Talk:Twelve Cylon Models/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Twelve Cylon Models/Archive 1
More actions
Spencerian (talk | contribs) Debate Over, It Seems |
April Arcus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
My recent addition from TheFandom.com (kudos to Ricimer for being the first to spot this) confirms without further debate that there are twelve HUMAN models, and that the other Cylon spacecraft or bots we have seen are not counted. It firmly establishes that Sharon was never a true human, and none of the other models were either. We will still want to keep the arguments for and against this in the article as they were stimulating to read, but we need to truncate them down to Ron's official statement. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:40, 9 November 2005 (EST) | My recent addition from TheFandom.com (kudos to Ricimer for being the first to spot this) confirms without further debate that there are twelve HUMAN models, and that the other Cylon spacecraft or bots we have seen are not counted. It firmly establishes that Sharon was never a true human, and none of the other models were either. We will still want to keep the arguments for and against this in the article as they were stimulating to read, but we need to truncate them down to Ron's official statement. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:40, 9 November 2005 (EST) | ||
:Thank god. I nominate this page for deletion. We can footnote the interview as a source where necessary to forestall further debate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:44, 10 November 2005 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 07:44, 10 November 2005
Debate Over, It Seems
My recent addition from TheFandom.com (kudos to Ricimer for being the first to spot this) confirms without further debate that there are twelve HUMAN models, and that the other Cylon spacecraft or bots we have seen are not counted. It firmly establishes that Sharon was never a true human, and none of the other models were either. We will still want to keep the arguments for and against this in the article as they were stimulating to read, but we need to truncate them down to Ron's official statement. --Spencerian 12:40, 9 November 2005 (EST)
- Thank god. I nominate this page for deletion. We can footnote the interview as a source where necessary to forestall further debate. --Peter Farago 02:44, 10 November 2005 (EST)