Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

January 2009 auction:Article worthy?

I didn't know if it was worth entering that they had an auction in January of many key set pieces & costumes. I thought it would be interesting to list how much everything had sold for total, as well as how much some of the more iconic pieces (Head Six's red dress & the crew's dress blues went for the most) made. I saved the results on my computer so I could compile this data if someone thinks it would be worth entering in. Not many shows have a public auction (let alone a public charity auction) like this I'm guessing that it's worth at least a few lines somewhere in the article. Most times the sets are either stored away for years, worked into other shows the company is making, or quietly sold to private collectors. I personally think that it's something to note, but my biggest question is where we would work it into the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Critical Response

I added a new section on the article about the controversial Dirk Benedict article about the new series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.137.18 (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it, I'm going to yank the whole "Critical Response" section. I hardly count the jealous ramblings of a washed-up 80's actor as a "critical response" worth quoting. At any rate, the article is old news, and has been pretty much ignored by everyone for years. It was controversial for exactly as much time as it took everyone to realize how much better the new series is than the original.

If nothing else, the section needs to be seriously balanced out by all the real critical reaction, such as Time Magazine naming the show TV Show Of The Year, and for a nice counterpoint, Katie Sackhoff's reply to Dirk Benedict, when Season Two was picked up, that she's played Starbuck in more episodes (now way more episodes) than he has. But honestly I don't think it's worth the effort to keep the section.

Kutulu (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I find most of Benedict's remarks both as you characterize them, and sexist into the bargain. The article may exist, and it may be controversial in some quarters, but it adds nothing to this article, even if it is balanced up with the Time article you mention as well as the Peabody award and countless more. Get rid of it, and the sooner the better. --Drmargi (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest it should be included, simply because Benedict is part of the Galactica series history. (It may be "old news", but then we aren't trying to simply reflect current opinions.) However, as noted above, it doesn't warrant a standalone section. Instead, we should have positive and negative critical reaction to the new series, as well as reactions from people involved with the original - Benedict, Richard Hatch, Glen Larson etc. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to stay, because it is the reaction of the original series' former star. Regardless of the content, we're here to "report" the facts, not ignore them simply because they're viewed as "jealous ramblings of a washed-up 80's actor". Let the people decide whether or not Benedict's remarks are warranted. It's not wikipedia's "job" to choose for them. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just came over this. While I believe the Benedict reaction should be maintained, the section as it is seems to give undue weight. There are like seven positive reviews mentioned and one negative. Still the negative gets two paragraphs of exclusive treatment and the other get one line, in all. Maybe someone could add some more info on other reactions (I've none here, so...) Averell (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BSG wikiverse section?

Does BSG have a wiki page relating to the BSG universe? With contents that include cultural references. Like how they use the word "frak" instead of "fuck" or how papers and documents don't have any corners, etc. Tidbits like these.

-G

Hi there G! Here's the link to the wikipedia BSG franchise page: Battlestar Galactica, and the link to the overall BSG project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica. You can also always try the categories on the bottom of any article to narrow down the search some. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New Date

According to SciFi, the first of the episodes will be on April 4, 2008. I'm not sure if it is on the website yet, however, it is in the new commercials for the series on the channel.

confirmation of this information: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/02/battlestar-ga-2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airpain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seasons two and three

Why are seasons two and three both considered to be season two, even though they aired as two separate seasons? So what if they were originally intended as one season, they aired separately and were distributed on DVD separately, doesn't that make it two different seasons? Further more where can I get the other half of "season 2" on DVD?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat1717 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Lost or the Sopranos...? BSG isnt the only TV show have a mid season hiatus. Also The 2nd season was not aired in two parts in other counties. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A mid-season hiatus is not the same as an aditional season. The second half was released as 'Season 2.5' in R1, and was included with the first half for a complete 'Season 2' set in all other regions.--99.249.133.173 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BSG Podcast(s)

Is a link to a fan-produced weekly BSG discussion/review podcast (in production since episode 1.09) relevant for inclusion in the "external links" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alight (talk • contribs) 16:12, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:EL, fansites are generally inappropriate ("a link to one major fansite ... may be appropriate", emphasis mine). If it happens to be a site you own or maintain, it's also considered inappropriate to personally add the link to it. -- Fru1tbat 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Trend/Rank: 1 Month: 1,482,827 3 Month: 2,271,545

Page Views per Visit: 1 Month: 1.0 3 Month: 1.0

Hardly impressive tbh, a.k.a non notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. -- Fru1tbat 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what relevance the pagerank stats have. The podcast itself has over 8,000 downloads per week. After the "offical" SciFi channel podcast, it's the most popular BSG podcast available.

8,000 still aint impressive tbh.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 8000x what you claimed I had. Are all your "facts" off by that much?

However it is, WP isn't a link farm. I'd bet there are a lot of sites about BSG that gets average amounts of traffic - who's going to be the judge on what the limit for introduction to WP is? Better to keep the links to the most official ones. --Strangnet 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that's not what's happening here. Battlestarwiki is a fan site and its link remains, as well as a link to a commercial site selling a BSG card game. I was merely pointing out that one of Mr. Fenton's stated reasons for deleting my link was that it "maybe gets 1 listner (sic) a week." is invalid.Alight 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he was stating. It's "pages per visit" not number of visits. The stats say the site gets 1.4million hits a month but on average each vistor only visits one page. (Rekija 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Theological references

Although not mentioned on the main page there are many references to religious texts that the writer have used throughout the season. [[1]] Seems to pretty much outline the story. Characters and places from the Qur'an are frequently mentioned, Balthar is the Creator of Man? Some fans have suggested that the final 5 represent the 5 pillars of islam [[2]]. Not to mention the paralleles to the Mormon faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaeltrs2004 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

It should be removed, the "Cylon Monotheism" section has no sources and is a clear slur against Jews, Christians and Muslims who believe in one God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.203.168 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 March 2007

In my opinion, the references are accurate. The fact that another race only believes in one god isn't any more of a slur against those religions than any other religion that only believes in one god. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In this universe only Jews, Muslims, Christians and Cylons are monotheists. Your agenda stinks! Alucard is an Atheist, no wonder he doesnt care. This should be removed immediately.

Don't forget Zooastrians! oh, and the Baha'i! Debivort 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But this article is not about this universe - it is about a fictional universe. I am sorry that you feel that my religious beliefs are germane to this article and discussion (I am not an atheist, by the way). I have tried to describe on the talk page for the other IP that you made edits for User_talk:85.107.203.168 ways in which you might be able to proceed while staying in like with Wikipedia guidelines. As you seem to feel that my "agenda" is getting in the way, I will withdraw from discussing this any further. Good luck. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: As a Mormon I can cite some of the references. There are 12 tribes of Israel in the Bible as well as in the Book of Mormon, and there is also a lost 13th tribe that will be found in the last days described in the latter text. The planet Kobal, is obviously a reference to the planet Kolob in The Pearl of Great Price, another Mormon text. The planet Kolob is said to be the planet closest to God and is therefore what he uses to reckon and measure time, one day on Kolob being the equivalent to 1,000 years on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:37, 19 May 2007 (talk • contribs)

I think that the writers were quite clever in the way they set this up. Do not try to find out which religion the Cylons or Humans represent as boths sides represent the same religions in different ways. This means that in the myriad of past religions and conflicts in our world we are bound to find countless similarities. I do not think there is a clear cut representation here, only a caricature of what fanaticism under any pretext can lead to. It is a depiction of unfair and prejudiced wars that have gone on for far too long. Julienrl 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why all the excitement? This site is not about religious propaganda. It's about the content of a tv series. The cylons are portrayed as monontheist - that's a fact. If it's a fact it should be included in the article. Ever heard of freedom of speech?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Supporting characters

I noticed that Sam Anders isn't listed as one of the main supporting characters. While he certainly isn't a main character, I'd suggest that he is on the level of Dee or Billy, who are both listed as supporting characters. He in involved with many plot arcs, and often has a fairly central role in them. At this point in time, he is on the "List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica", and when he is compared to the list he feels out of place. Any comments on this?

I agree He is an important character, moreso now after what we learn in The Crossroads. (Rekija 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

He's not given the billing in the shows credits as a major character, but that could change next season. Ben W Bell talk 07:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to that point, keep in mind that it's not a question of what Wikipedia editors think about an actor. We might have compelling arguments for describing a character's importance - but if he/she is officially listed differently, that's what Wikipedia has to say. (What we need is to find an official cast list and work from there.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cylon Monotheism

I have just removed a section on doubting Cylon monotheism, based on a season three discussion between Batlar and Number Three. I don't think that one discussion puts the whole premise into discussion, so would like to move it here and discuss, to see if this is pure speculation or not. I reproduced the text that I removed:

Directly contrasting these monotheistic overtones, Dr. Baltar and Number Three have a prolonged conversation in Season 3 Episode 10 pointing out the possible overlap between Cylon and Human gods starting some 3000 years prior.

Baltar: "I don't think anything it says is nonsense. The husband of the eye of the eye of the -- Hera. Hera, sometimes referred to as cow-eyed Hera. And the husband of Hera ...:

Three: "…Is Jupiter. The eye of Jupiter. Well, that's written about in the ancient texts. My God. Could their be a connection between their Gods and ours? What does it mean? "

It is important to note that Hera, in Greek mythos, is the sister and husband to Zeus, the parallel to the Roman god Jupiter.''

I'd like to make sure this is discussed before it is added again. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section here about the capitalisation of God and gods in the DVD subtitle. This is purely demonstrating the use of proper grammar and is rather irrelevant to this article. When "gods" is used, they are referring to a collection of higher beings, whereas "God" is the name of a single higher being. ScouseMatt 17:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we add that there are now human believers in the Cylon god?

Suggested source material

IMO the problem is the lack of reliable sources here; even if it isn't original research it looks that way. Probably the best source available to de-OR-ify such claims is Ron Moore's podcast: en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Podcast_Transcripts has an archive of all of them in easily citeable and verifiable form. For example, RDM says that "I liked the idea that the two theologies of faith, the polytheistic and the monotheistic, that they were starting to have certain points of crossover..."[3]. (If some question is raised about using a fan-wiki for sourcing, I can understand this, but I'm talking strictly about their direct transcriptions of official material, which I believe passes muster.) Eleland 13:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement which is useless:

"In the DVDs of the shows, the subtitles alternate the use of upper case and lower case "G" for Gods and gods. In general, Cylon references to divine power use an upper case "G", while human references to divine power use a lower case "g"."

    Accoring to English Grammar, God is always done with a capital, and gods is always lowercase.  The DVD case is following a common English grammar rule, why should this be noted in an encyclopedia article?  Removing the statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.234.220 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 

Broadcasters/TV schedule?

I noticed a November 2006 page edit that "temporarily" removed the section on broadcasters, both syndication and first-run. Is there any particular reason this section hasn't been added back in? Also, I think I remember (although it's possible this was on another site) a list of all the international broadcasters and the translated title of the series in each corresponding language, something like the One Tree Hill page has here... I can't seem to find a list like this anywhere on the internet tonight, and I think this would be a great place for it. There doesn't appear to be any scheduling information at all on the page, so anyone wanting to know when the show is on/what channel it's on will have to find out from an external link. Maybe there's a good reason that this information isn't available here, I really don't know - but personally, I think it would add a lot to the page and that at the very least, we should say when the show's parent network airs new episodes during the season: SciFi, Sundays, 10:00pm. Am I missing something, isn't this something people will want to know? Caprica 09:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Airing information is on the Battlestar Wiki. Perhaps you can find the information you want out there? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 10:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the airing information for the US/UK is on the BSG wiki. Does that mean it shouldn't be featured here as well? Unfortunately, I couldn't find a list of international broadcasters and the corresponding titles of the show in their languages. I guess it's sort of an obscure thing to want, but a lot of wiki pages for television shows have a little section like on the OTH page I linked to earlier, and I personally find it very interesting to see what the show is called in other countries. But besides that, I think it would just generally be useful for people from all around to be able to find out when and where they can watch the show, even if just via a link from the main page. But I guess I'm in the minority, so that's okay... but please let me know if you find a list similar to what I've described. It's just driving me crazy because I KNOW I saw it somewhere once before... Thanks! Caprica 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of episodes

It says 53 regular episodes and 10 webisodes, but shouldn't we consider the two episodes that made up the miniseries since they are integral to understanding the basis for the show. Or not because the series didn't officially start until the the first episode? The two miniseries episodes are under lists of episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withteeth (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 4

Can someone more in the know than I am please clean up the first paragraph? Is it coming out in the 4th quarter of 2007, Feb of 2008, or after April 2008? Thanks Vdrj2 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

April, 2008 is the most current info. I do note though that at one point it was Jan 2008 was the plan, it then sliped to Feb and then April for half the original number with the rest to air early 2009. According to the writers strike article they finished producation of those 10 episodages to air starting in April so that date shouldn't slip any more. (By contrast the episodages to air early 2009 may be subject to more slipage if they didn't finish the scripts prior to the strike starting.) -- Jon (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Episodages"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-preview update

This and related articles need a post-Razor and post-Season-4-preview update. Sci-Fi Channel (dunno about the UK station) foolishly gave away a whole lot of information in the previews shown at the end of the airing of Razor. The most salient gleaned fact of course is that Starbuck is the final Cylon. Much else was (spottily) revealed as well, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Batstarg.png

Image:Batstarg.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ranks in cast list?

Several editors have removed the ranks from the cast list, but an (changing) IP keeps putting them back. What say you? — Edokter • Talk • 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Say me... so what? Say me... revert when needed! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popularity in other Countries?

I am very curious as to the success of this program in countries other than America. I ask because it seems to play on almost 100% the typical American way of thinking. An easy way to explain this would be similar to the way some people viewed Star Trek: Enterprise as Captain Archer was sort of a George W. Bush in space and reflected that mentality, I feel this program is even more so heavy handed in that regard. Somewhat similar to how I would expect if we had done 1:1 imports of The Office it would not of played as well as the US version because the differences in Culture but for this program, the differences in sociological and political views.68.226.119.187 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite popular in Germany, especially Series 1. You can also tell by. BG is broadcasted on pay and on free TV here. DVDs are on sale too. Has features in DVD magazines. Best Science Fiction series since... Raumpatrouille. - BTW I don't see it as the typical Bush way. --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying its "Bush-esque", just in the way some felt Enterprise to be heavy handed in that regard this one feels just as if not more so heavy handed with just the general way Americans view the rest of the world.68.226.119.187 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Star trek enterprise got canceled due to lacking syndication sales in Europe, without Sky One (in Europe)there would be no Battlestar Galactica. Markthemac (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Season 3 DVDs

I just got the Season 3 DVDs and the 10 webisodes are not included. Anyone know where/when/if they may become available?MarkieAA (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Comics

I was wondering if anyone knew of any ties (particularly sourced) between DC comics and BSG? Although it could be purely coincidental at this point, I took note that the Lay Your Burdens Down one year later jump coincided with the one year later jump for DC comics; in addition BSG just release a Last Supper promotional image for season 4, just as DC comics did this year for their summer storyline Final Crisis. Understandably neither TV nor comics has ever made claims of being completely orginal; however both pulling from similar markets, I feel inclined to believe there's a tie (or Tigh... get it?). Thoughts? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

God list

I notice that the recent Escape Velocity (Battlestar Galactica) mentioned Asclepius, who is not on the most common list of the Twelve Olympians, and not listed currently in this main article. Can someone detail what twelve they are actually using? Wnt (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They haven't noted the 12 canonical gods, or even whether or not the main grouping of the Gods is less than (or more than) 12. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No non-human life forms (except dogs)?

I clearly remember one episode (S2?) where listening to bird song was a recurring theme (while dying). 84.215.159.81 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a listing of life forms in the Re-imagined Series here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WEBISODES PAGE

What are everyone's thoughts on making a page entirely devoted to Battlestar Galactica webisodes. The main reason for this is because of the Razor flashbacks which really don't a central loaction of wikipedia and there isn't probably enough informaiton on them to write/start an article entirely devoted on them. Also, I can't remember where exactly I heard this, but Moore was interesting in making some season four webisodes (which are not the razor flashbacks might i add) so if these are done (possible during the break midseason 4) then it would be most ideal to have all of the webisodes in one place instead of creating individual (and potensially small) pages. It seems silly to have a page entirely devoted to the resistance and none of the razor flashbacks. Thoughts... Myles Trundle (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other episodes after "Revelations" coming this season?

If '"Revelations was the last episode of Season 4 or the end of the series forever I am very disappointed.

I cannot find news of any more episodes coming.

Help.....Anyone?

65.222.113.163 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The last ten episodes of the series: 12 hours work, including the three hour series finale, will air sometime in the first quarter of 2009. The exact date is still up in the air. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

I added a sub-section for Nominations, I think the Emmy nominations in such categories as Writing and Directing are at least as significant as the Spacey Awards it has won... Kasnie (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Season articles

This article is currently quite long. There is a great deal of production information about specific seasons and webisode runs that I think could be separated out into other articles. I was thinking of following the template for Lost (season 1). Any objections?--Opark 77 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, i have no real objections to this idea, i think it is a good one but being able to find enough information to write a whole page about a season would be difficult but i am ll for it! Myles Trundle (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I object... Long articles are not bad; short attention spans are. The article should remain whole, unless you can find a wikipedia policy that forbids it. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW TELEVISION MOVIE(S) ISSUE

Alright, I believe there is a new issue arising with the new television movie anouncement. This page is titled as "Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)" and i am pretty sure that the television movie will not fit under this "umbrella" as it isn't really apart of the series per se. Here is how i see it... There is the "home page" for the rebooted BSG which is titled "Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)" givng a taste of everything to do with the reimagining whilst stemming from that page was a detailed article of the miniseries and another for the normal TV series (including seasons 1-4 and in between webisodes). So, if there is to be a bunch of television movies (there are rumours of there being more to follow) then there should be a collective "main article" for these too and even if it is the only one i don't see how it can be apart of this "TV series" page as it goes beyond that. Thoughts and feedback please... Myles Trundle (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: it has been moved to the actualy Battlestar Galactica page beacuse (as i said) it isn't a part of any season. Myles Trundle (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Technology

I don't know enough about the show but I find the technology they use to be very interesting in relation to other sceience fiction. AT times they are using old 1980s computers, tape cassetess, machine guns (instead of lasers), nukes, etc. They rarely use photography on the ships. Its interesting. Since they are not from earth i suppose this is all explainable from another world/possible world theory but if anyone who reads this thinks its warranted and wants to...please go ahead and write about the tech. -jefferyklassen august 21rst (2:$0 am...staying up late watching too much battlestar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyklassen (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Razor numbering...

here we go again.

Mr. IP address 195.11.9.76, you said in one of your most recent edits that Razor is not apart of Season 4 and that it is only considered a part because of the writers. will this isn't true, the producers and directors consider Razor as a part of the numbering and in addition the scifi website clearly establishes in its episode guide that Razor is the first two episodes of Season 4. In addition the UK box set of Season four (or at least the first half of Season 4) also has Razor which contradicts your statement that it was (or will) be released on DVD seperately. Doctor who often releases episodes in volumes before the final full box set and this really is no different.

there are already several discussions on BSG episode listing discussion page dealing with this issue. If you have any further issues or completely disagree with these staements please support your views with appropriate sources or references. Thank you. --Myles Trundle (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actors in the 4th season / 2.Half

Are there any informations on whether all the main actors stay the same in the second half of the last episode? 85.124.178.34 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone will be back, they're all under contract until the end of season 4. It's possible though that one or two might be killed off at some point for story purposes.

The TV movie is a different story, new contracts had to be drawn up and not all of the cast were available. Kasnie (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight in Reception section

Currently the vast majority of this section is mealy the opinion of a single individual, hinged on a single source. This, per WP:UNDUE, is lending undue weight to what seems to be a minority view. It'll need to be either cut or trimmed to a passing mention. Rehevkor ✉ 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed it to one paragraph highlighting the core of Benedict's criticism. — Edokter • Talk • 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed it down a bit more. Should be o.k. now, especially since the Reception section itself was expanded. Averell (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre: Space opera

I think space opera should be added to genre in the infobox. The series has all the space opera characteristics and is included in the space opera article (with three sources verifying that it belongs).--Marcus Brute (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good call. — Edokter • Talk • 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Plan (TV Movie)

Guys, is "The Plan" really a part of season 4? it was made after and it wasn't in the original production order of 22 episodes. So what exactly is its classification? --Myles Trundle (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a separate production, not part of Season 4. — Edokter • Talk • 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good =) --Myles Trundle (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on the commercial, it looked like "The Plan" will be a story that goes back to the beginning of the 2004 series and re-tells the events, but from the Cylon perspective. This would be very similar to how The Razor fit into the storyline. -Alex.rosenheim (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdated before it's over?

The 70s series looks dated naturally. But the current series looks dated right now. That's because all of the characters seem to be wearing noughties fashion... they also use paper, computers like ours, and have architecture like ours, despite having space travel, and a completely different existence. This has to be the flaw in the series - their universe is too much like ours, even before they reach Earth.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely see how this is a "flaw". I think your looking far too deeply into this. last time i checked we don't have any similar Cylon basestar architecture around the world and i also don't see what is quite so wrong with having some paper to write stuff on. I mean as far as i can gather from what you have written, you are saying that BSG isn't futuristic enough for you - but how do you define something as being "futuristic"? I mean back in the 60's people would have thought that by the year 2000 we would be living on mars, have created with robotic beings and that everyone would own flying cars. Clearly we haven't advanced that far as to make those things common place. the point of this example is that the future isn't always going to be as different as we think it will be. When saying this, i am under the assumption you are talking about technology etc and if you also mean that humanity is not "futuristic" enough then i would also disagree. A man would run from a charging elephant 4 thousand years ago and a human would run form a charging elephant in 4000 years time (assuming they aren't extinct). In other words, there are certain things about humans which can never evolve or change - our primal identity as a species. and a final point, science fiction isn't necessarily about being futuristic but it instead is meant to reflect society back at itself in a new light. for example, BSG has dealt with issues like suicide bombing, biological warfare and genocide. All these things(and more) are being played back to us from a different angle allowing us to take a fresh perspective on something which we have often just taken for granted as being "bad" or "good". No matter what our opinions i think we can still agree that it is a fraking awesome show and that is what really matters =) --Myles Trundle (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons

Having witnesses an ugly edit-war over using flags in the infobox not too long ago, I have protected the page for 24 hours. Multiple projects have different guidelines regarding the use of flags, often conflicting. Please work it out here. — Edokter • Talk • 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS:ICON seems to be in flux and a bit of a mess right now, I'd made the decision to leave it be until it settles down a bit. But the reason I reverted was that I see no reason to have the icon there beyond decoration, which is "discouraged". I wouldn't call a handful of reverts an edit war though :P Rehevkor ✉ 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For an ugly edit war, not much was written on the talk page about it. I can find no mention of flag use in the infobox on this page or on any of the archived pages. Can anyone point me to the prior discussion? And full page protection is a bit much when no single editor had reverted more than once and only a total of four editors had done anything on the flag. Instead we are stuck with ugly bare references that I now cannot fix... :( --2008Olympian^chitchat 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit war in question was on Torchwood a while back, not here. — Edokter • Talk • 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How'd that turn out? I don't see a flag on the article, but then I don't see anything on the talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It stopped after I threatened to block the next one te revert. See the articles's history here, scroll down to around May 4th 2008. — Edokter • Talk • 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

scenery in final scenes of Finale

I'm from BC and was watching the landscape closely for the "big green space" of what was supposed to be primeval Tanzania in the 2-hr finale episode. I caught glimpess of drier country in the deeper valleys, and certain distant mountains, though no real peaks. At first, given the grove of birch and the general lay of it, I thought Merritt-Aspen Grove area, or up at Douglas Lake, where there'd be a hotel/ranch cabins and road access for crew and cast; I've not rambled up in that area so what certain summits - mostly plateau-summits not regular peaks - would look like, but it was tricky; saw some bluffs that might fit that area more than, say, the Kamloops Plateau (NW of Kamloops). Another possibility, given needed road access and nearby accommodations, was the Hat Creek valley, west of Cache Creek....could also have been up around 100 Mile House or high up around Clinton somewhere; some of the mountains in the distance reminded me of teh Marble Range but that could just as easily have been Tahaetkun (above Kelowna/Summerland). Wherever it was, it was high up, there's a certain look to the vegetation and you could see the drier/hotter country below in some shots.....reason I'm going on about this is List of filming locations in the BC Interior. If any cast, crew or production office people are reading this, and can fill in that blank, please do so, either here or on the film lcoations list . Me, I'm just curious. There's only so far offroad you can get a crew without even bigger bucks than usual. My guess is Merritt, 'cause it's closest (to Vancouver), and if so, compliments on hiding the desert-look of the lower valleys around there.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Ring (Series As the Opening and Closing of A Circle)

I'm removing this whole section. Not only is it OR, but it was lifted wholesale from the Battlestar Wiki[5]. Perhaps a discussion on the themes of the show can be found in reliable sources, but a wiki isn't among them. SixFourThree (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

~~What's OR? Also, every word was a statement of fact about an obvious, well established detail in the series. Isn't it all public domain?