Spencerian (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I cut out the mention of what, exactly, the spoiler image in that ''Chicago Tribune'' article was. That way, those of us who don't want to know won't know (I'm attempting to block it from my memory as we speak) and those who want to know won't get the shock spoiled before they click. Instead, they get the tanalizing hint that thar be spoilers in them seas. --[[User:Slander|Slander]] 15:36, 12 January 2007 (CST) | I cut out the mention of what, exactly, the spoiler image in that ''Chicago Tribune'' article was. That way, those of us who don't want to know won't know (I'm attempting to block it from my memory as we speak) and those who want to know won't get the shock spoiled before they click. Instead, they get the tanalizing hint that thar be spoilers in them seas. --[[User:Slander|Slander]] 15:36, 12 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:It's only a spoiler for those who insist to take everything literally. Moore and Eick said that it's a dream, and I assumed as such before. Promo pics and trailers often show things out of context --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:37, 12 January 2007 (CST) | :It's only a spoiler for those who insist to take everything literally. Moore and Eick said that it's a dream, and I assumed as such before. Promo pics and trailers often show things out of context --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:37, 12 January 2007 (CST) | ||
::That's fine, Slander. I didn't think of it, but it is, out of context, a spoiler. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:23, 12 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 23:23, 12 January 2007
I probably just being stupid, when I click on the footnote/reference number ([1], [2]..), it brings me back to the main page. I thought that they would take me to the referenced web page/article. Or, I am just DUH! --gougef 17:47, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
- Looks like the "ref" tags needs the "references" tag at the bottom of the page. Should I do this or format the page a different way? --gougef 21:21, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
Should we post that there will be Season 3 Teaser on the premiere of Eureka? --FrankieG 12:47, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
- That's news to me. Maybe post the date/time of the premiere. I know it ends up being free advertising for Scifi (which is exactly what they intended), but it is of interest to the BSG fans. Probably worth Tivoing the show just to pick up the teaser.--Steelviper 13:05, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
Season 3 Trailer at Scifi[edit]
I was mislead by the following: http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/images/990_banner.jpg
Clicking on that banner at Scifi's Battlestar Video page doesn't currently get you the trailer, though (although they've got the WHOLE Eureka episode up instead). --Steelviper 10:30, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
- Oh... they're talking about LDYB, part II and the little thing afterwards. Totally different. *Sigh*. I wish they'd post an official version of the new trailer. I'd like something on the front page and not buried off on the margins. --Steelviper 10:32, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
Spoiler Image[edit]
I cut out the mention of what, exactly, the spoiler image in that Chicago Tribune article was. That way, those of us who don't want to know won't know (I'm attempting to block it from my memory as we speak) and those who want to know won't get the shock spoiled before they click. Instead, they get the tanalizing hint that thar be spoilers in them seas. --Slander 15:36, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- It's only a spoiler for those who insist to take everything literally. Moore and Eick said that it's a dream, and I assumed as such before. Promo pics and trailers often show things out of context --Serenity 15:37, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- That's fine, Slander. I didn't think of it, but it is, out of context, a spoiler. --Spencerian 17:23, 12 January 2007 (CST)