Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spoilers

Shouldn't there be some sort of spoiler warning? I read this page after watching the miniseries and season one and found a few spoilers. Wclapier 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Failure of June, 2003 Los Angeles News Item mention

During a showing of new TV series by the m,ajor networks to the TV media in June, 2003. Bonnie Hammer the President of the Sci-Fi Channel was there to show off the mini-series along with the show's star Edward James Olmos. Bonnie Hammer stated that this new version that fans of the original 1978 series will like this new version. Edward James Olmos immediately stepped up and stated, "Actually fans of the original series will hate this new version they are better off buying the DVDs that are coming out." Reporters that attended the news conference there said that Bonnie Hammer had a shocked looked on her face. Some that were closer to the stage reported heard Bonnie Hammer saying something to the effect, "oh, kill me now." As the news conference kept going everytime Bonnie Hammer said something positive about the new version, Edward Olmos kept saying something negative saying the original fans shouldn't watch it.

Mormonism connection?

This occurred to me after seeing the mini-series. The "12 tribes of Kobol" struck me as being somewhat analogous to the "12 tribes of Israel." When they mentioned the "13th tribe" that went to Earth, it also reminded me of Mormonism. Don't the Mormons believe that there was a 13th tribe of Israel that crossed the ocean and settled in North America? If so, is this parallel only coincidence? I never saw the original series, did it contain this same mythology? In any case, is it even worth mentioning in the article? --Bjsiders 15:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Mormons believe that there were 12 tribes of Israel. However, they believe that the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel" settled in North America. The creator of the original series, Glen A. Larson, is Mormon so this parallel is probably not a coincidence. KitHutch 15:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The original BSG had a huge Mormon influence. In one of the early episodes, Adama conducts a wedding - "sealing" the couple (a somewhat distinctive Mormon term). That influence is largely from Glen Larson, who is Mormon. In the original it was very intentional, but not in a "let's push Mormonism on people" way, rather a "let's draw parallels to Earth," etc., way.

VigilancePrime 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

note: These parallels are explored in more detail at Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism. VigilancePrime 01:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Quorum of the 12 (a political body in BSG) looks like a direct reference to the Mormon group of the same name. Wclapier 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional 6 Episodes wording.

This is the text of the original press release regarding the announcement of the additional 6 episodes.

"Battlestar Galactica, the update of the classic 1979 television series that is at the center of a war between the studio that produces it and the fans who can't wait for its January, 2005 launch on the US Sci Fi Channel, has been given an extra six-episode pickup. This will bring the total for season one to 19 episodes.

While this doesn't guarantee a second season, it is seen as a good sign. Executive producer David Eick told Sci Fi Magazine, "Just after I finished exhaling, it'll be time to jump right back into it".

The success of the series during its run on the Sky One channel in the UK has been cited as the primary reason to order more episodes before the series has even premiered in the US. The new series has generated a high amount of interest and has been one of the most active downloads in the various file trading groups, something that has worried Galactica's producer, Universal Studios, to the point of taking action against fans who would try to see the series early. This early indicator of the series' success would seem to torpedo some of the studio's own arguments against the file traders that included the possibility of diminished ratings and loss of revenue for the series. Battlestar Galactica will premiere on the US Sci Fi Channel on January 14th, 2005."

Clearly states the additional episodes will be added to the end of series one, and not become part of series two.

Is this your source? That ain't a press release. AlistairMcMillan 13:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also Sky have billed the last two episodes of the initial run as the "season finale". —Neuropedia 15:25, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

SciFi is running a commercial, they state that season 2, or the next 6 episodes, will start on July 15th. They make very little refrence to it on there website, only on there schedule does it show: here SanitysEdge 23:08, Jun 16 2005 (UTC-5)

Opening Text

I think the opening text before each episode should be removed as it is misleading. It changes throughout the series, and while it is still composed of mainly the same lines, some are added or removed depending on the needs of the individual episode.

Ben W Bell 09:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UK Opening Vocals

The opening vocals in the British version are apparently from Hindu sources (the Gayatri Mantra), not Celtic. The words are:

AUM BHOOR BHUWAH SWAHA, TAT SAVITUR VARENYAM BHARGO DEVASAYA DHEEMAHI DHIYO YO NAHA PRACHODAYAT

Translation:

Oh God! Thou art the Giver of Life, Remover of pain and sorrow, The Bestower of happiness, Oh! Creator of the Universe, May we receive thy supreme sin-destroying light, May Thou guide our intellect in the right direction.

from: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114327 and: http://www.syfyportal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2708

As of Season 2, unless I'm misremembering, the US opening titles match the UK opening titles. The three episodes broadcast on NBC also used the UK titles, including the population count.

Cheers,

S

Original Tigh Black

Why is there such a debate on whether or not the original Colonel Tigh was black or not. Tigh was most definitely black, he was played by Terry Carter in the original movie and TV series, and Terry Carter is most definitely black. Check halfway down this page for a photo from the series. http://www.blast.net/hart/bggallery1.htm Ben W Bell 19:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe people think Tigh was played by Michael Jackson? ;-) -- ChrisO 20:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Tigh as played in 1978 by Terry Carter: [1]
• Tigh as played in 2003 by Michael Hogan: [2]

Can we please stop this pointless and endless set of reverts? —Neuropedia 00:54, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (2003)#Differences from the 1978 series

Can'tStandYa is replacing text I'm trying to move out into Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). Can we resolve this please? I'm not getting into a revert war over it. —Neuropedia 10:45, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Tidy Up Crusade

I've tidied the article a fair bit; if anyone takes offence that I've deleted / altered some of your text, please don't! I'd love to see this article make TFA, so if we can all work as a pleasant amorphous editing blob instead of a spikey stabby reverting mob, that would rock.

Also, I've removed Boxey from the first season cast list; I don't think he appeared in a single episode. Someone please prove me wrong though! —Neuropedia 20:53, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Actually he did: episode 3, "Bastille Day" if I remember rightly. He shows up at a pilots' briefing along with Starbuck. -- ChrisO 21:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No worries, thanks :) —Neuropedia 08:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Actually, he appears in three eps, but "Bastille Day" was the only one in which he had any dialog (he tended to turn up in the background acting as a batman for either Boomer or Starbuck). He hasn't been seen or mentioned since. He was never credited as a regular or as a regular guest, and he hasn't appeared in the second series, so the removal is a good decision. Canonblack 17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Cylons section

Much text from this section has been successfully moved and expanded upon in the main 'Cylon' article; please respect this attempt to keep the main BSG2K3 article pared to allow as much central information about the show to remain in this article unimpeded. Thanks! -Neuropedia 20:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Title Rename

Now that a new season of Battlestar is coming out; I wonder if the title should be changed from Battlestar Galactica (2003) to something like Battlestar Galactica (mini series) or something similar? The show isn't just a 2003 only and a new page for 2005 would detract from a single article synergy. I would like to hear what other titles would be better or if you think that 2003 is good enough.Supercoop 19:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

- - -

How about "Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagining)"? --ToastyKen

I like (2003) well enough. After all, the mini series leads quite directly into the regular series. Luis Dantas

• The original BSG ran from 1978 to 1979, but is still referred to here as Battlestar Galactica (1978) - let's leave things as is, it's less confusing :) —Neuropedia 22:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's been almost a year now and now you have 3 forks of the article. --Supercoop 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. It seems that both the miniseries AND the new TV show have their own articles now, making this a catch-all for all the new stuff. This makes the "2003" moniker even less appropriate. I even more strongly propose that we rename this article "Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining)" now, especically considering that the first line is, "This article is about the re-imagining..." etc. I mean, this article is no longer about any specific instance of the show from 2003, right? Any objections? --ToastyKen 10:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

- - - For now, to be consistent with the Mini series and 2004 tv series, I am going to rename this article Battlestar Galactica (2003 TV series). Any objections? -- Supercoop 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This article isn't about a TV series, but the re-imagining of BSG for the 2003 miniseries and subsequent TV series. ToastyKen's recommendation is better. Debuskjt 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So it should be renamed to BSG re-imagining and yet another fork for 2003 TV Series .--Supercoop 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no 2003 TV series. It does not exist. There is a Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) and a Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). That is it. This article is not about a TV series. It is about a re-imagining of the original BSG universe that was then used for the basis of the aforementioned miniseries and TV series. Debuskjt 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The general concept of BSG being "re-imagined" isn't directly associated with 2003, other than that the miniseries aired in 2003. If "Battlestar Galactica (2003)" is a term that's supposed to describe Ron Moore's version of the show as a whole, then that term should include the miniseries and the series, not exclude them and force them into different pages. The re-imagining didn't just happen in 2003, it first aired in 2003. And it's still being re-imagined right now, and it will be for as long as the show goes on. So the year, if it is used in the title, should indicate the starting point for this version of the show. And the miniseries and the series would be subsections of that article, because they're part of the same production. But even then, we're just basically finding another way of saying "The reimagined series." So basically, ToastyKen is spot on. Caprica 13:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering this thread and the newer one further down this page, it seems to me there is more than enough of a consensus to rename. Do we need to have an official poll? Or can we just go ahead and do it? -- Fru1tbat 14:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Typographical Error?

There are significant differences in the titles between the UK and overseas versions of the show. The "reflective" segment of the title sequence has vocals over a lilting theme in the UK version, while the overseas version is slow and somber and lacks vocals. The UK and overseas versions have the same music in the "active" segment of the titles, using a fast-paced version of the distinctive taiko drumming that characterises the Galactica score.

The contrasting UK and overseas versions arose as a result of creative differences between Moore, the series composer Richard Gibbs and the Sci Fi Channel's management. The Vedic vocals were originally devised as "temp music" intended to serve as a placeholder for a forthcoming score. Moore and fellow producer David Eick liked the temp music so much that they opted to retain it, and instructed Gibbs to work it up into a full score, though the composer himself was far from happy with this

Should the references to UK instead be U.S.? I don't know as I have not caught myself up on the series or its origins, but if the series is airing first in the U.S., then I imagine the 'overseas' would be the U.K.-airing ones. 12.106.100.92 19:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, 'cos the series aired in the UK first. You lot are overseas to us, you know. Typical US-centrism. Tut tut. (Just kidding.) My version of the DVD, which I assume (being bought in the UK to run on a UK DVD player) is the UK version of the series, has the nice lilting vocals. So I believe the article is correct as it stands.

(As an aside, I hope they keep them -- you can't very well watch a potted history of attempted genocide with nice cheery music, can you? And it's really quite beautiful in its own mournful way.) Wooster 22:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm going to change 'overseas' to U.S. By the way, I'm watching the season two theme, and it does have the lilting sad vocals. (The 12.106.100.92 poster was me, not logged in from work.) — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 02:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Or "non-UK"? It depends which areas got the vocals and which didn't. Re: vocals in series two, excellent. I don't get Sky, so I'm going to have to wait for the Torr... I mean DVD, oh yes. Wooster 20:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Frak & Felgercarb

FRAK:

There is now a listing for frak and it could certainly use some additional information, perspective, etc. I've seen two alternate spellings for frak too, being "frack" and "fraq." While I don't think either is "official" (is there an "official" spelling?), Frak seems to be the universally accepted spelling.

— VigilancePrime 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

FELGERCARB:

Shouldn't it be feldercarb? 1Winston 17:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Google gives near-equal numbers for both. Having never seen much of the 70's series I wouldn't know myself. — Phil Welch 18:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of the '78 series, and it's definitely 'felgercarb' --71.32.64.210 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: Felgercarb is correct.

BTW: When is someone going to go write/create a page for Felgercarb? — VigilancePrime 01:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a page for that term would survive an AFD. Frak has been used in both BSG series and also has had limited use in the "real world". Felgercarb has developed no such notability. I'd advise against a separate article being created for that word unless it can be shown that the term is in wide use. A possible alternative is to create a subsection for it in the frak article. 23skidoo 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Crashdown.

• SPOILER*

Crashdown died in 'Fragged', which aired July 29th on SciFi. Should he still be listed as a "Regular Guest"?

Yes. He is part of the show. We can just list him as a charecter that has died. --^BuGs^ 08:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Both Grace Park and Katee Sackhoff have the same birth day and birth year, April 8th, 1980. How odd is that? --Admiral Roo 12:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they are...twins!!! Just kidding, it's probably a coincidence.--Zxcvbnm 12:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That proves it. Starbuck is a Cylon. — Phil Welch 00:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

ANYONE can be a cylon. They could just declare that, for instance, Adama is a cylon, at short notice. Also, this involves their REAL names and not their "fake" ones.--Zxcvbnm 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was making a joke. (And actually, Adama just might be a Cylon, if you watched "Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down). — Phil Welch 01:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

We "know" that ellen tigh is a cylon. Adama is probably not one, but there is more chance he might be one. Also, Gaida might be a cylon.--Zxcvbnm 01:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Tigh's "I trust you more than that shifty bastard" (Baltar) may prove to be the most sadly ironic line of the second season ;) — Phil Welch 01:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't make me do my Darth Vader "Noooooooo!" Gaeta is my hero, especially after the first ep of season 2, Scattered, and his hacker work. Although, if you consider who has the best technical capacity to bring down a battlestar, he would be it. 'Tis sad. Spencerian 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I just saw a Q&A with Grace Park. She said the media/publicist got her birth date wrong. She didn't say what her real birth date was. - Teresaclin 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

add the rpg of battlestar galactica to article!!!!!!!

Why don't you? You seem to know, for instance, that there is an RPG. — Phil Welch 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Haven't RPG companies learned that a game based off a TV series doesn't do well... lets see, the Star Trek RPG and Babylon 5 RPG's aren't big sellers... The Farscape and Stargate SG-1 RPG's both bombed... I can't see a BSG game doing much better... "Oh you fight a Cylon", "you kill him... roll damage... okey, here comes ANOTHER Cylon..." Thats got excitement like you won't believe. When will they ever learn? Cyberia23 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There are several Battlestar RPGs on the net, they are freeform storytelling rpgs. There IS more to an rpg than just using dice rolls... They can be a great exercise in creative writing. Best one out there can be found by googling Galactica RPG 205.206.25.184 05:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Kitera

The unique style of filming

Hey, I wanted to add to the article couple sentences about unique filming style of the Galactica. Something like What makes Battlestar Galactica so unique is probably the style of filming. The constant shakiness of the camera, close-ups and uncommon shooting angles give the impression that it is more of a documentary than a sci-fi serie. I was pretty impressed by the unique shakiness... i now call it "Shaky camera movie". :) Robert 19:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the style of filming is like someone is carrying a documentary camera on their person and filming. The space battles are filmed in a way that is seems that an astronaut is literally out there filming it with a handheld camera. --Zxcvbnm 01:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that i couldn't figure out where to add that info. The article doesn't mention anything about filming, about special effects or anything about production in general. That's why i haven't added that. -Robert 23:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look into the naturalistic science fiction page for a distilled version of Moore's ideas. A link to his full essay, including the cinematography ideas, is there as well. It would probably be best to link to that page or add a See Also page on the essay or the naturalistic SF page. Spencerian 15:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The only thing about BSG's "unique filming" style I'm against is that it's NOT unique. For the shaky cam stuff watch "Law and Order" - they been doing it for years. Plus, their shakey cams and weird off-center framing is not even unique to a Sci-Fi show - Joss Whedon's "Firefly" series is filmed that way, and even the outer space scenes, you get the quick zoom ins and darted panning, and "Firefly" did that 2 years before the new BSG series. Cyberia23 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, they cancelled Firefly a while ago :( but they will start playing the episodes again :) And for Law and Order, that's on the GROUND, in space battles they usually move the camera with the spaceship and stuff.--Zxcvbnm 02:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I know it's on the ground, I was talking about the interior scenes anyway compairing those with something like L&W or even CSI. With the exterior scenes I was comparing it to Firefly. Cyberia23 17:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No wonder that i was never familiar with the phrase "Naturalistic science fiction". I have never seen Firefly, Law & Order or CSI, not even a single episode :) I am big fan of Babylon 5 though... but i never could understand why. When i was watching B5 and then Stargate i managed to formulate to myself that i love those shows because they are believable.. it is a science fiction and not a fairytale like Star Wars or Farscape. When Galactica arrived i was instantly in love with the show. Now i know why i like it so much. It's the "naturalistic science fiction".. perhaps too naturalistic :) --Robert 12:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening summary with a link to naturalistic science fiction. — Phil Welch 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Why episode lists?

I don't think it is necessary for there to be episode lists in the main article, since they already exist here: List of Battlestar Galactica (2003) episodes. What does everyone else think? -- Scjessey 12:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well then delete them... blah blah... Cyberia23 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not merge the two articles then. That is a rather nice table though, but pointless on its own.--Eion 04:45, 21 August 2005 (

12 Models

{{spoilers}}

Let's look at all models revealed so far:

For humanoids:

1. Number Six
2. Aaron Doral
3. Leoben Conoy
4. Boomer
5. Simon
6. D'anna Biers (in episode 2.08)

For others:

1. Original centurion
2. New centurion
3. Original raider
4. New raider
5. Original basestar
6. New basestar
7. Heavy raider

That adds up to 13 total. Clearly, the "12 new models" only applies to humanoids, especially since Ronald D. Moore said that there could be an additional one revealed in the second part of the season. Kuralyov 00:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No. First off, you're counting the ships as models, which there is no particular reason to do. While the ships are biological in design, they are not necessarily Cylons per se--they're not particularly intelligent, and Galactica-Boomer instinctively treats the captured Cylon Raider like a pet and not a person. Second off, you're counting *past* models as part of the 12, which also makes no sense--if I say "there are five BMW models" I'm clearly not counting every model BMW has ever manufactured since 1965. That narrows it down to six humanoids and the Cylon Centurion, which is seven models—leaving five more to be unveiled. (The two Cylons we know of remaining to be revaled in Season 2 are D'anna Biers, played by Lucy Lawless, and Gina, played by Tricia Helfer as a renegade Six.) Finally, Adama finds a note in the miniseries that says "there are only 12 Cylon models", which is clear and indisputable. — Phil Welch 01:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It is obviously not clear enough if people are still confusing it. And I don't see what your BMW argument has to do with anything; this is BSG, not Earth, and Baltar (if that's actually who wrote it) was just going by what Six told him. And speaking of which, as I recall, a conversation between he and she in the mini went something like this:

• Baltar: The last time anyone saw the Cylons they looked more like walking chrome toasters.
• Number Six: Those models are still around.

Clearly, Six considers - at the least - the old Centurions to be 'models' of Cylons. And also, it makes no sense for her to be talking about Cylon models as a whole, rather than just humanoids. Baltar asked her if there were 'others like you;' he clearly meant humanoid versions, and Six knew that when she replied. Also, why would he feel the need to tell Adama if there are twelve different Cylons altoegther? He knew that Adama would only be interested in humanoid infiltrators; other types cna just be killed on sight. Kuralyov 04:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

All that Six confirms is that there are still models around that look like walking chrome toasters, not that they're identical to the one seen in the museum. She's obviously referring to the new Centurions, not the "original" ones. So, even if we assume that there are only twelve Cylon models, all that Six has done has said that one of those models is the Centurion.

People are still confusing the issue, perhaps, because the writers weren't as clear as they could have been, and because the exact wording of Adama's note (or its existence) isn't as distinctly remembered as the more vague dialogue. Secondly, it's a presumption that Baltar left Adama the note. It could have been Boomer (acting under Cylon programming during a blackout, like when she bombs the water tanks or kills Adama). It could have been yet another Cylon agent hiding in the fleet. The purpose of the note and who left it is still a mystery. "There are only 12 Cylon models" is cryptic and not all that helpful to Adama. Even if it's intended to help him, Adama has no reason *not* to count the Centurions as a Cylon model—if the purpose, as you suggest, is to tell Adama how many humanoid infiltrators there are, the note would speak of them specifically and not simply talk about Cylon models in general. "There are only 12 Cylon models" has a very clear, distinct, unambiguous meaning.

As for my BMW argument, it's about the English language, not Earth. If Six, or the note, had said "There have been a total of twelve Cylon models since the creation of the Cylons", then we would know for certain that it included the original Centurion. But they did *not* say that, they said "there are only twelve Cylon models", which is present tense, i.e. presumably not referring to 40 year old models that aren't in operation anymore. It's not impossible that it refers to old models, but we have no reason to conclude definitively and unambiguously that it does, especially in the face of more definite and clear evidence to the contrary. As for the ships—it's never been definitively stated that the ships themselves are Cylons, only that the Raiders appear to be autonomous biological units. There's room for ambiguity there. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to reject clear, unambiguous evidence written into the script by Ron Moore for a mishmash of ambiguity, 3-second references to the original series, and fanon. — Phil Welch 06:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to say that there is ambiguity surrounding the "twelve models" statement. We reference it in the differences section, is there a need to state something so unsure at the top of the article? I'm of the opinion that saying there are humanoid models as well as the "toasters" is enough at that point. —Neuropedia 13:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

There's misunderstanding, perhaps. But "there are only twelve Cylon models" is not ambiguous by any stretch of the imagination, bizarre fanboy interpretations notwithstanding. — Phil Welch 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Number Six obviously meant HUMANOID Cylons "Finally, Adama finds a note in the miniseries that says "there are only 12 Cylon models", which is clear and indisputable." --------------->FELGERCARB PHIL. Baltar obviously meant the humanoid models. *******They never use the term "humanoid Cylon" or "Humano-Cylon" or whatever. They call both mechanical and organic ones "Cylons" (or "Cylon Agents). This Phil guy is the only one purporting this edit here. I've already asked RDM's blog to specific and I hope one day we get an answer back. But Phil, seriously, if they reveal maybe 2 new Humanoid Cylons a year, if they counted Centurions etc that means there could only be 11 or less. Don't you think they'd like as many as possible, to keep the threat of sleeper agents going? ---Ricimer, 31 Aug, 2005

How do you know Baltar left the note? It could have been Boomer, or another sleeper agent. If the person who left the note meant the humanoid models, then why didn't the note say "there are only 12 humanoid Cylon models" or something to that effect? Why did the note reference Cylon models in general, which as you concede include the Centurion? Finally, counting the Centurions, there are still five Cylon models waiting to be revealed. You're the one who seems set on counting spacecraft as Cylon models, which is a bit of an presumption on your part. — Phil Welch 17:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you, thank you, thank you for making a compromise Phil. The introduction is absolutely the wrong place to be arguing about this note and any facts implied therein. There is another section later in the page covering the new Cylons, and in fact there's a whole frickin' page devoted to the topic :) Let's move on and keep working to make this article one of the best in Wikipedia. —Neuropedia 17:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

We do at least know that the "new" cylon raiders are Cylons - when Starbuck "killed" one and then used it to get back to Galactica, I think it was made very clear that it was alive in a frighteningly similar way to the bioCylons like Six (all blood and guts and a few tubes and wires inside). Still, I did understand the "12 models" to be 12 bioCylons and not 12 total types including the classic chromedomes.

VigilancePrime 04:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just want to point out two things. 1) The new Ford Mustang, while not anything like the old Mustang, is still a Mustang Model. So, the new Centurion design may be merely an upgraded or redisigned version of that model. 2) That information "12 models" is very subject to change. After all I can say there are 10 Ford models on the road. Then Ford can go and make 4 new models. And so can the Cylons make new models from the point that the information of 12 models comes into the audienced knowledge. 4.249.132.93 20:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Only human-cylons are the models from my understanding. --^BuGs^ 08:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• With the conclusion of Season 3 there are 11 of the 12 humanoid (skinjob) models revealed. I suppose one could go back through each episode and seriously debate the semantics of the phrase "there are only 12 models" but the show writers do not split hairs. the onse I have identified are in this order:

1. Number 6 (the blonde)
2. Boomer
3. (forgetting his name but) the one that held a gun to President Baltar's head, also abandoned in the ammo dump during the miniseries
4. The one that reads the future, also has a thing for Starbuck
5. The one that is played by Lucy Lawless
6. The doctor model that was introduced in "The Farm"
7. The priest (Dean Stockwell, "Sam" from Quantum Leap"

At this point these seven talk of "the final 5" the end of season three reveals the following 4:

1. The Chief
2. Starbuck's husband Sam
3. The Colonel (the one that lost his eye)
4. The aide to the President, the woman that replaced Billy

Granted, there is still a chance that it's wrong, but the season closes wanting the audience thinking that they are indeed Cylons. I'm not sure if the season implied one other (aside from Gaius in the more than obvious way), but I wasn't looking too close. I think it would be good to place these within the main article with a spoiler warning. I'm still new to wikipedia and editing, but I know these 11 to be called cylons withing the context of the show. ~AlvinBlah

Gaelic Vocals

In an interview [3], Bear McCreary specifically refers to Gaelic, rather than Irish, for some of the vocals. -- Scjessey 15:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Are we certain that it is Irish gaelic being used in the vocals, instead of one of the other forms? -- Scjessey 12:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's Irish Gaelic. The singer is Lillis Ó Laoire, who's a well-known Irish Gaelic singer and author; there's a brief biography of him at http://www.bridgeacrosstheblue.com/wav/bridge/artists.html . More info at http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/english/olaoire.htm . -- ChrisO 03:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Coming before the Table Of Contents, the introductory text seems to be quite long. Shouldn't much of its bulk be integrated into the main article? Also, that article seems quite long - perhaps the Mini Series and the Regular Series should be separated? -- Scjessey 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be, since they're part of one storyline. If we separated them someone out there might be bold and simply remerge the two. 23skidoo 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Smoking

I wonder if it might be worth noting in a trivia item or elsewhere that, while most current TV series have gone out of their way to not have characters smoking, BSG has sort of gone the opposite direction. Of course we have Starbuck who smokes cigars, and we also know Adama does as well. And then we have the ship's doctor who smokes like a chimney. Maybe it's not worth mentioning, but these days it seems to unusual for a show to have smoking -- and in the case of Starbuck make it an endearing part of her character. Thoughts? 23skidoo 04:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree but I also think that's the whole point. Does anyone LIKE the doctor? He's a jerk to everyone.

With Starbuck, we all know how frakked-up she is, and this is another way. It's the problems in life and how we deal with them that are important. It's also one of the few attributes of the original Starbuck/Dirk Benedict that can be evenly applied to Katee Sackhoff.

Society, too, still seems to see cigar smoking as not very bad, as opposed to cigarette smoking, which is seen as unhealthy. We know both are bad for health, but society still can tend to see cigars as a very upscale, sophisticated thing to do.

VigilancePrime 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the cigarette-smoking doctor is just supposed to be a stubborn, curmodgeonly old man. — Phil Welch 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to that at all - and the scene where he lights up in front of Roslin (after discussing her cancer) was a very funny moment, in a gallows humor sort of way. It's just the fact that so many other TV series are going out of their way to pretend smoking doesn't exist that for a show like BSG to come along and feature it - it kinda calls attention to itself. Again, I don't know if it warrants a trivia item, unless anyone knows of any actual controversy surrounding this. Clearly BSG is not considered a kids' show (unlike the original series) nor is it marketed as one, so maybe there's no issue as a result. 23skidoo 06:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: With the shows trying to maintain a realistic tone in regards to science, isn't smoking a problem. It uses precious oxygen to burn and contaminates the recirulated air. Even if the air is scrubbed clean, the filtering agents would need replacing more frequently. I am surprised that the issue isn't addressed in regards to the nesasity to breathe and to the crew's health. 4.249.132.93 21:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am guessing that a Battlestar would have industrial-size filters- a few people smoking would probably not affect the whole crew of thousands of people. Anyway, if they used pure oxygen on the Galactica, smoking a cigarette would make the ship explode. They probably just recirculate the air over and over, making that a valid point. However, what if they dont need to replace the scrubbers, but clean them instead? I am anticipating an episode where the Cylons attack the scrubbers, I guarantee that will come sooner or later.--Zxcvbnm 21:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Similarities with 21st Century Earth

I wonder if a subsection listing examples of intentional similarities with 21st Century Earth might be interesting? Unlike the original series which strove to introduce "alien" concepts, there are a lot of familiar trappings on the new series, ranging from men wearing ties to graffiti in Caprica City to, as noted above, the use of cigarettes and cigars. The episode "Colonial Day" included a fairly obvious parody of not only Talk Radio (called Talk Wireless here) but also debate-oriented political shows such as Crossfire and the McLaughlin Group. There has even been a couple of examples of (possibly) unintentional references, such as the appearance of a Readers Digest book in Adama's office or a visible Scotiabank logo on one of Caprica's buildings. It's been noted the article is becoming a bit long as it is, but do you think it might be worth starting a separate article to discuss these similarities? 23skidoo 14:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think naturalistic science fiction might be a good place to expand on that theme. — Phil Welch 20:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, you would walk into Scotiabank and say, "where did your name come from anyway?" The teller wouldn't know ;)--Zxcvbnm 21:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Gravity?

I was watching the episode where the Cylons shut off main power for Galactica, and they had it drifting in space. Then it dawned on me....don't they need power to power the "artificial gravity," it they even have it? Maybe they meant it that way, but that was strange in regards to keeping the show "Realistic."--Zxcvbnm 21:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I found it really lame that when the BSG lost power and drifted - it was the only ship in the fleet floating at a weird angle too let the viewer know there was a problem. INERTIA??? Would it not continue on the same direction forever until it hit something? i.e. the way the ship was pointed when it lost power? About gravity... since the show is filmed on Earth, it's a little hard to simulate zero gravity on the stage sets. That too is cheesey, but I let that go due to budget contraints. With no gravity, you'd need probably more CGI and other effects than you could afford. Plus the bullets would bounce around the halls until they impacted something soft and fleshy. Cyberia23 18:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You know the saying about a plane flying from California to Hawaii being off course 99% of the time? I would guess that the same is true in space especially due to the extreme distances. The ship would drift in the direction of the last course correction. Peteresch 19:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

They did the same thing in the miniseries, when Galactica's Mark VIIs were disabled by the two Cylon Raiders before being destroyed. --Arabani 20:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of for the BSG being tilted may have been caused by explosions within the ship. Or since the Cylons punched through the hull to get aboard, maybe atmosphere was venting? Cyberia23 20:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the episode during which this occurs (although I did read the transcript :D) but I'm not sure that would explain it. Explosions contained fully in the ship (i.e., no hull breach) wouldn't do anything except wreck the insides a bit (the force of the explosion pushing the ship one way is fully countered by the force of the expanding gas hitting the other side of the room) while venting/uncontained explosions would cause the ship to go into a (very slow) spin, rather than just assume a weird angle. Also, while I at first thought (in the case of the Mark VIIs) that the change in orientation was caused by their inherent instability (as an example, modern aircraft, without constant computer corrections would essentially crash and burn), this instability is only a factor when an external force is being applied. Guess we'll chalk this up to a slip by the producers? After all, they do prove that they know about inertia during the space combat scenes.

Nothing can go perfectly straight. For example if, hypothetically, a gun was held completely still and then shot 5 times, the 5 bullets would end up in different locations. This has to do with two prominent things: vibration and imperfect weapon design. The Earth vibrates causing the gun to shift position (though this has no analogue really for BSG). In addition, the barrel of the gun is not perfectly straight, the bullet is not perfectly cylindrical, and, even if they were, the firing action does not propel the bullet on a perfect trajectory. In BSG's case, this amounts to an asymmetrical ship design (both very minute flaws in design as well as varying contents depending on where you are in the ship); this would cause the Galactica to tend to rotate around its center of mass (i.e. it no longer has the capacity to stabilize its trajectory). This is the very reason that satellites in orbit around our planet must have gyroscopes and corrective methods for maintaining prescribed orbits. We don't know, but it could've also had something to do with the thrusters cutting out at different times. Even slight course alterations can severely affect an object's trajectory, especially if it's going as fast as a spaceship. With no method of correcting such alterations, BSG's drift doesn't seem that unlikely after all.

Thoughts on Moving Reimaging Section

Would anyone be opposed on moving all the details of reimaging the series to another page? Say create a Battlestar Galactica (Universe) page where it's appropriate to discuss both series. I think this page should be focused on the new series, especially if it continues on for several seasons. Also, since the main page is getting long. --vossman 20:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned doing something about that earlier in this talk page, but it was not met with any enthusiasm. I actually think the series of Battlestar Galactica articles needs to be reorganized. The classic series, mini series, and new series should all have their own pages, together with a page that discusses the differences between the classic and reimagined series. So I'm definitely in favor of some sort of change, as you suggest. -- Scjessey 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This Entry is Bloated

C'mon folks, this is an encyclopedia entry, not a fan site. Do we really need to know every single detail of what is different between the old and new shows? (Who really cares if the original ship called them "scanners" and the new one uses "radar" -- sheesh!) That's the job of an exhaustive fan web site, not Wikipedia. Can't some of this stuff be spun of into separate Wikipedia entries (if not simply axed and left to the fan sites?) I'm sorry, I just I hate to see Wikipedia used as free hosting for fans who are too cheap to set up their own sites. This entry should be much more pithy and to-the-point. Imagine if you knew nothing about either series -- wouldn't this entry bore you to tears? Mecandes 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Really, that should just be cut down to about 2 or 3 entries at the most.Captain Spyro

The Wikipedia FAQ about Article size does not appear to address this issue directly. I am sure similar discussions have taken place about other articles. Can anyone find a precedent either way? Peteresch 18:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The description of The perfect Wikipedia article seems to take the position of keeping the content but organizing it using new articles. Peteresch 18:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size specifically says that over 20-30k of readable prose is too much. I'm wary about splitting into new articles though—we'd be better off trimming some of the more trivial parts. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Then let's copy the information we are considering removing into the talk section. From here we can summarize the content to make sure we don't lose anything important. Peteresch 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is now almost 50 kilobytes, which is ridiculous, quite frankly. Wikipedia:Article size suggests that anything in excess of 32 kilobytes should probably be split up. I think we should begin the process of organizing the article into convenient chunks. I'm definitely not in favor of removing content, but I certainly think it needs to be moved around a bit. -- Scjessey 02:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rank of Lieutenant Colonel

The rank of Lieutenant Colonel has been added and removed 3 times in the past month. Please discuss this before going another round. Peteresch 15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A big old merger

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus

I propose we merge at the least 2003 and 2003 miniseries. The mini series article is not long and could easily fit into the 2003 article.

I guess I'd like to see 2003, 2003 miniseries and 2004 tv series all in not... but that is a larger project.

I propose this, because as a go about seeking to read about the new bsg or add info, I have to jump a couple of pages to find it.

Any thoughts?Sethie 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles were split out on January 3, 2006 because the main article was too large. Let's give it some time before we even consider merging anything. Peteresch 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for this article to exist. If there already is one on the miniseries and one on the series, what precisely is supposed to be the topic of this one? What is distinct about the information on this article? It's completely redundant. Its info should be merged into the other two articles. Nightscream 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

DISAGREE STRONGLY: The articles were split because the original article was way too large. This article talks about the reimagined concept, and then Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 television series) are separate entities that are the result of that concept. There are significant differences between the two, and far too much information between the three articles to be combined. If any merger is to occur, I would think that it should be with Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries), so that we can still keep the miniseries and the television series separate. -- Scjessey 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREE STRONGLY: This seems like a mess to me. Why do we have three pages about the one thing? A lot of backdoor pilots air as television movies. What are the significant differences between the pilot and the series? AlistairMcMillan 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree Strongly: For all the reasons stated above. Driller thriller 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular article is about the reimagined version of Battlestar Galactica, and the differences between it and the original 70s series. The other two main articles cover the Mini Series and the Television Series separately, because there is simply too much material to exist under a single article (which was why they were split in the first place). -- Scjessey 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Criminy ... when did this split happen? The split of the single article re. the second production of a BSG show is now three articles filled with cruft. Wouldn't it have been better that the original article covered everything but was removed of cruft? Do we really need a list of ranks in the show? Do we need a huge table of airdates when a simple list would do? I'm really disappointed as to what's happened to this article over the last few months. I'm tempted to just merge everything back into one and clear out the extraneous arse that's accrued. Who's coming with me? :) —Neuropedia 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole category's a mess in my opinion. But let's not do any merging without consensus, otherwise there'll be flamewars and reversions all over the shop. By all means go around and scour out the cruft though. I've been doing some of that myself. Hmmm... perhaps the Battlestar Galactica category talk page would be a good place to discuss the organisation of all the articles.  -- Run!  16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It took me the quarter of an hour to find out what this article is supposed to be about. The desription on the top what this article is supposed to contain is vague at best and the title is not fitting. Merging would be the best option in my eyes, but at least the title should be changed to something descriptive like 'Battlestar Galactica (2003 Reimagining)' and the description should inform that this article does not describe any series, but in fact an universe used in several series. --84.178.82.79 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page, but if you just merge it, someone's going to split it out again. One problem I see is that this article maintains an infobox for the mini-series and television show, when it really shouldn't. The problem, IMO, isn't that the topic doesn't have merit enough for a single article, but confused fans keep trying to turn it into the article about the series, instead of using Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). - Debuskjt 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox probably doesn't belong here (or the DVD cover image, for that matter), but if the separation between this article and the one on the series is to be maintained, links need to be updated. Right now, they're a bit confusing. I found my way here from Babylon 5, where the link to this article is in the context of special effects. That should probably point to the article on the series proper, not this one. -- Fru1tbat 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION

It has been announced that a spin-off series, about the planet Caprica, is in the works. It is set 50 years before the events of the mini series, but it is in the same universe. The Adama family will be featured. When this airs, it is likely to increase the amount of information about the Battlestar Galactica universe that is available. Any talk of article mergers must take this new information in to account. Frankly, I think it would be madness to merge any of these articles, given the amount of information being presented. Battlestar Galactica could be compared with Star Trek in terms of scope, and Trek has hundreds of articles associated with it. -- Scjessey 20:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. BSG is not Star Trek: it has not had ~ 800 episodes and 10 movies produced, nor has it had the wealth of merchandising attached to it. There is no need for the cruft in these now split articles about the new series. Why on earth has the story arc sections which I tried to keep lean now got virtually all the plotlines in them—written to conclusion, no less. Caprica, the as yet unproduced TV show, IMHO requires nothing more than a single page attached to the BSG category. It would be madness to spread the BSG articles thinner still, and then attempt to pad them out with conjecture, trivia and fancruft. —Neuropedia 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well so far it is just a single page in the BSG category. Anyway, I agree that BSG is nowhere near the scope of star trek, but I'm not too fussed about the episode outlines, though some are a little less concise than I'd like (i started concisioning them, for lack of a better word, but got bored). I'm happy with those. What concerns me is the articles governing (what i consider to be) non-notable things, like the Tomb of Athena and so forth. And I think an awful lot of articles simply repeat information. The article on the ship pegasus, as well as the article on her commander (if there is one, i forget... they might be same actually) repeats information that's detailed in the episodes.  -- Run!  07:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much cruft, but I still don't think that there should be any kind of merger with the main articles. The thing is, Battlestar Galactica is more mainstream than regular science fiction shows like Star Trek. It should certainly get no less attention than any of the other popular television shows of the day. Absolute garbage, like American Idol, for example, gets an entire category chock full of articles (and even a bunch of subcategories). -- Scjessey 11:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So if everyone else jumps off a cliff, you would too? :) —Neuropedia 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table for comments

What do you think? Jtmichcock 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo	Performer	Rank	Role	Call Sign	Position
File:Edward james olmos.jpg	Edward James Olmos	Commander	William Adama	"Husker"	Commanding officer of the Battlestar Galactica; father of Lee Adama

Nice that it is, I think it's overkill for the Wikipedia. -- Scjessey 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the articles on the various Star Trek episodes have a similar design for their cast listings. With the success of BSG, I think this show is going to be around for quite a while. Keeping this article in professional-looking shape now should allow for better edits later on. Jtmichcock 16:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some precedent with Star Trek DS9 and CSI but also many without, such as Law & Order, JAG, 24 and ER. At this time I do not support formatting the content in this manner. If a more general discussion concerning all television shows takes place and a template is made then I would support it. Peteresch 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote yeah. Right now it appears it is up to each show to decide.Sethie 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Episode List and DVD release

I have made the DVD release a subcategory of the Episode list, but it seems more appropriate to move the DVD section to be a "part 2" of the main article. Then the "Episode List" can be changed to "Episodes" with an intro as to how many shows have been produced and what's available on DVD, yadda yadda, followed by a link to the existing main article with the list. This would also address the complaint above that the episode list is rather dull. If there are objections or suggestions, post below. Jtmichcock 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Country of origin

I support Lucius1976's addition of Canada to the country of origin. Not only is it filmed in Canada - Vancouver standing in for Caprica - but a number of cast members are Canadian as well. 23skidoo 00:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that saying the country of origin is Canada is entirely accurate. Normally, it is a matter of money. The mini-series was co-funded by NBC Universal and Sky, and the television series is entirely funded by NBC Universal. Shooting in Canada does not make a show Canadian. Would you say that Revenge of the Sith or The Matrix were Australian, because they were shot in Australia? Interestingly, the IMDb refers to the mini-series as being from the USA, and the television series as being USA/UK. I'm not sure that is right either. It'll upset Canadian fans, but I think the country of origin should say USA -- Scjessey 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen ROTS and Matrix referred to as Australian co-productions. Farscape is considered an Australian co-production, while Xena and Hercules: the Legendary Journeys are considered New Zealand co-productions. And X-Files was considered a Canadian co-production. That's because all these shows made significant use of local assets. If BSG was made using completely American assets (as many films and TV shows are) then there would be no co-production necessary. But if a large number of crew and cast are Canadian, then yes it should be listed as a Canada co-production. There's a difference then, say, Casino Royale which cannot be called a Eastern European co-production because, while it's filming there, all significant cast and crew are still British. 23skidoo 13:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You make some interesting points, but I still think that classification depends on who pays the bills. There is no doubt that we are talking about US money when it comes to BSG. The X-Files is listed as a US production, as is the related Millennium, despite both being shot primarily in Vancouver. It may feel right to have Canada as one of the countries of origin, but I think it breaks standard Wikipedia convention (which appears to follow the money). I'd be interested to hear from other contributors about this. -- Scjessey 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer, of course, is "screw the infobox and provide all useful information as completely as possible". That's the Wikipedia way. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It would seem that the massed ranks of Canadians have managed to get their wish :D As a British citizen, perhaps I should make a case for including the UK in the country of origin, since it stumped up much of the cash for Season One! -- Scjessey 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Jamie Bamber. No real accounting, however, for what country his smaller-than-regulation towels are coming from. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Battlestar Galactica fulfills Canadian content regulations... — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't think it only the funds matter. Many funds of movies in the past came from Germany (stupid German money). So just giving money does make it a production of a country. It more matters where it is produced, not just some shots, but where the bulk of it is produced, edited etc. Therefor it's fair to include Canada. --Lucius1976 08:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't all the folks clamoring to identify BSG as a (part-)Canadian show also making similar edits to The X-Files, Millennium, etc.? Seems inconsistent.EEMeltonIV 14:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mentioning it :-). Well, I just didn't kept track with all the other series yes, but thats fixable. If it is comparable with this series that I will change it as well. I am to lazy to research it now. --Lucius1976 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Country of origin means, quite literally, the originating country. The program is funded and produced (different from shot) in the United States. Furthermore, the rights to the series are owned by a US company. Even if the series was entirely shot in Canada, starring only Canadians, it would still be a US production, and the USA would be the country of origin. In almost all cases, it is the money that counts, even if that doesn't seem fair. I think it is time we put this issue to bed and leave the country of origin as the USA only. -- Scjessey 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't really the money. Because many Hollywood movies are funded by money from outside of the US. Just check out where funding of most production came from. The majority came from outside. So money can't really be the deciding factor. If it was, most production couldn't be classified as US ones.

--Lucius1976 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from keeping the endnote, I don't really care. This gives me discretion to enforce Wikipedia anti-edit-warring policies, so watch out. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the box there is no information about "Country of origin". Just plain "Country". Leaves lot of room for interpretations. --Lucius1976 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cylon Category

I suggest a Cylon Category comprising of the: Cylons (1970's/80's) model, Cylons (2003) model, Cylon God and the Humano Cylons themselves. - SGCommand

Caprica

Now that Caprica (TV series) has been announced, will this article be for the TV series and the miniseries only, with lots of stuff repeated between the three pages, or the whole re-imagined universe, with Caprica stuff added? Ausir 10:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think some mention must be made as to the how there is controversy among fans of the original series. Some fans hate the series and others enjoy it.

I wouldn't say that's controversy, some like it some don't it's just a matter of opinion. No controversy there really. Ben W Bell talk 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name/disambiguation

This is getting absurd. We can't have this article being renamed back and forth without discussion, as seems to have happened recently. Right now, the Battlestar Galactica name, as it pertains to visual media, encompasses at least the following, to my knowledge:

• The Original Universe
  • A 1978 film
  • The subsequent 1978 TV series
  • A short-lived 1980 sequel series
• The Re-imagined Universe
  • A 2003 miniseries
  • The subsequent 2004 TV series
  • A series of "webisodes" (which may be considered part of the 2004 series)
  • A proposed prequel series

This article is about the re-imagined universe, not any of the specific TV series. Therefore, in my opinion, naming it by the year in which it was re-imagined is entirely inappropriate. Article name disambiguation should be done based on the disambiguating factor. In this case, it's the fact that this article describes the re-imagined universe that differentiates it from the other "Battlestar Galactica" articles, and therefore, the name "Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining)" seems to be the most appropriate, if a little unwieldy (accuracy is much more important than brevity in article names). A logical name needs to be agreed on and stuck with.
-- Fru1tbat 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't renamed the first time without discussion, only the second. I think it should be renamed back to "Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagining)" and a consorted effort made to go through all pages linking to BSG (2003) to redirect them appropriately (mini-series, TV series, or re-imagining article). - Debuskjt 13:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, it wasn't your original renaming I had a problem with. "Re-imagining" seems to be the best title, all things considered. As for the links to all of the BSG articles, you're right -- they're a huge mess right now... I'll start work on cleaning them up tonight if it hasn't been done already. -- Fru1tbat 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. I think "Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagining)" is fine, but I also think "Battlestar Galactica (2003)" isn't bad either. We are talking about a way to distinguish the re-imagined (stupid word) version from the original. By that rationale, even "Battlestar Galactica: Ron's Remix" would be okay LOL. Seriously though, I think that either is fine; however, I would prefer it to be "Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined)" (note the lower case). Perhaps we should make a list of possible titles? -- Scjessey 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree "re-imagining" is a somewhat silly word, it has become the standard term when discussing the series, so with that in mind, I prefer it to "updated". I'm more strongly against using the year, I guess, as that introduces much more confusion with the miniseries, which is what really needs to be avoided here. IMDb, for example, uses "2003" when referring to the miniseries. Tying the year, which is normally associated with a particular production, to the re-imagined universe as a whole, seems to me to be a bad idea. -- Fru1tbat 13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do the same thing that they did with the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. Both of them have had multiple revivals. Any new series gets the year of when it was reintroduced. Val42 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. This article is about the re-imagining of the original BSG universe. It is not about the new mini-series or the new TV series. They both have their own articles. - Debuskjt 16:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

List of possible titles

• Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagining)
  • I support this title, as "re-imagining" is the word specifically used in the title. - Debuskjt 14:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I support this title (but lower-case?). I prefer the noun (vs the adjective "re-imagined") - Fru1tbat 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also support this, it makes more sense then 2003.Pax:Vobiscum 15:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined)
  • I prefer this Scjessey 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Battlestar Galactica (2003)
  • I support this title, the re-imagined titles seem to be motivated by an agenda. Your job as a contributor is to make this information easily accesible to any user, not come up with crufty article names that make a contested page difficult to find in a simple search. --Basique 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This page does come up in a search for "Battlestar Galactica."
• Battlestar Galactica (Updated)

firefly reference

ron moore said in a season one dvd extra feature that he came up with the idea to film BSG like a documentary. well, firefly actually came out before BSG and was shot the same way, so shouldnt a mention of it be in the article, stating that he didnt actually come up with it?-Xornok 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary, especially if he wasn't influenced by Firefly. It's not necessarily accurate to say Moore didn't come up with it, since it's possible he conceived the idea independently, maybe before Firefly even aired (assuming he has seen Firefly in the first place). If the article were stating that Moore pioneered the style, it might be relevant to point out that other series used it first, but as it's written, it's only stating that he used the style. I think it's probably best left alone. -- Fru1tbat 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that Moore got the idea from Firefly, then no. - Debuskjt 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

I'd really like to see a section for popular criticisms of the show. Such points as:

• The acceptance of the word frack into series vocabulary, but eschewing of centon and yaren.
• Use of the term "download" to refer to a cylon consciousness transferring out of a dead body. "Upload" is the proper term for this direction of transfer.
• What is almost "Twin Peaks" Syndrome - so much effort is made to keep the story obfuscated that it can be difficult to figure out what the themes and story actually are.

Anybody have any good reasons why I shouldn't add these to the main article? It would be interesting to see what people decide to add to it. Transentient

I have good reasons why not. First of all, centon, yaren and the like would add nothing to the show. Frak is a great way of giving the show a harder feel without pissing off the censors. Secondly, why is upload a more proper term than download? Essentially, the consciousness is being "passed along" to the next generation. Any discussion of "direction" is a bit meaningless. We don't know if the memories are being "sent" or "received". Thirdly, what exactly do you find confusing? I can follow the story, themes and concepts with no difficulty at all. Finally, the Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of sorts. Any criticism falls into the realm of point of view, which doesn't have a place here. -- Scjessey 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Transentient, but I also think things like that are better left out. None of your 3 points have any strong informational value. They'd be perfect for a fansite but not so much in an encyclopedia. --Pax:Vobiscum 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not very notable, and I think you'd have a hard time complying with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. - Debuskjt 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would object to it, personally. I haven't heard those criticisms mentioned much, anyway. I'm not sure that things like nitpicks, minor production goofs, and minor continuity errors are encyclopedic. The parts that are opinion certainly aren't, unless the backlash concerning those opinions has a noticeable effect on the show as a whole. The minor technical stuff, on the other hand, aren't really notable. If they were, the various Star Trek articles would be about 100 pages long... Specifically:

• The use of the word "frak" but not others is an intentional creative decision. Isn't this already mentioned in the context of the language of the show? Maybe it's in a different article. I don't think anything else is really necessary.
• The term "download" isn't necessarily a goof at all, but more a matter of interpretation. It may occasionally be used incorrectly as a general term, but specifically, in the episode "Downloaded", the consciousnesses seem to be downloaded from a central repository of some sort into the new bodies, which is a correct use of the term. If it's used incorrectly sometimes, it's not important enough to make note of.
• The part of the story that's the most hidden is the Cylons' master plan. Development on everything else has been moving along fairly steadily, and I don't think the show's themes are significantly obfuscates. This seems to me to be a subject for a debate, not an encyclopedia article.

Just my $0.02... -- Fru1tbat 18:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the fannish criticisms Transentient mentions are probably non-notable and wouldn't be able to be supported by reliable sources, the article probably could have a more thorough treatment of the reaction to the series in the media. I came to the article to add a mention of the recent Slate article Battlestar: Iraqtica — it's not exactly a criticism, but it does analyze way the series has recently changed its central metaphor from post-9/11 America to occupied Iraq. One of the most notable elements of the new BSG is the way that it deals unflinchingly with complex moral issues. This has been noted in reliable sources, and it would be appropriate for the article to relect it with relevant citations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Slate article is still POV, and therefore does not seem to be relevant to this medium. Furthermore, there is no way I would see BSG's willingness to echo current affairs as any form of criticism. Any section that is headed Criticism is almost certainly going to be a repository of opinion. -- Scjessey 17:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear: what I was suggesting was a section summarizing the reactions to BSG's socio-political content in non-fan-based media. I didn't mean "criticism" in the sense of "this is something that's wrong with the program", but "criticism" in the sense of "thoughtful, mainstream discussion triggered by the program." If such a section were created, reporting the mainstream critical reaction — both positive and negative — it would be in keeping with the NPOV policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's sounds like a good idea. I'd prefer if it was integrated into the text and not had its own "criticism" section, since that easily evolves into a list of random inconsistencies and criticism from single editors. --Pax:Vobiscum 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like that in particular belongs in the TV show article and not the re-imagining article, though. - Debuskjt 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm requesting that someone who is familiar with the new series of Battlestar Galactica rewrites this page. As stated in the description at the top of this article, the content is meant to be about the universe of the reimagined series of Battlestar Galactica. As someone who has never watched Battlestar Galactica, I can say unequivocally that this article explains nothing to me. It is overly concerned with production data, and poorly written/organised. LuNatic 07:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is a spoiler warning note neccesary ? Thanks :) 85.99.117.42 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) an anonymous visitor 00:12 08 November 2006

Info re: Canadian production involvement

This is valid information... please discuss here first rather than just deleting. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To address MatthewFenton's concerns, I've removed the footnote from the infobox. The information, however, is valid, and should remain. (I've adjusted the first line to make it clear where funding comes from.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)