Could you say wher this info has come from? --Grafix 17:16, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
Tigh's Eyes
The quote: Tigh closes his eye, trying not to slide into hopelessness…" really doesn't infer that Colonel Tigh's eys (I like the way that sounds) are injured, it simply sounds more expressing the feeling by closing his eyes. I have no idea how anybody gets that his eyes are injuried by this and so the reference on the article page would be better off moved to the discussion page. -- StrayCat0 20:51, 13 Apr 2006 (PST)
- Look, I know that and I agree with you, but if people are rumor-mongering based on this comment, I think the least we can do is tell them where the notion came from. You'll see that I reworded the comment somewhat when I restored it - I hope it's absolutely clear that this is purely conjectural. --Peter Farago 22:52, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
- I think the reason for the assumption is that it says "Tigh closes his eye," as in singular. It could just be a typo in the original source though. --Talos 22:56, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
"Yes, it does, but this is now a widespread rumor, and as a reference source, we have an obligation to address its source factually.)" Peter, you didn't provide a source when you added the info back. I realize we might as well mention something, if GalacticaStation and Gateworld are, because even if they are wrong it's out of our hands, but you realize that with the whole "it's a widespread rumor" justification....if *we* report it, we *make* it a widespread rumor. People see it here, and think this adds even more weight behind the rumor. We need to tag these things with a sentence along the lines of "no reliably sourced basis for these spoiler's accuracy", etc. --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- Do you mean the source for the rumor outside of the wiki? I asked Kahran to provide this on Talk:Precipice, but he hasn't done so. It's been brought up several times on TWOP: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I'm sure you've seen this elsewhere as well. --Peter Farago 01:13, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- Yes, so we need something in clear bold font that says "This has been reported but we have no idea if it is true". --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:47, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- I think the current phrasing makes that pretty clear. --Peter Farago 09:28, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- It wasn't clear at all. I added a little warning for clarification. --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:42, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- I think we were talking about different things. Your clarification was appropriate. --Peter Farago 18:45, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- Thanks, I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers. I mean, as you saw, I was trying to figure out how to handle this...rumor days before Gateworld even reported it! Haha --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:05, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
I am your god! unconfirmed production draft for "Occupation" http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf - Lordmutt 15th April 2006
- Exactly; this was online some days before Gateworld heard of it: how do we know it's real? How do we have any idea who started it? Moreover, how do we have any idea that the script has not been radically changed this then? --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:00, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- Um, we already had that linked... --Peter Farago 20:21, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
- Yes. False prophet!--The Merovingian (C - E) 20:29, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
I am your god! ....still... honestly didn't realise that, oh well- lordmutt
Spoilers/speculation
I'm not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere and I applogise if it has but why are we putting speculation on forthcoming episodes on this page, and subsequent S3 pages? Why don't we have a separate section for speculation and leave these pages for the FACTS. --Grafix 03:18, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
- We put the facts here, then educated analysis of the facts here, so people can see them more easily. Otherwise they might get skipped over. That's what we've been doing before. --The Merovingian (C - E) 07:29, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
Casting Side
Joe, may I assume that the information gleaned from the casting side was removed in accordance with the new spoiler policy, and not by accident? --Peter Farago 22:25, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
Bear McCreary's Words in his blog
I am not going to revert back again, but I don't see how "season premiere" as he states it means that episodes 1 and 2 are being played back-to-back. The season premiere is always the 1st episode regardless if it's a 1st part of a 2 parter. Merv, I think you are overinpreting his words. It could mean 1 and 2 being played back-to-back but it could mean episode 1 is 2 hrs long. That's why I think that the original wording should be used because there is ambigouity there. And besides, I may be wrong, my understanding is that the midseason break is supposed to be after episode 10 on Decembter 8th and it will take 10 episodes starting from October 6th when the 1st episode is to air. Anyways, I think the original quote is best used rather than interpretation. --StrayCat0 16:48, 16 July 2006 (PDT)
- I really think he meant "premiere" as in "the day/event starting the season". If episode 1 is 2 hours long....there are 10 episodes in Season 3.0 (this has been confirmed), so they'd just break it up later: this happens all the time on scifi shows, I mean DS9; "Emissary" and "The Way of the Warrior", or TNG's "All Good Things..." are "two episodes" each, but first aired back to back. No, "The Way of the Warrior" was the "season premiere" but it was a 2 part episode, aired back to back. --->Basically, if "episode 1 is 2 hours long"....that means that it is in fact episode 1 and 2, aired together; I mean think about it logically what the studio does; we have 90 minute specials ever and anon, but why wouldn't they just refer to this as 2 episodes? --->Further, yes, we have no idea when the mid-season break is. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:04, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
- Point taken. But it's always safer to go with the written word in cases like this because a trend doesn't necessarily indicate fact. If LYBDII had infact been 2 hrs long as RDM had initially thought, then would it have been LDYBII & LDYBIII played back-to-back? I don't think. --StrayCat0 09:16, 17 July 2006 (PDT)