Talk:Number Eight/Archive 1

Was Sharon a real person, once?

Caprica Boomer notes that humano-Cylons are not wired into each other's brains, so they don't share knowledge directly. However, she was aware of events in the fleet, which means some level of data from Galactica Boomer was received. She also recollects to Starbuck on the first time they met in the Delphi Museum. Could the Sharon that Starbuck knew was a real human, her consciousness cloned into a series of Cylon copies? Food for thought. Spencerian 16:52, 22 Aug 2005 (EDT)

No. Baltar's Cylon detector showed that she physically was not not a human (I forget how exactly the detector works; something like the artificial, silicon based cells of humanoid Cylons can't hold up to radiation to well and after prolonged exposure degenerate a little). They still have to explain to us the exact nature of the humanoid Cylons, but it is apparent that they aren't fully biological creatures: I think they're made of synthetic chemicals bases (silicon, etc) and they have Silica Relays running through their body; I mean they can transmit their consciousness and thoughts over vast distances just using whatever's in their brain. Are *ANY* of the humanoid Cylons based on real people? We don't know. But the Galactica-Boomer was definately not an original. -- Ricimer, 11 Sept, 2005.

I'm betting that Gaius was real -- once. :) Spencerian 12:45, 11 October 2005 (EDT)

RDM said in that interview from thefandom.com that "there was never an original 'Sharon Valerii'" so I think that settles it. --Ricimer 20:04, 6 November 2005 (EST)

It has indeed, and the Twelve Models page is now moot. Answer moved to main Humano-Cylon page. --Spencerian

Keeping Track of the Valeriis

I recommend that we use "Boomer" as the name of the now-dead Galactica copy we first encounter in the mini-series in the article as applicable. The Caprica version can be "Sharon Valerii" or "Valerii" provided that the context where the copy is found is made clear in that part of the article. Remember that Galactica's crew doesn't see the Caprica copy as "Boomer" and we shouldn't call her as such. I've also broken up the text here to make reading and information easier to find. Spencerian 10:20, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

Problematic. Although only the Galactica copy is properly "Boomer", both of them are Sharon Valerii. --Peter Farago 17:26, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

That it is. But it is worse to use "Boomer" for all of the copies, and since it may be a cold day in hell before Adama allows any Valerii copy to fly again in the service of the Colonials, using the callsign is inappropriate as "Boomer" is dead. Hopefully we won't find any more Valeriis to disambiguate. I'm trying to treat things as we did the Ellen Tigh/Saul Tigh matter. Spencerian 12:43, 11 October 2005 (EDT)

I think we should probably refer to the one currently on Caprica with Caprica Six as Boomer Reloaded and the one on Galactica as Sharon. Boomer Reloaded would probably be more comfortable with the callsign than the non-pilot copy.--Deadlygopher 02:26, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Is there a list of possible Images or something like that? How do you find the one you're looking for?--Noneofyourbusiness 08:29, 5 March 2006 (EST)

Check out the Island of Misfit Images, first off. Then you just have to hunt around. Kind of depends on what you're looking for. --Day 19:45, 5 March 2006 (CST)

The Eight at the beginning of Downloaded.--Noneofyourbusiness 21:51, 5 March 2006 (EST)

Probably someone will have to get a screen cap of her, then, since it's a more recent episode there are less likely to be just tons of pics from it. You might put a note up at Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images. --Day 20:52, 5 March 2006 (CST)

Keeping track of the Valeriis may be easier in the future if recent spoilers are true. One would be Sharon Valerii and the other Sharon Valerii Agathon. Noneofyourbusiness 15:30, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Disambig?

Actually, how about creating an article for each of the two major Valerii's -- Sharon Valerii (Galactica copy) and Sharon Valerii (Caprica copy), for instance -- and using Sharon Valerii as a disambig/information page for the Valerii model line? -- Joe Beaudoin 14:05, 6 November 2005 (EST)

• I am unsure that that would be the best option. Perhaps by the end of season 3 we might make that choice, but that's 30 episodes from now. Right now, I just think they should be under one article, though it is a valid point. --->On top of this, we keep calling them "Galactica-Boomer" and "Caprica-Boomer". Someone then pointed out that we shouldn't call "Caprica-Boomer" 'Boomer' because it's a military callsign and she was never really in the military. However, I feel that originally this was a wise choice because Helo thought she was "Boomer" as she was posing as Galactica-Boomer. Also, we need to check if anyone calls her "Boomer" anymore after she is brought to Galactica. Anyway, I approve of the prevailing tendency to refer to her post-"Home" as "Caprica-Sharon"--->Regardless, we have indeed encountered a problem now that we have this information from RDM: "Caprica-Sharon" is now on Galactica, and "Galactica-Sharon" is now going to wake up in a new body on or near Caprica. We cannot refer to them as "Boomer 1" and her counterpart "Boomer 2" because that would imply that "Galactica-Boomer is the "original", and she is not; RDM said there is no "original", and "Caprica-Sharon" has equal claim to this. Perhaps we could use "Boomer 1" and "Boomer A"--->no, wait, that would be only more confusing. In addition to this, there are also other 'generic' "evil" standard-Cylon Sharons, like the one introduced at the end of "Final Cut". Maybe we could use the less-often prefered nomenclature: "Tyrol-Boomer" for Chief Tyrol's Boomer (Galactica-Boomer) and "Helo-Boomer" for the one that got impregnated by Helo ("Caprica-Boomer"). Of course, there is always the possibility of some crazy soap-opera love triangle and Tyrol falling for Caprica-Boomer because he thinks Galactica-Boomer is dead only to find that Galactica-Boomer has become the new Caprica-Boomer leading to a tense standoff with the standard Caprica-Six who is taking orders from Baltar-Six the angel of God who is in turn having a love triangle with Pegasus-Six a.k.a. Gina who will be supplied with a nuclear weapon and Raptor by Galactica-Jammer which will be preceded by Cally-Selix being outed by Galactica-D'Anna when in fact she is not a Cylon throwing blame off of Galactica-D'Anna even as Caprica-D'Anna is trying to indoctrinate Galactica-Caprica-Galactica Boomer into the Cylon religion only to be saved by Anders but not before being impregnated with Starbuck's missing egg cells. This could take a while. --Ricimer 19:53, 6 November 2005 (EST)

Wow. Wow. Wow. WOW. Ricimer. Good LORD, man. There is some part loose in your head and I like it. Wow. Anyway, I actually kind of like the idea of sing Tyrol-Sharon (or, more properly, Tyrol-Valerii?) and Helo-Sharon (Agathon-Valerii? Ouch.). That's a bit odd, perhaps, to those of us who've been watching from the start, but what if someone missed the parts where Caprica-Sharon was on Caprica and so only know of this one that, as far as they know, has always been on Galactica--and why the hell don't these wiki-morons get their facts straight about Galactica-Boomer and her pregnancy and all? ;) Or maybe we should call the one of them Preggers-Boomer or Mama-Boomer or something and the other, uh... Dead-Boomer or Sleeper-Boomer. Or maybe not. --Day 03:05, 17 December 2005 (EST)

I don't. Galactica-Valerii and Caprica-Valerii are still unambiguous, and with "Downloaded" indefinitely shelved, it appears they will remain that way. I find identifying them by their S.O.'s tasteless and no less confusing than our current system. --Peter Farago 03:50, 17 December 2005 (EST)

• I think we should go with Joes idea and split the article with the Galactica/Caprica convention (though I have no problem with the Helo/Tyrol one either). If at some point in the series it becomes clear that a different convention makes more sense, we could change it then. Else we could be waiting a long time with one massive, confusing Valerii article (its only going to get bigger after all).--Undc23 21:43, 28 December 2005 (EST)

The Best Laid Plans, Sometimes Best Left Buried

Four months, three new episodes, and a lot of Spoilers later, I feel that the time has come to disambiguate Galactica-Sharon and Caprica-Sharon into two separate characters pages, as Joe agreed. Obviously, following the model of the Humano-Cylon page, there will be "stubs" for Galactica and Caprica-Sharon on this page, leading to full articles (other models of Sharon, like the "The Hand of God" one, Ragnar copy, "Final Cut" copy, etc. will have their entire entry here (that is, just leave their info as is). I'll use the names "Galactica-Sharon" and "Caprica-Sharon" because those are the names which were not developed by me, but which developed ad hoc on the internet to tell the two apart (notably on Televisionwithoutpity, though I can tell you that it didn't start there, but on the messageboards for the show, etc.) Nextly, we aren't using "Caprica-Boomer", etc. because "Boomer" is a military callsign and after they found out she was a Cylon she wasn't part of their unit anymore. Come to think of it, I think they've never called her Boomer since Caprica-Sharon got to Galactica. --Ricimer 01:14, 24 January 2006 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree with the split, (with the caveat that the articles should be located at Sharon Valerii (Galactica Copy) and Sharon Valerii (Caprica Copy), along with the various Number Six identities, but I feel like I should point out one thing: None of the cylon characters have actually received more screen time than any human character. If their articles are so large and ungainly that they demand to be split, this cries out of summary and concision. We will not have this recourse with the human character articles. --Peter Farago 01:23, 24 January 2006 (EST)

The two Boomers have each separetly had more development than several recurring characters; Cally, Racetrack, etc. Galactica-Boomer got about as much development as Tyrol, and Caprica-Boomer got about as much development as Helo, yet the experiences of each were unique. And the evidence speaks for itself; I mean just look at the article; quite a LARGE amount of information, for each separately, and you can see that they require no summary or concision. They've just both led...shall we say, "colorful"?...lives? That's kind of what makes "Sharon" one of the more intriguing characters. --Ricimer 01:59, 24 January 2006 (EST)

I would also note that this is bound to generate some discussion and require some thought beforehand. We shouldn't jump the gun until we have broad consensus. --Peter Farago 01:24, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Truth. Yet this is a special case; it was already largely agreed that they should be separated, but it was decided to wait a while longer until they were known to be truly distinct characters (at the time, we were unaware of spoilers that Galactica-Sharon would come back and we thought she was dead for good. In light of this, I see the need as more pressing than ever). Many agreed already that this was the wiser choice. I want to get the ball rolling, let others play around with the idea to get used to it. --Ricimer 01:55, 24 January 2006 (EST)

I don't know that I agree with a split. I don't know that I disagree either, though. I just thought I'd post that I have some reservations. I don't have the time to look too closely at it right now, so I'll try to meditate on it and post an actual decision tonight (unless I'm too tired from work or something). --Day 12:26, 24 January 2006 (EST)

I'm torn on a split because of the confusion that it can create. Yet at the same time, as time goes on, ALL of the character bio pages will become too large and cumbersome. Perhaps we should apply a process similar to what we did for the Cylon (RDM) and Twelve Colonies (RDM) pages--create a parent with child subarticles.

• A master page on the Valerii model that summarizes the model, VERY brief links to subarticles, and notes on other models encountered (minor or in-passing encounters).
• A series link that gives distinct subarticles for each major Valerii encountered (All two)

So the Sharon Valerii page is the parent, with Sharon Valerii (Caprica) and Sharon Valerii (Boomer) as subarticles. Another example, Number Six would be the parent, with Natasi, Number Six (Virtual), Shelly Godfrey and Gina as subarticles.

This idea actually works better with Six (who has had four separate significant characters). For Colonials, we will have to look into something like this as well or severely truncate their bios over time as the show progresses. --Spencerian 13:10, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Er, that's actually what I just suggested (the first option). The second option you listed is what we already do; have subarticles about the different copies. What I want is to do what we did on the humanoid Cylon page: brief description and a link, leading off to another article about that character in detail. My key point is that not ALL of them need their own pages, i.e. copies of Number Six with a "standard" personality don't need separate pages, just keep their info on the main page. I'm not sure of Natasi-Six and ChipSix are separate characers, though they probably are. Gina definately is, as is Shelley Godrey (I'm still not sure if she was a self-aware Six, or honestly acting out fake memories).--Ricimer 14:40, 24 January 2006 (EST)

As there's been the call for a consensus, I'll put my two bits in: yes! I've been keen to see this for a while. Are we going to do the same with Conoy and Doral? (I wouldn't). As for Natasi and ChipSix, I think we should just have them in the main Number Six article, as they don't have different personalities and seperate articles would confuse. Also, I agree with Farago that the articles should be titiled like Sharon Valerii (Galactica Copy) and not Sharon Valerii (Galactica).--Undc23 20:43, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Some final thoughts - I would not like to see Doral and Conoy's articles sectioned off either, as there really isn't enough content to justify it. The main articles should be more than disambig pages, with notes on the model as a whole, perhaps borrowed from Humano-Cylon - which I feel probably ought to be deleted soon anyway, in favor of Cylon Models, along with stubs for the articles with their own pages, and full discussions for less-notable copies (such as the overseer six models, or Ragnar Valerii). I would also like to use series boxes for Valerii and Six, and categories as well (which can also be subcategories of "Characters (RDM)"). --Peter Farago 21:49, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Farago I think you are jumping to conclusions of brobdingnagian proportions. Our pages for Conoy and Doral are already sectioned off with subheadings. No, (dragging in the debate over humanoid Cylon nomenclature) I feel that humanoid Cylons and "Cylons" are distinct. We should do what we have done before. Have a main "Cylon" page, with a separate "Humanoid Cylon" or "Cylon Agent" or whatever page, on which there are short descriptions of the known models of the 12, and links to their pages. (EXACTLY what it already done now, simply changing the *title*). I don't know what you mean by "series boxes". If I could be permitted, I'd like to do a "test" example in the future of what I envision it as, so we can all more clearly see it. Basically, I just think that the TITLE of the existing humanoid Cylon article be changed, and that Caprica-Sharon, Galactica-Sharon, and Gina get their own articles. --Ricimer 00:28, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Ricimer. The comment about Conoy and Doral was regarding sectioning their articles off into different pages. I felt that was perfectly clear, but you seem to'vve misunderstood bother Peter's and Undc23's comments. They were both advocating no change to how those two articles stand now. Just thought I'd sum that up. --Day 07:06, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Okay. Well, I also want no change to the Doral and Conoy articles as they stand now. Okay. --Ricimer 12:59, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Done! Hope everyone's happy with the results (if not, you can always say so or adjust it yourself). I will do the same to Number Six in a day or two, unless someone beats me to it.--Undc23 22:44, 27 January 2006 (EST)

It looks very good. Nice work, Undc.--Spencerian 09:39, 6 February 2006 (EST)

Ricimer's spoilers

Ricimer, we need to link to that interview if we're going to cite it here. Is this the one? --Peter Farago 13:55, 6 November 2005 (EST)

Yay, the very same. --Ricimer 19:40, 6 November 2005 (EST)

Why "Apparently 'Asian' Extraction"?

I glanced over a number of the human character bios (Helo, both Adamas, Starbuck, Roslin, and Dualla) and all the Humano-Cylon bios, and none of them make reference to their apparent Earth racial extractions. Why mention it for Sharon, much less put it at the top of the article? No one in the show talks about race (the closest they get to it is Colony reference, and Dualla and Zarek both being Saggitarons seems to nullify racial parallels). We're not even sure there were, or will be, any verified direct connection between the Earth races of today and Colonial humans. Unfortunately, the words "apparently 'Asian' extraction" come across more as an over-fixation on her Asian characteristics than anything else.

Could we get rid of the words? Or at least, in the interest of balance, make comparable comments in all the bios ("apparently 'Caucasian' extraction," "apparently 'African' extraction," etc.)? --BlueResistance 15:35, 9 November 2005 (EST)

You have a point and couldn't make it more clear. Comments from the rest of the peanut gallery? --Spencerian 16:18, 9 November 2005 (EST)

I say we nix the "apparent" note, the only significant and consistent physiological notes that have been made on characters have dealt with accents (ie. Baltar), not appearance. Racial origin should be left to the cast bios, if noted at all. Colonial heritage, IMHO, is what matters to this wiki. Señor Peanut: --Mason 21:01, 9 November 2005 (EST)

I wouldn't mind getting rid of it. We have Race and Ethnicity in the Twelve Colonies to talk about this stuff. --Peter Farago 02:47, 10 November 2005 (EST)

Rank

Moved to Talk:Sharon Valerii (Galactica copy).

Ragnar Valerii

Moved to Talk:Sharon Valerii (Caprica copy).

main image

Should we have a better image for the main one on this page?

If this article is for the Sharons in general, with other articles devoted to the two specific Sharons, should the image for the main page be the one from Kobol's Last Gleaming when Galact.-Sharon enounters the multiple Sharons?--DrBat 09:26, 6 February 2006 (EST)

Good idea, DrBat. I got the image for this page from the end of the miniseries when it's revealed shes a Cylon, but it didn't work as well as I hoped. --Undc23 18:52, 6 February 2006 (EST)

Hey, I was just thinkign that the current picture is not that good, both because it's a bit too wide and because of the quality. I was wondering if perhaps we should go with the simple portrait we used to have before. --Sauron18 20:42, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah. This seems like a better image. Good call Sauron. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:58, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks :) --Sauron18 06:16, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Number 8

I think we should move this "hub" page for the various Sharon models to Number Eight to match Number Six and her subsidiary articles. Anyone else? --Peter Farago 23:11, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Indeed, change the name, and take Baltar Six out of "Number Six", call it "Caprica Six" since thats her name now!

--Sauron18 24 February 2006

I agree. BTW Peter, check out the new pics I posted yesterday in Sharon's rank discussion. They're a lot clearer. --Talos 23:25, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Baltar's Six is the "angel of god" inside Baltar's head, not the one who got nuked on Caprica. We don't know quite what she is. --Peter Farago 23:23, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Miniseries

At the end of the miniseries, when the humano-Cylons enter Ragnar, it seems that the Cylons refer to that particular Number 8 as a leader. Is that correct? Huh? 10:34, 2 March 2006 (CST)

We've discussed this a bit, and basically A) She might have just been the leader of that specific group more probably B) It was just a really fun excuse to insert "By Your Command" into dialog.--The Merovingian 13:21, 2 March 2006 (CST)

This is, in fact, already noted in the article. --Peter Farago 21:02, 2 March 2006 (CST)

The next four models

It would be interesting to see whether the four models created after Number Eight act more or less "human" than she.

I don't think it's ever established that the model numbers reflect the order they were built in. I'm just curious if it was ever stated that Number Eight would predate Nine through Twelve. Alpha5099 18:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

The method behind the numbering scheme used by the Cylons was never established. Personally, I believe that each model number corresponds to a personality type observed by the Cylons. (Basically, as RDM said, the Cylons said "oh, there's twelve of you [humans]" and made models based on that assessment.) Given this, the models could have been made in any numerical order; Number Six could have been first, while Number Eight could have been made second, and etc. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:40, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

With that said, realistically speaking, RDM and his team probably didn't come up with any numbering scheme in any specific order. After all, Number Six is a homage to The Prisoner. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:42, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

What would the connection between the personality type and the number be? Why would the Cylons arbitrarily say, "This is the sixth kind of person." Doesn't it make more sense for the number to correspond to the order of "birth", especially in the light of the phrasing "There are twelve models. I'm Number Six." Even if the Cylons did label a certain personality type as the "sixth", it would then make the most sense for them to create that model sixth. Noneofyourbusiness 19:01, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Honestly, I don't know. It's just an idea -- an idea that has no more or less weight than model numbers reflecting the order they were born (or built) in. That is ultimately my point, as well as the point Alpha's endeavoring to make as well, if I'm correct. As I mentioned, Number Six was a homage to The Prisoner and I honestly don't believe the writers came up with a definitive numbering system. Perhaps they came up with something later on during Season 1 and Season 2, though, I honestly don't know. And that's just my thought on the subject, though ultimately there's nothing for (or against) the model number order, and I honestly don't think this speculation should be included in this entry since it's baseless thus far. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 19:28, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Other Copies

The article states that

It is possible that [the Eight seen at the end of the Miniseries] is the same individual as the Caprica copy. While, at the time the Miniseries had been filmed, there were no plans to have Tahmoh Penikett reprise the role of Helo, the ending of the Miniseries forms a link to "33", establishing that the Cylons have developed a plan for Helo's presence on Caprica.

This seems like total speculation to me and I don't quite understand how the end of the Miniseries establishs that the Cylons have developed a plan for Helo. Unless there is some kind of source for this, it should be deleted. Enemy 21:55, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Agreed. Let's remove it. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:07, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Younger?

I was wondering why the article refers to Sharon as the youngest model of the seven cylons we know? Is it because the actress is younger than her fellow cylon actors or because of an assumption based on her model number? If it's the former it doesn't really have anything to do with the cylon characters actual ages. If it's the latter I feel we should keep in mind that Leoben, Simon and Cavil model numbers are still unknown. They could easily be some combination of 9,10,11 or 12.

I think a slight rewording is in order. Something that indicates she APPEARS to be younger than the other cylons without actually saying she IS younger. --Meteor 02 February 2007.

I initially wrote that, as I was looking for attributes applying for all Eights. But you are right, it's certainly less than ideal, especially since a Cylon's outer appearance might not be related to the age of his or her consciousness at all. Feel free to change it. Sloan 09:44, 4 February 2007 (CST)