to that of the US Navy's CIC Watch Officer (CICWO), combining it with elements of the Tactical Watch Officer (TAO), a role also partially fulfilled by [[Saul Tigh|Colonel Tigh]], both under the command of [[William Adama]]. According to the official SciFi.com character data file, Gaeta's title is "Senior Officer of the Watch", although the title of Tactical Officer may have a better "ring" to the ears of most viewers.
*The name "Felix" means "Happy" in Latin; the connotations of the Latin word imply being fortunate, lucky, prosperous, or "favored by the gods". It first appeared in the episode ''[[Final Cut]]''.
*[[Wikipedia:Gaeta|Gaeta]] is the name of a small seaport and resort in southern Italy. This goes well with his Latin first name.
*His counterpart in the original "Battlestar Galactica" is Sgt. [[Omega]], a [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Sagittaron|Sagittaron]] native.
*In the [[Miniseries]], Gaeta's name is usually pronounced "Guy-tah" {{IPA|ˈgaɪ.tə}}. However, in all subsequent installments of the regular series, everyone pronounces it as "Gay-tah" {{IPA|ˈgeɪ.tə}}; however, Col. [[Saul Tigh]] seems to vacillate between {{IPA|ˈgeɪ.tə}} and {{IPA|ˈgaɪ.tə}}.
*There is widespread speculation among fans that Gaeta is another [[Humano-Cylon#Felix Gaeta?|Cylon infiltrator]].

{{Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z|Gaeta, Felix]]
[[Category:Characters|Gaeta, Felix]]
[[Category:RDM|Gaeta, Felix]]

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-24T09:22:35Z

Mayosolo: /* Ship gender */ Do all the Raiders have boy parts?

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived.
As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]] for details.

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 10th, 2005 to November 31st, 2005)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Verb Tense|Verb Tense]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards|Ship Naming, Abbrevation and Capitalization Standards]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Signing Your Work|Signing Your Work]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Spelling|Spelling]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Single-name Address|Single-name Address]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Episode Links and Formatting|Episode Links and Formatting]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Proposed Guidelines for Dispute Resoluton on Speculative Matters|Proposed Guidelines / Speculative Matters]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Quorum of Twelve|Quorum of Twelve]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive01#Namespaces|Namespaces]]

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02|Archive 2 (December 1st, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]


----

== Image Sizes ==

I tend to think that images that are whole-screen captures (and thus letterbox dimensions) should be about 300px wide. This is, however, based entirely on how that looks on my browser window, which is pretty large, but not maximized on a 1280x1026 resolution. So that might look horrid on some other screen. Anyway, with that in mind, I resize all my full-screen captures to be 600px wide since that's a nice two times what I think they should be viewed at. Should I be even thinking this way, or should I just be telling the articles to be thumbs and set my preferences for larger thumbs? In the case of cropped screen-caps, though, I think 300px is too wide, or rather, often too tall. How do others think on this? --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:21, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:Yes, use your preference settings for this. FWIW, I'm a fan of judicious cropping. It helps make smaller thumbs more legible. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:28, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

:: If you're trying to illustrate something specific, sure, cropping is needed in most cases. However, for episode pages and, I think, when trying to show a scene, the whole screen is good for its sense of context. I could be wrong. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:09, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

== Image Credit ==

Okay... Most images are gonna be screen caps we get from the shows. In which case the credit should go directly to the SciFi Channel, SkyOne Network or Universal Studios. The question is, which one? Or should it be all three? Or does Universal own the two channels and so saying "Cedit: SciFi/SkyOne" is enough? Or... What do you guys think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:56, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
: Universal Studios. They own the copyright. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:26, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: Following wikipedia's example, we don't need to credit image copyrights in-text, do we? It should be enough to note copyright status on the image's description page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:27, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

== The Freakin' Quote-o-Matic ==

It's not very -o-Matic, is it? ;o) Anyway, I think we need a standard for how they're formatted. I prefer the following:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."

:--''Rank and Name in Italics'' ("Episode Name")

It would also be nice to figure out how to go and look at quotes entered for days other than the current day. What do others think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:00, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

::As far as looking at previous quotes, that's a Joe question, though it would be welcome. Joe mentioned that the template info has to be added manually, but a creative wikipedia might work something out from a large database. At first I added at most 2 lines as a quote, but now I stick to one quote. I think the style you noted worked well (it did for my two contributions this week), so let's see if we all say so. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 25 September 2005 (EDT)

::: Well, if you want to keep track of all the quotes, why not just add them to [[:Category:Quotes]]? Theoretically, every quote should then be linked from that category page. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:44, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: However, it's a bit late for quotes already put up, no? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:49, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Wait. Is [[Quotes|this page]] automated somehow? If so, then a Quotes category is kind of moot. I remember looking at it a while ago, though, and it having no date information and just a single quote in it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:04, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought, I prefer this:

:"The line, in normal-weighted text, enclosed in double quotes."
:--Rank and Name in Normal (''Episode Name'')

For full exchanges I think something like this would work:

:'''Rank and Name 1:''' Humorous battle banter aimed at Speaker 2.
:'''Rank and Name 2:''' Scathing insult.
:'''Name 1:''' Pithy retort.
:--''Episode Name''

What do you guys think of this? If no one replies in a few days, I'll start soliciting opinions on people's talk pages and via AIM. After a few more days, I'll simply make an executive decision and put this policy up. I think it would be best to link it at the head of the [[Quotes]] page, too. When the time comes. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:05, 28 October 2005 (EDT)

::Day, I've been adapting that format (per your original thoughts) and I find it works well. My only problem is insuring a proper break between the quote(s) and the name and episode for single-quotation blocks. I think this thing has languished long enough to put up a quick vote or 5-day consensus/no-objection period, where we can make this the practice (and retrofit all recorded quotes to match if necessary). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)

::: COnsider this that period. Also, do you mean you like the break, but you're concerned about adding it for some reason that I do not understand, or do you mean that your dislike tags? --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:46, 1 November 2005 (EST)

:::: Okay. I'm about to put my above policy up. I think I'll have to play with it for a bit to get the display format the way I want it for ease of copying and for users who know nothing of HTML. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

::::: I would suggest putting this policy (when it is finalized) and a note about not repeating quotes right on the [[Quotes]] page where the "This is a list of quotes..." statement is. [[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 19:59, 17 November 2005 (EST)

I noticed that people have started putting in quotes from the original series. I think this is great but in terms of standardization I would follow the same idea as used on the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha wiki]:
* If it is an original series episode, quote as [[TOS]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a 1980 series episode, quote as [[1980]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
* If it is a re-imagined series episode, quote as [[RDM]]: <nowiki>[[episode title]]</nowiki>
[[User:Nwobkwr|Nwobkwr]] 13:46, 21 November 2005 (EST)

:Not a bad idea, Nwobkwr, but it might get cumbersome. Might I suggest we use only the "TOS" flag for TOS and 1980 episodes, and leave the RDM episodes as-is? This gives a slant to the current series, but then, we will have many more quotes from RDM than from the old series since transcripts of the TOS/80 shows are far less available than the current. It also saves on visual complexity. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:30, 30 November 2005 (EST)

::I think we should put the dab in the episode credit, and only when there are episodes in each series with the same title. (basically, "The Hand of God".) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:53, 30 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing to consider. In light of [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quote_of_the_Day/09_30&curid=3654&diff=19411&oldid=19408 this] quote, should we allow non-BSG quotes on a longer-than-one-shot basis? I think it would be okay, but others (obviously) don't. I'd like a few more opinions and some actual discussion, rather than just editing. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:00, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Links ==

So, in my opinion, the first occurance of nearly any proper noun should be a link. Even the thing an article is about. This means that the first occurance of an article's topic will be in bold, which I think is nice. For longer articles, I think linking becomes kind of discretionary. If someone hasn't been mentioned (or linked, maybe) in a while, then they could/should be linked. Also, episode credits at the end of an event description should ''always'' be linked. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:19, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:Using links-to-self to bold title text is discouraged by the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles|Manual of Style]]. In general I think we should defer to Wikipedia for guidance except where we feel a justified need to explicitly contradict them. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:02, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:: Ah. I think that's probably wise. Should we, then, manually '''bold''' them (or, in the case of ship names, '''''bold-italicize''''' them), or leave it out all together? --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:40, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

:::Manually bold. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:41, 2 October 2005 (EDT)

== HTML ==

I, ah, didn't think this was exactly necessary, but, uh... I think, now, it might be. Do we need to make a note about preffering <nowiki>''</nowiki> to ? I see various posts that have several changes, but leave the HTML intact. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (EDT)
: Agreed. Wiki sytnax should always supersede HTML sytnax. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:29, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
: Adendum: By the way, I created two templates: {{tl|s}} and {{tl|u}} for {{s|striking out}} and {{u|underlining text}}, respectfully. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:36, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::HTML isn't exactly tasteful, but isn't it preferable to templates? HTML and wikisyntax both retain their formatting if moved to another wiki, but anything formatted with templates won't. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:17, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
::: Good point, Peter... Maybe "hacking" MediaWiki might be an option, so as to create wikisyntax for underlining? Yes, this would undoubtedly create similar problems, but if a patch was submitted to the MediaWiki developers then they may introduce it (or something like it) into future versions of the software. Just a thought... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:58, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: What would you have the Wiki Markup be? Underscores and dashes, maybe? Might be dangerous, but perhaps it would require two of each in a row? Or three? I was thinking that _underline_ would render underline and that -strike- would render <s>strike</s>. However, I don't want underscores to mess up URLs or for strike-outs to mess up use of the em-dash, which is often substituted by the double-en dash (--). I'd just as soon use the HTML tags (except that it would get in the way of validating the HTML of the Wiki in XHTML 1.0 Strict, if that's a concern). Maybe we could use !!underline!! and !!!strike!!! or something. Ohoh! What about ``underline`` and ```strike```. Of course... you could go nuts and <nowiki>'''''`````italic bold underline strike`````'''''</nowiki> for '''''<s>italic bold underline strike</s>'''''. Sounds like a fighting more from some anime. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:52, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

== Verb Tense 2 ==

While it may be a "convention" within fiction articles about an episode, the verb tense issue is not using present-tense within an encyclopedia unless something is still ongoing. As I posted in the main page talk page and on a user whom made me aware of the verb tense issue, I posit that this convention be changed for the actual entries for the people, places, things. In other words, in the episode pages, the verb tense would stay as it is, but the verb tense in the individual article entries for say "Gaius Baltar" which would be the encyclopedic entry on him, would follow the norms and conventions used in other encyclopedias. That convention being, again using Gauis Balter's entry, the descriptions of Baltar's background, and events which have already occurred on Caprica, etc. be in the past-tense, whereas referring to him as the Vice-President, and duties onboard Galcatica, etc. would be present-tense since this is the current state within the timeline of the show at present. This would of course be edited as events unfold within the show. If for example he is removed form office as VP, then the verb tense would change for that piece of information as well as adding in how he stopped being VP, etc.

Likewise passages about say the development of the Mark II Viper would be past-tense, while the current disposition and capabilities of the Mark II would be present-tense. Not trying to be overly pedantic, but if we were to use and adopt the convention that this "encyclopedia" were to be discussing things and concepts within BSG as if it "were real" so-to-speak, like say in a present day encyclopedia would describe the development of the F-14 Tomcat in past-tense terms but describe current description of the presently active variants of the F-14 (i.e. the F-14D) and its deployment and present status within the arsenal of the United States Navy, it would be present-tense. Contrast that with descriptions of say, a WWII German Stuka Bomber which would all be past-tense in a current day encyclopedia.

This sort of tense usage within things such as the ''Star Trek'' technical manuals, Omnipedia's etc., which match he tense usage of current "real world" encyclopedias. Again, not trying to be a bull in a china shop as the new guy on the block, but it is rather jarring to read encyclopedic entries which do not follow the verb tense conventions used in "real world" ones. [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (EST)

:I can see why you feel that way, but past tense sounds horrible in a literary criticism context, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect "star trek encyclopedia"-style articles to be free of critical analysis. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:26, 1 December 2005 (EST)

::I am not suggesting that the past tense be used in the literary criticism and or episode entries or sections, but in the encyclopedia type entries. It isn't just the ''Star Trek'' encyclopedias but encyclopedias et all which use the past tense for historical or background content and present tense about current status content. In other words, in all encyclopedias (and I post those style content sections here) would say:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' and after leaving office ''(past tense)'' now lives ''(present tense)'' in the State of New York and has ''(present tense)'' offices in New York City."

::If he were to move to Anchorage Alaska to live and had offices in Juno Alaska this would be updated in a real encyclopedia to read:

:::"Bill Clinton was born ''(past tense)'' in Hope Arkansas, and was elected President in 1992 ''(past tense)'' after leaving office he lived ''(past tense)'' in the State of New York and had ''(past tense)'' offices in New York City, on Dec 2nd, he moved ''(past tense)'' to Alaska and now lives ''(present tense)'' in Anchorage and has ''(present tense)'' offices in Juno."

::To use present tense throughout this site, to be honest it reads awkward in many places. Not to mention that it does shatter the kinda cool suspension of disbelief aspect to have an encyclopedia ''Galactica''. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 00:38, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::The idea of a fictional "encyclopedia Galactica" is patently not this site's goal. We document plenty of in-canon stuff, certainly, but we have a great quantity of content given over to actors, writers, behind-the-scenes material, critical analysis, and three or four different incarnations of the series. I don't have any interest in working toward the false document mystique, personally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:35, 2 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Well for me personally, that is 9/0ths of the appeal of wanting to work on things at this site. Particularly since BSG in its re-=imagined form is a rich subject to do just that, because of the attention to detail and "realism" as the underlying ethos of the show. Having a robust wiki that reenforces and builds out upon that quality of the show is, to my mind, ideal. Not saying you have to want that to, but it is a real cold shower for me perosnally. Just my 2/100ths of a cubits worth. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::I can appreciate Lestatdelc's arguments on using present-tense, and it took me a bit to digest, but I agree with the standing convention. I've recently discovered the Star Trek Memory Alpha wiki (wow, and to think such a wiki could be done is amazing to me) and reviewed a few pages at random. Many use past tense there, but some, like the page on the excellent episode, [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Enterprise_Incident "The Enterprise Incident"], is successfully written in present-tense. I suspect that Memory Alpha hasn't a verb tense convention there, but note how the active-tense generates a feel of the characters ''doing'' something, rather than being "historical". As Peter explained to me, fictional characters are always in the act of doing something each time you read or watch them--and after a time I realized how correct he was--it keeps the characterization alive to me and to the article. The use of the verb tense also makes it more challenging to write the article as good fiction tends to evolve--in an active voice. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:15, 2 December 2005 (EST)

::::::But we in theory are not advancing the story but discussing what has occurred on the show and describing the details of the universe presented in the show (as well as "about the show(s) themselves). If we take the notion of suspension of disbelief at face value, and imagine the events of BSG not being fiction and documenting the events and details there of, particularly in encyclopedic form we would present events which have occurred as past tense, and present status and ongoing things in present tense. What Peter has said up-thread is that there is no interest in such a thing for him personally (and it would seem that most concur) I would consider it unfortunate as this is a great missed opportunity. I think that such "false document" mystique is actually something that has rather large appeal, witness the massive industry of such things in the ''Star Trek'' fandom, from blueprints, tech manuals, omnipedias, and the entire supplemental industry to the RPG medium. As for other projects about fictional stories and their universes, I would point to things like the [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp The Encyclopedia of Arda] which is based on the Tolkien universe. I don't wish to be a disrupting presence here, especially being a "nugget" as it were, but I think this is a bad call for a missed opportunity. I can envision a clear convention which would allow for discussing each incarnation of the series and the "about the show" aspect in tandem with the "in universe" repository of content about said universe in the style of such things as the Trek universe things of Omnipedia, Concodrance, Tech Manuls, etc. and the Arda/Tolkien examples. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::: If one cares to review the earlier verb tense discussion, I originally thought past tense was the Way To Go. However, now I stand with the current convention (I think this is also displayed in the past discussion, but I'm too lazy to check). I agree with the present-tense being used to talk about, say, the ''Oddesey'' or ''The Matrix'' or ''Friends'' or whatever, but those aren't, to me, the most compelling points, good as they may be. The compelling point is, once again, that I'm lazy. The amount of man-hours it would take to update the tense in every character bio every week while the show's not on hiatus is, well, a lot. We have a hard enough time with the stuff that's already within scope and I don't see Lest's reasons as nearly as compelling as the three against: Added workload, literary precedent, and more "alive" feel (to borrow Spence's word). And, more specifically, I, too, find the false-documentary idea only "eh" at best. The new series is shot in a way that kind of feels like a documentary, but let's leave that to them and let's us do our own thing. And, in any case, how would one account for multiple series and spoilers in a documentary? Bleh. We might have to start talking in alternate realities or [[railgun|adaptive physics]] if we went down ''that'' road. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:24, 3 December 2005 (EST)

:::::: Well we would be updating the character entries anyway as new events unfold, and placing those events in past tense as they are entered is no more work than putting them there in present tense. The only distinction would be what is currant and ongoing status. For example "Gaius Baltar is the VP in the government" which stays like that until events change that, which would be editing that entry to add whatever event changed that anyway. In fact having both be present tense would be really awkward from a readers perspective. I would also point out that it is not "false documentary" so much as "false document" i.e. if there were an up-tp-the-minute encyclopedia that covered the vast array of things '''within''' that BSG universe that was "passed through" the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium proscenium] to us here, that is the style of content about the things within the show which I posit, should be presented in the relevant verb-tense. And the "outside the proscenium" content, about the show, the actors, episode summary, analysis, and comparisons between series, etc. would all be in the present tense which, I agree is much more natural and engaging. I don't honestly see it as more work once the bulk of such tense resolution is done to the exiting content where needed, and as I have posited (probably to the point you guys wanna toss me out the nearest door me already, sheepish grin) would hold much more appeal to me and I am sure others of whom it is demonstratively evident there is an audience for, otherwise fandom and official creation of things like blueprints, tech manuals, etc. for other series stuff, which is presented as if they were "genuine documents" from said universe depicts in those various shows, would not be so prevalent. Again, not trying to be cantankerous or difficult. — [[User:Lestatdelc|Lestatdelc]] 20:53, 3 December 2005 (EST)

::::::: I would also really prefer past tense. Like Lestatdelc says, it creates the feel of the article being real. Starwars Wiki always uses past tense, and refers to the articles as being written "in-universe", which to me sums up why past tense is so good. Writing is present tense sounds like someone is writing the events as they watch them on TV, which kind of takes you out of it. Also, I personally find present tense just seems really clumsy. It's like reading a little childs picture book (without so many pictures, and uh, bigger words :) ). Day makes an good point about keeping with the documentary style, and as for alternate series and spoilers, just check how starwars wiki handles non-canon and spoilers. It would be a bit of work to change, but not too much if lots of people work on it. One more point, it might be easier to convince those who are new here to write in past-tense than in present-tense (which seems like an uphill battle). Anyone else agree, or are us pro-past-tense people just in the minority here?--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::As I've stated above, the "in-universe" conceit does not appeal to me at all. Present tense prose is more difficult to write than past tense, but I think the results are crisper and sound more professional. The process forces one to pay closer attention to their writing style.
::::::::As for your comment about convincing "those who are new here to write in past-tense", I find that notion troubling. This matter is such that there can only be one standard. The purpose of the Standards and Conventions process is (naturally) to create and promulgate a consistant style. If you wish to change the policy, discussion here is the place to effect it, not through unilateral action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 16 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::You've misunderstood me, I was merely suggesting a change - one which I don't expect will happen, and I'm fine with that. My comment was that at the moment people are coming in and writing past-tense, and having to be told to write in present-tense as they have not read these standards. I was saying that one advantage of changing the standard to past-tense would be that they would probably not have to be told. I'm not about to tell people to go against the standard - that we have one standard is more important than what it is anyway.--[[User:Undc23|Undc23]] 00:11, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::: I also think that present tense sounds more academic. As has been noted before (more than once), this style was initially adopted chiefly because that is the accepted academic style when writing about works of fiction. This is one of the ways in which we attempt to be encyclopedic. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:55, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== Ranks and Locations ==

Okay. So I was playing this [[:Template:Quote of the Day/09 29|this quote]] and I ran into an issue. In Civillian Speak, I'd call Apollo "''[[Galactica]]'''s [[CAG]], Captain [[Lee Adama]]", but I have an inkling that in Military Speak he'd be something like "[[CAG]] (''[[Galactica]]''), Cpt. [[Lee Adama]]" or whatever. You'd only use this when needing to differentiate him from, say, the [[CAG]] (''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''), but we might want to. Same goes for [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] and [[Laird]]. Does someone with a better grasp of military (specifically US Naval, if possible) conventions with respect to this have a suggestion on what kind of convention we should adopt? I'd love it if it didn't conflict with the current Quote of the Day episode convention (since ''Pesgasus'' is half of the ships this is likely to apply to), but we can always change the QotD thing, if we have to. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:04, 6 December 2005 (EST)

:I've tended to use the military abbreviation style as the Army used that I learned while a civilian employee.
::ADM, CDR, MAJ, COL, CPT, LT, LTJG, ENS
::CPO, SGT, PVT, SPC
::Deck Hand, Recruits have no specific abbreviation I can find.

:All caps, no spaces or punctuation. There should be plenty of Internet resources for this. And RDM has already noted the format he used, taking it mostly from the Original Series and his military experience. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:15, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:: Enlightening (and I'm just glad someone replied to this at all), but somewhat tangental to my wonderment. I guess it was really about how we're supposed to specify where people are assigned when they have a specific role. In "Pegasus" Tigh and Fisk are both Colonels, but they're ''also'' both XOs, so for would we call one "COL Tigh (XO, ''Galactica'')" and the other "COL Fisk (XO, ''Pegasus'')"? Or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:49, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: They would be referred to as ''Galactica'' XO and ''Pegasus'' XO repectively. They're referred to by position first, not by name. Unit, Position, rank, name. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: So, I guess, with relation to the quotes, we don't really need to say where given characters are assigned... I don't know why I'd gotten that need into my head, really. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (EST)

== Image Format ==

Mostly, the images I upload have been .jpg files. That's just what I tend to use on the web by default. However, because we scale our images a lot (i.e. all out thumbs), would it be more prudent to use .png formatting which, I hear, scales better? And, if that's so, should we make a note on this page about preferred image formatting (though, as long as it shows up alright, I don't see why we'd discriminate)? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:09, 23 December 2005 (EST)

:Most imprudent. PNG is far less efficient at compressing photographic images than JPEG. All image scaling is handled by the wiki software, and based on the original JPEG, so no significant generational degredation should exist.
:PNG has its own distinct uses, and is much better than JPEG at line art and schematics. I think this is commonly understood by most internet users, and I don't think that we need an explict policy on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:32, 23 December 2005 (EST)

== Image Control Station ==
I was working on identifying and classifying unused images that have been uploaded, rather than deleting them outright (at Peter Farago's suggestion). While I started this with the intention of it being something I could handle myself, it has been suggested that it might merit a project or sub-project. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for a project that:

"would take over the Images section of Standards and Conventions (since that's not really where that shouold live, ultimately), and it would cross-coordinate with Characters. I'd want to call it something like Aft Image Control or Auxilliary Image Control... Or, failing those series-references, the Ministry of Images ([[User talk:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/#Project?|Day]])."

Potentially I would move [[User:Steelviper/IslandofMisfitImages/|The Island of Misfit Images]] to a Project namespace with a more Galactica-themed title, but it would be a subpage/project of the Image Control Station (to avoid slamming bandwidth-challenged folks that might stumble across the Control Station). The actual control station would be more of a place that coordinate all the image related project pages (present and future).

So the main options I'm proposing are, a project page for Images in general with a subproject for misfit images, just a project/subproject for the misfit images (and we'll link to it from somewhere), or just leave it in Steelviper's user space. (Though I'm open to other ideas as well). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 18 January 2006 (EST)

: I'm, perhaps obviously, in favor of an entire images project. It could also consume Requested Images and have a section for images that we have, but might need bigger/less blurry/just better versions. I think, too, it should probably eat the "List of Characters Wanting Pictures" over at Characters, and have a link to it from there, instead. I mean... while we're doing all this, if we do. However, I think another few opinions are needed before diving off and making the page and doing all this moving and cross-linking, etc. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::I'm in favor of moving Steelviper's Island of Misfit Images to the Battlestar Wiki namespace, under its current title. I'd like requested images to remain a separate page, although they should be cross-linked to each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::: Why's that, Peter? Just for ease of finding for new users or so that all those images aren't on the requested page (we were thinking, or I was, that the Island would be a sub-page of whatever project it became part of) or what? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:05, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::It's no favor to my position that I can't articulate my point well, but I just don't feel that either image requests or image deletions would be a logical subcategory of the other. Better just to have Image Requests refer users to check the Island before making a request, and the Island refer users to Image Requests before deleting an image. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: Hrm. I see your point, but I wasn't thinking that one would be, well, inside the other, for lack of a better phrase. I was more thinking of a hierarchy like this:

::::: '''Images Project'''
:::::* Requested Images
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** Locations
:::::** Equipment
:::::** etc.
:::::* Island of Misfit Images
:::::** As currently organized
:::::* Images needing improvement
:::::** Characters
:::::** Episodes
:::::** etc.
:::::* Images to be deleted

::::: It's not precisely clear there, but they're all on the same level, I'd just put the Misfits on a page of their own to keep load times to a minimum. Maybe that's too ambitious, though? Anyway, now if you disagree, I at least am certain you know precisely what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure I was entirely clear before. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::::What goes on the hub then, besides links to the sub-pages? I do agree that an "images needing improvement" category or project would be good for when we ultimately want to upgrade from TV captures to DVD screenshots. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:18, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Dates ==

Do we have a convention for dates? I am referring here to ''Earth'' dates; i.e., those pertaining to the production, such as brodcasts and DVD releases. I have seen at least these four: "Jan 20 2006", "January 20 2006", "20 January 2006", and "January 20th, 2006". Which is preferred? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 03:46, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Note sure. Didn't know if it really mattered. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:02, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:: Personally, I prefer "4 January 2006", but that's me. I think having the whole month out is goo, whichever order we decide on. Normal American convention is "January 4, 2006". So... that's my two cubits. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::I'm partial to the "4 January 2006" format, myself. M/D/Y is a crime against civilized mathematics. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree too. Plus, the M/D/Y format may be more confusing to non-US readers. (For example the UK does D/M/Y)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::For what it's worth, as I was going through all the eposide info boxes, I found the majority to be in "January 4 2006" style, so I attempted to unify to that format as I went along. I agree with the mathematical elegance of D/M/Y, however, and I dislike the comma and the ordinal number. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::::: Yeah. Ordinals suck. I don't care whether we put the date before the month or after, as long as it's clear what each piece of data is. The only argument for using ##/##/#### is to ease the understanding of non-English-speaking people, but--if we want to do that, we need to make translations for the whole Wiki. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:38, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== Battle pages ==

I realize that although I created the battle pages, I never clearly set out the format they should take. Basically, they try to imitate real world battle pages at Wikipedia as much as possible. Using this, I created battle boxes for the entire Lord of the Rings battles series, then just re-applied it here. I'm going to be revamping the boxes in the next few days (no info changes, just formatting changes, nudging, etc. little fixes). However, because they should try to follow real world battle, they should try to stick as closely as possible to these. Long story short, there are 3 basic categories that an "engagement" should fall into:

* A) Battle - large scale engagements
* B) Skirmish - small scale, but noteworthy, engagements
* C) On *''rare''* occasion, alternative names can be used. This largely consists of the "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]" which was less a battle a more of a slaughter. This was then re-applied to the "Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards" because it was part of the larger "[[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]". But this was really an exception, for reasons which I think are obvious. I mean, if ever the Galactica crew destroys the entire [[Cylon homeworld]] with a [Wikipedia:Christopher Blair|Temblor Bomb] in season 5 or so, we'd call it the "Fall of the Cylon Homeworld", but otherwise this term is reserved only for engagements resulting in massive damage. Another notable exception is the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]"; you see the Battle of the Philippine Sea is so commonly known as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and RDM said it was directly inspired by this, that I thought it fitting to alter the name to fit that (that, and it took place in an unspecified region of interstellar space, and Basetars don't often have names. I mean, if a Basetar named "''Truth and Reconiciliation''", this battle would be called "Battle of the ''Truth and Reconciliation''" or something. But the engagement in "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]" didn't have this. However, "[[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]" ''did'' have a notable ship with a name in it, so it became "Battle of...etc".

Further ground rules to lay out are what actually deserves an article: officially, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]" is about the smallest engagement we're ever really going to make a page for. Generally, something deserves an article if:

*1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "[[Scar]]" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
*2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "[[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot]]" resulted in no Colonial losses ''whatsoever'', yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would ''not'' deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "[[Final Cut]]", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's ''probably'' not a battle (case in point, "[[Skirmish over the Red Moon]]".

Nextly, we have the matter of Commanders and Casualties. We don't know who the heck is commanding the Cylon Fleet or if there are "commanders" in the sense we think of aboard the Basestars. Thus they should be left as "unknown" (though if a Basestar is destroyed, you can assume the "commander" died, also if the entire Cylon force is wiped out). Mind you, if we ever see Number Six standing in a Basestar giving orders during a battle, if she actually gives orders she may be listed as a commander. Usually, a Commander is the highest ranking person present; don't bother to list Colonel Tigh if he never actually takes over command from Adama at any point. We should list "Admiral Cain AND Commander Adama" because Adama wasn't really serving "under" her at the time but by joint agreement, etc (complicated).

Casualties are easier now in Season 2; count how many people died in the episode who were *''not''* involved in the battle, then subtract that from next week's survivor count. For example, in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]" two people died that weren't in the battle: Admiral Cain and an unnamed ''Pegasus'' Marine. Thus, when we see the survivor count in "[[Epiphanies]]", we should subtract 2 from it, and us that as "casualties" (I got the idea from "Battle of Kobol").

"[[Battle of Kobol]]" was on the whole a messy, drawn out affair as I think you will agree. We agreed that there's a cut off point where Centurion actions in "Home, Part I" no longer count as a battle or skirmish because it was so small scale (again, no Vipers were destroyed, etc).

As for "Numbers" we are keeping a running tally of ships, though "Cylon" numbers are a little tricky. I just go with "associated Raiders and Heavy Raiders" when a Basestar is involved, when no numbers are stated on screen.

As for forces, it's "Cylons" not "Cylon Alliance" (from TOS) because we have no idea what the political structure of the Cylons is. For every battle after the massive loss of 118 Battlestars in the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, every other engagement after this is done by "Remnants of the Colonial Fleet".

I hope that sorts out stuff for now. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (EST)

: That's ''awesome'', Ricimer. Now, before we put it up on the main S&C page, I think it needs some concising, though it will be key to not let it become less clear. I would suck at that job, so... please someone else volunteer. I'd also like to see the battle box become a template (as mentioned on your talk page), for ease of changing it if we need to and also for ease of CSS-ifying it so that it can change with themes, eventually. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::As noted on [[Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], I continue to prefer "Attack on" for situations where the target is named but the battleground is not. As for [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]], there is no reason why "Battle of" wouldn't encapsulate that idea accurately. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Because it's doubtful if shots were even fired by the Colonials at Scorpion; it was a one-sided slaughter, but nonetheless deserved it's own page. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:25, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::That's a fair point. I continue to believe that "Battle of" is inappropriate when the field of battle has not been specified. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I'm sorry but this is the format that more or less works. "Battle" is a standard name. "Attack" sounds like a Doolittle Raid, as opposed to the MASSIVE engagement we just saw. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:30, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::::::Your ''ex cathedra'' assertions on style are unbecoming. I am interested to hear the opinions of other users, particularly Joe, who named the page in the first place. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:35, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::I fail to see what is rude about this: rather than simply editing pages as I saw fit, you ''told'' me to make a full write up of my view on the subject here, and then let consensus agree or disagree: you are chastising me, for doing as you requested? That said, not ''ex cathedrda'', but with ''plenitudo potestatis'' :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:54, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::::I went to Wikipedia hoping to find a definitive pattern to follow, but came up empty. [[Wikipedia:Battle#Battle naming|Naming Battles]] Apparently the british had a whole committee for this purpose ("British Battles Nomenclature Committee"). While almost all of the battles listed in Wikipedia follow the "Battle of" convention, they are always followed by a geographic reference (which we're not really going to have in this case). If we're going to name it after the resurrection ship, we might consider the outcome as well. Rather than just calling it the "Attack of", we might consider the fact that the result was its destruction. In Star Fleet Battles there was a scenario called "The Mighty Hood Goes Down" that always stuck in my mind (a Klingon ship attacks a greatly disadvantaged ''Hood'', usually resulting in its destruction). I guess that would be similar to "Fall of the Twelve Colonies." ("Destruction of the Resurrection Ship"?) Although that would certainly spoil the ending if someone hadn't seen the episode. Sorry not to be able to take a decisive stand, but hopefully some more people will weigh in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 17:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Good info there. Well, If it was them ''surprising the Resurrection Ship alone'', I would go with "Destruction", but instead it was an all-out battle to destroy it, case in point it's the only ever engagement between ''multiple'' Basestars and ''multiple'' Battlestars. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:57, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::That's a good point. With all this focus on the Resurrection ship, I lost sight of the fact that it was essentially a non-combatant. It was the strategic objective, but the actual firepower lay in the basestars and the raiders. I guess naming would have been a lot simpler if they gave us a goofy sector name like the TOS would often do (Hatari sector, etc) to use as a geographic landmark. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:::I still think "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" is descriptive, succinct, and has a good ring. The fact that the actual combat didn't involve it is incidental - the Resurrection ship was the primary target, and it certainly ''was'' attacked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:44, 21 January 2006 (EST)\
:::"Battle of the Resurrection Ship" is just as descriptive and succinct when you think about it, and I personally believe that it has a bad ring. Funny thing was, remember when they were doing that recon mission near a moon? (orange one that they flew by in Res Ship Part I), I had hoped that would provide a location (like the Red Moon with Starbuck, etc) however, the actual battle did not take place near there at all. Of course, what WOULD we have called it? Old ''Red Dwarf'' joke about that. It's a "bluey-green planetoid"...they're ALL bluish-green planetoids! (no names, etc). At any rate, it wasn't just attacking that ship; it was a full scale battle between the Basestars and Battlestars. That said, Galactica vs. Pegasus should be deleted, because I intend on merging any relevant information into a short paragraph for "Battle of the Resurrection Ship"; I'm just busy and can't do a full write-up yet. Monday.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 11:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)
::::My sentiment is that "Battle of ~" should be used with the location or nucleus of a battle. I agree with previous comments that the Resurrection Ship was effectively a stationary set piece around which the battle was waged. That it was destroyed does not disqualify it from functioning as a virtual location. The time and place of the battle were directly related to the presence of the Res Ship, so I believe it functcions as a location for our purposes. Insofar as that translates to S&C, shall we say "Battle of ~" necessitates a location, but that locations can include noncombatant targets? (Even if they possess mobility.) -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 22:32, 21 January 2006 (EST)
::On the matter of survivors, we absolutely should not assume that every off-screen casualty that happens between episodes in which a battle takes place was caused by said battle, although it certainly provides an upper limit. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Oh, I just meant "follow the pattern we already established with "[[Battle of Kobol]]", that is, say in the casualty box "XX number at most; survivor count decressed by YY, but ZZ number were scene to not die because of the battle" etc. (well, shorter than that). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:28, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ages ==

As has come up [[Talk:Saul Tigh#Age|elsewhere]], I'd like to get the age thing going here. I think, by and large, ages should not be included. In the case of Saul Tigh (and any others who meet these criteria after), I think we should include it. Here's my plan: The numbers ''must'' be a link to a note at the bottom citing the source of the information. If that means including a bunch of math at the bottom, so be it. If it gets too big and complex, then we can move it to, say, "Saul Tigh/Age" or whatever. This way, the information is as transparent as we can make it, without muddying up the template with justifications right there. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:29, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:FYI, footnotes do not appear to work inside the character data template. I'm not sure why. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:26, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Ship gender ==

Which pronouns shall we use for ships? I believe the normal convention is for friendly (for our purposes, colonial) vessels to be referred to as female, and enemy (Cylon) craft as male. IIRC this is consistent with Galactica-Boomer's terminology for the captured raider. (Thus, enemy craft repurposed to the colonials retain their masculine identity.) I would suggest that gender-neutral pronouns for ships should be avoided when possible, if only as a matter of taste. Thoughts? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:16, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I believe the current convention is the female for all ships ([[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Ships]]). I've not heard of using male for enemy ships. I do agree that gender neutrality ought to be avoided, if only to make it easier to translate into Spanish (I'm not very familiar with gender neutrality in that language, other than generally defaulting to masculine). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:29, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I've never heard of enemy ships being referred to in the masculine. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:46, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:I must have hallucinated it, then. Very well, feminine it is. (Boy do I feel silly for missing the item in Standards and Conventions. I did a search on "gender" but somehow glossed over the big ol' heading.) Thanks for the input. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it makes sense to leave pronouns neutral when referring to ships in a general sense or on a class basis ("If it is armed, the Blackbird likely fires the same ammunition…") and make them feminine when referring to a ship by name (''Laura'' quickly proves her worth…). Kosher? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 19:24, 21 January 2006 (EST)
:Sounds right. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:Most navies refer to their vessels in the feminine. I do know that the Russian Navy does refer to its vessels in the masculine.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:25, 24 January 2006 (EST)

::Ah! That must be where I got tangled up. I bet I read a cold war spy novel a decade ago and misremembered the convention. Thanks, Ricimer. Now... can anyone confirm that Galactica-Boomer called the captured Raider a he? If so, should all Autonomous Raiders be masculine? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 04:22, 24 January 2006 (EST)

== XHTML Compliance ==

So. We all (should) know that and are ''Bad''. However, it's (apparently) less common knowledge that all is bad as well. For the [http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/ DOCTYPE] of this website, it should be . All tags must be closed in a XHTML 1.0 Transitional Doctype. I've also learned that <s> is ''equally'' bad for XHTML Documents. Apparently, the tag to be using is <del>. Just thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone had any thoughts before moving it to the S&C page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:08, 23 January 2006 (EST)

:This would be particularly relevant if we were using a strict doctype, which, god-willing, will never happen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:11, 23 January 2006 (EST)

==Replacement and retirement of the term "Humano-Cylon"==

I propose that we replace the term "[[Humano-Cylon]]" with "[[humanoid Cylon]]". The term didn't really expand much outside of BattlestarWiki; I've heard Humalon, BioCylon, Cylon Agents, etc. and other frequent combinations out there. That's not why I want to change it though. In light of the fact that there will soon be a Human/Cylon Hybrid on the show, and I've put a lot of thought into this over several days, and I can only come to the conclusion that leaving the terms as they are will lead to dreadful confusion unless changed. I mean, they were called "Humano-Cylons", "Humalons" because they're Cylons that are "like" Humans, but now we're going to have a Hybrid that is a genuine cross between the two on a cellular, nay, molecular level. I know it will take a lot of work (I'm willing to do it), but I think we should phase out "Humano-Cylon" because it was never canonical, and will be all too readily confused with the hybrid.

On top of this, I think it's time that we created a page for the [[Cylon-Human Hybrid]]; info is gathering and Sharon's daughter is going to be a pivotal character eventually (consquently, I've heard that the later episode of Stargate SG-1 season 9 will focus on Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black) returning with a "miracle pregnancy", unfortunately her daughter turns out to be the physical manifestation of the bad guys, the Ori, and she will be sort of the bad guys "messiah" figure in their 10th season. It makes you think...).

And while I'm on the subject, I think that she should make separate character pages for Cylon "copies" that develop individual traits over time. For example, we should keep a main "Sharon Valerii" page, with stubs for the main articles for "Galactica-Sharon" and "Pegasus-Sharon". Also, Gina should probably have her own page separate from the main Number Six article, as she's differentiated into a separate character.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 01:51, 24 January 2006 (EST)

User:Mayosolo

2006-01-23T22:28:23Z

Mayosolo: elaborating

User talk:Mayosolo

2006-01-23T21:53:59Z

Mayosolo: rm welcome

==TOS population tages==

Mayosolo, we never really find out on an episode-to-episode basis what the population is in the original series. I'm going to have to remove that large revision you made. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:42, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:I think they may have been added to the TOS pages so that the ugly code doesn't display due to their absence. With nothing filled in them (as you're right, no figures are really given) they appear to have no visual impact on the template. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 18:59, 20 January 2006 (EST)
::Ah yes, the template wonkiness.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 19:10, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:::Sorry, I should have made it more clear what I was doing and why. Everything straight now? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 20:57, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Template talk:IPA

2006-01-23T21:50:33Z

Mayosolo: rm my extraneous word

User talk:April Arcus

2006-01-23T21:50:13Z

Mayosolo: IPA style

==Zarek Rocks==

Thanks a lot for the advice. I'm still trying to figure out all of the intricacies of this wiki thing. Hopefully I don't look like too much of a newb, lol.

== Viper Ref. Numbers ==

are you going to do a list of the viper numbers since you have done one of the raptors and put them on offensive arment page?

:I'll be happy to, if you can tell me which episodes to look in. I can't remember hearing any Vipers being identified numerically in the series. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:19, 12 Aug 2005 (EDT)

:: Most of the Viper numbers are likely to come from the DRADIS closeups, if anything else. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:25, 13 Aug 2005 (EDT)

::: you can find a lot of viper reference numbers in the mini series e.g. viper 450 etc

:::: To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that keeping track of individual vipers is going to be a very interesting endeavor. The raptors are at least countable - there are probably no more than ten - so it makes some sense to keep track of them on an individual basis. As far as the vipers go, it would seem sufficient just to give a simple headcount (currently 35, assuming none were destroyed off-screen in "[[Scattered]]"). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:33, 17 Aug 2005 (EDT)

:::::I've started a few more articles on individual vipers, if the OP is still around/interested. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:40, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== RTFF? ==

Hi Peter. Is RTFF an acronym for what I believe it is? If so, please refrain from using it in the edit summaries, if only out of civility. Thanks! :-)

:Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet. What did you think the second "F" stood for? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:56, 13 Aug 2005 (EDT)

:: Interesting acronym. :-) I was being a bit paranoid there, given that's an acronym for [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp%3Facronym%3DRTFF&ei=6bb-QuXIK4_04QHU2rg8 some other things as well]. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:15, 13 Aug 2005 (EDT)

== Race and Ethnicity in the Twelve Colonies ==
In your work you state that Gaius Baltar may have an interest only in white women. If you remember, Gaius was caught in bed with an East Asian woman in the miniseries by Number Six. -QuintusCinna

:Good Catch, thank you. Six also intimated that he had some interest in Boomer. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:26, 28 August 2005 (EDT)

==12 Colonies of Kobol Standards==
I know, it sounds a little over eager. I took several zoom in snap shots of the 12 banners both in the mini-series and also in Colonial Day. These are definitely the icons and the colors. Icon was a name used and so far the planet relative to Libra has not been mentioned. This is the only colony I find debatable. Certain colonies may not go with certain standards such as Aquarius or Leonis. I made this with flash in between my summer graduate classes. If you would like to use it, I don't mind- just give me credit. [http://magellannarfe.com/bsgflags.jpg link]

:Wow, these are really excellent. I've been thinking about creating something like this myself, but I'm glad you've beaten me to the punch. What format are the originals in, some kind of vector package?

:I note that in the scene we're discussing, Wenutu and Sanne appear to be over different flags than usual. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:18, 28 August 2005 (EDT)

::QuintusCinna = Yes, these are vector based using Flash. I've been having fun building a flash battlestar galactica encyclopedia, but was glad to see you already had this even though my flash stuff was nearly finished. If you pay attention to the flags behind, they are all at random placements and that they are placed differently than that of the miniseries' memorial at the end. I played with the idea that the memorial's flags were in order of when they were nuked while the flags on Cloud Nine were placed in order of their signing the Articles of Colonization. It's purely guess though. Note that in Colonial Day, the Sagittaron flag is at the farthest right while Tom Zarek is somwhere in the middle. This clearly shows to me there is no relation between the flags' placements and the delegates sitting.

:::A few thoughts:
:::If you want these images to be used to their fullest, it would be best to output them as high-resolution anti-aliased PNGs. The wiki software can scale them down for use in individual pages, and we could place them along the right-hand side of the relevant articles.
:::Question 1: Is Libra's colony is really called "Icon"? Where did you see this? I can't remember if Libron or Libris or whatever has been mentioned out loud in the series yet. What's your take?
:::Question 2: I could swear that the symbol on the side of Galactica was also on one of the flags, which I assumed to be Caprica because of the historical association. Was I just making it up?
:::Question 3: In your opinion, do the icons on the colonial flags bear any resemblance to the constellations they replaced (according to [[Home, Part II]]? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:01, 28 August 2005 (EDT)

::::QuintusCinna:
::::PNG? I never thought of that. I have them uploaded in gif for the time being. This can always change.
::::Question 1: I have not seen any information telling me there is a colony called Libra as of yet though I have watched each show probably about 7 times (I'm addicted). I'm still waiting. The Tomb of Athena did mention Libra, though. I do know that in the mini-series, Commander Adama or Laura Roslin said something like: "And the following colonies have been destroyed... Picon, Arelon, Sagittaron, Icon..." This isn't an exact quote but the subtitles even showed the word "ICON" which caught me off guard. The statement left an emphatic relation that it was more likely 1 of the 12 colonies instead of a moon like Trevor.
::::Question 2: The symbol on the side of Galactica is the flag for the 12 colonies unless I haven't been paying attention. It's like the US flag for the USA. In the center of the memorial flags at the end of the mini-series shows a black standard with the Phoenix icon in the middle and Battlestar Galactica BSG 75. This suggests to me that this is their symbol.
::::Question 3: I looked at the copy I have twice for Home, Part II and my copy is just way too dark. I would need to see better pictures to help me out because I'm not sure. I assume there would be a connection, especially since I remember Roslin saying Leo's constellation represents the flag of that tribe (which we can assume to be Leonis). Your pictures turn out so clear. I need to figure out how I can do the same.

:::::Excellent work. I think they look great on the colony articles. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:38, 28 August 2005 (EDT)

::::::I don't know the shapes of all 12 Zodiac signs off the top of my head (and maybe we should get some pictures of them in order to display along with these flags for others who want to compare this kind of thing), but Picon (aka Pices) is a couple of fish, usually one over the other, head to tail. I could see that symbol being derived from it. Also, Gemenon would be Gemini, the twins, which are usually depicted by something kind of like this: L7. Additionally, Scorpion looks like the symbol might have a tail with a stinger... Tauron's symbol '''could''' be a bull. Anyway, I think this indicates that at whatever points the flags were revised, the constelation symbols were replaced by a kind of updating or stylization of the original symbol. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:41, 30 August 2005 (EDT)

:You said that Commander Adama in the miniseries said this: "Preliminary reports indicate a thermonuclear device of the 50 megaton range was detonated over Caprica City 30 minutes ago. Nuclear detonations have been reported on the planets Aerelon, Picon, Sagittaron and Gemenon. No reports on casualties, but they will be high."
-That's actually incorrect according to the subtitles. According to the subtitles, the Commander said this: "Preliminary reports indicate a thermonuclear device of the 50 megaton range was detonated over Caprica City 30 minutes ago. Nuclear detonations have been reported on the planets Aerelon, ICON, Sagittaron and Gemenon. No reports on casualties, but they will be high." This is where Icon was shown to be listed. It could be a misspelling on their part, but I think you would find it fascinating. It is in the miniseries at 48:45. --[[User:QuintusCinna|QuintusCinna]] 1:29, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

::I haven't got the Miniseries DVD, but I'm certain that what I ''hear'' is "Picon". --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:42, 16 October 2005 (EDT)

== Character Data ==

Did you (or someone, I guess) edit the Character Data template such that more fields will be rendered invisible when left blank? If so, neat! However, if it was you, could you add to the documentation on the template's discussion page? If it wasn't you, then sorry and maybe you can help me track down who did? --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:43, 8 September 2005 (EDT)

:That was Joe. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:35, 9 September 2005 (EDT)

==Test==

*321
*Test 123? Anything but that!

== Answer on Ellen Tigh Page ==

I've posted my thoughts on the use of naming on the Ellen Tigh page on the Standards and Conventions talk page as you requested. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:12, 14 September 2005 (EDT)

==Doing a Great Job==

I just wanted you to know you've been doing excellent work. I'll try to be careful on anything I change, and if I do, I will explain. [[User:QuintusCinna|QuintusCinna]]

Hah! [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions&curid=3447&diff=14318&oldid=14256 Nice edit]. I especially liked the addition of signing work. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:35, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

Once again, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Colonial_wireless_alphabet&curid=3775&diff=19779&oldid=19761 nice edit]. I had considered whether to do as you did or maintain alphabetical order and, in the end, just made an arbitrary choice. I neglected to weigh concision into the equation. I'm not known for being concise, though, so... At least I'm consistent. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:50, 16 December 2005 (EST)

==New Messsage problem==
Hi, Peter. Do you still have that "new message" problem, with it not going away? It's still there for me, and I was wondering if you had any ideas for getting rid of it. Thanks. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 14:26, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

==Pictures==
Hi, if you need any more pictures, let me know and I will try to find it. Btw, great job, keep up the good work. --[[User:Blacklight|Blacklight]]

:Thank you. That was a timely addition. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:36, 30 September 2005 (EDT)

== My condolences... ==

I've nominated you on the whatsit page. So... Go accept it or decline it. That is all. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:08, 21 December 2005 (EST)

== Re: Welcome ==

Thank you greatly. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:56, 28 December 2005 (EST)

== Congrats! ==

Hi Peter! Just wanted to let you know that you are officially promoted to administrator! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them! Thank you and, again, congratulations! So say we all. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:20, 28 December 2005 (EST)

:So say we all. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 21:37, 28 December 2005 (EST)

: So say we all! --[[User:Day|Day]] 22:15, 28 December 2005 (EST)

::Thanks, guys. Wow, look at all the pretty new tabs... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:33, 28 December 2005 (EST)

:Sic transit gloria mundi :) --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:40, 29 December 2005 (EST)

: So sez me too. Congratulations, Peter. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:03, 29 December 2005 (EST)
::Congratulations. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 11:21, 29 December 2005 (EST)

:Congrats Peter --Zareck Rocks 00:48, 30 December 2005 (EST)

== Policy Page ==

Hey Peter, I wanted to ask for your help and advice on fixing the [[Policies]] page. I have been accumulating as many BSG Wiki policies into Category:Battlestar Wiki policies. In order to make the page as complete as possible I wanted to leave no gray areas by defining the word Policy, and list punishments for infringements against the set procedures. Is there anyway you can help me with reverting [[Policies]] to [[Battlestar Wiki:Policy]] and develop a list of possible punishments as well as how you can attain those punishments, set guidelines like:
:After leaving spoiler information out of spoiler tabs after being warned you get such and such punishment.
I know such an infringement would be very minor but I just want to make the rules as black and white as possible. I would be happy to collaborate with you in the Battlestar Wiki:Policy talk page to develop a list of rules/punishments. Joe told me on his user talk page to ask you for assistance with this minor project because you would be highly capable of the task. Thanks and congrats again on your promotion.--Zareck Rocks 00:59, 30 December 2005 (EST)
:Hrm. I don't necessarily think a set of rules/punishments is a terribly good idea. In my opinion, it's good to have our policies and guidelines set down in writing so that we can point new users to them, and have a general idea of pre-existing group consensus when disputes arise. It's important to keep in mind that our policies all reflect this consensus, and are not static - if a new user disagrees with a policy and argues pursuasively against it, it can (and should) be changed.
:For minor violations, I don't really see the use in "punishing" someone, when their error can simply be corrected and the errant user pointed to the relevant policy.
:In especially bad situations, it might be sensible to keep a log of a user's policy violations, which could be referred to in the event of a ban or RFA. For example, it certainly does not endear a user to me when they repeatedly post controversial or incorrect assertions without a source, but I see no need to revoke someone's privileges on account of such a thing. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:14, 30 December 2005 (EST)

== Twelve Colonies Link on you User Page ==
You have a link to "The Twelve Colonies" on your user page. This leads to the disambig page. If you'd change it to "The Twelve Colonies (RDM)", there won't be any more links directly to the disambig page anymore. Thanks. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:55, 19 January 2006 (EST)

:Fixed. Your zeal in this matter is admirable, albeit somewhat frightening. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:06, 19 January 2006 (EST)

::First the Twelve Colonies, and now the Cylons are next (followed shortly by the ''Pegasus''). Perhaps this is a result of all the time I've been spending over in the (TOS) regions (but was that the cause, or a warning sign...). Mostly I'd like to get caught up on all the special pages so that we can better identify when things need fixing. 600+ disambigs was overwhelming to wade through. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:17, 20 January 2006 (EST)

== Roger on that - Minor Edits ==

Just something I am so werid from Wikipedia. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] 23:22, 20 January 2006 (EST)

==Crud==

Sorry, thanks for catching my bonehead misspelling of Roslin. I knew I picked the wrong day to quit drinking. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 00:13, 21 January 2006 (EST)

:No hard feelings. It's an increasingly common error that's been bothering me on a couple forums. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:17, 21 January 2006 (EST)

::Hey, I'm supposed to assume good faith, right? No hard feelings. If I screwed it up, I'm glad you called me on it. :)[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 00:20, 21 January 2006 (EST)

== The/the Fleet ==

Re: [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Timeline_%28RDM%29&curid=2044&diff=26042&oldid=26014 diff]. Cool. It just needed a "the" at all, whether the T is big or little. There are a bunch of links, though, with the big T... Just keep you eye out, I guess. I'm thinking that's a lower priority than seeking out all the <nowiki>[[Last, First]]</nowiki> character links, for instance. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:40, 22 January 2006 (EST)

== IPA style ==

Peter, 
First of all, I admire your eloquent and insightful contributions, and your cool head in heated discussions. Kudos on both. 
Just in case you're not regularly checking the [[Template_talk:IPA|talk page for the IPA template]], I thought I'd post my query here as well, since you seem to have knowledge of said template: 
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#IPA style|Wikipedia]] recomments placing a link before IPA text becuase the underscore makes reading the characters difficult. Is there a way to modify our template to comply? -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 16:50, 23 January 2006 (EST)

Template talk:IPA

2006-01-23T21:41:53Z

Mayosolo: IPA style

Felix Gaeta

2006-01-23T21:38:06Z

Mayosolo: /* Note */ Add IPA pronounciations

{{Character Data|
|photo= [[Image:Kobols_Last_Gleaming_pt2-Gaeta.jpg|200px]]
|age=
|colony=
|birthname= Felix Gaeta
|callsign=
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role=[[Tactical Officer]], Senior Officer of the Watch, [[CIC]], [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
|rank= Lieutenant
|actor=[[Alessandro Juliani]]
|cylon=
}}

Lieutenant '''Felix Gaeta''' {{IPA|ˈgeɪ.tə}} is a young, capable officer in the Colonial military. For the three years prior to the [[Cylon attack]] on the [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)|Twelve Colonies]], he has served as [[William Adama]]'s Senior Officer of the Watch aboard battlestar ''[[Galactica]]''.

Prior to the attack, he was studying biogenetics and planned to get a degree through the military extension program ([[Water]]).

He exhibits a strong attention to detail and is highly efficient. These tendencies and his overall ability have led William Adama to rely heavily on him as a member of ''Galactica's'' command crew, despite his relative youth and junior rank.

As well as performing the role of Tactical Officer, Gaeta also manages the ship's [[FTL]] systems, including the calculation and initiation of Jumps. Gaeta also manages the needs of the various primary [[Computers|computer systems]] used on the battlestar.

==Remarkable Brillance==

As a result of his studies in biogenetics, Lt. Gaeta is selected by Adama to assist Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]] in the development of the much-needed [[Cylon detector]] following the Cylon attack([[Water]]). During his time working with Baltar, Gaeta develops a certain respect and liking for the doctor - despite the latter's apparent eccentricities. When a woman called "[[Number Six#Shelly Godfrey|Shelley Godfrey]]" arrives on-board ''Galactica'', Gaeta works hard to prove Baltar's innocence of the charges levelled against him ([[Six Degrees of Separation]]). Although he is ultimately successful, Gaeta fails to follow-up on the fact that the photographic evidence supplied by "Shelly Godfrey" looked as if the evidence itself had been faked in a way that ensured it was exposed as a forgery.

Gaeta shows his remarkable brilliance after ''Galactica'' mistakenly Jumps to a different set of coordinates than the rest of [[The Fleet (RDM)|the Fleet]] to escape a Cylon attack ([[Scattered]]). The [[FTL]] computers compensate for spatial changes, but due to the chaos after [[William Adama|Commander Adama]] is shot by [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]], Gaeta does not have time to synchronize the spatial positioning with the rest of the Fleet, whose FTL computers had collectively different information. Complicating the issue, if ''Galactica'' returns to their original position, the Cylons would destroy the ship before it could retrieve the correct Fleet coordinates using standard procedure.

Gaeta blames himself (although [[Saul Tigh]] did not), but later realizes that by networking four computers of the ship (something Commander Adama may never have approved), he could reduce the coordinate calculation time from hours to minutes. Knowing the Cylons would try to crack his ''ad hoc'' network, Gaeta sets up five [[Wikipedia:Firewall (networking)|firewalls]] in the network to slow their progress while the ship's guns and Vipers buy the needed time to calculate. Unfortunately for Gaeta, the firewalls are not completely effective. Several power and CIC systems were disabled by a Cylon infection while [[Cylon Centurion]]s board the ship ([[Valley of Darkness]]). Gaeta scrambles to purge the systems of any remaining traces of the [[Virus|virus]].

==Under Pressure==

Gaeta's calm exterior shows signs of wear when his interview with [[D'anna Biers]] shows him somewhat drunk, smoking, and brandishing a rather garish tattoo of a tiger ([[Final Cut]]). Viewers learn from the footage that Gaeta's first name is Felix.

The Cylon virus rears its ugly head once more a few weeks later when shipboard malfunctions increase to a point where consoles begin to sputter and short out. Gaeta confirms that the same virus they thought they had removed from the formerly-networked computers had metamorphized into a heuristic program--a [[Logic bomb|logic bomb]]--that studied and probed flaws in the battlestar's computers and the hardware that each system manages. The logic bomb threatened to disable the ship's human control on a Cylon fighter's command--and a Cylon attack force was imminent.

After Colonel Tigh's command to perform the daunting task of inspecting many lines of computer code for a Cylon virus, the young lieutenant completely loses his cool:

:'''Gaeta''': A power surge energized the board. System's been twitchy ever since the Cylons infiltrated our network. 
:'''Tigh''': Commander's right. I don't care if you have to go through this program line by line; fix it. 
:'''Gaeta''': Excuse me? 
:'''Tigh''': You heard me. 
:'''Gaeta''': Sir, I'm running every diagnostic we've got. Checking each line of code could take days. 
:'''Tigh''': I am not interested in excuses. Fix it! 
:'''Gaeta''': It's not an excuse, sir. It's a [[frak|frakking]] fact! 

Everyone on the bridge, especially Commander Adama, is shocked by Gaeta's highly uncharacteristic outburst, but Adama is not particularly surprised, knowing that everyone on ''Galactica'' has low morale after working for months with no relief or change to their routine.

Gaeta has a solution for the logic bomb: Wipe all computer hard drives and restore them from backups made before the Cylon attack. The problem in doing this is that ''Galactica'' will be completely vulnerable to attack, save for her Viper fighters, for several minutes as her computers are rebuilt.

Against his instincts and on [[Laura Roslin]]'s advice, Adama opts to use the unique abilities of the cooperative Caprica copy of [[Sharon Valerii]] to aid them. Gaeta gives the humanoid Cylon a fiber-optic data link with access to the battlestar mainframe computer and the ship's communications. After a few tense moments, Valerii asks Gaeta to perform the computer hard drive wipe after taking into her computer/brain a copy of the Cylon virus. She manipulates it and transmits to the massive incoming Cylon fleet, disabling the entire Cylon fleet in the same way that the Colonials suffered in the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]. The Colonial forces [[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot|destroy the entire Cylon force]] without a single Colonial casualty ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]).

Gaeta is among the tense officers and crew in CIC that witness a standoff between their battlestar and the heavily-advanced battlestar ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'', whose commander, Admiral [[Helena Cain]], has opted to execute two ''Galactica'' crewmembers after she tried them herself and against Adama's requests for the rights of his crew to have a fair, open trial ([[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]).

==Note==
*While Gaeta is described as the "Tactical Officer", his role is closer to that of the US Navy's CIC Watch Officer (CICWO), combining it with elements of the Tactical Watch Officer (TAO), a role also partially fulfilled by [[Saul Tigh|Colonel Tigh]], both under the command of [[William Adama]]. According to the official SciFi.com character data file, Gaeta's title is "Senior Officer of the Watch", although the title of Tactical Officer may have a better "ring" to the ears of most viewers.
*The name "Felix" means "Happy" in Latin; the connotations of the Latin word imply being fortunate, lucky, prosperous, or "favored by the gods". It first appeared in the episode ''[[Final Cut]]''.
*[[Wikipedia:Gaeta|Gaeta]] is the name of a small seaport and resort in southern Italy. This goes well with his Latin first name.
*His counterpart in the original "Battlestar Galactica" is Sgt. [[Omega]], a [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Sagittaron|Sagittaron]] native.
*In the [[Miniseries]], Gaeta's name is usually pronounced "Guy-tah" {{IPA|ˈgaɪ.tə}}. However, in all subsequent installments of the regular series, everyone pronounces it as "Gay-tah"; however, Col. [[Saul Tigh]] seems to alternate between "Gay-tah" {{IPA|ˈgeɪ.tə}} and "Guy-tah" {{IPA|ˈgaɪ.tə}}.
*There is widespread speculation among fans that Gaeta is another [[Humano-Cylon#Felix Gaeta?|Cylon infiltrator]].

{{Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z|Gaeta, Felix]]
[[Category:Characters|Gaeta, Felix]]
[[Category:RDM|Gaeta, Felix]]

Number Eight

2006-01-23T20:32:52Z

Mayosolo: /* Notes */ coincident -> consistent

{{Character Data|
|photo=[[Image:Sharon Valerii promo.jpg|200px]]
|age= 20s
|colony= Claimed to be from [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Aerelon|Aerelon]] (by way of [[Troy]])
|birthname=
|servicen= T-990429
|callsign= Boomer
|death= [[Resistance]] (''Galactica'' Valerii), another copy killed on Caprica ([[Colonial Day]])
|parents= alleged: [[Abraham Valerii]] (deceased, father), [[Catherine Valerii]] (deceased, mother)
|siblings= None
|children= 1 Pending ("Caprica" Valerii's unborn daughter)
|marital status= Single (''Galactica'' Valerii); In a relationship with Lt. [[Karl Agathon]] (''Caprica'' Valerii).
|role= Cylon Infiltrator, Saboteur; [[Raptor]] Pilot (''Galactica'' Valerii)
|rank= Lieutenant (''Galactica'' Valerii)
|actor= [[Grace Park]]
|cylon= y
}}

'''Sharon Valerii''' appears to be a woman in her mid-twenties. She is initially encountered aboard the [[Original battlestar (RDM)|battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]'', where she is integrated into [[Colonial]] military life, serving as a [[Raptor]] pilot with the rank of Lieutenant (junior grade). Other variants of the Valerii model have been seen active on Cylon-occupied [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]] and are also aboard the Cylon [[basestar (RDM)|basestar]] orbiting [[Kobol]] before its destruction. There are presumably other copies stationed throughout the Cylon space fleet and forces occupying the other Colonies.

Sharon Valerii, of all the [[Humano-Cylon]] models witnessed thus far, appears to behave with the strongest or genuine human qualities. This may be the cause of this model's tendency to have conflicts between its latent Cylon or active human personalities, or turn against its own kind.

== ''Galactica'' Copy ==

Lieutenant Junior Grade Sharon "Boomer" Valerii, serial number T-990429, appears to be a young pilot recently-assigned to shipboard operations. Assigned to flying the Raptor reconnaissance vehicle. Her inexperience is demonstrated through repeated heavy landings aboard ''Galactica'' ([[Mini-Series]]).
[[Image:bsg-valerii-1.jpg|thumb|left|The Many Sides of "Sharon Valerii" (credit: Sky One / Sci-Fi Channel)]]
As a pilot, she is assigned alongside [[ECO]] [[Karl Agathon|Karl "Helo" Agathon]], with whom she has developed a close friendship. She has also formed friendships with other pilot officers aboard the battlestar, sharing off-duty activities, such as regular card games ([[Mini-Series]], [[Act of Contrition]]), all of which have helped her integrate into shipboard life and be accepted as a member of the crew. She had been serving on board ''Galactica'' for two years prior to the Cylon attack ("[[The Farm]]").

=== Agent in Disguise ===

Initially, "Boomer" Valerii is a "sleeper" agent, unaware of her Cylon status. As far as she is aware, she was born on the mining colony of Troy, the daughter of a family from Aerelon ([[Flesh and Bone]]). Troy itself was destroyed in an unexplained cataclysm, allowing Boomer's background to be established as that of an orphan.

Following her arrival on-board ''Galactica'', she enters into a relationship with the ship's Chief Petty Officer [[Galen Tyrol]], which is against military protocols concerning fraternization between officers and non-officers. Whether this is unintentional, or a subconcious reaction to her Cylon personality program is unclear.

At the time of the [[Cylon Attack|Cylon attack]], Boomer was flying her Raptor to [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]] with ''[[Galactica]]'s'' last remaining operational [[Viper (RDM)|Viper]] squadron to [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]] when they are notified of the attacks and attempt to engage two [[Cylon Raider]]s. However, the Viper squadron is destroyed (their ships powered down by their tainted [[CNP]]), and the Raptor is damaged while trying to escape, forcing Boomer and Helo to make an emergency landing on [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]].

With the Raptor repaired, they undertake an unexpected rescue operation, lifting a number of children and adults from the planet. However, this is at the expense of Helo, who gives up his place aboard the Raptor so that Doctor [[Gaius Baltar]] can be rescued ([[Mini-Series]]).

Following this, Boomer works hard within the fleet, initially assisting [[Laura Roslin]]'s attempts to gather together as many surviving civilian ships within the Colonies as possible, finding a number of ships critical to the fledgling fleet's survival (such as a fuel tanker) ([[Mini-Series]]); she has also been engaged in other critical acts that have aided the continued survival of the fleet, such as the discovery of a [[tylium]]-rich asteroid, replete with an active Cylon mine ([[The Hand of God]]). It is her Raptor which also locates a source of water to replenish the fleet ([[Water]]).

=== The Sleeper Awakens ===

However, at the same time she is apparently supporting the fleet, Boomer's underlying Cylon programming periodically emerges. Her Cylon programming sabotages ''Galactica's'' water tanks, which results in the initial water shortage ([[Water]]). Later, she may have assisted a copy of [[Aaron Doral]] in access to a munitions store aboard ''Galactica'' to construct a bomb which very nearly kills [[William Adama|Commander Adama]] and [[Saul Tigh|Colonel Tigh]].

Having "awoken" shortly after the bombs used to destroy ''Galactica's'' water tanks were planted to find herself soaking wet ([[Water]]), Boomer's human personality becomes increasingly concerned that she is not all she appears. Her worry increases when she experiences a certain "attraction" to a captured [[Cylon Raider]], and is able to give insight into how it can be properly assessed and understood ([[Six Degrees of Separation]], [[Flesh and Bone]]). Her concerns are further elevated when, following the bombing by Doral, ''Galactica's'' [[Master-at-Arms]], Sergeant [[Hadrian]] suspects her and Tyrol of Cylon complicity ([[Litmus]]).

Isolated from Tyrol following this event, when he ends their relationship following the arrest of Specialist [[Socinus]] ([[Litmus]]) and facing Tyrol's own suspicions concerning her activities immediately before the bombing, Boomer finds herself emotionally isolated and stressed. She takes the Cylon detector test created by Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]]. Baltar hides the true results to cover himself from recrimination from other Cylon agents and lies to Boomer, telling her she is not a Cylon ([[Flesh and Bone]]). Boomer finds short solace in his test results and now deals with accusations from others when she finds the word "CYLON" written on the mirror of her locker ([[Six Degrees of Separation]]).

Confused and isolated, Boomer withdraws into herself, and attempts suicide, but finds herself initially unable to do so. During her second attempt, she is interrupted by Doctor Baltar who, rather than discouraging her, essentially gives her his blessing on her attempt. Following his departure from the bunkroom, Boomer does shoot herself. However, her Cylon personality apparently interrupts the attempt, and Boomer can only severely wound herself in the face ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]).

=== Boomer's Dark Discovery and Demise ===

After [[Kara Thrace|Starbuck]] absconds with the captured Raider intended for an attack on a basestar orbiting [[Kobol]], Commander Adama orders Boomer and ECO [[Margaret Edmonson|Racetrack]] to use an [[Cylon Transponder]] in their Raptor to infiltrate the basestar place a nuclear warhead within to destroy it. The mission is a success. However, when the weapon would not auto-release from the Raptor after landing, Boomer exits the ship and into the expanse of the basestar's interior, where she encounters a dozen copies of herself, confirming her worse fear. Boomer escapes in the Raptor while her copies caress the weapon just before it detonates and destroys the basestar. Back on ''Galactica'', her encounter with her copies on the basestar presumably forces Boomer's Cylon personality to emerge once more. She visits [[CIC]] to accept thanks from Commander Adama, then shoots and seriously wounds him ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]).

She is summarily restrained by guards and is jailed in the [[brig]]. During her emprisonment, Tigh attempts to forcibly extract information from her. Sharon's human and Cylon personalities appear to stonewall him ([[Scattered]]). Chief [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] is later thrown in the same brig cell by Col. Tigh because he is wrongly suspected of being a Cylon. While imprisoned together, Boomer tries to convince Tyrol that her feelings for him were real and important, but he rejects her utterly and said he would kill her if she touched him.
[[Image:Sharondeath.jpg|Sharon dies in Tyrol's arms.|right|thumb]]
Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]] later enters the cell, austensibly to collect a blood sample from Tyrol to prove his innocence using the [[Cylon detector]], but instead Baltar injects Tyrol with a potent toxin that would kill him in a matter of seconds if Baltar doesn't give him an antidote. Baltar did this to interogate Boomer, because he knew she loved Tyrol and wouldn't want him to die. Baltar interrogates Sharon, demanding to know how many other Cylons were in the Fleet. Boomer, near hysterics, protested that she didn't know. Baltar insists that somewhere in her subconscious mind, underneath all of her programming and false memories, she truly ''did'' know and with a stressful enough stimulus such as placing Tyrol's life in danger it would come forward. At the last second, she cried out that there were eight other Cylons in the Fleet. Baltar revives Tyrol. Subsequently, Baltar intended to perform numerous mental and physical tests on her, like a "lab rat".

Soon after, while being transferred to a new reinforced cell in the [[brig]] built to hold Cylons, as a large crowd of crewmembers jeers at her and calls her a traitor, an enraged [[Cally]] breaks through the crowd holding a gun and shoots Boomer at point blank range. Dying in Tyrol's arms, her last words were "I love you, Chief" ("[[Resistance]]").

Boomer's body was then moved to the morgue, and autopsied. The now recovered [[William Adama|Commander Adama]] visited her corpse, asked "Why?" aloud, and wept over her body. Commander Adama gave Cally a slap on the wrist by sentencing her to only 30 days in the brig for discharging a weapon without authorization, and she was never tried for murder since Boomer was merely yet another enemy Cylon destroyed ("[[The Farm]]").

{{spoiltext|According to an [http://www.thefandom.com/Article50.phtml interview] with Ron D. Moore, Galactica-Boomer is not dead. When Cally shot her ''Galactica'' was close enough to one of the Cylon ships near Kobol that her consciousnes was downloaded into another body and she woke up. [[Downloaded|The episode]] pretaining to this storyline is rumored to either have been moved to the end of Season 2 as a special episode, moved back to Season 3 or terminated altogether. Time will tell whether anything actually comes of this plotline.}}

== Caprica Copy ==
[[Image:Cshva.jpg|thumb|"Caprica Valerii" (credit: Sky One / Sci-Fi Channel)]]

When [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] is left on [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]], the [[Cylons (RDM)|Cylons]] use him in an elaborate experiment. Key to this experiment is another variant of Valerii, with copies of [[Aaron Doral]] and [[Number Six|Six]] acting as overseers for the experiment. She is initially encountered "rescuing" Helo from capture by [[Number Six|Six]]. Unaware of Valerii's true nature, Helo genuinely believes this Valerii copy to be the "Boomer" he knew from ''Galactica''. Following his rescue, Valerii leads Helo to "her" [[Raptor]], now in the hands of Cylons, thus convincing him that they have no direct way off of the planet ([[Water]]).

Following this, and having received a "Colonial signal" on the radio receiver they are carrying, she leads Helo to a city where they find a fully-equipped "fallout shelter" in which two people can live in reasonable security, hidden from above-ground Cylon operations, and with sufficient supplies to last a considerable period of time ([[Act of Contrition]]).

=== The Experiment ===

The purpose in establishing this "nest" appears to be to elicit an emotional response in Helo towards Valerii. When this fails, and he continues to express a desire to get off the planet, the Cylons arrange for Valerii to be "captured", determining that if Helo does not seek to rescue her, the experiment has failed, and he must be killed ([[You Can't Go Home Again]]).

Following Helo's "rescue" of Valerii, genuine concern and mutual need result in them making love ([[Six Degrees of Separation]]), which she reports to Doral and Six. A new hideout, a cabin in the woods, is being constructed for Helo and Valerii, and she is instructed to lead him there and have him stay with her there - or kill him if he attempts to leave ([[Flesh and Bone]]).

Faced with this, and the realization that she has herself fallen in love with Helo, Valerii disobeys her instructions and attempts to lead Helo to [[Delphi]], where they hope to steal a vehicle and get off the planet ([[Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down]]). On the way to the spaceport, Valerii shows signs of being pregnant: she is sick ([[The Hand of God]]) and develops a ravenous appetite ([[Colonial Day]]).

=== Helo's Discovery ===

On reaching Delphi, she and Helo attempt to break into the Cylon facilities and reach the spaceport, but when Helo encounters another copy of Valerii, he draws the initial conclusion that she is a human clone created by the Cylons, and goes on the run alone ([[Colonial Day]]). When Valerii catches up with him, her emotional condition is so confused that she challenges him to shoot her ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]). However, Helo is only able to wound her. He takes her with him in the hope she can help him get off of Caprica. While Helo keeps her at gunpoint, she leads him to the [[Delphi Museum]]. While in a nearby ruined building for a storm to pass, Sharon tells Helo that her love for him is real and that she is pregnant with his child.

When she and Helo come across Starbuck, who has landed at [[Delphi]] to extract the [[Arrow of Apollo]], Thrace discovers that Valerii is a Cylon and attempts to shoot her. It is Helo, unable to bring himself to kill the Cylon, who stops Thrace and reveals to her that Valerii is pregnant. ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]) Starbuck is convinced that Caprica-Sharon must be a Cylon copy of the "real" Sharon on ''Galactica''. Caprica-Sharon tries to convince her that they are both Cylons and both of them is just as "real" as the other, by remembering the first time they met, to no avail.

=== Valerii and The Resistance ===

After Thrace attempted to kill Valerii, she escapes in Thrace's Cylon Raider, likely attempting to save the life of her unborn child ([[Scattered]]). After tracking them for several days, she returns to Helo and the [[Resistance (movement)|Caprica resistance]] to aid them in finding the missing Kara ([[The Farm]]). Valerii steals a Cylon [[Heavy Raider]] and arrives at the rescue scene to destroy several Centurions and rescue the entire resistance group. Convinced that this Sharon copy can be sufficiently trusted, or at least give useful information on Cylon activity, they allow Caprica Boomer to join them as they take the Heavy Raider back to [[The Fleet (RDM)|the Fleet]].

When Valerii walks aboard the ''[[Astral Queen]]'', [[Lee Adama]] spots her, grabs Valerii and places his gun to her head, obviously angry that another Sharon copy (like the one that shot his father) exists. Helo immediately places his gun against Adama's head. Roslin manages to calm both enough to drop their weapons, and orders Valerii to be ejected out of the airlock. Valerii pleads for her life and tells Roslin she knows the precise location of the [[Laura Roslin faction|faction's]] objective: The [[Tomb of Athena]]. Roslin reconsiders and places Valerii in the brig. A later discussion by Roslin with Valerii confirms for Roslin that the Cylon is actually working on their side because Valerii wants her child and Helo to remain safe; Roslin believes what constitutes as a mothering instinct and love for Helo in Valerii is currently driving her motivations sufficiently to trust her.

Valerii accompanies Roslin's party to [[Kobol]]. Valerii knows the specific passages of the Tomb in the scriptures of the [[Sacred Scrolls]] by memory and, based on the passages, plots the group's path along a ridge nearby. As [[Elosha]] examines a gravestone marker along the ancient trail, the handcuffed Valerii senses danger. She is too late to warn anyone; two "Bouncing Betty"-style antipersonnel mines detonate, killing Elosha. At the same instant, a group of Centurions open fire. As others hide or return fire, Valerii vaults away, with Lee Adama in pursuit, believing she is trying to escape. Valerii scoops up a grenade launcher lying ahead, and Lee Adama thinks she is about to fire on him when she aims for the last Centurion and destroys it ("[[Home, Part I]]"). At camp, Adama and Thrace are perplexed that Helo now still loves Valerii, although he knows she's a machine.

While walking she tells Helo she knows that her child is a girl. Commander Adama's search party arrives at Roslin's camp. The warm reunion of the two leaders and family was intterrupted when Adama sees this second copy of Sharon Valerii. Commander Adama immediately tries to choke her to death. He releases her after experiencing terrible chest pains (probably the result of his recent surgery, or from anxiety), as she says "And you asked 'why'?" (mysteriously referencing what Commander Adama said over the body of the dead ''Galactica'' Boomer copy).

[[Tom Zarek]]'s follower, [[Meier]], tries to convince her to help him kill both Adamas. Valerii believed her ''Galactica'' counterpart was being held in the [[brig]], but Meier informs her that she was killed. She expresses her outrage to Helo that the crew just let Cally kill Boomer, with Cally receiving only 30 days in the brig as punishment. Valerii tells Helo that Commander Adama and the others don't think Cylons are people; they think she's a thing and not a person -- a thing they may kill once they no longer need her. Valerii pretends to take up Meier's proposal to kill Commander Adama and Lee Adama, but after they all draw their weapons she shoots Meier instead, saving the lives of both Adamas. She announces to Commander Adama that she is not the same Sharon that shot him, and that she is not a sleeper agent with hidden protocols waiting to activate; she makes her own choices. She surrenders the weapon to Commander Adama, to everyone's surprise.

=== The Cooperative Cylon ===

Subsequently, Valerii was brought aboard battlestar ''[[Galactica]]'' and imprisoned in a new reinforced cell designed to incarcerate [[Humano-Cylon]]s, built originally to hold the copy known as Boomer. [[Number Six]] tells Dr. Baltar that Sharon's baby will be born in that cell. Number Six considers Sharon and Helo's biological child to be hers; she says that she will be its "mother" and Baltar will be it's "father" ([[Home, Part II]]).

While in her cell Sharon nearly has a miscarriage, and has to be rushed to [[Sickbay]] where Dr. [[Cottle]] succeeds in saving her baby's life. The humanoid Cylon known as [[D'anna Biers]], posing as a reporter for the Fleet News Service, stumbles upon Valerii while filming her documentary in Sickbay. D'anna threatened to expose that Adama harbors a Cylon aboard ''Galactica'' which may turn the Fleet against him, but he confiscated what he believed was Biers' tape of Valerii. In reality, D'anna secretly switched tapes and kept the real one. This critical information was not broadcast in the final cut of her documentary distributed to the Fleet, but it was broadcast back to the Cylons on Caprica (by way of two Raiders that attacked ''Galactica'' in order to get within transmission range). The humanoid Cylons watching in on Caprica (including a copy of D'anna and yet another Valerii copy) were surprised yet overjoyed that Helo's Valerii copy was still alive (they were apparently unaware that she had survived). They were incredibly concerned that her hybrid child would survive, saying that it must be protected at all costs ([[Final Cut]]).

When ''Galactica'' experiences mysterious computer failures and system malfunctions from yet another Cylon virus, Commander Adama orders Helo to show the incarcerated Valerii the strange Cylon code. Valerii identifies it as a very virulent [[Logic bomb]] that will take control of the ship and kill off the crew if she does not help. Reluctantly, on advice from President Roslin, Commander Adama brings Valerii to [[CIC]], where Valerii cuts her arm open and connects her body to a fiber optic line to communicate with ''Galactica's'' mainframe [[Computers|computer]] and communication channels. The process is painful both to Valerii and to the crew watching the spectacle. With Valerii now with access, she takes into her a portion of the logic bomb code, then instructs Lieutenant [[Gaeta]] to wipe the hard drives of the system computers to erase all Cylon virus traces for good. ''Galactica'' is a sitting duck to a massive Cylon fighter force on the outskirts of [[DRADIS]] range while Valerii makes adjustments to the code. She resends the code out on the communication channels to the Cylon fleet. In a reversal of the events suffered by the Colonials in the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]], every Cylon fighter loses power and weapons. Adama's Vipers have a [[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot|free-for-all shooting]], destroying every Cylon fighter without a single Colonial casualty ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]).

=== The Cylon "Interrogator" ===

After ''Galactica'' reunites with battlestar ''Pegasus'', Admiral [[Helena Cain]] sends Lieutenant [[Thorne]] to inspect the incarcerated Valerii. He beats her and attempts to sexually assault her while his guards watch. Fortunately for Valerii, both Agathon and Tyrol find out about Thorne and what was done to his previous [[Number Six#Gina|prisoner]] and arrive in time to stop him. Tyrol accidentally kills Thorne in the process, and both Agathon and Tyrol are arrested by the ''Pegasus'' guards and taken to Cain's battlestar, where a summary court-martial leaves Agathon and Tyrol pending execution by Admiral Cain. Commander Adama sends a [[Marines|Marine]] force and his Viper squadrons out and tells to Cain over [[wireless]] that he is getting his men. Valerii and all of the fleet await news on the survival of her "past" and current love as a standoff between the battlestars begins ([[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]). The attempted rape of Caprica-Sharon resulted in her receiving a hairline fracture in one of her ribs, and extensive bruising notably on her wrists when marines were holding her down. She was in a state of shock long after it ended. Commander Adama personally appologized to her that it happened aboard his ship. (([[Resurrection Ship, Part I]])

=== Future episodes ===

{{spoiltext|According to an [http://www.thefandom.com/Article50.phtml interview] with RDM, Caprica-Sharon's pregnancy storyline will come to a 'conclusion' by the end of season 2. Also, during the early episodes of the second half of season 2, the ''Galactica'' crew will debate whether or not they should force her to have an abortion rather than allow the Cylon's experiment to conclude and possibly pose a threat to them.}}

==Other Copies==
*At the end of the [[Mini-Series]], a copy of Valerii wearing the Colonial Raptor Pilot Uniform appears to be leading the group of Humano-Cylons who recover the [[Aaron Doral#PR Executive Copy|PR Executive Copy of Aaron Doral]] from [[Ragnar Anchorage]].
**It is possible that the this is the same individual as the Caprica copy. While, at the time the [[Mini-Series]] had been filmed, there were no plans to have [[Tahmoh Penikett]] reprise the role of [[Karl Agathon|Helo]], the ending of the [[Mini-Series]] forms a link to "[[33]]", establishing that the Cylons have developed a plan for Helo's presence on Caprica.
*A copy of Valerii is witnessed wearing a grey coat at the spaceport at [[Delphi]]. However, she is immediately killed by Helo's Valerii copy ([[Colonial Day]]).
*Multiple copies of the Valerii model were encountered on the [[Basestar (RDM)|basestar]] over [[Kobol]]. It is likely that they were dispatched to the Raptor in order to activate some latent portion of the ''Galactica'' copy's Cylon personality ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]).
*A copy of Valerii is seen at the end of "[[Final Cut]]", also wearing a grey coat like other Sharons on Caprica, remarking in surprise that Caprica-Valerii is still alive.

==Notes==
*[[Number Six]] rhetorically asks Baltar in "[[Flesh and Bone]]" why he thinks that Valerii got her callsign, "Boomer." As shown twice in "[[Water]]" and with her destruction of the basestar in "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]", the ''Galactica'' Valerii appeared to have a penchant for blowing things up. This is inconsistent with her [[Boomer (TOS)|namesake]] from the Original Series, who did not show this tendency.
**Number Six could probably have been using sexual innuendo when she rhetorically asked why the ''Galactica'' Valerii's callsign was "Boomer"; for example, as demonstrated in "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]" (Actress Grace Park said in interviews that she was so determined to make an enthusiastic lovemaking scene, i.e. copious amounts of moaning, etc., that when the scene director finished they flat out said their footage would have to be ''heavily'' edited).
** Alternately, this may be an in-joke to the anime ''[[Wikipedia:Bubblegum Crisis|Bubblegum Crisis]]'' (and its spin-offs). ''Bubblegum Crisis'' generally focuses on a futuristic police force in conflict with rogue androids with a human appearance, or "synthetic humanoids", referred to as ''[[Wikipedia:boomer (anime term)|boomer]]s''. Some of these (such as Cynthia in BGC1 '''Tinsel City''') are completely unaware of their nature as synthetically created beings. (Of course, [[Boomer (TOS)|Boomer]] from the [[Battlestar Galactica (TOS)|original ''Battlestar Galactica'']] predates this usage.)
*[[Wikipedia:Valerii|Valerii]] is the male plural form of the Roman name of the family Valeria. Valerius is the singular form.
*In an interview for thefandom.com Ron D. Moore stated that "'''There is no original human Sharon.''' The idea is not that there was likely an original human model that they were copied from. The idea was that these models of Cylon were sort of developed out of their own study of us. The Cylons on some level looked at humanity and said "You know what? There's really only 12 of you". If these are the 12, and sort of if you look at them they each represent different archetypes of what humanity is".

According to SkyOne, Sharon's memories were of growing up on the mining settlement of Troy.

Here is SkyOne's summary of Valerii:

:''Sharon's first memories are vivid and she occasionally revisits them in her dreams. As far as she knew she grew up with a happy, normal childhood, the product of loving parents on the mining settlement of Troy. Troy was a small, barren world of the Colonial system.''

:''Sharon always wanted to leave and seek a grander life. After passing the Colonial Acedemy's exams she left aboard a commercial transport ship.''

:''During the flight, her hometown was wiped out in a series of titanic explosions caused by volatile methane gas, which had ignited in a mining operation. The disaster stunned the colonies.''

:''She later applied for flight school and was accepted over more qualified candidates. Flight school was rough on Sharon. Not a born pilot, she laboured long and hard. By the time she had graduated. she managed to earn the second chances that she seemed fated to be given. Her first assignment was aboard the Battlestar Galactica, and by the time of the Cylon attack, she had been there for almost a year.''

As this information does not come from the official Scifi.com website, it's authenticity is questionable. Further, it is blatantly contradicted by Sharon's statements that Troy was destroyed when she was a little girl, not in flight school, and Adama's comment in "[[The Farm]]" that she had been on ''Galactica'' for nearly ''two'' years, not almost one.

{{Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z|Valerii, Sharon]]
[[Category:Characters|Valerii, Sharon]]
[[Category:Cylons|Valerii, Sharon]]
[[Category:RDM|Valerii, Sharon]]
[[Category:People from Aerelon|Valerii, Sharon]]

Margaret Edmondson

2006-01-23T11:23:41Z

Mayosolo: cleanup

{{Character Data|
|photo= [[Image:Bscap432.jpg|200px]]
|age=
|colony=
|birthname= Margaret Edmonson
|callsign= Racetrack
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role= [[Raptor]] [[ECO]], assigned to [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
|rank= Lieutenant (Junior Grade)
|actor= [http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Leah+Cairns Leah Cairns]
|cylon=
}}

'''Lt. Margaret "Racetrack" Edmonson''' is a female [[ECO]] aboard [[battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]'' who accompanies [[Sharon Valerii|LT (j.g.) Sharon "Boomer" Valerii]] on a mission to destroy a Cylon [[basestar (RDM)|basestar]]. She witnesses Boomer's attempted [[assassination]] of [[William Adama]] in ''Galactica's'' [[CIC]] ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]). Immediately after, she informs the CIC staff that Boomer returned from placing the nuclear warhead inside the basestar orbiting [[Kobol]] without her helmet on, and that she probably gave away ''Galactica's'' position to the Cylons ("[[Scattered]]").

Racetrack pilots the Raptor carrying [[Lee Adama]]'s [[SAR]] mission to Kobol, encountering fire from Cylon anti-aircraft missiles. [[Galen Tyrol]] fells the missiles' [[DRADIS]] dish on the surface, and they fail to lock on. Racetrack's Raptor then destroys the [[Cylon Centurian|Centurian]]s on the ground with a volley of missles, and recovers the trapped ''Galactica'' crewmen. ("[[Fragged]]")

Racetrack aids the escape of President [[Laura Roslin]] from the brig by falsely claiming that her Raptor was having technical problems, enabling the furloughed Lee Adama to report to the hangar bay instead of the brig per his arrest. She then helps prep the Raptor used as the escape craft for launch, but remains on ''Galactica'' ([[Resistance]]). On Boomer's death, Edmonson becomes the only person in the Fleet who has seen the inside of a basestar.

Racetrack serves as ECO on [[Raptor 1]], plotting the best point of orbital entry when taking Commander Adama to [[Kobol]] to find and meet with President Roslin ([[Home, Part II]]). Since then, Margaret flies basic supply runs between ''Galactica'' and [[The Fleet (RDM)|the fleet]]. She continues to light candles for fallen comrades in the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|Cylon attack]]. She is almost certain she will eventually die on a mission, and is more focused on taking out as many Cylons as she can before that happens ([[Final Cut]]).

Racetrack, along with many other pilots, intially snubs [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] upon his return because of his romantic relationship with the Caprica-originated copy of Sharon Valerii. After she insults [[Kara Thrace]] over the matter, Starbuck pushes Racetrack face-first into a card table ("[[Flight of the Phoenix]]"). Racetrack later congratulates Helo on his help with the [[Blackbird]], whose [[DRADIS]]-absorbing carbon composites Helo suggested, which serves as a quiet apology for her earlier rudeness.

[[Image:Racetrack2.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Edmonson on Raptor duty.]]
As with the rest of the ''Galactica'' crew, Racetrack is overjoyed when they reunite with the [[Mercury class battlestar|advanced battlestar]] ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''. She takes some time to socialize with ''Pegasus'' pilots in the hangar bay, not understanding why Starbuck is so upset about them keeping a "scorecard" of their kills ("[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]").

==Notes==

*Racetrack was probably created as a replacement for [[Crashdown]] and his role as ECO of the Raptor a given episode focuses on (as Crashdown himself was created as a replacement for [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] after he was stranded). Racetrack was introduced in the first season finale and the seeds of Crashdown's demise - signs of his incompetence for command while stranded on Kobol - were already planted in that episode.
*Racetrack's name was revealed in the episode "[[Final Cut]]".
*Ron Moore noted in his [[podcast]] of Racetrack's debut episode "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]" that she was only meant to be a one-shot character, like [[Karl Agathon|Helo]]. But, just as with [[Tahmoh Penikett]]'s performance in the [[Mini-Series]], the production staff and [[TPTB|the powers that be]] were so impressed with actress Leah Cairns' performance in the episode that they decided to keep her on as a new recurring character.

{{Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z|Edmonson, Margaret]]
[[Category:Characters|Edmonson, Margaret]]
[[Category:RDM|Edmonson, Margaret]]

Alex Quartararo

2006-01-23T10:56:00Z

Mayosolo: Mostly verb tense fixes

{{Character Data|
|photo=[[image:Act_of_Contrition-Crashdown.jpg|200px]]
|age=
|colony=Unknown
|birthname=
|callsign= Crashdown
|death=KIA on [[Kobol]] ([[Fragged]])
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=Relationship with Ensign [[Davis]].
|role=[[Raptor]] [[ECO]]
|rank=Lieutenant, J.G.
|actor=[[Samuel Witwer]]
|cylon=
}}

'''Crashdown''' was the callsign of a [[Raptor]] [[ECO]] who replaced [[Karl Agathon|Karl "Helo" Agathon]] ([[33]]) after [[Sharon Valerii]] left Helo behind on [[Cylon]]-occupied [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]] ([[Mini-Series]]).

Crashdown is involved with the discovery of a fresh water source for [[The Fleet (RDM)|The Fleet]] ([[Water]]), the Cylon-held [[tylium]] mine ([[The Hand of God]]), and the planet [[Kobol]] ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]).

Despite Lt. Valerii's initial misgivings of him (she referred to him as a "refugee from [[Triton]]", which strongly suggests that he escaped the destruction of the battlestar ''Triton'' rather than a city or colony), Crashdown is a loyal officer. His actions include the defense of Lt. Valerii to [[Hadrian|Sgt. Hadrian]] prior to Valerii's being taken away for questioning ([[Litmus]]).

He is the object of [[Davis|Ensign Davis]]'s affections ([[The Hand of God]], [[Colonial Day]]).

=== Events on Kobol ===

After Valerii attempts suicide, Crashdown accompanies a mission to investigate Kobol, which meets with disastrous results. A Cylon [[Basestar (RDM)|basestar]] and [[Cylon Raider]]s had already taken position above the planet, causing the destruction of one Raptor, the retreat of another and damage to Crashdown's Raptor. He pilots [[Raptor 1]] after her pilot is killed, crash-landing on Kobol near the ruins of the [[Opera House]] ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]).

Crashdown leads the team away from a [[Cylon Centurion]] firefight successfully, but begins to show his field inexperience as he attempts to organize his team through textbook field exercises to destroy a missile battery that several Centurions have constructed from the remains of their [[Heavy Raider]] to destroy any colonial [[SAR]] parties.

The parameters of the operation change when the Centurions shift their deployment, providing greater Cylon defense at the missile launcher, and when the [[DRADIS]] guidance dish is left relatively unprotected. Crashdown assigns [[Cally]] the likely-suicidal task of creating a diversion while the remaining team try to destroy the missile battery. Although [[Galen Tyrol]] insists that destroying the missile's DRADIS guidance dish would accomplish their mission and prevent the shooting down of the SAR operation, Crashdown's inexperience and by-the-book insistence on following his original plan blinds him to alternatives that would greatly increase their team's survival chances.

As the SAR Raptor's sonic booms announces their imminent arrival, Crashdown hastily orders Cally to begin the operation, but she is frozen in fear and refuses to move. Becoming increasingly irritated and irrational, Crashdown aims his sidearm at Cally's head and threatens to kill her if she does not follow orders. Chief Tyrol aims his sidearm at Crashdown, asking him to stand down while Crashdown counts to three in a final effort to move Cally along.

Before the final number is counted, [[Gaius Baltar]] shoots Crashdown in the back, likely severing his spinal cord and piercing his heart, killing him instantly.

After their rescue by the SAR team, both Baltar and Tyrol lie to Captain [[Lee Adama]] and say that Crashdown died a hero in battle ([[Fragged]]).

Lt. [[Margaret Edmonson|Margaret "Racetrack" Edmonson]] succeeds Crashdown as Lt. Valerii's ECO for her mission to destroy the basestar over Kobol ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]).

{{Characters}}

[[Category: A to Z]] [[Category: Characters]] [[Category: RDM]]

ECO

2006-01-23T10:42:32Z

Mayosolo: Cleanup, rm duplicate references

Acronym: '''Electronic Countermeasures Officer'''

== Overview ==

The ECO is responsible for the [[ECM|Electronic Countermeasures]] functionality on the [[Raptor]]. ([[Miniseries]], [[33]]) ECOs also operate computer equipment, including scanning and detection equipment. ([[Water]], [[The Hand of God]]).

ECOs apparently have at least a basic ability to fly a Raptor if the dedicated pilot is incapacitated or unavailable, as Crashdown pilots his Raptor when his pilot [[Karma]] is killed ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]), and Racetrack pilots a Raptor on several occasions ([[Fragged]], [[Final Cut]]). As [[Galactica (RDM)|''Galactica'']] is facing a chronic manpower shortage, ECOs like Racetrack may now be pulling 'double-shifts' piloting Raptors on a regular basis.

== ECOs ==

* [[Karl Agathon|Lt. Karl C. "Helo" Agathon]], [[Battlestar]] ''Galactica''
* [[Crashdown]], Battlestar ''Galactica''
* [[Margaret Edmonson|Lt. Margaret "Racetrack" Edmonson]], Battlestar ''Galactica''

[[Category: A to Z]]
[[Category:RDM]]
[[Category: Terminology]]

Quotes:01 22

2006-01-23T10:27:32Z

Mayosolo: correct quote from the episode

"One of the most interesting things about being President is that you don't have to explain yourself. To anyone." 
--President [[Richard Adar]] (''[[Epiphanies]]'')

User:Mayosolo

2006-01-23T07:14:48Z

Mayosolo: Wikipedian cat

{{Character Data|
|photo=
|age=23
|colony=California
|birthname=Tim Carras
|servicen=
|callsign=Mayosolo
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role=[[Nugget]], [[Battlestar]] ''[[Main Page|Wiki]]''
|rank=
|actor=
|cylon=
}}

'''Tim Carras''' is a freelance visual effects artist in [[Wikipedia:Culver City, California|Culver City, California]]. His guiltiest of pleasures is to correct other people's spelling, punctuation, usage, and grammar. Not surprisingly, he considers [[Wikipedia:Wiki|wikis]] a godsend.

== Current Projects ==
*Filling in gaps in screenshots and credits for episode entries.
**I would also like to expand the boilerplate to include the number of survivors listed in the opening credits (Season 2 only, I suppose).
***Done! And done adding the blank tag to all the other episodes that use the template... *whew* -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 18:42, 20 January 2006 (EST)
*Designing an alternative color scheme for the wiki.

[[Category:Wikipedians|Mayosolo]]

Fall of the 12 Colonies

2006-01-23T07:01:19Z

Mayosolo: create redirect page

#REDIRECT [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]]

Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part II/Archive 1

2006-01-23T06:54:45Z

Mayosolo: /* Philwelch's Edit */ agreement

==Spoiler Pics==
I have found a few spoiler pics for the upcomming episode. (You have been warned) [http://static.flickr.com/42/78613683_f09776998e_o.jpg Pic 1], [http://static.flickr.com/38/78613674_b16762349b_o.jpg Pic 2], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613656_d89c65ba6e_o.jpg Pic 3], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613628_cfb3e5df9d_o.jpg Pic 4], [http://static.flickr.com/41/78613606_63c01fb6a3_o.jpg Pic 5], [http://static.flickr.com/39/78613585_82c2d24d36_o.jpg Pic 6], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613544_b764955ab4_o.jpg Pic 7] --[[User:Blacklight|Blacklight]]

:[[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown.jpg|We've]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown2.jpg|seen]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown3.jpg|them]], but thanks for the thought. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:40, 7 January 2006 (EST)

==Noteworthy Dialogue==

What's up with the long dialogue sections as of late? It's supposed to be noteworthy dialogue, not an entire transcript of the episode. I think whoever posts those (And i'm starting to believe its one person doing it) needs to keep it to a minimum, at least keep it to the point where it isn't longer then the article for the episode itself. -[[Bane Grievver]]

:I tend to agree, unless the lengthy excerpt has something very significant to offer. If others don't get to it first, feel free to truncate the dialogue into manageable and relevant bits. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:05, 17 January 2006 (EST)

:It didn't take me long to note the high points. While "noteworthy" was deeper than usual in this episode (almost every character had a deep thought) the pivotal (and brief) comments that will impact future episodes were kept, and others removed. Remember that articles should be kept as short but as information-rich as possible. Battlestar Wiki is not designed or intended to contain an episode transcript. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:14, 17 January 2006 (EST)

== The Basestar that got away ==
Not sure that the Galactica and Pegasus destroyed both Cylon Basestars - thought it was indicated that one Basestar was destroyed and the other "jumped out" --[[User:Mobrie01|Mobrie01]] 16:48, 19 January 2006 (EST)
: Questionable, but possible. One basestar was clearly exploding as the frame shifted to the other one, which was taking damage. Looking amount of damage that had to be inflicted by '''both''' battlestars, it's certainly possible that the second one was able to escape. Given that, we ''can't'' assume the other was destroyed. Good eye! --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 17:28, 19 January 2006 (EST)

:No, it was never indicated that one was Jumping away. Rather, we saw one blowing up, then we saw both Pegasus and Galactica turning their COMBINED weapons fire against the remaining, already damaged Basestar. Although all of this is told only visually, we see the second Basestar taking MASSIVE damage and I am positive that it was implied that it was also destroyed. We aren't "assuming" anything here, I think it's just our friends and Zoic "cutting corners" on the special effects budget for a frame or two. It was not possible that it escaped. I am going to revert your edit. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:05, 19 January 2006 (EST)

::Then who were the "remaining Cylons" that "jumped away", as Gaeta said? The Raiders that went after the civilian ships? --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 18:54, 19 January 2006 (EST)

:::Yeah. Raiders have jump drives. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 22:13, 19 January 2006 (EST)

::::I know. I just assumed that, basestarless, the Raiders would go on suicide runs rather than jump away. Unwarranted speculation, I suppose. --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 23:21, 19 January 2006 (EST)

:::::If I remember correctly, there was dialog that described the Resurresction Ship being accompanied by two Basestars and some support ships. I believe given the visual effects, the intent of the story is that the Basestars were destroyed and the support ships were the "remaining Cylons" that jumped away. Just adding my two cents. --[[User:Cp.hayes|cp.hayes]] 23:37, 19 January 2006 (EST)

::::Maybe, but a Raider fleet can operate autonomously of a Basestar, c.f. [[Flight of the Phoenix]]. OF course, Raiders are also fucking batshit insane—one of them flew right through a Raptor in Kobol's Last Gleaming, so you might expect them to make a kamikaze run on Galactica and Pegasus instead of jumping away. (And, back to the main point, I'm not sure if there was enough time to destroy the other Basestar, since it seemed mostly intact at the time. It appeared that the destroyed Basestar had some of its "spokes" destroyed before the main explosion, while the basestar in question appeared to have all six spokes intact. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 05:11, 20 January 2006 (EST)

::::: In modern warfare, battles tend to be extremely short so it is reasonable to say that after one basestar was destroyed, it was only a matter of minutes before the second was destroyed and mind you that the Resurrection ship was also destroyed so you had the vipers bearing down on the second basestar at the same time. Now, once both basestars and the resurrection ship were all destroyed, them being heart of the cylon fleet there, it is reasonable to say that whatever cylon command was in charge of the Raiders would have made a tactical field decision to withdraw them. [[User:StrayCat0|StrayCat0]] 11:39, 22 January 2006 (EST)

::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)

==Philwelch's Edit==
I find it uncontroversial. There's nothing wrong with narrowing the statement to be more precise, and it ''is'' true that we didn't actually see the second basestar destroyed on screen. Although I agree with Ricimer that it probably was, I don't think we should pretend to know more than we'e seen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST)
:Agreed. "At least one basestar" is more than fair, I think. We appear to have consensus that the second basestar's fate is not explicit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 01:54, 23 January 2006 (EST)

Epiphanies

2006-01-23T06:39:27Z

Mayosolo: /* Summary */ Tighten summary, some rewording.

{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:2BATejC05.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Epiphanies
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 13
| Guests=[http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Colm+Feore Colm Feore] ([[Adar (RDM)|President Adar]])
| Writer=[[David Weddle]] & [[Bradley Thompson]]
| Story=
| Director=[[Rod Hardy]]
| Production=2.13
| Rating=
| US Airdate=January 20 2006
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=49,598
| Prev= [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]
| Next= [[Black Market]]
}}




== Overview ==

: ''Admiral [[William Adama]] questions whether or not [[Sharon Valerii]]'s pregnancy should be aborted. Meanwhile Roslin's health declines rapidly as a pro-Cylon peace group attempts to sow civil disobedience within the Fleet.''

== Summary ==

* President [[Laura Roslin]] is brought on board ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]''. She has days to live.
* Captain [[Kara Thrace]] and Lieutenant [[Louanne Katraine]] are conducting Viper tests. During a test of the Viper's projectile systems, Kat's port gun is destroyed and a piece of it impacts on Thrace's cockpit.
* [[Cally]] and CPO [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] discover that several rounds of ammunition from the damaged Viper are unusually light and fragile. These rounds break and misfire, leaving the projectile lodged in the barrel. When the next round fires, the overpressure destroys the gun. They determine the ammunition has been sabotaged.
*The sabotage investigation quickly leads [[Lee Adama]] and Kara Thrace to [[Asha Janik]], one of the recent civilian hirees in ''Galactica's'' armory. When they apprehend her, she declares her allegiance to an organization claiming to want peace with the Cylons.
*Vice President [[Gaius Baltar]] is given the presidential tour by [[Billy Keikeya]] in preparation for his assumption of the Presidency. Billy reveals a letter from Roslin, to be opened upon her death.
* The new peace movement, led by [[Royan Jahee]], gains momentum as the civilian population begins to realize that victory against the Cylons is impossible and questions the fleet's 'attack-and-retreat' tactics.
* An infusion of [[Sharon Valerii|Sharon's]] fetal blood ostensibly destroys the cancerous masses in Roslin's system. Sharon's pregnancy is allowed to continue for further research.

===On Caprica Prior to the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|Cylon Attack]]===
*Roslin finds out she has cancer.
*Roslin meets with President Adar to discuss a teacher's strike, and his response.
*Roslin meets with the leader of the educational alliance, [[Naylin Stans]], and strikes an agreement.
*Adar disagrees with Roslin's methods and results, and asks for her resignation.
*Roslin refuses to resign and departs for ''Galactica's'' decommisioning ceremony.

== Questions ==

*Kara Thrace is flying Mk. II vipers with Galactica's pilots again. Is she still the CAG of ''Pegasus''?
**According to interviews with RDM, Starbuck is still the ''Pegasus'' CAG. There's nothing to say she couldn't just continue flying joint missions with ''Galactica'', etc.
*Now that Roslin recalls Baltar's involvment with a Cylon agent on Caprica, what will she do about it?
*Will there be any consequences for Helo's near-mutiny?
*Will Roslin's attitude toward the Cylon fetus change following her recovery?
**Ronald D. Moore's podcast implies that her urgency was only prompted by her lack of faith in Baltar's ability to handle the situation. Will she be content to let to Sharon carry to term now that her survival is no longer in question?
*Roslin's recent series of machiavellian orders (Cain's assasination in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]", and the forced abortion here) appear to have been faciliated by her belief that, given her impending death, she wouldn't have to deal with the ethical ramifications. Will this alter her relationship with Admiral Adama in the long term?
*Is security really so lax that Baltar (whom Adama does not consider especially trustworthy) would be able to smuggle one of ''Galactica's'' very few nuclear warheads off-ship?
**He didn't steal it from the armory, it's the one he used to build the Cylon detector; he's got 24 hours a day unrestricted access to it.
**Raptors are capable of detecting radiological devices. Why wasn't the bomb noticed in transit? If it's possible to effectively shield a nuclear device from detection, why don't the Cylons do this to their own warheads?
**Alternately, is the nuclear device actually functional?
**According to Ron Moore's podcast, the nuke storyline will be dealt with in "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I" and "...Part II" to end the season.
*Why aren't there posters of [[Gina]] scattered all over the fleet to inform everyone of her Cylon identity, making it difficult for her to hide, let alone lead a Cylon-sympathy movement?
**Ronald Moore did admit during his podcast that this was Gina's "Clark Kent" disguise and it was very shaky the way they played it off that nobody would recognize her. Will this loose end be tied-up in some future story line when they get further into the Colonial underground storylines that the next few episodes are supposed to follow?
**On the other hand, Gina does not appear to be leaving her room on ''Cloud 9'' that much, and the humans who do see her are Cylon sympathizers anyway.
*Does Gina "remember" Number Six's memories about having a relationship with Baltar on Caprica, or even after? In "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]", she did not seem to know him, as Baltar introduced himself to her and explained that he had a relationship with another Cylon copy of her model. Here, however, it sort of seems like she remembers having a physical relationship with him, but isn't "ready" to go back to that after her torture. Then again, her lines also be intrepretted to mean that she really never "knew" about him before she met him on ''Pegasus''. The process of Cylon memory-transfer and systematic updating isn't very well understood at this point.

== Analysis ==

* The survivor count this episode is 49,598, a net loss of six since [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. [[Helena Cain|Admiral Cain]] and the ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' marine killed by [[Gina]] account for two. Presumably the remaining were pilots or crew lost during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship|attack]] on the [[Resurrection Ship]].
** This seems to be extremely good fortune, as the two battlestars engaged in a major fleet action for an extended time.
* Roslin's affair with Adar was suggested by her comment in the [[miniseries]] that "he had a way about him... you just couldn't say 'no' to him."
*Naylin Stans implies that he believes the teacher's strike is a cause worth dying for. This claim is ridiculously hyperbolic.
**The fact that President Adar was willing to use the military to enforce a back-to-work order seems to indicate that the protest must've been more serious than simple wage issues.
*Roslin's medical chart showed her name and other information such as date of birth, but this information was too blurry for viewers to read.

===Serious Technical and Storyline Issues===

*Roslin's cancer cure was pure "deus ex machina." While many viewers may find Roslin's cure a necessary one as she has become a pivotal character in the show, the method of her cure leaves too many medical mistakes and is too easy of a cure.
*Cancer is not a viral disease, like AIDS or the common cold, but an invasive destruction of tissue by mutated cells, which usurp the function of healthy cells. For the cure to work the way it did would require it not only to destroy free-floating cells and metastasized tissue, but to ''repair'' any organs with healthy tissue.
*As cancer is not cureable here on Earth, for the show to invest a cure at the last minute may feel contrived by some.

Major plot elements that form a resolution in the show's past were generally introduced and left "in the air" for suspense over several episodes while both viewers and characters learned their significance. These included:
**The search for the [[Arrow of Apollo]] and the search for the [[Tomb of Athena]]
**The Experiment with Helo on Caprica (Season 1)
**Adama's survival after his shooting

The "epiphany" of Baltar's cancer cure could have been worked over at least two or three episodes while he and Cottle studied Sharon Valerii's child, which is a logical way to work a cancer cure. Baltar is a tinkerer--the miracle working viewers saw in this episode would be best left to other characters in science fiction where such "magical" inventiveness might be expected. In "Battlestar Galactica", this sudden resolution of the second major plot element in the series (we hear of Roslin's terminal cancer diagnosis when we first see Roslin in the Miniseries) that has dire ramifications for the Fleet should not be resolved with the proverbial swipe of a writer's pen in a single episode.

It should be noted that the cure might not be permanent and the cancer may return in the future (as hinted by Ronald D. Moore in the podcast for this episode).

For more analysis on this and other scientific matters of the Re-imagined Series, see the article, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]].

Other technical issues abound in this episode.

*A nuclear warhead was smuggled from ''Galactica'' to ''Cloud Nine''. How would such a device possibly get past the various [[Radiological Alarm|radiological sensors]] throughout the Fleet? This was a plot complication used in "[[Flesh and Bone]]" as well when a copy of [[Leoben Conoy]] claimed that a nuclear device was hidden in the Fleet. The writing element was difficult to believe in that episode, and it far less believable in this episode. Both the battlestar and the [[Raptor]] on which the freed "freedom movement" member left the ship are military vessels ''designed'' to sniff out hostile devices. It is possible that the radiological sensors can only detect a nuclear device when it has been armed, and not when its in an unarmed state.

*The explosion of the bomb on the refinery ship is powerful enough to create a sizable hole on the ship. While space is a vacuum and so shock waves do not carry as they would in an atmosphere, the Raptor that flew close to the ship and was not very far from the explosion should probably be damaged from flying debris.

== Notes ==

* This episode begins 189 days after the Cylon attack on the colonies. There is a 48 hour gap between Roslin's deathbed treatment and her conversation with [[Royan Jahee]]. The number 189 given in this episode, as well as "six months" in the previous one, contradict the [[Timeline (RDM)|timeline]] which ''BattlestarWiki'' has developed to track dates. See the [[Talk:Timeline (RDM)#6 months?|''Talk'' page on the Timeline]] for a full breakdown.
* [[Lee Adama]] is once again a Captain, and has been reinstated as ''Galactica's'' CAG. His authority apparently extends to the ''Pegasus'' squadrons as well. This is consistent with [[Cole Taylor]]'s authority over ''Galactica's'' air wing, when ''Pegasus'' was the flagship.
* [[Gina]] has joined the Cylon sympathizers. The other members of the resistance are apparently unaware she is a [[Humano-Cylon]].
* Roslin was in an intimate relationship with President Adar.
*Roslin now recalls witnessing [[Gaius Baltar]]'s affair with a copy of [[Number Six]] on Caprica, prior to the attack.
* The radiation symbol used by the colonials is different from the one used in reality, but is still easily recognizable.
*''Galactica'' has been recruiting civilians to handle "grunt work" on the hangar deck.
*Baltar was aware of the [[Demand Peace]] movement prior to this episode.
*At least three bodies can be seen being vented into space after the explosion onboard ''[[Daru Mozu]]''.
*The file photograph of Number Six is of [[Number Six#Shelly Godfrey|Shelly Godfrey]], seen in the episode "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]".
* The nuclear device Dr. Baltar gives the resistance is the same one he was given to create his [[Cylon detector]] in "[[Bastille Day]]".
* ''Pegasus'' is barely featured in this episode, and none of her crew or interior locations are seen, except in the pre-episode recap.
*Admiral Adama continues to wear his commander's [[uniform]] with new admiral's rank insignia at his collar.
**Adama is a pragmatist who tends to eschew ceremony.

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

'''President Richard Adar:''' "One of the most interesting things about being President is that you don't have to explain yourself. To anyone."
*Roslin earlier attributed this saying to Adar in the episode "[[Flesh and Bone]]".

'''Secretary Roslin:''' "I am on my way to the ''Galactica'' to represent this administration. When I return, if you still want my job, be prepared to fight."

== Official Statements ==




{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Epiphanies

2006-01-23T06:21:43Z

Mayosolo: /* On Caprica Prior to the Cylon Attack */ Wikify Cylon Attack

{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:2BATejC05.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Epiphanies
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 13
| Guests=[http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Colm+Feore Colm Feore] ([[Adar (RDM)|President Adar]])
| Writer=[[David Weddle]] & [[Bradley Thompson]]
| Story=
| Director=[[Rod Hardy]]
| Production=2.13
| Rating=
| US Airdate=January 20 2006
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=49,598
| Prev= [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]
| Next= [[Black Market]]
}}




== Overview ==

: ''Admiral [[William Adama]] questions whether or not [[Sharon Valerii]]'s pregnancy should be aborted. Meanwhile Roslin's health declines rapidly as a pro-Cylon peace group attempts to sow civil disobedience within the Fleet.''

== Summary ==

* President [[Laura Roslin]] is brought on board ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]''. She is near death and has, at best, days to live.
* Captain [[Kara Thrace]] and Lieutenant [[Louanne Katraine]] are conducting Viper tests. During a test of the Viper's projectile systems, Kat's port gun is destroyed and a piece of it impacts on Thrace's cockpit. Thrace requests priority landing; both Vipers land.
* [[Cally]] and CPO [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] discover that several rounds of ammunition from the damaged Viper are unusually light and fragile. A round of such ammunition would easily break as the cartridge loaded into the chamber and misfire, leaving the projectile lodged in the barrel. When the next round hit it, the overpressure destroyed the gun. Undoubtedly, someone is trying to sabotage the fleet's military readiness.
*The sabotage investigation quickly leads Lee Adama and Kara Thrace to Asha Janik, one of the recent civilian hirees in ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'''s armory. When they apprehend her, she declares her allegiance to a self-proclaimed pacifist organization that wants peace with the Cylons.
*Vice President Baltar is given the presidential tour by [[Billy Keikeya]] in preparation for his assumption of the Presidency. Billy gives Baltar a letter from Roslin to be opened after her death.
* The new peace movement, led by Royan Jahee, is gaining momentum in the civilian population as people begin to realize that victory against the Cylons is impossible as well as questioning the current military tactic of 'attack-and-retreat'.
* [[Sharon Valerii|Sharon's]] baby's blood was used to destroy the cancerous masses in Roslin's system. The procedure to abort Sharon's fetus was not performed.

===On Caprica Prior to the [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|Cylon Attack]]===
*Roslin finds out she has cancer
*Roslin meets with President Adar to discuss a teacher's strike, and his response.
*Roslin meets with the leader of the educational alliance, [[Naylin Stans]], and strikes an agreement.
*Adar disagrees with Roslin's methods and results, and asks for her resignation.
*Roslin refuses to resign and departs for ''Galactica's'' decommisioning ceremony.

== Questions ==

*Kara Thrace is flying Mk. II vipers with Galactica's pilots again. Is she still the CAG of ''Pegasus''?
**According to interviews with RDM, Starbuck is still the ''Pegasus'' CAG. There's nothing to say she couldn't just continue flying joint missions with ''Galactica'', etc.
*Now that Roslin recalls Baltar's involvment with a Cylon agent on Caprica, what will she do about it?
*Will there be any consequences for Helo's near-mutiny?
*Will Roslin's attitude toward the Cylon fetus change following her recovery?
**Ronald D. Moore's podcast implies that her urgency was only prompted by her lack of faith in Baltar's ability to handle the situation. Will she be content to let to Sharon carry to term now that her survival is no longer in question?
*Roslin's recent series of machiavellian orders (Cain's assasination in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]", and the forced abortion here) appear to have been faciliated by her belief that, given her impending death, she wouldn't have to deal with the ethical ramifications. Will this alter her relationship with Admiral Adama in the long term?
*Is security really so lax that Baltar (whom Adama does not consider especially trustworthy) would be able to smuggle one of ''Galactica's'' very few nuclear warheads off-ship?
**He didn't steal it from the armory, it's the one he used to build the Cylon detector; he's got 24 hours a day unrestricted access to it.
**Raptors are capable of detecting radiological devices. Why wasn't the bomb noticed in transit? If it's possible to effectively shield a nuclear device from detection, why don't the Cylons do this to their own warheads?
**Alternately, is the nuclear device actually functional?
**According to Ron Moore's podcast, the nuke storyline will be dealt with in "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I" and "...Part II" to end the season.
*Why aren't there posters of [[Gina]] scattered all over the fleet to inform everyone of her Cylon identity, making it difficult for her to hide, let alone lead a Cylon-sympathy movement?
**Ronald Moore did admit during his podcast that this was Gina's "Clark Kent" disguise and it was very shaky the way they played it off that nobody would recognize her. Will this loose end be tied-up in some future story line when they get further into the Colonial underground storylines that the next few episodes are supposed to follow?
**On the other hand, Gina does not appear to be leaving her room on ''Cloud 9'' that much, and the humans who do see her are Cylon sympathizers anyway.
*Does Gina "remember" Number Six's memories about having a relationship with Baltar on Caprica, or even after? In "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]", she did not seem to know him, as Baltar introduced himself to her and explained that he had a relationship with another Cylon copy of her model. Here, however, it sort of seems like she remembers having a physical relationship with him, but isn't "ready" to go back to that after her torture. Then again, her lines also be intrepretted to mean that she really never "knew" about him before she met him on ''Pegasus''. The process of Cylon memory-transfer and systematic updating isn't very well understood at this point.

== Analysis ==

* The survivor count this episode is 49,598, a net loss of six since [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. [[Helena Cain|Admiral Cain]] and the ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' marine killed by [[Gina]] account for two. Presumably the remaining were pilots or crew lost during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship|attack]] on the [[Resurrection Ship]].
** This seems to be extremely good fortune, as the two battlestars engaged in a major fleet action for an extended time.
* Roslin's affair with Adar was suggested by her comment in the [[miniseries]] that "he had a way about him... you just couldn't say 'no' to him."
*Naylin Stans implies that he believes the teacher's strike is a cause worth dying for. This claim is ridiculously hyperbolic.
**The fact that President Adar was willing to use the military to enforce a back-to-work order seems to indicate that the protest must've been more serious than simple wage issues.
*Roslin's medical chart showed her name and other information such as date of birth, but this information was too blurry for viewers to read.

===Serious Technical and Storyline Issues===

*Roslin's cancer cure was pure "deus ex machina." While many viewers may find Roslin's cure a necessary one as she has become a pivotal character in the show, the method of her cure leaves too many medical mistakes and is too easy of a cure.
*Cancer is not a viral disease, like AIDS or the common cold, but an invasive destruction of tissue by mutated cells, which usurp the function of healthy cells. For the cure to work the way it did would require it not only to destroy free-floating cells and metastasized tissue, but to ''repair'' any organs with healthy tissue.
*As cancer is not cureable here on Earth, for the show to invest a cure at the last minute may feel contrived by some.

Major plot elements that form a resolution in the show's past were generally introduced and left "in the air" for suspense over several episodes while both viewers and characters learned their significance. These included:
**The search for the [[Arrow of Apollo]] and the search for the [[Tomb of Athena]]
**The Experiment with Helo on Caprica (Season 1)
**Adama's survival after his shooting

The "epiphany" of Baltar's cancer cure could have been worked over at least two or three episodes while he and Cottle studied Sharon Valerii's child, which is a logical way to work a cancer cure. Baltar is a tinkerer--the miracle working viewers saw in this episode would be best left to other characters in science fiction where such "magical" inventiveness might be expected. In "Battlestar Galactica", this sudden resolution of the second major plot element in the series (we hear of Roslin's terminal cancer diagnosis when we first see Roslin in the Miniseries) that has dire ramifications for the Fleet should not be resolved with the proverbial swipe of a writer's pen in a single episode.

It should be noted that the cure might not be permanent and the cancer may return in the future (as hinted by Ronald D. Moore in the podcast for this episode).

For more analysis on this and other scientific matters of the Re-imagined Series, see the article, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]].

Other technical issues abound in this episode.

*A nuclear warhead was smuggled from ''Galactica'' to ''Cloud Nine''. How would such a device possibly get past the various [[Radiological Alarm|radiological sensors]] throughout the Fleet? This was a plot complication used in "[[Flesh and Bone]]" as well when a copy of [[Leoben Conoy]] claimed that a nuclear device was hidden in the Fleet. The writing element was difficult to believe in that episode, and it far less believable in this episode. Both the battlestar and the [[Raptor]] on which the freed "freedom movement" member left the ship are military vessels ''designed'' to sniff out hostile devices. It is possible that the radiological sensors can only detect a nuclear device when it has been armed, and not when its in an unarmed state.

*The explosion of the bomb on the refinery ship is powerful enough to create a sizable hole on the ship. While space is a vacuum and so shock waves do not carry as they would in an atmosphere, the Raptor that flew close to the ship and was not very far from the explosion should probably be damaged from flying debris.

== Notes ==

* This episode begins 189 days after the Cylon attack on the colonies. There is a 48 hour gap between Roslin's deathbed treatment and her conversation with [[Royan Jahee]]. The number 189 given in this episode, as well as "six months" in the previous one, contradict the [[Timeline (RDM)|timeline]] which ''BattlestarWiki'' has developed to track dates. See the [[Talk:Timeline (RDM)#6 months?|''Talk'' page on the Timeline]] for a full breakdown.
* [[Lee Adama]] is once again a Captain, and has been reinstated as ''Galactica's'' CAG. His authority apparently extends to the ''Pegasus'' squadrons as well. This is consistent with [[Cole Taylor]]'s authority over ''Galactica's'' air wing, when ''Pegasus'' was the flagship.
* [[Gina]] has joined the Cylon sympathizers. The other members of the resistance are apparently unaware she is a [[Humano-Cylon]].
* Roslin was in an intimate relationship with President Adar.
*Roslin now recalls witnessing [[Gaius Baltar]]'s affair with a copy of [[Number Six]] on Caprica, prior to the attack.
* The radiation symbol used by the colonials is different from the one used in reality, but is still easily recognizable.
*''Galactica'' has been recruiting civilians to handle "grunt work" on the hangar deck.
*Baltar was aware of the [[Demand Peace]] movement prior to this episode.
*At least three bodies can be seen being vented into space after the explosion onboard ''[[Daru Mozu]]''.
*The file photograph of Number Six is of [[Number Six#Shelly Godfrey|Shelly Godfrey]], seen in the episode "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]".
* The nuclear device Dr. Baltar gives the resistance is the same one he was given to create his [[Cylon detector]] in "[[Bastille Day]]".
* ''Pegasus'' is barely featured in this episode, and none of her crew or interior locations are seen, except in the pre-episode recap.
*Admiral Adama continues to wear his commander's [[uniform]] with new admiral's rank insignia at his collar.
**Adama is a pragmatist who tends to eschew ceremony.

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

'''President Richard Adar:''' "One of the most interesting things about being President is that you don't have to explain yourself. To anyone."
*Roslin earlier attributed this saying to Adar in the episode "[[Flesh and Bone]]".

'''Secretary Roslin:''' "I am on my way to the ''Galactica'' to represent this administration. When I return, if you still want my job, be prepared to fight."

== Official Statements ==




{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Epiphanies

2006-01-23T06:20:48Z

Mayosolo: /* Notes */ A bunch of fixes. Re: Adama's uniform, let's stick to the facts & let readers speculate.

{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:2BATejC05.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Epiphanies
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 13
| Guests=[http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Colm+Feore Colm Feore] ([[Adar (RDM)|President Adar]])
| Writer=[[David Weddle]] & [[Bradley Thompson]]
| Story=
| Director=[[Rod Hardy]]
| Production=2.13
| Rating=
| US Airdate=January 20 2006
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=49,598
| Prev= [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]
| Next= [[Black Market]]
}}




== Overview ==

: ''Admiral [[William Adama]] questions whether or not [[Sharon Valerii]]'s pregnancy should be aborted. Meanwhile Roslin's health declines rapidly as a pro-Cylon peace group attempts to sow civil disobedience within the Fleet.''

== Summary ==

* President [[Laura Roslin]] is brought on board ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]''. She is near death and has, at best, days to live.
* Captain [[Kara Thrace]] and Lieutenant [[Louanne Katraine]] are conducting Viper tests. During a test of the Viper's projectile systems, Kat's port gun is destroyed and a piece of it impacts on Thrace's cockpit. Thrace requests priority landing; both Vipers land.
* [[Cally]] and CPO [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] discover that several rounds of ammunition from the damaged Viper are unusually light and fragile. A round of such ammunition would easily break as the cartridge loaded into the chamber and misfire, leaving the projectile lodged in the barrel. When the next round hit it, the overpressure destroyed the gun. Undoubtedly, someone is trying to sabotage the fleet's military readiness.
*The sabotage investigation quickly leads Lee Adama and Kara Thrace to Asha Janik, one of the recent civilian hirees in ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'''s armory. When they apprehend her, she declares her allegiance to a self-proclaimed pacifist organization that wants peace with the Cylons.
*Vice President Baltar is given the presidential tour by [[Billy Keikeya]] in preparation for his assumption of the Presidency. Billy gives Baltar a letter from Roslin to be opened after her death.
* The new peace movement, led by Royan Jahee, is gaining momentum in the civilian population as people begin to realize that victory against the Cylons is impossible as well as questioning the current military tactic of 'attack-and-retreat'.
* [[Sharon Valerii|Sharon's]] baby's blood was used to destroy the cancerous masses in Roslin's system. The procedure to abort Sharon's fetus was not performed.

===On Caprica Prior to the Cylon Attack===
*Roslin finds out she has cancer
*Roslin meets with President Adar to discuss a teacher's strike, and his response.
*Roslin meets with the leader of the educational alliance, [[Naylin Stans]], and strikes an agreement.
*Adar disagrees with Roslin's methods and results, and asks for her resignation.
*Roslin refuses to resign and departs for ''Galactica's'' decommisioning ceremony.

== Questions ==

*Kara Thrace is flying Mk. II vipers with Galactica's pilots again. Is she still the CAG of ''Pegasus''?
**According to interviews with RDM, Starbuck is still the ''Pegasus'' CAG. There's nothing to say she couldn't just continue flying joint missions with ''Galactica'', etc.
*Now that Roslin recalls Baltar's involvment with a Cylon agent on Caprica, what will she do about it?
*Will there be any consequences for Helo's near-mutiny?
*Will Roslin's attitude toward the Cylon fetus change following her recovery?
**Ronald D. Moore's podcast implies that her urgency was only prompted by her lack of faith in Baltar's ability to handle the situation. Will she be content to let to Sharon carry to term now that her survival is no longer in question?
*Roslin's recent series of machiavellian orders (Cain's assasination in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]", and the forced abortion here) appear to have been faciliated by her belief that, given her impending death, she wouldn't have to deal with the ethical ramifications. Will this alter her relationship with Admiral Adama in the long term?
*Is security really so lax that Baltar (whom Adama does not consider especially trustworthy) would be able to smuggle one of ''Galactica's'' very few nuclear warheads off-ship?
**He didn't steal it from the armory, it's the one he used to build the Cylon detector; he's got 24 hours a day unrestricted access to it.
**Raptors are capable of detecting radiological devices. Why wasn't the bomb noticed in transit? If it's possible to effectively shield a nuclear device from detection, why don't the Cylons do this to their own warheads?
**Alternately, is the nuclear device actually functional?
**According to Ron Moore's podcast, the nuke storyline will be dealt with in "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I" and "...Part II" to end the season.
*Why aren't there posters of [[Gina]] scattered all over the fleet to inform everyone of her Cylon identity, making it difficult for her to hide, let alone lead a Cylon-sympathy movement?
**Ronald Moore did admit during his podcast that this was Gina's "Clark Kent" disguise and it was very shaky the way they played it off that nobody would recognize her. Will this loose end be tied-up in some future story line when they get further into the Colonial underground storylines that the next few episodes are supposed to follow?
**On the other hand, Gina does not appear to be leaving her room on ''Cloud 9'' that much, and the humans who do see her are Cylon sympathizers anyway.
*Does Gina "remember" Number Six's memories about having a relationship with Baltar on Caprica, or even after? In "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]", she did not seem to know him, as Baltar introduced himself to her and explained that he had a relationship with another Cylon copy of her model. Here, however, it sort of seems like she remembers having a physical relationship with him, but isn't "ready" to go back to that after her torture. Then again, her lines also be intrepretted to mean that she really never "knew" about him before she met him on ''Pegasus''. The process of Cylon memory-transfer and systematic updating isn't very well understood at this point.

== Analysis ==

* The survivor count this episode is 49,598, a net loss of six since [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. [[Helena Cain|Admiral Cain]] and the ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' marine killed by [[Gina]] account for two. Presumably the remaining were pilots or crew lost during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship|attack]] on the [[Resurrection Ship]].
** This seems to be extremely good fortune, as the two battlestars engaged in a major fleet action for an extended time.
* Roslin's affair with Adar was suggested by her comment in the [[miniseries]] that "he had a way about him... you just couldn't say 'no' to him."
*Naylin Stans implies that he believes the teacher's strike is a cause worth dying for. This claim is ridiculously hyperbolic.
**The fact that President Adar was willing to use the military to enforce a back-to-work order seems to indicate that the protest must've been more serious than simple wage issues.
*Roslin's medical chart showed her name and other information such as date of birth, but this information was too blurry for viewers to read.

===Serious Technical and Storyline Issues===

*Roslin's cancer cure was pure "deus ex machina." While many viewers may find Roslin's cure a necessary one as she has become a pivotal character in the show, the method of her cure leaves too many medical mistakes and is too easy of a cure.
*Cancer is not a viral disease, like AIDS or the common cold, but an invasive destruction of tissue by mutated cells, which usurp the function of healthy cells. For the cure to work the way it did would require it not only to destroy free-floating cells and metastasized tissue, but to ''repair'' any organs with healthy tissue.
*As cancer is not cureable here on Earth, for the show to invest a cure at the last minute may feel contrived by some.

Major plot elements that form a resolution in the show's past were generally introduced and left "in the air" for suspense over several episodes while both viewers and characters learned their significance. These included:
**The search for the [[Arrow of Apollo]] and the search for the [[Tomb of Athena]]
**The Experiment with Helo on Caprica (Season 1)
**Adama's survival after his shooting

The "epiphany" of Baltar's cancer cure could have been worked over at least two or three episodes while he and Cottle studied Sharon Valerii's child, which is a logical way to work a cancer cure. Baltar is a tinkerer--the miracle working viewers saw in this episode would be best left to other characters in science fiction where such "magical" inventiveness might be expected. In "Battlestar Galactica", this sudden resolution of the second major plot element in the series (we hear of Roslin's terminal cancer diagnosis when we first see Roslin in the Miniseries) that has dire ramifications for the Fleet should not be resolved with the proverbial swipe of a writer's pen in a single episode.

It should be noted that the cure might not be permanent and the cancer may return in the future (as hinted by Ronald D. Moore in the podcast for this episode).

For more analysis on this and other scientific matters of the Re-imagined Series, see the article, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]].

Other technical issues abound in this episode.

*A nuclear warhead was smuggled from ''Galactica'' to ''Cloud Nine''. How would such a device possibly get past the various [[Radiological Alarm|radiological sensors]] throughout the Fleet? This was a plot complication used in "[[Flesh and Bone]]" as well when a copy of [[Leoben Conoy]] claimed that a nuclear device was hidden in the Fleet. The writing element was difficult to believe in that episode, and it far less believable in this episode. Both the battlestar and the [[Raptor]] on which the freed "freedom movement" member left the ship are military vessels ''designed'' to sniff out hostile devices. It is possible that the radiological sensors can only detect a nuclear device when it has been armed, and not when its in an unarmed state.

*The explosion of the bomb on the refinery ship is powerful enough to create a sizable hole on the ship. While space is a vacuum and so shock waves do not carry as they would in an atmosphere, the Raptor that flew close to the ship and was not very far from the explosion should probably be damaged from flying debris.

== Notes ==

* This episode begins 189 days after the Cylon attack on the colonies. There is a 48 hour gap between Roslin's deathbed treatment and her conversation with [[Royan Jahee]]. The number 189 given in this episode, as well as "six months" in the previous one, contradict the [[Timeline (RDM)|timeline]] which ''BattlestarWiki'' has developed to track dates. See the [[Talk:Timeline (RDM)#6 months?|''Talk'' page on the Timeline]] for a full breakdown.
* [[Lee Adama]] is once again a Captain, and has been reinstated as ''Galactica's'' CAG. His authority apparently extends to the ''Pegasus'' squadrons as well. This is consistent with [[Cole Taylor]]'s authority over ''Galactica's'' air wing, when ''Pegasus'' was the flagship.
* [[Gina]] has joined the Cylon sympathizers. The other members of the resistance are apparently unaware she is a [[Humano-Cylon]].
* Roslin was in an intimate relationship with President Adar.
*Roslin now recalls witnessing [[Gaius Baltar]]'s affair with a copy of [[Number Six]] on Caprica, prior to the attack.
* The radiation symbol used by the colonials is different from the one used in reality, but is still easily recognizable.
*''Galactica'' has been recruiting civilians to handle "grunt work" on the hangar deck.
*Baltar was aware of the [[Demand Peace]] movement prior to this episode.
*At least three bodies can be seen being vented into space after the explosion onboard ''[[Daru Mozu]]''.
*The file photograph of Number Six is of [[Number Six#Shelly Godfrey|Shelly Godfrey]], seen in the episode "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]".
* The nuclear device Dr. Baltar gives the resistance is the same one he was given to create his [[Cylon detector]] in "[[Bastille Day]]".
* ''Pegasus'' is barely featured in this episode, and none of her crew or interior locations are seen, except in the pre-episode recap.
*Admiral Adama continues to wear his commander's [[uniform]] with new admiral's rank insignia at his collar.
**Adama is a pragmatist who tends to eschew ceremony.

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

'''President Richard Adar:''' "One of the most interesting things about being President is that you don't have to explain yourself. To anyone."
*Roslin earlier attributed this saying to Adar in the episode "[[Flesh and Bone]]".

'''Secretary Roslin:''' "I am on my way to the ''Galactica'' to represent this administration. When I return, if you still want my job, be prepared to fight."

== Official Statements ==




{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Epiphanies

2006-01-23T05:29:02Z

Mayosolo: /* On Caprica Prior to the Cylon Attack */ We only need the quote once in the page.

{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:2BATejC05.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Epiphanies
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 13
| Guests=[http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Colm+Feore Colm Feore] ([[Adar (RDM)|President Adar]])
| Writer=[[David Weddle]] & [[Bradley Thompson]]
| Story=
| Director=[[Rod Hardy]]
| Production=2.13
| Rating=
| US Airdate=January 20 2006
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=49,598
| Prev= [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]
| Next= [[Black Market]]
}}




== Overview ==

: ''Admiral [[William Adama]] questions whether or not [[Sharon Valerii]]'s pregnancy should be aborted. Meanwhile Roslin's health declines rapidly as a pro-Cylon peace group attempts to sow civil disobedience within the Fleet.''

== Summary ==

* President [[Laura Roslin]] is brought on board ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]''. She is near death and has, at best, days to live.
* Captain [[Kara Thrace]] and Lieutenant [[Louanne Katraine]] are conducting Viper tests. During a test of the Viper's projectile systems, Kat's port gun is destroyed and a piece of it impacts on Thrace's cockpit. Thrace requests priority landing; both Vipers land.
* [[Cally]] and CPO [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] discover that several rounds of ammunition from the damaged Viper are unusually light and fragile. A round of such ammunition would easily break as the cartridge loaded into the chamber and misfire, leaving the projectile lodged in the barrel. When the next round hit it, the overpressure destroyed the gun. Undoubtedly, someone is trying to sabotage the fleet's military readiness.
*The sabotage investigation quickly leads Lee Adama and Kara Thrace to Asha Janik, one of the recent civilian hirees in ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'''s armory. When they apprehend her, she declares her allegiance to a self-proclaimed pacifist organization that wants peace with the Cylons.
*Vice President Baltar is given the presidential tour by [[Billy Keikeya]] in preparation for his assumption of the Presidency. Billy gives Baltar a letter from Roslin to be opened after her death.
* The new peace movement, led by Royan Jahee, is gaining momentum in the civilian population as people begin to realize that victory against the Cylons is impossible as well as questioning the current military tactic of 'attack-and-retreat'.
* [[Sharon Valerii|Sharon's]] baby's blood was used to destroy the cancerous masses in Roslin's system. The procedure to abort Sharon's fetus was not performed.

===On Caprica Prior to the Cylon Attack===
*Roslin finds out she has cancer
*Roslin meets with President Adar to discuss a teacher's strike, and his response.
*Roslin meets with the leader of the educational alliance, [[Naylin Stans]], and strikes an agreement.
*Adar disagrees with Roslin's methods and results, and asks for her resignation.
*Roslin refuses to resign and departs for ''Galactica's'' decommisioning ceremony.

== Questions ==

*Kara Thrace is flying Mk. II vipers with Galactica's pilots again. Is she still the CAG of ''Pegasus''?
**According to interviews with RDM, Starbuck is still the ''Pegasus'' CAG. There's nothing to say she couldn't just continue flying joint missions with ''Galactica'', etc.
*Now that Roslin recalls Baltar's involvment with a Cylon agent on Caprica, what will she do about it?
*Will there be any consequences for Helo's near-mutiny?
*Will Roslin's attitude toward the Cylon fetus change following her recovery?
**Ronald D. Moore's podcast implies that her urgency was only prompted by her lack of faith in Baltar's ability to handle the situation. Will she be content to let to Sharon carry to term now that her survival is no longer in question?
*Roslin's recent series of machiavellian orders (Cain's assasination in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]", and the forced abortion here) appear to have been faciliated by her belief that, given her impending death, she wouldn't have to deal with the ethical ramifications. Will this alter her relationship with Admiral Adama in the long term?
*Is security really so lax that Baltar (whom Adama does not consider especially trustworthy) would be able to smuggle one of ''Galactica's'' very few nuclear warheads off-ship?
**He didn't steal it from the armory, it's the one he used to build the Cylon detector; he's got 24 hours a day unrestricted access to it.
**Raptors are capable of detecting radiological devices. Why wasn't the bomb noticed in transit? If it's possible to effectively shield a nuclear device from detection, why don't the Cylons do this to their own warheads?
**Alternately, is the nuclear device actually functional?
**According to Ron Moore's podcast, the nuke storyline will be dealt with in "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I" and "...Part II" to end the season.
*Why aren't there posters of [[Gina]] scattered all over the fleet to inform everyone of her Cylon identity, making it difficult for her to hide, let alone lead a Cylon-sympathy movement?
**Ronald Moore did admit during his podcast that this was Gina's "Clark Kent" disguise and it was very shaky the way they played it off that nobody would recognize her. Will this loose end be tied-up in some future story line when they get further into the Colonial underground storylines that the next few episodes are supposed to follow?
**On the other hand, Gina does not appear to be leaving her room on ''Cloud 9'' that much, and the humans who do see her are Cylon sympathizers anyway.
*Does Gina "remember" Number Six's memories about having a relationship with Baltar on Caprica, or even after? In "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]", she did not seem to know him, as Baltar introduced himself to her and explained that he had a relationship with another Cylon copy of her model. Here, however, it sort of seems like she remembers having a physical relationship with him, but isn't "ready" to go back to that after her torture. Then again, her lines also be intrepretted to mean that she really never "knew" about him before she met him on ''Pegasus''. The process of Cylon memory-transfer and systematic updating isn't very well understood at this point.

== Analysis ==

* The survivor count this episode is 49,598, a net loss of six since [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. [[Helena Cain|Admiral Cain]] and the ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' marine killed by [[Gina]] account for two. Presumably the remaining were pilots or crew lost during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship|attack]] on the [[Resurrection Ship]].
** This seems to be extremely good fortune, as the two battlestars engaged in a major fleet action for an extended time.
* Roslin's affair with Adar was suggested by her comment in the [[miniseries]] that "he had a way about him... you just couldn't say 'no' to him."
*Naylin Stans implies that he believes the teacher's strike is a cause worth dying for. This claim is ridiculously hyperbolic.
**The fact that President Adar was willing to use the military to enforce a back-to-work order seems to indicate that the protest must've been more serious than simple wage issues.
*Roslin's medical chart showed her name and other information such as date of birth, but this information was too blurry for viewers to read.

===Serious Technical and Storyline Issues===

*Roslin's cancer cure was pure "deus ex machina." While many viewers may find Roslin's cure a necessary one as she has become a pivotal character in the show, the method of her cure leaves too many medical mistakes and is too easy of a cure.
*Cancer is not a viral disease, like AIDS or the common cold, but an invasive destruction of tissue by mutated cells, which usurp the function of healthy cells. For the cure to work the way it did would require it not only to destroy free-floating cells and metastasized tissue, but to ''repair'' any organs with healthy tissue.
*As cancer is not cureable here on Earth, for the show to invest a cure at the last minute may feel contrived by some.

Major plot elements that form a resolution in the show's past were generally introduced and left "in the air" for suspense over several episodes while both viewers and characters learned their significance. These included:
**The search for the [[Arrow of Apollo]] and the search for the [[Tomb of Athena]]
**The Experiment with Helo on Caprica (Season 1)
**Adama's survival after his shooting

The "epiphany" of Baltar's cancer cure could have been worked over at least two or three episodes while he and Cottle studied Sharon Valerii's child, which is a logical way to work a cancer cure. Baltar is a tinkerer--the miracle working viewers saw in this episode would be best left to other characters in science fiction where such "magical" inventiveness might be expected. In "Battlestar Galactica", this sudden resolution of the second major plot element in the series (we hear of Roslin's terminal cancer diagnosis when we first see Roslin in the Miniseries) that has dire ramifications for the Fleet should not be resolved with the proverbial swipe of a writer's pen in a single episode.

It should be noted that the cure might not be permanent and the cancer may return in the future (as hinted by Ronald D. Moore in the podcast for this episode).

For more analysis on this and other scientific matters of the Re-imagined Series, see the article, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]].

Other technical issues abound in this episode.

*A nuclear warhead was smuggled from ''Galactica'' to ''Cloud Nine''. How would such a device possibly get past the various [[Radiological Alarm|radiological sensors]] throughout the Fleet? This was a plot complication used in "[[Flesh and Bone]]" as well when a copy of [[Leoben Conoy]] claimed that a nuclear device was hidden in the Fleet. The writing element was difficult to believe in that episode, and it far less believable in this episode. Both the battlestar and the [[Raptor]] on which the freed "freedom movement" member left the ship are military vessels ''designed'' to sniff out hostile devices. It is possible that the radiological sensors can only detect a nuclear device when it has been armed, and not when its in an unarmed state.

*The explosion of the bomb on the refinery ship is powerful enough to create a sizable hole on the ship. While space is a vacuum and so shock waves do not carry as they would in an atmosphere, the Raptor that flew close to the ship and was not very far from the explosion should probably be damaged from flying debris.

== Notes ==

* This episode begins 189 days after the Cylon attack on the colonies. There is a 48 hour gap between Roslin's deathbed treatment and her conversation with Jahee. The number of 189 days given in this episode, and "six months" given in the previous one, are inconsistent with the [[Timeline (RDM)|timeline]] which ''BattlestarWiki'' has developed that keeps track of dates. See ''Talk'' page on the Timeline for a full breakdown.
* [[Lee Adama]] is once again a Captain, and has been reinstated as ''Galactica'''s CAG.
* [[Gina]] has apparently become a member of the pro-Cylon resistance. The other members of the resistance are apparently unaware she is a [[Humano-Cylon]].
* Roslin was in an intimate relationship with President Adar.
*Roslin now recalls witnessing [[Gaius Baltar]]'s affair with a copy of [[Number Six]] on Caprica, prior to the attack.
* The radiation symbol used by the colonials is different from the one used in reality, but is still easily recognizable.
*Lee Adama has been reinstated as CAG, and his authority apparently extends to the Pegasus squadrons as well. This is consistent with Cole Taylor's authority over Galactica's air wing, when ''Pegasus'' was the flagship.
*Galactica has been recruiting civilians to handle "grunt work" on the hangar deck.
*Baltar was aware of the [[Demand Peace]] movement prior to this episode.
*At least three bodies can be seen being vented into space after the explosion onboard ''[[Daru Mozu]]''.
*The file photograph of [[humano-Cylon]] model [[Number Six|#6]] is of Shelly Godfrey, seen in the episode "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]".
* The nuclear device Dr. Baltar gives the resistance is the same one he was given to create his Cylon Detector in "[[Bastille Day]]".
* The ''Pegasus'' is barely featured in this episode, and none of its crew or interior locations were seen, except in the pre-episode recap.
*Admiral Adama is not seen wearing a regulation admiral's [[uniform]] following his promotion, just his old uniform with new admiral's rank insignia at his collar. Commanders have uniforms with a colored trim of two lines; red on the outside, gold on the inside. Admirals have a trim of two lines, gold on the outside, white on the inside. Presumably, their resources are limited as it is so they can't worry about relatively minor things like that. It could also be a reflection of his character, as stated in "[[Water]]" he hates pomp and circumstance (just prefering a plain duty inform, etc.). On the other hand, someone could just alter the trim on his existing duty uniform. Although maybe the production team doesn't like that "look" for Edward James Olmos...

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

'''President Richard Adar:''' "One of the most interesting things about being President is that you don't have to explain yourself. To anyone."
*Roslin earlier attributed this saying to Adar in the episode "[[Flesh and Bone]]".

'''Secretary Roslin:''' "I am on my way to the ''Galactica'' to represent this administration. When I return, if you still want my job, be prepared to fight."

== Official Statements ==




{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Epiphanies

2006-01-23T05:25:04Z

Mayosolo: /* Noteworthy Dialogue */ correct quotes

{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:2BATejC05.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Epiphanies
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 13
| Guests=[http://us.imdb.com/M/person-exact?+Colm+Feore Colm Feore] ([[Adar (RDM)|President Adar]])
| Writer=[[David Weddle]] & [[Bradley Thompson]]
| Story=
| Director=[[Rod Hardy]]
| Production=2.13
| Rating=
| US Airdate=January 20 2006
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=49,598
| Prev= [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]
| Next= [[Black Market]]
}}




== Overview ==

: ''Admiral [[William Adama]] questions whether or not [[Sharon Valerii]]'s pregnancy should be aborted. Meanwhile Roslin's health declines rapidly as a pro-Cylon peace group attempts to sow civil disobedience within the Fleet.''

== Summary ==

* President [[Laura Roslin]] is brought on board ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]''. She is near death and has, at best, days to live.
* Captain [[Kara Thrace]] and Lieutenant [[Louanne Katraine]] are conducting Viper tests. During a test of the Viper's projectile systems, Kat's port gun is destroyed and a piece of it impacts on Thrace's cockpit. Thrace requests priority landing; both Vipers land.
* [[Cally]] and CPO [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] discover that several rounds of ammunition from the damaged Viper are unusually light and fragile. A round of such ammunition would easily break as the cartridge loaded into the chamber and misfire, leaving the projectile lodged in the barrel. When the next round hit it, the overpressure destroyed the gun. Undoubtedly, someone is trying to sabotage the fleet's military readiness.
*The sabotage investigation quickly leads Lee Adama and Kara Thrace to Asha Janik, one of the recent civilian hirees in ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'''s armory. When they apprehend her, she declares her allegiance to a self-proclaimed pacifist organization that wants peace with the Cylons.
*Vice President Baltar is given the presidential tour by [[Billy Keikeya]] in preparation for his assumption of the Presidency. Billy gives Baltar a letter from Roslin to be opened after her death.
* The new peace movement, led by Royan Jahee, is gaining momentum in the civilian population as people begin to realize that victory against the Cylons is impossible as well as questioning the current military tactic of 'attack-and-retreat'.
* [[Sharon Valerii|Sharon's]] baby's blood was used to destroy the cancerous masses in Roslin's system. The procedure to abort Sharon's fetus was not performed.

===On Caprica Prior to the Cylon Attack===
*Roslin finds out she has cancer
*Roslin meets with President Adar to discuss a teacher's strike, and his response.
*Roslin meets with the leader of the educational alliance, [[Naylin Stans]], and strikes an agreement.
*Adar disagrees with Roslin's methods and results, and asks for her resignation.
*Roslin then leaves for ''Galactica'''s decommisioning ceremony, telling Adar that "If you want my resignation when I get back, be prepared to fight for it."

== Questions ==

*Kara Thrace is flying Mk. II vipers with Galactica's pilots again. Is she still the CAG of ''Pegasus''?
**According to interviews with RDM, Starbuck is still the ''Pegasus'' CAG. There's nothing to say she couldn't just continue flying joint missions with ''Galactica'', etc.
*Now that Roslin recalls Baltar's involvment with a Cylon agent on Caprica, what will she do about it?
*Will there be any consequences for Helo's near-mutiny?
*Will Roslin's attitude toward the Cylon fetus change following her recovery?
**Ronald D. Moore's podcast implies that her urgency was only prompted by her lack of faith in Baltar's ability to handle the situation. Will she be content to let to Sharon carry to term now that her survival is no longer in question?
*Roslin's recent series of machiavellian orders (Cain's assasination in "[[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]", and the forced abortion here) appear to have been faciliated by her belief that, given her impending death, she wouldn't have to deal with the ethical ramifications. Will this alter her relationship with Admiral Adama in the long term?
*Is security really so lax that Baltar (whom Adama does not consider especially trustworthy) would be able to smuggle one of ''Galactica's'' very few nuclear warheads off-ship?
**He didn't steal it from the armory, it's the one he used to build the Cylon detector; he's got 24 hours a day unrestricted access to it.
**Raptors are capable of detecting radiological devices. Why wasn't the bomb noticed in transit? If it's possible to effectively shield a nuclear device from detection, why don't the Cylons do this to their own warheads?
**Alternately, is the nuclear device actually functional?
**According to Ron Moore's podcast, the nuke storyline will be dealt with in "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I" and "...Part II" to end the season.
*Why aren't there posters of [[Gina]] scattered all over the fleet to inform everyone of her Cylon identity, making it difficult for her to hide, let alone lead a Cylon-sympathy movement?
**Ronald Moore did admit during his podcast that this was Gina's "Clark Kent" disguise and it was very shaky the way they played it off that nobody would recognize her. Will this loose end be tied-up in some future story line when they get further into the Colonial underground storylines that the next few episodes are supposed to follow?
**On the other hand, Gina does not appear to be leaving her room on ''Cloud 9'' that much, and the humans who do see her are Cylon sympathizers anyway.
*Does Gina "remember" Number Six's memories about having a relationship with Baltar on Caprica, or even after? In "[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]", she did not seem to know him, as Baltar introduced himself to her and explained that he had a relationship with another Cylon copy of her model. Here, however, it sort of seems like she remembers having a physical relationship with him, but isn't "ready" to go back to that after her torture. Then again, her lines also be intrepretted to mean that she really never "knew" about him before she met him on ''Pegasus''. The process of Cylon memory-transfer and systematic updating isn't very well understood at this point.

== Analysis ==

* The survivor count this episode is 49,598, a net loss of six since [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. [[Helena Cain|Admiral Cain]] and the ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' marine killed by [[Gina]] account for two. Presumably the remaining were pilots or crew lost during the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship|attack]] on the [[Resurrection Ship]].
** This seems to be extremely good fortune, as the two battlestars engaged in a major fleet action for an extended time.
* Roslin's affair with Adar was suggested by her comment in the [[miniseries]] that "he had a way about him... you just couldn't say 'no' to him."
*Naylin Stans implies that he believes the teacher's strike is a cause worth dying for. This claim is ridiculously hyperbolic.
**The fact that President Adar was willing to use the military to enforce a back-to-work order seems to indicate that the protest must've been more serious than simple wage issues.
*Roslin's medical chart showed her name and other information such as date of birth, but this information was too blurry for viewers to read.

===Serious Technical and Storyline Issues===

*Roslin's cancer cure was pure "deus ex machina." While many viewers may find Roslin's cure a necessary one as she has become a pivotal character in the show, the method of her cure leaves too many medical mistakes and is too easy of a cure.
*Cancer is not a viral disease, like AIDS or the common cold, but an invasive destruction of tissue by mutated cells, which usurp the function of healthy cells. For the cure to work the way it did would require it not only to destroy free-floating cells and metastasized tissue, but to ''repair'' any organs with healthy tissue.
*As cancer is not cureable here on Earth, for the show to invest a cure at the last minute may feel contrived by some.

Major plot elements that form a resolution in the show's past were generally introduced and left "in the air" for suspense over several episodes while both viewers and characters learned their significance. These included:
**The search for the [[Arrow of Apollo]] and the search for the [[Tomb of Athena]]
**The Experiment with Helo on Caprica (Season 1)
**Adama's survival after his shooting

The "epiphany" of Baltar's cancer cure could have been worked over at least two or three episodes while he and Cottle studied Sharon Valerii's child, which is a logical way to work a cancer cure. Baltar is a tinkerer--the miracle working viewers saw in this episode would be best left to other characters in science fiction where such "magical" inventiveness might be expected. In "Battlestar Galactica", this sudden resolution of the second major plot element in the series (we hear of Roslin's terminal cancer diagnosis when we first see Roslin in the Miniseries) that has dire ramifications for the Fleet should not be resolved with the proverbial swipe of a writer's pen in a single episode.

It should be noted that the cure might not be permanent and the cancer may return in the future (as hinted by Ronald D. Moore in the podcast for this episode).

For more analysis on this and other scientific matters of the Re-imagined Series, see the article, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]].

Other technical issues abound in this episode.

*A nuclear warhead was smuggled from ''Galactica'' to ''Cloud Nine''. How would such a device possibly get past the various [[Radiological Alarm|radiological sensors]] throughout the Fleet? This was a plot complication used in "[[Flesh and Bone]]" as well when a copy of [[Leoben Conoy]] claimed that a nuclear device was hidden in the Fleet. The writing element was difficult to believe in that episode, and it far less believable in this episode. Both the battlestar and the [[Raptor]] on which the freed "freedom movement" member left the ship are military vessels ''designed'' to sniff out hostile devices. It is possible that the radiological sensors can only detect a nuclear device when it has been armed, and not when its in an unarmed state.

*The explosion of the bomb on the refinery ship is powerful enough to create a sizable hole on the ship. While space is a vacuum and so shock waves do not carry as they would in an atmosphere, the Raptor that flew close to the ship and was not very far from the explosion should probably be damaged from flying debris.

== Notes ==

* This episode begins 189 days after the Cylon attack on the colonies. There is a 48 hour gap between Roslin's deathbed treatment and her conversation with Jahee. The number of 189 days given in this episode, and "six months" given in the previous one, are inconsistent with the [[Timeline (RDM)|timeline]] which ''BattlestarWiki'' has developed that keeps track of dates. See ''Talk'' page on the Timeline for a full breakdown.
* [[Lee Adama]] is once again a Captain, and has been reinstated as ''Galactica'''s CAG.
* [[Gina]] has apparently become a member of the pro-Cylon resistance. The other members of the resistance are apparently unaware she is a [[Humano-Cylon]].
* Roslin was in an intimate relationship with President Adar.
*Roslin now recalls witnessing [[Gaius Baltar]]'s affair with a copy of [[Number Six]] on Caprica, prior to the attack.
* The radiation symbol used by the colonials is different from the one used in reality, but is still easily recognizable.
*Lee Adama has been reinstated as CAG, and his authority apparently extends to the Pegasus squadrons as well. This is consistent with Cole Taylor's authority over Galactica's air wing, when ''Pegasus'' was the flagship.
*Galactica has been recruiting civilians to handle "grunt work" on the hangar deck.
*Baltar was aware of the [[Demand Peace]] movement prior to this episode.
*At least three bodies can be seen being vented into space after the explosion onboard ''[[Daru Mozu]]''.
*The file photograph of [[humano-Cylon]] model [[Number Six|#6]] is of Shelly Godfrey, seen in the episode "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]".
* The nuclear device Dr. Baltar gives the resistance is the same one he was given to create his Cylon Detector in "[[Bastille Day]]".
* The ''Pegasus'' is barely featured in this episode, and none of its crew or interior locations were seen, except in the pre-episode recap.
*Admiral Adama is not seen wearing a regulation admiral's [[uniform]] following his promotion, just his old uniform with new admiral's rank insignia at his collar. Commanders have uniforms with a colored trim of two lines; red on the outside, gold on the inside. Admirals have a trim of two lines, gold on the outside, white on the inside. Presumably, their resources are limited as it is so they can't worry about relatively minor things like that. It could also be a reflection of his character, as stated in "[[Water]]" he hates pomp and circumstance (just prefering a plain duty inform, etc.). On the other hand, someone could just alter the trim on his existing duty uniform. Although maybe the production team doesn't like that "look" for Edward James Olmos...

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

'''President Richard Adar:''' "One of the most interesting things about being President is that you don't have to explain yourself. To anyone."
*Roslin earlier attributed this saying to Adar in the episode "[[Flesh and Bone]]".

'''Secretary Roslin:''' "I am on my way to the ''Galactica'' to represent this administration. When I return, if you still want my job, be prepared to fight."

== Official Statements ==




{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-22T03:37:04Z

Mayosolo: /* Battle pages */ strike my mistaken shipyard comments

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-22T03:32:48Z

Mayosolo: /* Battle pages */ Chiming in

Blackbird

2006-01-22T00:39:24Z

Mayosolo: /* The "Laura" and Her Flight History */ tightening up ship naming conventions

[[Image:Blackbird FotP.JPG|thumb|left|"Blackbird Commissioning" ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]) (c) Universal]]
The '''Blackbird''' is a prototype [[Colonial]] stealth fighter craft constructed by Chief Petty Officer [[Galen Tyrol]], his deck crews, and other members of ''[[Galactica]]''. This craft was meant to supplement the [[Viper (RDM)|Viper]], given the issues in maintaining the remaining craft aboard the [[battlestar]]. Chief Tyrol had originally intended just to build a standard Viper but ended up building a ship that was of more value to ''Galactica'' than another Viper.

== Design and Technology ==

The Blackbird is designed to use the Viper [[Launch tubes|launch tube]]s, and therefore shares the same general shape. It is built more for speed than for maneuverability. If it is armed, it likely fires the same ammunition as typical Vipers, though this has not yet been demonstrated.

It does not use metal for its skin since this metal was reserved for Viper repairs. Instead, on [[Karl Agathon]]'s suggestion, the Blackbird uses a carbon composite material, which makes it largely invisible to [[DRADIS]] scanning.

Along with the usual [[RCS]] mechanisms for directional control, the Blackbird is powered by obsolete [[DDG-62]] engines (designed by [[Laird]], a civilian aeronautical engineer) that came from the flight deck of a Colonial fleet ship named ''[[Baah Pakal]]''. One must speculate that since a typical Viper's engines are vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles ([[Mini-Series]]), these must be as well. This would compromise its stealth features during powered flight. (This is less of a disadvantage in space than in atmospheric flight; a spacecraft's inertia is not affected by gravity, friction, and other factors an atmospheric-bound craft would be, and thus can fly indefinitely without firing its engines.)

[[image:Flight_of_the_Phoenix-Laura.jpg|thumb|A close-up of the cursive on the side of the Blackbird. (C. Universal Studios)]]

The Blackbird is [[FTL|Jump]]-capable, but is not equipped with a Colonial transponder, either for stealth purposes or supply shortages.

== ''Laura'' and Her Flight History ==

The first prototype is dubbed ''"Laura"'' in honor of President [[Laura Roslin]]. [[Kara Thrace]] pilots the maiden test flight, wherein she handily eludes her escort, [[Lee Adama]].

The following individuals aid CPO [[Galen Tyrol]] in ''Laura's'' construction:

* [[Anastasia Dualla]] improves communication systems.
* [[Anthony Figurski]]
* [[Cally]]
* [[Jammer]]
* [[Seelix]]
* [[Karl Agathon]] suggests the use of carbon composite materials for the Blackbird's skin.
* [[Saul Tigh]] offers the [[DDG-62]] engines.
* [[Lee Adama]]

Colonel Tigh originally denounces the project as frivolous, but later provides assistance in procuring the DDG-62 engines. Others among Tyrol's own deck crew also at first consider the project a waste of time, as noted through their initial reactions to Tyrol's proposal. However, Commander [[William Adama]] believes that the endeavor offers hope and purpose, and therefore permits it to continue despite the crisis with the [[Cylon]] [[logic bomb]] that has infected the ''Galactica'''s systems ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]).

''Laura'' quickly proves her worth when Kara Thrace, by tacit request of Lee Adama, absconds with the Blackbird, claiming she is running a test flight for Admiral Cain. In reality, Starbuck has undertaken a reconnaissance mission to investigate a mysterious Cylon ship being escorted by two [[Basestar (RDM)|Basestars]] and many other support ships and fighters. ''Pegasus'' [[CAG]] [[Cole Taylor]] knows of the Blackbird but dismissed Thrace from the project and chose to use Raptors for his mission.

Starbuck is able to approach the Cylon fleet and the unknown ship completely undetected by the Cylons. She takes picture after picture while flying into and through the superstructure of the vessel, Jumping away just as the 'Bird clears the vessel's bow. The lack of a Colonial transponder causes the Battlestars ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' and ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' to turn their Vipers on Thrace as she approaches the Fleet, both Battlestars' DRADIS systems marking her as a [[Raider]] by mistake. The Blackbird is in visual range of the Fleet long before DRADIS detects her approach.

Moments later, Admiral Cain receives detailed pictures of the unknown vessel, and [[Gaius Baltar]] eventually details the name and purpose of the [[Resurrection Ship]] ([[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]).

''Laura'' is later piloted by then-Lieutenant [[Lee Adama]] in the battle to disable the Resurrection Ship's FTL drive, preventing her escape so that Vipers can destroy it. While Adama is successful, a collision with a disabled [[Raptor]] seriously damages the Blackbird, requiring him to eject. While Adama is later rescued, there is no word on the fate of this remarkable stealth fighter ([[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]).

==Notes==
* Since the Blackbird was designed for stealth, not manuverability, it was logical that an FTL drive was added for advanced reconnaissance. The unused FTL drive came perhaps from a destroyed Raptor that crash-landed on [[Kobol]] from "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]."
*[[Wikipedia:Reinforced carbon-carbon|Carbon composites]] are a family of materials used in lightweight or high-temperature-resistant construction, of which a type is used in the nose and leading edges of the wings of [[Wikipedia:NASA|NASA]]'s [[Wikipedia:Space Transportation System|Space Shuttle Orbiter]]. Carbon composites are somewhat fragile, so impacts (even one from a champagne bottle, which Laura Roslin jokingly attempted to do as she christened the ship) may cause the material to splinter or break. It was damage to this material that caused the destruction of Space Shuttle ''Columbia'' on [[Wikipedia:STS-107|STS-107]].
*Executive Producer [[David Eick]] stated in his video blog that the Blackbird is "not a Viper", so it is not classed as a modified Viper model ("Viper Mark VIII", etc), but is an entirely distinct craft.
*The fighter's nickname creates a curious comparison with her namesake, Laura Roslin. The frail, but influential President Roslin and her rapid, secretive actions in her quest for Earth's location (including diverting Lt. Thrace from her original mission to destroy the Kobol basestar) as well as her savvy political work in "[[Colonial Day]]", are humorously similar in perspective to the abilities of "Laura", a structually weak, but highly agile and initially underestimated stealth fighter. Like President Roslin (the only known surviving official of the pre-holocaust Colonial [[government]]), the Blackbird is a unique commodity.

[[Category: A to Z]] [[Category: Colonial Craft]] [[Category: RDM]]

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-22T00:24:03Z

Mayosolo: /* Ship gender */

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-22T00:17:01Z

Mayosolo: /* Ship gender */ My mistake.

Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions

2006-01-21T23:16:13Z

Mayosolo: Ship gender

Blackbird

2006-01-21T23:07:25Z

Mayosolo: /* The "Laura" and Her Flight History */ a couple more tweaks

[[Image:Blackbird FotP.JPG|thumb|left|"Blackbird Commissioning" ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]) (c) Universal]]
The '''Blackbird''' is a prototype [[Colonial]] stealth fighter craft constructed by Chief Petty Officer [[Galen Tyrol]], his deck crews, and other members of ''[[Galactica]]''. This craft was meant to supplement the [[Viper (RDM)|Viper]], given the issues in maintaining the remaining craft aboard the [[battlestar]]. Chief Tyrol had originally intended just to build a standard Viper but ended up building a ship that was of more value to ''Galactica'' than another Viper.

== Design and Technology ==

The Blackbird is designed to use the Viper [[Launch tubes|launch tube]]s, and therefore shares the same general shape. It is built more for speed than for maneuverability. If it is armed, it likely fires the same ammunition as typical Vipers, though this has not yet been demonstrated.

It does not use metal for its skin since this metal was reserved for Viper repairs. Instead, on [[Karl Agathon]]'s suggestion, the Blackbird uses a carbon composite material, which makes it largely invisible to [[DRADIS]] scanning.

Along with the usual [[RCS]] mechanisms for directional control, the Blackbird is powered by obsolete [[DDG-62]] engines (designed by [[Laird]], a civilian aeronautical engineer) that came from the flight deck of a Colonial fleet ship named ''[[Baah Pakal]]''. One must speculate that since a typical Viper's engines are vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles ([[Mini-Series]]), these must be as well. This would compromise its stealth features during powered flight. (This is less of a disadvantage in space than in atmospheric flight; a spacecraft's inertia is not affected by gravity, friction, and other factors an atmospheric-bound craft would be, and thus can fly indefinitely without firing its engines.)

[[image:Flight_of_the_Phoenix-Laura.jpg|thumb|A close-up of the cursive on the side of the Blackbird. (C. Universal Studios)]]

The Blackbird is [[FTL|Jump]]-capable, but is not equipped with a Colonial transponder, either for stealth purposes or supply shortages.

== The "Laura" and Her Flight History ==

The first prototype is dubbed "''Laura''", in honor of President [[Laura Roslin]]. [[Kara Thrace]] pilots the maiden test flight, wherein she handily eludes her escort, [[Lee Adama]].

The following individuals aid CPO [[Galen Tyrol]] in the ''Laura's'' construction:

* [[Anastasia Dualla]] improves communication systems.
* [[Anthony Figurski]]
* [[Cally]]
* [[Jammer]]
* [[Seelix]]
* [[Karl Agathon]] suggests the use of carbon composite materials for the Blackbird's skin.
* [[Saul Tigh]] offers the [[DDG-62]] engines.
* [[Lee Adama]]

Colonel Tigh originally denounced the project as frivolous, but later provides assistance in procuring the DDG-62 engines. Others among Tyrol's own deck crew also at first considered the project a waste of time, as noted through their initial reactions to Tyrol's proposal. However, Commander [[William Adama]] believes that the endeavor offers hope and purpose, and therefore permits it to continue despite the crisis with the [[Cylon]] [[logic bomb]] that has infected the ''Galactica'''s systems ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]).

The ''Laura'' quickly proves its worth when Kara Thrace, by tacit request of Lee Adama, absconds with the Blackbird, claiming she is running a test flight for Admiral Cain. In reality, Starbuck has undertaken a reconnaissance mission to investigate a mysterious Cylon ship being escorted by two [[Basestar (RDM)|basestars]] and many other support ships and fighters. ''Pegasus'' [[CAG]] [[Cole Taylor]] knows of the Blackbird but dismissed Thrace from the project and chose to use Raptors for his mission.

Starbuck is able to approach the Cylon fleet and the unknown ship completely undetected by the Cylons. She takes picture after picture while flying into and through the superstructure of the vessel, Jumping away just as the 'Bird clears the vessel's bow. The lack of a Colonial transponder causes the battlestars ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' and ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' to turn their Vipers on Thrace as she approaches the Fleet, both battlestar's DRADIS systems marking her as a [[Raider]] by mistake. The Blackbird is in visual range of the Fleet long before DRADIS detects its approach.

Moments later, Admiral Cain receives detailed pictures of the unknown ship, and [[Gaius Baltar]] eventually details the name and purpose of the [[Resurrection Ship]] ([[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]).

The ''Laura'' is later piloted by then-Lieutenant [[Lee Adama]] in the battle to disable the Resurrection Ship's FTL drive, preventing its escape so that Vipers can destroy it. While Adama is successful, a collision with a disabled [[Raptor]] seriously damages the fighter, requiring him to eject from the Blackbird. While Adama is later rescued, there is no word on the fate of this remarkable stealth fighter ([[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]).

==Notes==
* Since the Blackbird was designed for stealth, not manuverability, it was logical that an FTL drive was added for advanced reconnaissance. The unused FTL drive came perhaps from a destroyed Raptor that crash-landed on [[Kobol]] from "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]."
*[[Wikipedia:Reinforced carbon-carbon|Carbon composites]] are a family of materials used in lightweight or high-temperature-resistant construction, of which a type is used in the nose and leading edges of the wings of [[Wikipedia:NASA|NASA]]'s [[Wikipedia:Space Transportation System|Space Shuttle Orbiter]]. Carbon composites are somewhat fragile, so impacts (even one from a champagne bottle, which Laura Roslin jokingly attempted to do as she christened the ship) may cause the material to splinter or break. It was damage to this material that caused the destruction of Space Shuttle ''Columbia'' on [[Wikipedia:STS-107|STS-107]].
*Executive Producer [[David Eick]] stated in his video blog that the Blackbird is "not a Viper", so it is not classed as a modified Viper model ("Viper Mark VIII", etc), but is an entirely distinct craft.
*The fighter's nickname creates a curious comparison with her namesake, Laura Roslin. The frail, but influential President Roslin and her rapid, secretive actions in her quest for Earth's location (including diverting Lt. Thrace from her original mission to destroy the Kobol basestar) as well as her savvy political work in "[[Colonial Day]]", are humorously similar in perspective to the abilities of "Laura", a structually weak, but highly agile and initially underestimated stealth fighter. Like President Roslin (the only known surviving official of the pre-holocaust Colonial [[government]]), the Blackbird is a unique commodity.

[[Category: A to Z]] [[Category: Colonial Craft]] [[Category: RDM]]

Blackbird

2006-01-21T22:59:05Z

Mayosolo: /* The "Laura" and Her Flight History */ tense fixes and some rewording

[[Image:Blackbird FotP.JPG|thumb|left|"Blackbird Commissioning" ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]) (c) Universal]]
The '''Blackbird''' is a prototype [[Colonial]] stealth fighter craft constructed by Chief Petty Officer [[Galen Tyrol]], his deck crews, and other members of ''[[Galactica]]''. This craft was meant to supplement the [[Viper (RDM)|Viper]], given the issues in maintaining the remaining craft aboard the [[battlestar]]. Chief Tyrol had originally intended just to build a standard Viper but ended up building a ship that was of more value to ''Galactica'' than another Viper.

== Design and Technology ==

The Blackbird is designed to use the Viper [[Launch tubes|launch tube]]s, and therefore shares the same general shape. It is built more for speed than for maneuverability. If it is armed, it likely fires the same ammunition as typical Vipers, though this has not yet been demonstrated.

It does not use metal for its skin since this metal was reserved for Viper repairs. Instead, on [[Karl Agathon]]'s suggestion, the Blackbird uses a carbon composite material, which makes it largely invisible to [[DRADIS]] scanning.

Along with the usual [[RCS]] mechanisms for directional control, the Blackbird is powered by obsolete [[DDG-62]] engines (designed by [[Laird]], a civilian aeronautical engineer) that came from the flight deck of a Colonial fleet ship named ''[[Baah Pakal]]''. One must speculate that since a typical Viper's engines are vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles ([[Mini-Series]]), these must be as well. This would compromise its stealth features during powered flight. (This is less of a disadvantage in space than in atmospheric flight; a spacecraft's inertia is not affected by gravity, friction, and other factors an atmospheric-bound craft would be, and thus can fly indefinitely without firing its engines.)

[[image:Flight_of_the_Phoenix-Laura.jpg|thumb|A close-up of the cursive on the side of the Blackbird. (C. Universal Studios)]]

The Blackbird is [[FTL|Jump]]-capable, but is not equipped with a Colonial transponder, either for stealth purposes or supply shortages.

== The "Laura" and Her Flight History ==

The first prototype was dubbed "''Laura''", in honor of President [[Laura Roslin]]. It was piloted for the first time by [[Kara Thrace]]. The stealth abilities for the ship were so strong that [[Lee Adama]] lost the fighter while escorting Thrace on the ''Laura's'' maiden test flight.

Here is a breakdown of the people who aid CPO [[Galen Tyrol]] in the ''Laura's'' construction:

* [[Anastasia Dualla]], troubleshooting of communication systems
* [[Anthony Figurski]]
* [[Cally]]
* [[Jammer]]
* [[Seelix]]
* [[Karl Agathon]], suggested the use of carbon composite materials for the Blackbird's skin
* [[Saul Tigh]], offered the [[DDG-62]] engines
* [[Lee Adama]]

Colonel Tigh originally denounced the project as frivolous, but later provides assistance in procuring the DDG-62 engines. Others among Tyrol's own deck crew also at first believed the project to be a waste of time, as noted through their initial reactions to Tyrol's proposal. However, Commander [[William Adama]] believes that the project offers hope and purpose, and therefore permits it to continue despite the crisis with the [[Cylon]] [[logic bomb]] that has infected the ''Galactica'''s systems ([[Flight of the Phoenix]]).

The ''Laura'' quickly proves its worth when Kara Thrace, by tacit request of Lee Adama, absconds with the Blackbird, claiming she is running a test flight for Admiral Cain. In reality, Starbuck has undertaken a reconnaissance mission to investigate a mysterious Cylon ship being escorted by two [[Basestar (RDM)|basestars]] and many other support ships and fighters. ''Pegasus'' [[CAG]] [[Cole Taylor]] knows of the Blackbird but dismissed Thrace from the project and chose to use Raptors for his mission.

Starbuck is able to approach the Cylon fleet and the unknown ship completely undetected by the Cylons. She takes picture after picture while flying into and through the superstructure of the vessel, Jumping away just as the 'Bird clears the vessel's bow. The lack of a Colonial transponder causes the battlestars ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'' and ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' to turn their Vipers on Thrace as she approaches the Fleet, both battlestar's DRADIS systems marking her as a [[Raider]] by mistake. The Blackbird is in visual range of the Fleet long before DRADIS detects its approach.

Moments later, Admiral Cain receives detailed pictures of the unknown ship, and [[Gaius Baltar]] eventually details the name and purpose of the [[Resurrection Ship]] ([[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]).

The ''Laura'' is later piloted by then-Lieutenant [[Lee Adama]] in the battle to disable the Resurrection Ship's FTL drive, preventing its escape so that Vipers can destroy it. While Adama is successful, a collision with a disabled [[Raptor]] seriously damages the fighter, requiring him to eject from the Blackbird. While Adama is later rescued, there is no word on the fate of this remarkable stealth fighter ([[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]).

==Notes==
* Since the Blackbird was designed for stealth, not manuverability, it was logical that an FTL drive was added for advanced reconnaissance. The unused FTL drive came perhaps from a destroyed Raptor that crash-landed on [[Kobol]] from "[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]."
*[[Wikipedia:Reinforced carbon-carbon|Carbon composites]] are a family of materials used in lightweight or high-temperature-resistant construction, of which a type is used in the nose and leading edges of the wings of [[Wikipedia:NASA|NASA]]'s [[Wikipedia:Space Transportation System|Space Shuttle Orbiter]]. Carbon composites are somewhat fragile, so impacts (even one from a champagne bottle, which Laura Roslin jokingly attempted to do as she christened the ship) may cause the material to splinter or break. It was damage to this material that caused the destruction of Space Shuttle ''Columbia'' on [[Wikipedia:STS-107|STS-107]].
*Executive Producer [[David Eick]] stated in his video blog that the Blackbird is "not a Viper", so it is not classed as a modified Viper model ("Viper Mark VIII", etc), but is an entirely distinct craft.
*The fighter's nickname creates a curious comparison with her namesake, Laura Roslin. The frail, but influential President Roslin and her rapid, secretive actions in her quest for Earth's location (including diverting Lt. Thrace from her original mission to destroy the Kobol basestar) as well as her savvy political work in "[[Colonial Day]]", are humorously similar in perspective to the abilities of "Laura", a structually weak, but highly agile and initially underestimated stealth fighter. Like President Roslin (the only known surviving official of the pre-holocaust Colonial [[government]]), the Blackbird is a unique commodity.

[[Category: A to Z]] [[Category: Colonial Craft]] [[Category: RDM]]

Black Market

2006-01-21T20:54:06Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Black Market
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 14
| Guests=[[Richard Hatch]] ([[Tom Zarek]]) [http://imdb.com/name/nm0006419/ Claudette Mink] ([[Shevon]]) Unknown ([[Phelan]]) Unknown ([[Paya]]) Unknown ([[Weller]]) Unknown ([[Beach]]) Graham Beckel (CMDR [[Jack Fisk]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[Epiphanies]]
| Next= [[Scar]]
}}



== Overview ==

: ''Not available at this time.''

== Summary ==

*[[Lee Adama]] investigates the murder of [[Jack Fisk]], the new CO of the battlestar ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'', and is entangled with a mafia-like group on board the ''Prometheus''.

*Adama visits a woman from his past from [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]], [[Shevon]]. It is not entirely clear what their relationship is, but in the past it was romantic. [[Phelan]], leader of the criminal group, suggests that she is a prostitute.

*Adama hopes to get Shevon and a young girl in her care, [[Paya]] -- who may be Adama's daughter by a woman named [[Gianne]] -- safely to ''[[Galactica]]''. But Phelan and his men bomb their way into Shevon's quarters and abduct them all. (Source:[http://www.gateworld.net/galactica/news/2005/09/firstdetailsonseasontwosbl.shtml GateWorld])





== Questions ==



== Analysis ==



== Notes ==



== Noteworthy Dialogue ==




== Official Statements ==

*''In an interview in issue #197 of TV Zone, James Callis (Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]]) said'': "Mary and I had a great deal of fun doing a scene where the President tells Baltar in no uncertain terms that she doesn’t like him and wants him to resign. He’s not very happy about that."

== Statistics ==



=== Guest Stars ===

*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0006419/ Claudette Mink] as [[Shevon]]
*[[Richard Hatch]] as [[Tom Zarek]]
*Unknown as [[Phelan]]
*Unknown as [[Paya]]
*Unknown as [[Weller]]
*Unknown as [[Beach]]
*Graham Beckel as Commander [[Fisk|Jack Fisk]]

=== Writing & Direction ===



=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.14
*Airdate Order: 14 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate:
*US Airdate: 3 February 2006
*DVD Release (UK):
*DVD Release (US):
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share



{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Scar

2006-01-21T20:53:30Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Scar
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 15
| Guests= [http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1382781/ Luciana Carro] ([[Louanne Katraine]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[Black Market]]
| Next= [[Sacrifice]]
}}




== Overview ==

: ''Not available at this time.''

== Summary ==

*Starbuck and Kat hunt down a Cylon Raider which has killed several pilots.
**Source: [http://www.patriotresource.com/bg/insights/spoilers.html Patriot Report]





== Questions ==



== Analysis ==
*Although this is pure speculation, the title "Scar" probably refers to the "ace" Cylon Raider this episode centers around; all Cylon Raiders appear visually identical, so to tell this one apart from the rest it probably has a distinctive "scar" from battle damage.

== Notes ==



== Noteworthy Dialogue ==




== Official Statements ==

*According to an interview on Subject2Discussion.com on January 3rd, 2006, along with "Home" (Parts [[Home, Part I|One]] and [[Home, Part II|Two]]), this is one of Katee Sackhoff's favorite episodes.

== Statistics ==



=== Guest Stars ===







=== Writing & Direction ===




=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.15
*Airdate Order: 15 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate:
*US Airdate: 3 February 2006
*DVD Release (UK):
*DVD Release (US):
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share



{{Episode List}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Episode Guide (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Sacrifice

2006-01-21T20:53:03Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Sacrifice
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 16
| Guests= [[Kate Vernon]] ([[Ellen Tigh]]) [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001127/ Dana Delany] ([[Sesha Abinell]]) Unknown ([[Chu]]) Unknown ([[Vinson]]) Unknown ([[Page]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[Scar]]
| Next= [[The Captain's Hand]]
}}

== Overview ==

== Summary ==

*[[Lee Adama]], [[Ellen Tigh]] and [[Anastasia Dualla]] find themselves in a hostage situation aboard ''[[Cloud 9]]''.

*Three men and a woman named [[Sesha Abinell]] have taken them hostage. Sesha was once a cook abord the ''Greenleaf'' who only wanted to live a normal life, but when her husband was killed by the [[Cylons (RDM)|Cylons]] she decided to exact vengeance.

*Sesha demands that Admiral [[William Adama|Adama]] and President [[Laura Roslin|Roslin]] turn over Cylon [[Sharon Valerii]] to her, seeking Valerii's life in compensation for her husband's.

*Sesha is infuriated that Adama and Roslin continue to allow one of their greatest enemies to live in their midst, even caged. She believes that every breath Sharon draws is an insult to those who have died. Lee escapes their notice at first, but eventually turns himself over to the gunmen, hoping to connect emotionally with Sesha and what she is going through.

*The situation prompts Adama to once again consider the value of the Cylon Sharon to him, and whether or not a Cylon has any real rights. Despite the fact that she has "proven" her loyalty time and time again, he will not give her the smallest measure of trust or acceptance. Finally Sharon tells him to just hand her over, if that's what it will take to convince him of her loyalty.

*The Marines make an incursion to try and regain control of the situation by force, but it does not go well. Two are killed, along with one of the hostage-takers. Lee is wounded badly, and the event only exacerbates the already tense situation. (Source: [http://www.gateworld.net/galactica/news/2005/09/hostagetakerdemandsasacrif.shtml GateWorld])

*Will involve a scene trying to triangulate astrological data on the [[Wikipedia:Lagoon Nebula|Lagoon Nebula]] (c.f. [[Tomb of Athena]]) to find [[Earth]].

== Questions ==

== Analysis ==

== Notes ==

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

== Official Statements ==

== Statistics ==

=== Guest Stars ===

*[[Kate Vernon]] as [[Ellen Tigh]]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001127/ Dana Delany] as [[Sesha Abinell]]
*Unknown as [[Chu]]
*Unknown as [[Vinson]]
*Unknown as [[Page]]

=== Writing & Direction ===

*Written by [[SoandSo]]
*Story by [[ThusandThus]]
*Teleplay by [[ThisandThat]]
*Directed by [[Alan Smithee]]

=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.15
*Airdate Order: 15 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate: Date
*US Airdate: 10 February 2006
*DVD Release (UK): Date
*DVD Release (US): Date
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share

{{Episode List}}

[[Category: A to Z]]
[[Category: RDM]]

The Captain's Hand

2006-01-21T20:52:48Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= The Captain's Hand
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 17
| Guests= Unknown (CMDR [[Barry Trammel]]) Brad Dryborough (LT [[Hoshi]]) Mike Dopud (''Pegasus'' [[CIC]] Officer [[Gage]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[Sacrifice]]
| Next= [[Downloaded]]
}}

== Overview ==

== Summary ==

*[[Lee Adama]] travels to the [[Mercury class battlestar|battlestar]] ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'', where he meets up with [[Kara Thrace]]. Lee has been promoted to '''Major''', and Kara to '''Captain'''. The two encounter Commander [[Barry Trammel]], now in command of ''Pegasus'', who orders Kara to the flight deck while he and Lee proceed to [[CIC|C.I.C.]]

*A [[Raptor]] scout group from ''Pegasus'' is several hours overdue. Trammel is worried -- but beyond the immediate problem, he believes it is symptomatic of a larger issue on his ship: an overall lack of discipline and cohesion between the men and women assigned to the battlestar. And when things continue to go wrong, Trammel throws the blame at the occasionally insubordinate Starbuck. He restricts her to quarters, intent on shipping her back to ''[[Galactica]]''.

*Meanwhile, President [[Laura Roslin|Roslin]]'s relationship with Vice President [[Gaius Baltar|Baltar]] is growing increasingly strained.

*Trammel is clearly having his own command crisis, and is hurt when Lee suggests that they coordinate the search for the missing Raptors with Admiral [[William Adama|Adama]] (also recently promoted) and ''Galactica''. If Kara's plan to find the ships doesn't work, Trammel suggests that the deaths of the Raptor crews will be on Lee's head. ([http://www.gateworld.net/galactica/news/2005/10/firstdetailsonthecaptainsh.shtml GateWorld])

== Questions ==

== Analysis ==

== Notes ==

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

== Official Statements ==

== Statistics ==

=== Guest Stars ===

*Unknown as Commander [[Barry Trammel]]
*Brad Dryborough as Lieutenant [[Hoshi]]
*Mike Dopud as ''Pegasus'' [[CIC]] Officer [[Gage]]

=== Writing & Direction ===


=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.17
*Airdate Order: 17 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate: Date
*US Airdate: 17 February 2006
*DVD Release (UK): Date
*DVD Release (US): Date
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share

{{Episode List}}

[[Category: A to Z]]
[[Category: RDM]]

Downloaded

2006-01-21T20:52:30Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Downloaded
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 18
| Guests= [[Lucy Lawless]] ([[D'anna Biers]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[The Captain's Hand]]
| Next= [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I]]
}}

== Overview ==

== Summary ==
The episode is purported to be the "Cylon point of view" episode mentioned by producer Ron Moore in several interviews and blog postings. It is rumored to show what happened to the soul of [[Sharon Valerii|Galactica Boomer]] after she was killed by [[Cally]]. This episode suposedly gives new insight to the Cylon religion and the basic structure of Cylon society. [[Lucy Lawless]] makes a return appearance as reporter/[[Humano-Cylon]] [[D'anna Biers]]. Source: [http://www.patriotresource.com/bg/insights/spoilers.html The Patriot Resource]

== Questions ==

== Analysis ==
Recent rumours have suggested that this episode has been removed from Season Two's schedule in favor of extending "[[Resurrection Ship, Part I|Resurrection Ship]]" into a two-part episode. Conflicting rumours state that it will air at the end of the season as an extra episode, or in season 3, while others say it will not be shown at all.

Speculation on what disappointment [[Ronald D. Moore| Ron Moore]] is referring to in his blog entry, [http://blog.scifi.com/battlestar/archives/2005/10/index.html#a000090 The Return], has lead to the rumour that "Downloaded" may have been pulled due to issues of quality.

An excerpt from [http://blog.scifi.com/battlestar/archives/2005/10/index.html#a000090 The Return]:
:"One thing that has become apparent in recent days is just how committed we are around here to maintaining the quality of the show and our incredible dissatisfaction when those goals are not met. I found myself not only dissatisfied last night, but positively angry with myself at something I knew in my bones had fallen well below the bar I set for myself and for the show in general. I won't go into it now (maybe later) but it was one of those situations where I looked at something and had to listen to the voice inside my head say "You screwed this one up." Nothing pisses me off more than not making a show the best I think it can be and in this case, there was no one to blame but myself. The only solace I take from it is the knowledge that it does still piss me off and therefore I am still doing something I'm passionately engaged in. Far too many writers, producers, directors and actors I've known have been stuck doing things that they either didn't care about or actually loathed, and I've been extremely fortunate in always being emotionally engaged in the projects I've worked on."

However, there are still more rumors that the scrapped "Cylon POV episode" was a ''different'' episode from this one, which would mean that this episode involving the ultimate fate of Galactica-Boomer ''may'' still air in Season 2.5.

Another clue came in an interview with Ron D. Moore in [http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/01/president_rosli.html the Chicago Tribune on January 4th, 2006]], in which he speaks of the Cylon POV episode as if it will, indeed, still take place ''and'' in season 2:

:“There’s an episode down the line that we’re really excited about, the entire episode is told from the Cylon point of view: what their society is like, what they go through during reincarnation and when they’re born again. We really get inside the Cylon [society] and get to view that for the first time. [In another story in this episode, something really important happens, but I’m not going to give it away, dear readers. It’s just too good]"

It is fairly certain that ''an'' episode was scrapped, because "[[Resurrection Ship]]" was originally just one episode, but was allowed to expand into two when another was removed (not that Resurrection Ship needed padding to do this; the episodes tend to run long already in such important episodes, such as the situation with the Pegasus Director's Cut, etc.). However, it was never "confirmed" that the "Cylon POV episode" was scrapped.

Also, it is not entirely certain if there was "just one" Cylon POV episode, or if there were two separate episodes which focused on the Cylons someone (one more than another, though). However, RDM's recent comments seem to suggest that "Downloaded" is, indeed, the "Cylon POV episode" which has been promised since Season 1.

On January 5th, 2006, Scifi Channel released the schedule for the rest of season 2 [http://www.gateworld.net/galactica/news/2006/01/scifirevealsfebruaryschedu.shtml as reported by Gateworld.net], and it is now confirmed that "Downloaded" itself will air in February 2006. Was it definitely the "original" Cylon POV episode? RDM's statement makes it seem probable. Still, which episode was scrapped (we know ''something'' was), was it what RDM complained about in his blog, and what exactly was it about? We await further behind the scenes information on these questions.

Finally, in his [http://blog.scifi.com/battlestar/ blog] on the [http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/ official Battlestar Galactica website], [[Ronald D. Moore| Ron Moore]] has confirmed that the episode will be broadcast as episode 18:

:"I've seen some speculation out there that we dropped the Cylon POV episode from the lineup this season, but I'm happy to report that it's untrue. The episode, "Downloaded" will be broadcast as number 18 and I just watched it last night. It's a good show and a very different spin on our story thus far, in that we're telling the A-story entirely through the eyes of the Cylons for the first time."

Moore goes on to explain that the episode which was canceled was just a "clip show" episode, meant to save money because of budgetary constraints on the show. However, this "clip show" was canceled, so that "Resurrection Ship" could be expanded into a two-part episode.

== Notes ==

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

== Official Statements ==

== Statistics ==

=== Guest Stars ===
*[[Lucy Lawless]] as [[D'anna Biers]]

=== Writing & Direction ===


=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.18
*Airdate Order: 18 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate: Date
*US Airdate: 24 February 2006
*DVD Release (UK): Date
*DVD Release (US): Date
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share

{{Episode List}}

[[Category: A to Z]]
[[Category: RDM]]

Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II

2006-01-21T20:52:14Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 20
| Guests= [[Richard Hatch]] ([[Tom Zarek]]) [[Kate Vernon]] ([[Ellen Tigh]]) [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001777/ Dean Stockwell] ([[Brother Cavell]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I]]
| Next= TBA
}}

== Overview ==

== Summary ==
Part two of a two-part season finale. The previous episode saw copies of of [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]] and [[Number Six|Six]] appearing to the fleet with a dubious peace proposal which had ominous strings attached. In order to derail any chance of the questionable peace accord going through, President [[Laura Roslin|Roslin]] has put the matter to a referendum vote and called on long-time rival/ally [[Tom Zarek]] for political support. This episode will no doubt feature the resolution of the issues presented in part one and may well end in yet another infamous ''Galactica'' cliff-hanger. ''[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096684/ Quantum Leap]'''s [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001777/ Dean Stockwell] is rumored to appear as Brother Cavill, a [[Humano-Cylon]] priest. Source: [http://www.patriotresource.com/bg/insights/spoilers.html The Patriot Resource]

== Questions ==

== Analysis ==

== Notes ==

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

== Official Statements ==

== Statistics ==

=== Guest Stars ===
*[[Richard Hatch]] as [[Tom Zarek]]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001777/ Dean Stockwell] as Brother Cavill

=== Writing & Direction ===


=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.20
*Airdate Order: 20 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate: Date
*US Airdate: Date
*DVD Release (UK): Date
*DVD Release (US): Date
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share

{{Episode List}}

[[Category: A to Z]]
[[Category: RDM]]

Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I

2006-01-21T20:52:00Z

Mayosolo: blank pop. tag

{{spoiler}}
{{Episode Data|
Image = [[Image:Universal_logo.jpg|300px]]
| Title= Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I
| Series= [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|The Re-imagined Series]]
| Season= [[Season 2 (2005-06)|2]]
| Episode= 19
| Guests= [[Richard Hatch]] ([[Tom Zarek]]) [[Kate Vernon]] ([[Ellen Tigh]]) [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001777/ Dean Stockwell] ([[Brother Cavell]])
| Writer=
| Story=
| Director=
| Production=
| Rating=
| US Airdate=Not available
| UK Airdate=
| DVD=
| Population=
| Prev= [[Downloaded]]
| Next= [[Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II]]
}}

== Overview ==

== Summary ==
Part one of a two-part season finale. Copies of [[Sharon Valerii|Boomer]] and [[Number Six|Six]] appear within the fleet with a proposal to President [[Laura Roslin|Roslin]] and Admiral [[William Adama|Adama]]; peace. Unfortunately, there is more to their offer than what's on the surface. The terms of this new Cylon armistice demand that the human survivors of [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)|the Twelve Colonies]] renounce their [[Lords of Kobol|false gods]] and accept the "one true" faith which the Cylons adhere to. They are to let Cylon missionaries enter the fleet and begin preaching the Cylon faith to humanity, and most shockingly of all, a quota of humans is to be offered up annually to assist in the production of Human-Cylon hybrid children. In spite of the potentially horrific terms, the civilian population of the fleet seems to support the Cylon peace plan, but Roslin and Adama do not. Roslin is determed to strike down the peace accord and calls a referendum vote on the matter. Once again she finds herself reaching out to off-again/on-again rival [[Tom Zarek]] for political support. ''[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096684/ Quantum Leap]'''s [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001777/ Dean Stockwell] is rumored to appear in the role of Brother Cavill, a [[Humano-Cylon]] preist. Source: [http://www.patriotresource.com/bg/insights/spoilers.html The Patriot Resource]

== Questions ==

== Analysis ==
*Something to keep in mind is that during the [[Mini-series]], "after Picon was nuked, the president offered a complete unconditional surrender; the Cylon's didn't even respond". What if the Cylons finally accept the surrender which the Colonial government actually already offered? However, this was done by [[Adar (RDM)|President Adar]], before Roslin was sworn in as president; will she consider this previous offer binding to her new administration? Will other characters point out President Adar's already surrendering as an reason to agree to the Cylons terms now?

== Notes ==
* Ron Moore's podcast for episode 13, [[Epiphanies]], states that the Nuke given to Gina will come back in this episode, to the benefit of the Cylons.

== Noteworthy Dialogue ==

== Official Statements ==

*''In an interview in issue #197 of TV Zone, James Callis (Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]]) said:'' "the arrival of the Pegasus has helped galvanize our characters into who they are and who they’re trying to be. These later episodes [in Season 2] also further drive home the fact that the Galactica’s crew could be exterminated by its own kind, meaning that Humans are potentially far more terrifying an enemy than perhaps the Cylons."

== Statistics ==

=== Guest Stars ===
*[[Richard Hatch]] as [[Tom Zarek]]
*[[Kate Vernon]] as [[Ellen Tigh]]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001777/ Dean Stockwell] as [[Brother Cavell]]

=== Writing & Direction ===


=== Production Notes ===

*Series 2 (2005 / 2006)
*Production Number: 2.19
*Airdate Order: 19 (of 20)

=== First Run Air Dates & Releases ===

*UK Airdate: Date
*US Airdate: Date
*DVD Release (UK): Date
*DVD Release (US): Date
*[[Wikipedia:Nielsen Rating|Nielsen Rating]]: X.X million households, XXX share

{{Episode List}}

[[Category: A to Z]]
[[Category: RDM]]