Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Organization (table of contents) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: Shouldn't an episode list article be created and then linked to this article? 88wolfmaster 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is? List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes. Matthew 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see it now.--88wolfmaster 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode List 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: that would be fair enough--88wolfmaster 08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps moving it to the 'season three' area..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Death of Starbuck 

message: I know that there's a trend to try to reduce the number of fair use images in any given article, but this show is "Battlestar Galactica," so doesn't it make sense to show just one image of the battlestar, Galactica? Other things that are iconic to this and the previous series, any one or two of which might help to establish some visual context:
* A metallic cylon with the red eye
* A viper
* A cylon raider
* The fleet (perhaps just one photo of Galactica with the fleet behind... I'm sure there's a promotional image with that out there somewhere).
* A Pyramid game (ideal for a section on the culture of BSG, which I think the article is lacking, but that's another point)
I don't think any of the characters are iconic enough on their own to be shown outside of the cast picture. This really is an ensemble show, after all. -Harmil 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "He" is a term used too broadly, "she" has not been used.. "It" is neuter. As the doctor states "he" is used, but there's never been any evidence to suggest true sex of the Cylon's god. Matthew 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He/she" 

message: So there have been a few edits and reverts around the text in the Cylon Monotheism section about which personal pronoun to use for the Cylon god. Some advocate the use of "He/She", some "He" and others "it".  I have recollection of several references in the show talking about "he" and "him".  I do not recall any references to "she".  I would like to propose that we agree on something, rather than continually making changes.  
Some quotes to support this:
* ""Maybe the Cylons are God's retribution for our many sins. What if God decided he made a mistake and he decided to give souls to another creature, like the Cylons?" Leoben, miniseries.
* "God has a plan for you, Gaius. He has a plan for everything and everyone. Gaius - are you even listening to me?" -- Head Six, "33"
* "Be careful. That which God gives he can also take away." -- Head Six, "33"
* "It's God's choice. He wants you to repent." -- Head Six, "33"
* "It's funny, isn't it? We're all God, Starbuck, all of us. I see the love that binds all living things together. ... I know that God loved you more than all other living creatures and you repaid his divine love with sin, with hate, corruption, evil. So then he decided to create the Cylons." -- Leoben, "Flesh and Bone"
* "I think if we ever found an answer to why the Cylons have a god or who the god is--you know, the guy steps out from behind the curtain--I think you’d be disappointed. They’re in an interesting place in that their faith is as legitimate as the human faith. Human beings have souls given by the gods, and Cylons have a soul given by their one true god and that has to be just as valid. That means there is a plan for their soul and something for them after they die too. It’s a fundamental element of their faith. " - Ron Moore Interview 
So we have actual Cyclons and the main creative force behind the show using the term "he". Therefore, barring any evidence to the contrary I would suggest that we use the masculine pronoun when referring to the Cylon god (i.e,. use "he" and "him"), and not capitalize it.  I welcome other opinions with quoted sources.  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the show supports it, then "he" is correct. Either way, "it" doesn't work as the term isn't generally used for deities. --Ckatzchatspy 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Always referred to in the show quite clearly as a he. Can't see why there's a dispute or discussion over this simply referenced point. Ben W Bell talk 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto. Chiss Boy 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender of the Cylon God 

message: a) Not only Western monotheisms have those traits.  
  b) Can you list some of these "Western" monotheisms?  Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all often considered to be MIDDLE EASTERN or SOUTHWESTERN ASIAN religions--they are definitely not Western in origin.  Zorostrianism and Chinese monotheism also have many of those traits, and they even more definitely are not Western religions.  Why do you insist on putting in Western when that is inaccurate? Chiss Boy 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on my talk page, I have no objection to rewriting the statement.  But taking out the "Western" word made the article read something like the fact that Cylon monotheism shares a lot of traits with monotheism, which is a tautology.  It just needs to be explained better, and I lacked the words to do so.  Would "non-fictional earth monotheism" be acceptable? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Semitic monotheisms" or "Abrahamic monotheisms" might be another way to go.Debivort 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Alucard's question/proposal about "non-fictional earth monotheism," that would work.  Or (opinion) how about "monotheisms in the real world?"    For Debivort's suggestion, no.  As mentioned, there are other monotheisms, not only Abrahamic ones, with the traits.  Chiss Boy 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western monotheism