Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive4: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:57, 18 September 2007

Archives:

Please remember: Battlestar Wiki is not a chat forum. Please limit questions to the article's topic, and keep answers and comments brief and succinct.

Kara Thrace

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

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

Major re-write

I'm in the process of completely re-writing this article to bring it up to date with season 3. In particular, I'm removing any assessment or grouping into "moderate" or "low" probability but, for each leading character listing reasons for suspicion and reasons for doubt and letting the reader decide. Any ideas on what this article needs, now would be a good time to suggest. OTW 15:17, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Erm, are you working on an old version? This was already done a while ago. All the fanwankery and excessive speculation was finally removed. Some with the probabilities, which were really silly. Anyways, now the article only lists Starbuck and Baltar, who are the most likely suspects. --Serenity 15:34, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm working on assesing the whole "human" central cast, although its immediately clear who are the biggest suspects. OTW 15:48, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

The page was specifically cleansed to get rid of all the excessive speculation about everyone. This has been discussed on the talk page. Also see Characters eliminated from suspicion‎ for why Helo and Cally Tyrol can't be Cylons and why the Adamas and Roslin probably aren't (has real-world reasons though). Baltar already has his own article. Starbuck is mentioned here. So that's everyone covered. --Serenity 15:52, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

OK, done it. Hope you like. I've limited the scope to the central characters (because "Oh, Hot Dog's the Cylon" would be pretty much an anticlimax). I think this is clearer and more organised than before, and allows us to demonstrate why certain characters are unlikely to be Cylons, rather than not talking about them. I have NOT included

Podcast: Frak Party Q and A , Seek to: 15:57. Total running time: 78:27.

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

Don't take this personally, but I don't. The old article was way better IMHO. Granted, it outsourced the eliminated characters to another page, which could be done away with maybe. But while your article is factually correct (*) with the pro and cons for everyone, I found the old one read more interestingly, because it was complete text and not just a list of a bullet points. That gave you the pointers to draw your own conclusions and links to pursue further indications.

What yours has going for it is that it doesn't just rely on out-of-universe sources for the Adamas and Roslin, but the sacrifices for that are too high. I'd rather have the "eliminated characters" article edited to include those points, but restore this one. But I'm just one person, so don't be discouraged. Some other people can weigh in too. But with an article has hotly contested as this one - see talk pages - you should have solicited some feedback before editing. Also because it could have saved you work.

(*) Except for some things like Adama in "A Day in the Life". That is not projection, but a stylistic choice to show his inner dialogue --Serenity 16:53, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 because I think it is clear from the context that RDM was discussing Bill and Laura being revealed as part of the ''four'' in [[Crossroads, Part II]]. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 16:37, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
-::Don't take this personally, but I don't. The old article was way better IMHO. Granted, it outsourced the eliminated characters to another page, which could be done away with maybe. But while your article is factually correct with the pro and cons for everyone, I found the old one read more interestingly, because it was complete text and not just a list of a bullet points. That gave you the pointers to draw your own conclusions and links to pursue further indications.
+::Don't take this personally, but I don't. The old article was way better IMHO. Granted, it outsourced the eliminated characters to another page, which could be done away with maybe. But while your article is factually correct (*) with the pro and cons for everyone, I found the old one read more interestingly, because it was complete text and not just a list of a bullet points. That gave you the pointers to draw your own conclusions and links to pursue further indications.
-::What yours has going for it is that it doesn't just rely on out-of-universe sources for the Adamas and Roslin, but the sacrifices for that are too high. I'd rather have the "eliminated characters" article edited to include those points, but restore this one. But I'm just one person, so don't be discouraged. Some other people can weigh in too. But with an article has hotly contested as this one - see talk pages - you should have solicited some feedback ''before'' editing. Also because it could have saved you work. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:53, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
+::What yours has going for it is that it doesn't just rely on out-of-universe sources for the Adamas and Roslin, but the sacrifices for that are too high. I'd rather have the "eliminated characters" article edited to include those points, but restore this one. But I'm just one person, so don't be discouraged. Some other people can weigh in too. But with an article has hotly contested as this one - see talk pages - you should have solicited some feedback ''before'' editing. Also because it could have saved you work.
+:::(*) Except for some things like Adama in "[[A Day in the Life]]". That is '''not''' projection, but a stylistic choice to show his inner dialogue --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:53, 18 September 2007 (CDT)