Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) is a "good" or "bad" program; or finding out what "this and that" are; or what will happen after "something". Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, which aims to improve the quality and depth of Battlestar Galactica articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please edit this or any other related article, visit the project page, or take part in the project's discussion.

Archives /Archive1 (January 2006 – August 2006)

Contents 1 General comment about BSG articles 2 Galactica Webisodes Threatened By Dispute 3 Name of the article 4 Move Battlestar Galactica (TV series) to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) 4.1 Survey 5 Season numbers 6 Promo Music 7 BSG Podcast(s) 8 time units: a mistake or an allusion? 9 season 3 main story arcs 10 Controversy section 11 Ranks 12 "Military Rank Structure" Section 13 YouTube links 14 Regular Cast template 15 paste bin 15.1 Season 1 (2004-2005) 15.2 Season 2 (2005-2006) 15.3 Season 3 (2006-2007) 16 Release dates for other nations 17 Number of Marines 18 IMDb 19 The Canada controversy 20 Country of origin: United Kingdom? 21 Organization (table of contents) 22 Abortion 23 Theological references 24 Episode List 25 Ratings 26 Death of Starbuck 27 Now what

[edit] General comment about BSG articles

After looking at this page, I decided to look at some of the other BSG articles - to be blunt, they are in a terrible state. They seem chock full of original research and fanboy musing about this, that and the other.

--Charlesknight 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm going to start looking for proper sources and doing some proper editing tomorrow at/around 0400 GMT. The Themes section is particularly cringeworthy. Kedlav 11:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Even though I agree 1100% that BSG 1978 > BSG 2004, the article is in quite a sad state. A lot still needs to be prosefied. --Tirolion 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1100%? I think the >100% enthusiasm has run a bit amok! Debivort 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• LOLneoenoeno22wtf Ok, I'll tone it down a tad, then. My new, revised enthusiasm for BSG78 -- as opposed to BSG04 -- has been corrected, and has settled at a measly 412.4% higher setting. To clarify what this means in context; in proper King James english, it can thus be written as "OMG BSG78 liek ttlly 0WNZ BSG04". --Tirolion 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galactica Webisodes Threatened By Dispute

interesting information regarding webisodes http://hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=3368

[edit] Name of the article

I believe it might be a good idea to add a year number to the name of this article. There are just to many programs with the same name. Something like Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). What do you think? --84.178.93.205 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the format of the three "New Battlestar" articles a bit confusing. There should be one main article for the new format and there should be sub-articles based off that. I don't see why the miniseries should be separate from the (TV series) - it's the same show. Morphh 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys know something I don't, but I sure as hell thought that it was called either BSG (RDM) or BSG (2003), seeing as that's when the pilot/miniseries aired. I don't know who decided on 2004. Might as well call it BSG (2007), it's also airing this year. Erik E. 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "RDM" would be an appropriate disambiguator on Wikipedia (BSG-Wiki follows different rules). Since this article is about the regular series (which doesn't officially include the miniseries), and the regular series began airing in 2004, 2004 is the correct disambiguator. --Fru1tbat 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the regular series officially does include the miniseries. This can be seen from the season one DVD (which, is not called "miniseries and season one", yet still contains the miniseries (unless I'm mistaken that the DVD box qualifies as official notation, don't see how you could get any more official?). Only if you download BSG from torrent sites is the miniseries and season one separated. Now, you may argue that they only did this for added simplicity. But I think that reasonsing should still be good enough for wikipedia. It's not like it's less accurate. Pilots are always considered to be part of the show, even if they were made before the show got approved for continuation (the point of the pilot). So, personally, I think that this article should be called "Battlestar Galactica (2003 TV series) instead. But you know. Do what you want. Erik E. 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the way it is packaged. Season One has thirteen episodes, but the DVD also includes the miniseries as an extra.

"The fifth disc in Battlestar Galactica's season 1 set is highlighted by eight comprehensive featurettes covering all aspects of the series, from its miniseries origins to standard surveys of production design, visual effects, and particulars of plot and character. For hardcore fans and anyone interested in TV production, nine out of 13 episodes, plus the disc 1 miniseries, are accompanied by..."

The miniseries was released on DVD separately at first, but in some regions was also included on the S1 release. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I think you misinterpreted that quote you posted. Disc I contains the miniseries, much like it was part of season one (it was clearly labeled as the first, not the fifth disc). What you must be talking about is an extras disc.

"The fifth disc in Battlestar Galactica's season 1 set is highlighted by eight comprehensive featurettes covering all aspects of the series, from its miniseries origins to standard surveys of production design, visual effects, and particulars of plot and character."

You're confusing an extra about the origins of the miniseries with the actual miniseries. Here's how it was laid out: Disc I - both miniseries episodes, disc II - next four episodes, disc III - next four episodes, disc IV - next four episodes and disc V - the last episode (and apparently the extras, can't claim to have watched them). Therefore, I'll stick to what I've said before. Erik E. 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what quotes are being misinterpreted by whom, but regardless, the miniseries is simply not treated as part of the regular series. Let's try to avoid arguing in circles here and summarize:

You assert that the miniseries is part of the series because (1) it was the pilot, and (2) it was included in the season 1 set, and the title of the set doesn't say "miniseries". My S1 box (R1) states "experience all 13 thrilling episodes of Season 1 and the four hour TV miniseries that started it all", which pretty clearly separates the two. That the title of the DVD set is just "Season One" is a matter of convenience only, not an indication of the official classification of the contents with respect to production, and it's production that matters here. The miniseries was produced as a miniseries (yes, with the expectation of a series, but it still wasn't a pilot in the traditional sense). Sci Fi's official website also separates the two -- the miniseries isn't even listed on the "Episodes" page, not under season 1 or anywhere else. I had to go to the "About" page to even find a link to it. I have yet to see anything that officially classifies it as part of season 1.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "that reasoning should be good enough for wikipedia". To me it does seem less accurate to lump them together. Now, if a merge is proposed on the grounds that the miniseries isn't significant enough to warrant a separate article, that's different (though as the article is fairly lengthy and seems to have a good deal of unique content, I couldn't see that proposition holding up). But if you're just arguing that it is part of the series, and that the series actually started in 2003, I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree. --Fru1tbat 04:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not misinterpreting the text - although Fru1tbat has done a much better job of explaining points that I intended to make. The text I quoted, while describing the fifth disc, served to illustrate that the miniseries was the origin for the series (thus making a distinction between the two) and that there are thirteen episodes in the first season (again, separating it from the miniseries). I, too, have never seen anything on-line or in print (including the Vancouver papers) that suggests the miniseries is a part of the first season. Again, though, Fb's comments were much clearer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Battlestar Galactica (TV series) to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

[edit] Season numbers

There seems to be a general habit in the BSG articles to refer to the two halves of Season 2 as if they were separate seasons, and use the US DVD release scheme (2.0, 2.5). There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:

• The official scifi.com website doesn't use them for its official lists (episodes, etc.)
• This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. "2.0" and "2.5" are specific to certain regions (North America).
• Many shows are released on DVD in volumes that don't maintain broadcast or production groupings (or even order, in some cases). Using the DVD nomenclature is nonstandard and sets a bad and confusing precedent.

"2.0" and "2.5" may be convenient shorthand, and various people involved with the show's production may sometimes use the terms as such, but until official lists use the nomenclature, I think we're better off confining the terms to discussions of the DVDs in most cases.

-- Fru1tbat 12:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be one season, it's a US centric viewpoint that only came around because they had a longer than average mid-season break and the DVDs have been released as a US experiment based on the current European TV DVD sales tactic of splitting seasons in two and selling them as two separate box sets (the cynical amoung us would say to get the studios more money but that can't possibly be true, can it? )Ben W Bell talk 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promo Music

What was the music used in the latest SciFi promos? It sounds like something about "say it wth me..." - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question, for anyone who is interested, the song appears to be Savin' Me by Nickelback. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Pegasus?

how did pegasus survive the cylon virus?

Answer: Pegasus was docked for a 3 month overhaul. Theoretically, it's systems were offline while docked. --LagZilla 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The show won the Spike Scream award for Best Show tonight.

[edit] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] time units: a mistake or an allusion?

it seems like the time units in the 2004 series is not well thought. in one of the episodes i had seen an analog wall clock which looks the same as analog clocks in real life: it was divided to 12 units, probably hours. the reason we traditionally seperate the circle to 12 sections has its root in the earth's movements (based on 360 days/year which defined a degree. months in a year:12, hours in a day:24 both divide 360 which makes this system practical). isn't this a contradiction or does anyone has a reasonable explanation for this such as their civilization's roots come from earth or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.108.142.127 (talk • contribs).

Your question can only be answered by debatable fan speculation because the show, being space opera like Firefly and Star Wars, really never gets into the technical details behind anything (unlike other shows like Star Trek and Stargate SG-1). BSG focuses on story - and the fact that Glen A. Larson, Joss Whedon and George Lucas know jack about physics, science and astronomy, so you have to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

From a fan point-of-view I can only speculate that Caprica seems to have been the main world of the Twelve Colonies - the President resided there and the Battlestar Galactica was based there. Most of the main characters are from there as well (Giaus Baltar, Admiral Adama, Lee, and Starbuck). Therefore the 24-hour time standard was probably based on Caprica's rotation and months-years on it's orbit. According to the Battlestar Galactica video game which is based on the original show all the colony worlds are in one star system. If so - I think Caprica was probably the most populated and the most like Earth - while all the other colonies were terraformed or possibly colonies built on massive stations, orbital cities or whatever. Since we only have seen Caprica so far in the new show we'll never know unless they somehow go back to another colony world. Having all the colonies in one system would also explain why many human ships didn't have FTL drives. There were many interplanetary ships. But this is all my guess. Cyberia23 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, any rotational period could be divided into 24 intervals, and those intervals labelled "hours". Mars could have 24 hours in a day, but they would be 1.04 times longer than earth hours. Since we have never seen a BSG episode run in real-time, we cannot even evaluate how long a BSG hour is. Debivort 22:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] season 3 main story arcs

Let's move the discussion here, away from edit summaries. Personally, I feel like this list was starting to read too much like an summary of episodes. Do we really think there should be 13 described "main story arcs" for the 6 episodes of season 3 we've seen so far? Season 2 had 20 episodes, and 14 plot arcs (proportionally maybe there should be 42!). I think a reasonable criterion would be whether a topic has recurred in more than one episode - how do we know if Baltar's humanity is a main arc of the season? He only questioned in in the most recent episode. Thoughts? Debivort 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely! I started to trim it down at one point, but it bloated right back up again. The "recurred in more than one episode" criterion is a good place to start, but some judgment still has to be used. There are a lot of minor arcs that aren't worth mentioning here. The question-type entries don't really belong at all, I don't think. They could probably be reworded to fit better, if they meet the other criteria. -- Fru1tbat 12:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think occuring in two or more episodes should be a necessity for inclusion, not a sufficiency! Hard to codify other strict criteria, but if consensus is consistent with our inclination, I think it won't be hard to come to a reasonable, shorter list. Comments from other people? Debivort 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Yeah, yeah... "what controversy section" right? That's the problem. There is some. There are, believe it or not, despite Hatch's 'conversion' (or bribe perhaps), a lot of us who don't like ths new un-imagining.

Like with things like the Star Wars special editions and prequels, there should be some section on the fact that... There Are Those Who Believe... that this new series sucks bigtime.67.169.63.116 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

the problem with that is that your such a tiny minority, no one gives a shit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.191.142.40 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Cylon Monotheism should be removed! It is a clear slur against Jews, Christians and Muslims.

[edit] Ranks

Is listing the current specific ranks for each character necessary? It seems to me that their names and call signs should be enough. The rank issue makes it more complicated, what with various characters constantly changing ranks (Lee Adama goes from Captain to Major to Commander and back to Major again). Wouldn't ranks be better suited in the characters' individual pages and descriptions? Also, the ranks could be considered unmarked spoilers. Monsieurxander 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Handling changes during the show's run is a problem that needs to be dealt with on a larger scale. There are spoiler issues, WP:WAF issues, clutter issues, just to name a few... Taking changing ranks out of the list is a great start, but be prepared to spend a lot of time removing it after it's inevitably repeatedly added back. -- Fru1tbat 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely CAG is in the wrong place on the ranks? The CAG is normally either a Captain or a Major which puts them below Colonel not above?

[edit] "Military Rank Structure" Section

The military rank structure section seems entirely unnecessary, since it is almost (if not completely) the same as military rank structure in the real world. Could there not just be a short statement saying "Battlestar Galactica furthers its sense of realism by having its rank structure on the Galactica being nearly identical to the rank structure aboard a military aircraft carrier, with the notable exception of..."? This section seems like a huge, messy bit of fluff. For those who do not know exactly what a rank entails, they can click on a hyperlink provided in that particular character's page or description. An entire breakdown of military rank structure is not needed. Monsieurxander 16:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This one I disagree pretty strongly on. Maybe it could be trimmed down, but considering the show is largely a military show, discussing the rank structure is appropriate, even fairly important. The officer ranks are intermingled enough that saying they're close to real-world ranks isn't really accurate. Maybe the enlisted ranks don't need to be spelled out quite so precisely, but I don't see a problem with it, myself. The descriptions of the military organization (e.g. battlestar groups, etc) are pretty key as well.

I noticed you deleted the section already. In the future, it might be better to wait until it's at least been discussed a little before making such a major change. Please consider putting it back until some consensus has been reached.

-- Fru1tbat 16:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's been put back. I do think that the section should be made much shorter, or if that's not possible, split off into a different section. Monsieurxander 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with keeping this section. In fact it really ought to be expanded as the Galactica rank structure doesn't comport with any "real world" military rank structure. Case in point Colonel Tigh as XO. In any English speaking navy there would never be a Colonel as the executive officer of a naval vessel. Aside from using the same names for ranks as some "real world" militaries, the Galactica rank structure is unique in it's implementation.

The military rank section should be kept, its interesting and the show revolves around the military guarding the convoy. Plus when you say it "conforms" to the real world, what real world? All the countries in the world don't have the same rank structure as the USA, unless this surprises you. Even if it conforms to some country, then you might want to state which country.

The ranks are, if anything, much closer to army ranks (or in US terms, air force too -- indeed, look at SG-1, with USAF colonels as commanding officers of battlecruisers, a vaguely comparable situation). The most obvious exception is the admiral rank, and "commander" (which is more like commodore in naval tradition). However, that would be to complicate the discussion, rather than to simplify it, and I agree that removal, or over-simplified summary, doesn't seem like a good idea. Alai 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The average person learning about the show wouldn't care all that much about the military rank of the show. The rank as part of the show is almost unimportant.

Also, I don't know where to put this but there should be some type of information on the ratings of the series, that would be far more helpful than some long discussion of the ranks of the characters. All they reall need to know is that Adama is in charge of the military and the President is in charge of the fleet. Nobody cares that "Colonel" Tigh is a "XO," and that is different from some RL military, they just should know he is second in command.

The "average" person may not care, but fans come to Wikipedia for pertinent details like this. It may be a level of detail that properly belongs in a subordinate article. Avt tor 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The average person doesn't care; it's fancruft, content of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans. Moreover, fans don't come to Wikipedia for details like this; they go to Battlestar Wiki or some other fan site where that kind of detail is appropriate. This section should be shortened, with the most important information reorganized to clarify its value. As such, I've added an importance template to the section. MaxVeers 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you're the only one who thinks so. --84.178.114.239 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Please read more carefully. MaxVeers 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the ranks are important. It's not as if it's a family drama, and the fact that a character is a tax attorney is irrelevant to the story means it doesn't need to be mentioned. Battlestar Galactica is about a military vessel, it's in the title. Therefore, the ranks should stay, so that people can learn that, yes, there is a difference from the real world. I was confused as hell when Adama is just a Commander and gets to be in charge. US Army/Marine/Air Force Colonel is the equivalent of a Navy Captain. A Commander in the Navy is the equivalent of a Lt Colonel in the Army. This stuff is confusing, so a simple explanation like the one here is good. Make it another page if you don't like it in the article, with just a link and a mention of how it differs from real world. Then the page can get a little bigger with more comparisons. But as presently written, it's useful. --Phant 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regular Cast template

What are the criteria for inclusion into the Regular Cast template? That they appear in the opening credits?

I think that for Season 3, Number 3 should be included into the Regular Cast template, because she is just so prominent. 132.205.93.19 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paste bin

We need to proseify this from bulleted list:

[edit] Season 1 (2004-2005)

Following the Cylons' genocidal attack on the 12 colonies, the surviving colonials flee through space in hope of escaping their attackers and finding a new home. Ongoing storylines in Season 1 include:

• Helo's struggle to stay alive on Cylon-occupied Caprica and his unwitting involvement in a Cylon plan that employs a copy of Lt. Sharon "Boomer" Valerii.
• The juxtaposition of military and government forces as the assumed leaders and decision-makers for the only surviving members of the human race; most chiefly represented by the mercurial collaboration between President Roslin and Commander Adama.
• The struggle to provide ample resources for the remaining ships and their inhabitants.
• The suspicion of humanoid Cylons hidden within the fleet. Some of these infiltrators have been programmed to believe they are human, and are unaware of the unstoppable Cylon mission they are designed to perform.
• Boomer, the copy of Sharon Valerii on Galactica, spends the season trying to reconcile the increasing amount of evidence that she is one of these "sleeper" agents.
• The accidental discovery of the planet Kobol, which, according to Pythian Scripture, is the birthplace of humanity and holds the key to finding Earth; however, it is also occupied by Cylons.
• Adama asks Baltar to build a "Cylon Detector," but this process is hampered by Baltar's persistent hallucinations of Number Six and her insistence that God has a plan for him, as well as his fear of being unmasked as the traitor whose actions allowed the Cylons to execute their attack on the 12 Colonies.
• The question of the elusive "plan" that the Cylons have and the reason behind their hateful fascination with humanity, which may have something to do with the destiny as foretold by the "one true God" they believe in (the religious Colonials are polytheistic).

[edit] Season 2 (2005-2006)

Moore has stated that in the second season, he wanted to resolve the many cliffhangers from the first, while examining the Cylons and the religious themes already introduced in more detail.

The second season's main story arcs include:

• Commander Adama's recovery from Boomer's assassination attempt.
• The Kobol landing party's struggle for survival and subsequent rescue.
• Starbuck's mission to Caprica to retrieve The Arrow of Apollo, which Roslin requires to complete her role as the prophesied "dying leader who will lead her people to Earth."
• The escape from Caprica of Starbuck, Helo and one Caprican copy of Sharon.
• Deposed president Laura Roslin's escape from imprisonment and expedition to Kobol, in search of the way to Earth.
• The progression of Roslin's cancer and her eventual recovery.
• The discovery of a group of humans on Caprica who have survived the Cylon attacks and maintain a resistance against their presence on the planet.
• Reconciliation between Adama and the fugitive Roslin and Apollo, and eventually the fleet as a whole, after Adama reunites with the fugitives on Kobol and shares their discovery of the prophesied "map" to Earth.
• The discovery of perhaps the only other surviving Battlestar, Pegasus, under the command of Admiral Helena Cain, and subsequent conflicts between Cain and Adama.
• The birth of Sharon Agathon's baby.
• The use of propaganda to further one's cause.
• Prisoner abuse and the implications of being a Cylon in human captivity.
• The campaign for the Presidency of the Twelve Colonies.
• The discovery of and settlement on New Caprica.

[edit] Season 3 (2006-2007)

The third season of Battlestar Galactica premiered in the U.S. on October 6, 2006.

Main story arcs in the third season include:

• President Baltar's personal decline as he tries to balance his desire to protect the human population against the fear that he will be killed by the Cylons if he is too assertive.
• The resistance formed on New Caprica by the colonists to fight against the Cylon occupation.
• Cylon attempts to manipulate Starbuck using a daughter they claim was derived from her ovaries (harvested during her captive hospitalization on Caprica).
• Ellen Tigh's cooperation with the Cylons and betrayal of the resistance.
• Galactica's coordination of a rescue plan after contact from the resistance.
• The Cylons' discovery and acquisition of the human-cylon baby Hera, born to Sharon in season two.
• Successful rescue of human race from New Caprica.
• The ultimate fate of the Battlestar Pegasus.
• Retaliation against those humans who cooperated with the Cylons during the occupation of New Caprica.
• Saul Tigh's emotional struggle to come to terms with his killing of his wife Ellen for treason.
• The Cylons are now also searching for Earth.
• A mysterious disease, borne on a space capsule (possibly left behind by the 13th tribe), that is proving deadly to the Cylons and their technology.
• There are twelve humanoid Cylon models, but only seven have been seen. Where are the other five?
• Is Baltar a Cylon?

---

Matthew Fenton (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates for other nations

The article lists the dates in which BSG season 3 premiered in the US and the UK. Does anyone know the dates that BSG season 3 will premier in other nations? I for one would like to know when it's coming out in Australia.--Just James 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Marines

The last episode of BSG made reference that there were at least 300 marines in the fleet. It was mentioned that 100 got sick from hunger and another 200 are about to. Can someone update the article to reflect this. The section of "Military Rank Structure" says there aren't many Marines in the fleet, but this was probably written before the Pegasus was introduced. REscano 10:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb

Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." - IMDb is not verifiable, is a user submitted source with a high rate of false data. "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." - Yep, I challenged it and removed it. "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." - Yes, that means you, Avt Tor. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like I'm not the first edit conflict you've started regarding this page. As part of WikiProject Canadian Television, I've created a category "Canadian science fiction television" to include shows made in Canada. This will help users see actors they like on other shows, and help them identify locations and actors from one show to the next. This information is useful, at least to my friends in Canadian media fandom. I am going through the List of science fiction TV and radio shows produced in Canada and adding the category to shows on this list. It's widely known where shows are filmed, so the facts aren't in dispute. Where sources are requested or warranted, they can be provided. "Canadian" and "American" are not exclusive categories; a show could be written in Los Angeles and filmed in Vancouver. (In practice, producers usually want regular writers to be closer to the production set; only people who aren't involved in day-to-day production can really stay off site, but that's a side issue.)

When I see someone make a statement that I don't believe to be true, I put a {{fact]] template on the statement and give them a chance to respond, in the spirit of WP:AGF. As noted, the facts themselves aren't in dispute, just the references, so the reverts without discussion aren't productive. Denying the Canadian role in productions made in Canada is in my eyes a denigration of Canadian culture, and a factual error I feel obliged to attempt to correct. That's what I've done. As an award-winning Canadian media fan writer active in many Canadian fan organizations, I have knowledge of this subject, as well as a journalistic obligation to present and distribute truth. As a Canadian with house and family in Canada, who also happens to carry an American passport and is currently working in Virginia, I have a clear understanding of the nuances of what is or is not "Canadian" or "American".

This effort cascades from a cleanup of the horribly bloated article on science fiction on television. I saw a problem that led to other problems, which I'm working to correct.

I'm not going to request unprotection. When protection is lifted, I'm going to apply the category template, and I will provide sources when requested. If higher powers don't like that, they can block me. Not my call. In fact, it would be more efficient to block me than to protect the thirty-odd pages I intend to apply this category to. I'm just doing research to help the fan community; whether people use it or not is up to them. Back to the grindstone. Avt tor 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is filmed in Canada or not is not in dispute, and in reality this is what you are doing - that change contradicts your abve message of "I am going through the List of science fiction TV and radio shows produced in Canada and adding the category to shows on this list", then you add a category here entitled "Canadian science fiction television" - are you forgetting it's American science fiction?, that is filmed in Canada. It's great you have national pride, but the way you go about showing this is not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a point there. It is factually incorrect to state that Sci-Fi broadcast the show in "North America", and "North America" is a term used to refer to the United States and Canada together, and Sci-Fi is not available in Canada. That's why I said that Sci-Fi showed it in the United States, because that is the accurate statement. Avt tor

In the absence of reliable sources I don't see how you can call these shows "American". They are part of the Canadian television industry. Even if you had reliable sources that indicated these were American, these are not exclusive definitions. Which is my main point here. You are the one making assertions without substantiation here. By your logic, I'm entitled to remove undocumented claims that any of these shows are American. Avt tor 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And re IMDB specifically, I use it several times a day, for years, and to date I recall one possibly incorrect entry. It's main problem is missing bsdata, and that is much less of a problem since it was acquired by Amazon. It gets information directly from producers. Obviously any data entry methodology is subject to human error at some level, but the error rate for this is very low and mainly from the production companies themselves, not the database. In the absence of contradictory facts, countless Wikipedia editors routinely rely on and cite IMDB as an authoritative source; production companies themselves rely on it for distributing information. Avt tor 13:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Few articles cite IMDb as a source, those that do are generally fixed. IMDb is user submitted (just like TV.com) - they are not verifiable sources, it's as simple as that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, IMDB sucks information from Amazon (its parent company), which in turn receives commercial product information from its vendors. These are done through database table exchanges. User details only go unchallenged into blank fields.

Besides, regardless of its method of information gathering, its accuracy seems quite a bit more than 99%, which is why it is built into browsers now and relied on by zillions of users. The difference between this level of accuracy and absolute truth approaches an infinitesimal limit and can be statistically compared to other objectives for reporting information. In accounting terms, the difference between IMDB's version and some platonic ideal is called "immaterial", i.e. not relevant with the context of generally accepted accounting principles. Even reliable sources fail, even limited sources are better than none. Production companies themselves do not deal with the public and so do not incur the cost of providing large commercial databases for free on expensive high-traffic web servers. It is possible to go to the primary source (i.e. take the DVD off the shelf, or BitTorrent something that one doesn't own. It's just time consuming.

The reality of the Canadian television business is that it is often necessary to organize financial relationships which may at some point generate a piece of legal documentation that defines "ownership" of a particular property with some corporation based outside the country. This is day to day reality that doesn't affect people who have jobs, except insofar as they get a paycheck at the end of the week. This is why Canadian shows have odd production delays and hiati. (The Dead Zone seems to produce a season every two years. Peter Coyote left after the second season, when it was thought to be cancelled, got a leading role on a completely different series, which failed, freeing him up to work in the third season, when the Canadian producers found more American money to keep going. That is the way the business functions.)

Your lone assertions seem to be unsupported by logic or consensus; your method of classification is undefined and undocumented. You haven't presented a prima facie argument for your position (whatever that might be, you don't really explain it). Don't assume you can intimidate me with three single quote marks. You might be able to bore me into going away, but I'm actually a quite patient person and I suspect you will bore other people long before me. Avt tor 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Canada controversy

No time to get into the debate right now (busy day), but here's an interesting link from Playback magazine. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the same article on a different site, without the password requirement, at galacticabbs.com. That was the next reference I was going to add to the page, when it got protected. But hey, why waste time with facts when we can spend it more productively on an epistemological discussion about whether it is possible to actually know anything... Avt tor 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country of origin: United Kingdom?

Why is the UK listed as a country of origin? Thats is nonsense! The original mini-series was a US production with UK involvement that was filmed in Canada but the series is clearly an American production that also airs in the UK. The US should be listed as the country of origin and UK should be removed. --84.153.40.191 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom co-produce(d?) the Battlestar Galactica TV series (operative words: TV series) - they also aired it first, generally the UK should be the only country listed, it is logical however to list the USA as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How did the "UK" co-produce the series, I think you are talking about the mini-series and first season anyway, which was partially FINANCED (not produced) by a UK TV network and not the "UK". The series as far as I know is produced by Sci-Fi network (USA) and it now airs in the US first, months earlier than in the UK. It was also created by an American, is written by Americans, and is a new version of an American show and it certainly isn't made for a British audience - if it gets cancelled or renewed it is because of ratings in the States - regardless of how many people in the UK watch. This is just more wikipedian nationalist nonsense. The series is clearly American but some people in Canada and the UK apparently are determined to clutch at straws to claim a show that is clearly more American than anything else, regardless of where its filmed and what networks payed a "portion" of the financing for the mini-series. A British show it is not but you know that yourself. --84.153.40.191 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This show is written, directed, and produced by Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, and probably others; can't determine everyone's nationality. It's produced in Canada at the Vancouver Film Studios; a few of the big name actors are American, a couple are British (Apollo's accent always amuses me), most of the other actors in the show are Canadian. It is distributed, and thus owned, by NBC Universal. I don't know how it's organized; I know a heck of a lot of Canadians work there, but it seems diffuse, with various functions being performed by companies in different places. It's not as centralized as Stargate, where the executive producers want everybody in arms' reach and they all seem to hang out together. I strongly suspect that the British financial participation involves a level of control that allowed them to put British actors on the show, but it doesn't matter to me.

Every international project I've been involved in, we celebrate everybody's contribution, and in particular, the people who are in charge give the greatest share of credit the people who do the actual work, all the bigshots get to do is take their spreadsheets into their boardrooms to give their presentations and quietly get their zillion-dollar bonuses. Other people seem to be more about control. I just think we should stick to the verifiable facts to determine what's true, and consensus to determine what's relevant. I don't have the BSG DVDs. I suspect that the credits refer to both Britain and Canada in various contexts; it wouldn't be hard to BitTorrent an episode if one was interested. Avt tor 07:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is BS. I'd like to see someone point out exactly what the UK contribution is to this show beyond a couple of actors, which can be said about almost anything. This is an American show filmed in Canada with mostly US/Can cast. BSG episodes emphatically do not air first in the UK. Badgerpatrol 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aired first in the UK, co-production, and as the credits clearly state: In association with Sky. Reverted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several points here; a) does the fact that a small proportion of the funding for one season out of 3 (or 4) came from Sky mean that the country of origin is the UK? (not in my view- many, many British shows would originate in the US or Canada under this definition (I rarely (e.g. never) see Canada stated to be the country of origin for Doctor Who, for example); b) is Sky actually a British company (no; it's mostly owned by NewsCorp and US investors); c) with regard to the "first showing" argument, is the mini-series (wholly US funded and produced and first shown in the US) the first showing of the revamped BSG (=yes). The British connection is very, very tenuous indeed; I think most readers are going to find it faintly ridiculous that the UK is shown first (or indeed, at all) in the infobox (the very least that should be done is to alphabetise the order so that Canada comes first). Anyway, it's clear that Matthew is a bit over-possessive and life is too short to devote more than a moment to this kind of issue. There are specific rules for the classification of film and televison productions by country, e.g. what is and isn't a "British" production- I'd certainly be interested to see these if anyone can lay hands on them. PS- What is this gibberish?= So si this Americaland and Canada connection (someone call the roflcopter!) - I've explained, you haven't. Badgerpatrol 13:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: (1) "country of origin" is about distribution, not production, (2) country of origin is indicated by reliable sources, of which generally the most reliable is the copyright statement incorporated into the work, (3) as for production, the mechanics of television production make it economically impractical for "production" and "filming" to occur in separate places; the producers need to talk to people who have to be on set; production happens where the producers work, and in essentially all places for episodic television that has to be within walking distance of the soundstages where principal photography occurs, (4) the copyright statement on episodes of Battlestar Galactica say clearly that the work is copyright under the laws of the United States, (5) the frame which includes the copyright statement also has three large icons referring to production in Canada, and (6) on the episode I looked at, given the limitations of screen resolution, I did not see anything referring to British participation on the screen that included the copyright statement. According to industry-standard definitions and the authoritative source (the work itself), the country of origin of Battlestar Galactica is the United States, and this show is produced in Canada.

Having said that, I have never been in favor of narrow exclusive definitions in this area. Television projects involve complex forms of partnership at various legal levels, and companies may have considerable control without being on the copyright statement or being directly involved in production. It is my opinion that major partners and participants should be shown in some way. I would not be the one to remove the reference to UK participation, even if it doesn't meet the narrow definition of "country of origin". Sky One may well have put up some money to get the right to broadcast some episodes first, and to put some British actors on the show. Avt tor 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To be further clear, aside from seeing two British actors as regulars, I have no information about British financing or air dates. I am merely asking the minimal courtesy that when a fact is challenged, people should have a little time to support their side of the argument before information is deleted. If I had serious doubts I might put a fact tag on a point for a while before removing it entirely. Avt tor 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm curious - why do you say "will need to be from a reliable source (i.e. not TV.com, IMDb, Geos)" to question Canadian involvement, yet you use cult.tv ("Cult TV is an organisation comprised of TV appreciators who run this web site on a voluntary basis." "Are we missing something? Can you write the content for us? Here's how..." as your source for Sky? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I googled it. Right clicked, opened tab, Ctrl+F, made sure text was in the source, copied the URL, nothing else, feel free to remove that source if you would like. I imagine it will be easy to replace with something else. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"thanks/", but I really wasn't looking for a sarcastic response. An actual explanation as to the apparent double standard for "reliable sources" would be more helpful. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Sadly you are mistaken if you believe I'm being sarcastic, that was your explanation, the only one you're getting, because: That's all I did. Also, I don't have double standards, I'm just lazy :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think there is no absolute rule and that editors have to use judgement on the reliability of sources for various kinds of information. Many sources are not perfectly reliable for information about the future, but rumors still have utilty to users (at other sites and publications, at least; it's pretty much Variety's raison d'être). Many sites, even good fan sites, are reasonably reliable in regards to past information. In the area of reliability, I would ask: does the site have resources to verify what it says? Has it been reliable in the past (one must consider the volume of information provided, i.e. a site that has 100 useful facts, of which one is wrong, is much less accurate than a site that has a thousand mistakes out of a billion data entries)? Does it have access to authoritative information? Does it have a conflict of interest that would cause it to prefer certain facts or interpretations over others? Is there an editorial/quality check on information provided, or is it just unfiltered input from random users? I happen to think IMDB meets the standard of reliability, particularly for information entered straight from film credits. Other editors disagree, hence the need for judgement and consensus. I'm certainly not going to take someone else's opinion that such-and-such site isn't reliable if that opinion seems to conflict with observable facts. Avt tor 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The current situation is tolerable (a better ref can and should be found). It does smack of embarassingly feeble and parochial jingoism (LOOK LOOK LOOK! BSG may have been made in America- but it was FIRST BROADCAST IN BLIGHTY! Get the flags and bunting out of the loft, Mum!) but if a small amount of UK-humiliation is the price of an acceptable resolution then so be it. Badgerpatrol 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is petty and hopelessly pendantic, and that makes Wikipedia look bad. I don't care about that because this is the Internet and silly nonesense is par usual for it. What I do care about is somebody (MatthewFenton) reversed the primacy for the episode order so UK airdates are shown first even though new episodes air in the UK months after the US airdate, and I use Wikipedia to find out the next showing for new episodes and that gives me a headache. MatthewFenton please take your nationalist crusade to other parts of Wikipedia and leave the BG articles alone. 68.236.14.91 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) MT

[edit] Organization (table of contents)

This article is strangely organized, with low-importance points at the same level as major sections. I would take the existing text and organize it something like this:

   * 1 Plot (incorporate plot elements currently listed under "Synopsis"
   * 2 Cast
   ** 2.1 Main characters
   ** 2.2 Supporting characters
   ** 2.3 Recurring guest stars
   * 3 BSG Universe
   ** 3.1 Military rank structure
   * 4 Production
   ** 4.1 Season one
   ** 4.2 Season two
   ** 4.3 Webisodes
   ** 4.4 Season three
   ** 4.5 Main title
   * 5 Future developments
   ** 5.1 Spin-offs
   ** 5.2 Tie-in novels
   * 6 Awards and honors
   * 7 References
   * 8 See also
   * 9 External links

This organization would invite contributors to include subsections about other aspects of the background (for example, the Cylons). Some of the existing material could also be summarized into subordinate articles.

I won't unilaterally reorganize the article without some discussion (or at least tacit approval) and I don't plan to rewrite a lot of actual text in the short term; I just want to make it easier for other people to fill in relevant details. Avt tor 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if "Future developments" is the right heading, as some of the items (e.g. the novels) have been released or started already, and the heading makes it sound like they're still in the planning stages. Something like "Derivative works" or even just "Spin-offs and tie-ins" would be preferable to me. "BSG universe" I'm not entirely comfortable with, but I can't think of anything better. "Main title" seems out of place under "Production", since the other sub-sections contain details concerning only production/filming/airing schedules, locations, etc. Again, a better place for it hasn't occurred to me yet. Other than those, the rest of your proposed organization looks fine to me. --Fru1tbat 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

HI! I'm a big BG fan! I don't know about the following from Schisms - Sagitarons, for instance, take a literal interpretation of the Sacred Scroll, avoid modern medicine ("The Woman King"), and oppose abortion. I thought it was Geminons that opposed abortion, as when the girl stowed away on board Galactica. HillaryMawdesley 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I remember too. The Geminons are stated to strongly oppose seperation of religion and state, and abortion being allegedly in violation of their religous beliefs, seek to make it illegal. The Sagitarons seem to be a completely different brand of fanatic, and I don't remember a single reference to their opposing abortion. If I find the time, I'll rewatch the episodes and make the edit if it's needed, unless someone else beats me to it. Someguy1221 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In our reality, there are Christians who are against abortion, and there are Atheists who are against abortion. So too, in BSG there are different factions who share beliefs. The refreshing thing about this is that the colonial religion at least has different denominations like nearly every religion.75.111.57.38 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.107.203.168 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Episode List

Shouldn't an episode list article be created and then linked to this article? 88wolfmaster 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It already is? List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes. Matthew 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see it now.--88wolfmaster 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

In some way should we list the ratings the show has generated? It definetly got attention with the numbers it pulled for a sci fi show, then in season three had a dramatic slump for what it had been (almost 30% loss of viewers on average) yet now is climbing again. Especially for a niche like science fiction where dominant ratings are rare, that seems somewhat encyclopedia appropriate and their must be neilson or whatever ratings they use for it somewhere that can be linked if not already. In fact for a show, what more important stat is there then who's watching it? Just an idea.

If a good source can be found, I think that would be a good addition to the article - please go ahead. it would be nice if we had ratings for all the countries where it was aired. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Starbuck

My very minor edit adding start and end dates to Katee Sackhoff's character Starbuck was reverted, and somewhat surprisingly I might add. Her character was seen to have died, and it has been reported that, at the very least, the episode Maelstrom was her last for the season. Shall we re-add a (2004-2007) mark to her entry on the main page until (and if) further information surfaces? Redreth 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that AdamDeanHall has made the edit. Thanks. Redreth 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It is too premature to presume that she is gone forever - death is not always terminal in science fiction. More to the point, unless we get some official confirmation, we can't add the dates. Think about it - if the character of Starbuck was really gone, as in permanently, the producers would probably have said so. We'd be hearing about how it was a bold move, or how it was the natural progression for the character for the character, or that Sackhoff wanted to move on. That doesn't mean we can guarantee that she will be back - only that we can't presume one way or the other. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Chatz. What kind of Science fiction fans are you guys. As Chatz stated death is not a permanent thing for science fiction. (if you paid close enough attention to the episode you would have heard it suggested in that dream of hers that she was going to see what lies between this world and the next). Plus the season is almost over so Maelstrom being her last episode is no shock here. --88wolfmaster 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear that the episode with all those flashbacks didn't set her up as having a destiny simply to die. She's bound to be back. If not, that episode was the most pointless and badly written one to date. Enzedbrit 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The actress that plays her signed on for 5 seasons so she'll most likely come back. There were a couple clues - her Viper was hit by something for real, which caused the decompression - her hand was on the eject lever - and when Apollo rounds the cloud to see the explosion there were two sets of vapor trails (one could have possibly been from the Raider she was chasing, and the other Starbuck's Viper). Was the Raider really there? The shattered cockpit and second vapor trail suggest there was another ship. And which ship exploded? We'll have to wait and see. Cyberia23 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

well we can guess all day as to how they will bring her back as long as we agree that she will be coming back and therefore the adding of dates is incorrect.--88wolfmaster 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

then a note stating that katee's name was removed from the opening credits after starbuck's "death" should be included at least... -Xornok 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

that would be fair enough--88wolfmaster 08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that become a bit too much of a spoiler for those outside of the U.S. that come to Wikipedia for info? The cast shouldn't be encapsuled by a general spoiler alert, should it? --Strangnet 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps moving it to the 'season three' area..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Strangnet i dont see how the note: *Was removed from the opening titles starting with episode 3.18, "The Son Also Rises" is a spoiler (yes it implies something but it doesnt give anything away).--88wolfmaster 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article is to be of any interest for people outside of the U.S. updates like these should be entered into a spoiler enclosed area of the article. The cast should be as clear of these things as possible, imho. --Strangnet 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how's this? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Being removed from screen credits doesn't mean jack... it's an old ploy to make you think a missing character is really off the show for good, and has been done many times before.

Reminder: in the original series (or rather, in the dismal spinoff), Starbuck hits a Cylon ship, crashes and is left for dead, rebuilds a Cylon from parts of the crashed centurions, and (apparently) somehow retroactively fathers or at least becomes godfather to a child who helps the colonists eventually find Earth, and "ascends" to the Ship of Light (that part was unaired). Despite its intelligence and some obvious gender-bender changes, the new series has overall remained faithfull to the major arcs of the original series (the dead son, the Pegasus, etc), so when Katee went down in a blaze of glory, I just sort of assumed "oh, they're doing THAT one this week..." and figured they'd be getting back to her later on. Let's face it, if she was REALLY off the show, Katee wouldn't be under a gag order although there are indications we might not see her for a while. Then again, the boneheads may have her wake up on the resurrection ship... who knows? Let's hope they at least retain the "No Boxey" sensibility and forgo Dr. Zee as well... (children in space are always the result of second-string writers being whipped by clueless marketing execs long after the original writers have left, and usually appear soon after the series' obligatory "Western" or "Cultural Revolution" episode, in a pathetic attempt by second-string writers to "get in touch" with a younger audience, further alienating any connection with their real audience (with all due respect to Firefly, which was awesome as a western from day one)) -- Bif the Mildly Timid

Like I was saying...not dead yet....and they just had a credit for Katee at the end.--88wolfmaster 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They have confirmed that Sackhoff has signed up for the Fourth (and possibly last) season of the show. However, that really doesn't mean anything as far as the death of Starbuck is concerned. She could become a "Head Starbuck" to Apollo - you just never know with a show like this. I think that calling her dead right now is highly premature. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now what

Ok now that the season is over their are a couple things we need to discuss:

1. Should we keep the Katee was removed from the credits bit.

2. Should we address the song All Along the Watchtower and if so how.

3. Should we address the new cylons and if so how.--88wolfmaster 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My view: 1. She was removed from the credits, but they didn't run the normal two start title sequences in the version I saw - that might be worth noting (unless my recorder missed them) 2. Yes, as long as we don't speculate and 3. yes, by couching it in terms of the fact that the characters had various events occur that led them to believe they are cylons. That's about as far as we can go, base don the information we have, in my opinion. Anything else would be speculation. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)