More actions
- For discussions prior to October 3, 2006, click here.
Sourcing Rules
I wonder if the desire to be "authoritative" here at Battlestar Wiki isn't getting twisted and perverted. We know a lot about Season 3 that is somehow not getting into print. For instance, we have photos of some episodes, casting "sides" from some of the scripts, and comments from some of the participants that amount to a pretty clear picture of some of the major plot points of the first few episodes, yet we are not writing what we clearly KNOW because the episodes have not aired and anything would therefore be "speculative." THIS IS RIDICULOUS. These are tougher sourcing rules than they have at the New York Times and the Washington Post, and let's face it, that is now what people are coming to us for. They want to know what is going on with their favorite show, and god knows we have spoiler warnings everywhere to protect those who don't want to know. Most major newspapers have the "three source rule," which means all or part of what you write needs to be covered by three independent sources. We have that in many cases but are sitting on our hands and not writing the info. The "overview" section we do have for the episodes is not really an overview but a collection of speculation from various sources. If Ron Moore said something at a conference three months ago, we treat it as a grand pronouncement ex cathedra even though three months is a long time and a lot of things can change in TV at the last moment. But we have photos of scenes shot (and published!) and we are not writing what is clearly in them. Something is very screwed up here. No journalistic or editorial operation should be operating this way, being so skittish and chicken s--t about things that any reasonable person can conclude are true. We are a month from the start of Season 3, and Battlestar Wiki is lagging way behind other sources, on the Web and elsewhere, about what will be happening in the new season. We need to grow some brass ones, and write what we know. The whole rest of the world is writing about what will be happening starting Oct. 6. We have decided to wait until after it happens. That's not authoritative; that's stupid. --Elach 02:31, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
- I think you missed the point of what we are. We are guide to BSG. Not a news source. We collect, eveluate the source. We write only facual information on the show. Most of the information on this page has a cite along with it making it true. We knew a long time ago Anadama Plummer was a guest star because of the podcast link, but we didn't sepculate on the plot because production and recordings change sometimes days before airing. --Shane (T - C - E) 02:44, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
First act up on scifi.com
The 1st act of this episode is on the website and some of the speculation is right and some is wrong from the transcript that got circulated earlier this year. Obvious an early draft. In any case, I think that things can be added from this cut from their website which I would like to start after I stop watching this thing over and over and over...and oh by the way, I gotta work to. Maybe I'll make my contributions in a few hours. -- Straycat0 12:47, 04 October 2006 (AST)
Did anyone else notice that the credits said Candice McClure and not Kandyse McClure? Apparently she had been credited as Candice in some roles earlier in her career but as far as I remember, she has always been credited as Kandyse on Battlestar Galactica. The Sci Fi site still lists her as Kandyse. What gives? Is this just another slip-up on the part of the people in charge of onscreen text? (Remember the problem with Margaret "Racetrack" Edmondson in the end credits?) They also spelled Helo's full name incorrectly on the humorous video blog that showed the effect that the Peabody Award had on David Eick. Helo's real name was incorrectly shown as Karl Agation with an "i". 123home123 18:09, 04 October 2006 (EDT)
- I'm going to have to look into that credit issue later. I put a summary in for what was shown on Scifi.com. I hope I did it in the most correct way. Feel free to make modifications where needed. -- Straycat0 15:53, 04 October 2006 (AST)
- Thanks to Shane, Peter Farago, Spencerian, and Noneofyourbusiness for editing my additions. This is my first time at adding major content to an episode page outside of the The Resistance Webisodes page so I was just letting it flow without worrying about format. Though, I am particularly happy that you all left my use of the terms "skinjobs" and "chromejobs". I felt that this was appropriate from the point of view of the characters involved. -- Straycat0 21:31, 04 October 2006 (AST)
Request that analysis section is deleted! The comments are not analytical and instead seem rather speculative, amounting to nothing which is noteworthy.-- jxh487
- Committing an act of vandalism on the main page isn't going to help your case. Noneofyourbusiness 17:06, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
- Jxh487, since the episode has not yet aired, the information is the best official data available. This will last here for one more day in the US, where it will likely be replaced. As the previous user stated, don't vandalize a page to prove a point, please. --Spencerian 17:14, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
- Yes, the episode(s) will probably prove or disapprove both points. --FrankieG 17:26, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
Speculation?
It is worth noting that in "Exodus, Part II", Ellen betrays Saul in some fashion. Therefore, her motives are presently unknown.
How can we put this up based on Overview? --Shane (T - C - E) 12:18, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- We shouldn't. --Peter Farago 12:31, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
frak the cylons. the human race will ultimately survive. just seen the episode. pretty cool yet it not reveals ellens intentions so we shouldnt. 06:31, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
- Her intentions are pretty clear. She will protect Saul at all costs. --FrankieG 06:54, 7 October 2006 (CDT)