Talk:Occupation/Archive 1

Could you say wher this info has come from? --Grafix 17:16, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Tigh's Eyes

The quote: Tigh closes his eye, trying not to slide into hopelessness…" really doesn't infer that Colonel Tigh's eys (I like the way that sounds) are injured, it simply sounds more expressing the feeling by closing his eyes. I have no idea how anybody gets that his eyes are injuried by this and so the reference on the article page would be better off moved to the discussion page. -- StrayCat0 20:51, 13 Apr 2006 (PST)

Look, I know that and I agree with you, but if people are rumor-mongering based on this comment, I think the least we can do is tell them where the notion came from. You'll see that I reworded the comment somewhat when I restored it - I hope it's absolutely clear that this is purely conjectural. --Peter Farago 22:52, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

I think the reason for the assumption is that it says "Tigh closes his eye," as in singular. It could just be a typo in the original source though. --Talos 22:56, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

"Yes, it does, but this is now a widespread rumor, and as a reference source, we have an obligation to address its source factually.)" Peter, you didn't provide a source when you added the info back. I realize we might as well mention something, if GalacticaStation and Gateworld are, because even if they are wrong it's out of our hands, but you realize that with the whole "it's a widespread rumor" justification....if *we* report it, we *make* it a widespread rumor. People see it here, and think this adds even more weight behind the rumor. We need to tag these things with a sentence along the lines of "no reliably sourced basis for these spoiler's accuracy", etc. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 00:38, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

Do you mean the source for the rumor outside of the wiki? I asked Kahran to provide this on Talk:Precipice, but he hasn't done so. It's been brought up several times on TWOP: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I'm sure you've seen this elsewhere as well. --Peter Farago 01:13, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

Yes, so we need something in clear bold font that says "This has been reported but we have no idea if it is true". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 01:47, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

I think the current phrasing makes that pretty clear. --Peter Farago 09:28, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

It wasn't clear at all. I added a little warning for clarification. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:42, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

I think we were talking about different things. Your clarification was appropriate. --Peter Farago 18:45, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

Thanks, I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers. I mean, as you saw, I was trying to figure out how to handle this...rumor days before Gateworld even reported it! Haha --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:05, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

I am your god! unconfirmed production draft for "Occupation" http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf - Lordmutt 15th April 2006

Exactly; this was online some days before Gateworld heard of it: how do we know it's real? How do we have any idea who started it? Moreover, how do we have any idea that the script has not been radically changed this then? --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 20:00, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

Um, we already had that linked... --Peter Farago 20:21, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

Yes. False prophet!--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 20:29, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

I am your god! ....still... honestly didn't realise that, oh well- lordmutt

Spoilers/speculation

I'm not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere and I applogise if it has but why are we putting speculation on forthcoming episodes on this page, and subsequent S3 pages? Why don't we have a separate section for speculation and leave these pages for the FACTS. --Grafix 03:18, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

We put the facts here, then educated analysis of the facts here, so people can see them more easily. Otherwise they might get skipped over. That's what we've been doing before. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 07:29, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

Casting Side

Joe, may I assume that the information gleaned from the casting side was removed in accordance with the new spoiler policy, and not by accident? --Peter Farago 22:25, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Bear McCreary's Words in his blog

I am not going to revert back again, but I don't see how "season premiere" as he states it means that episodes 1 and 2 are being played back-to-back. The season premiere is always the 1st episode regardless if it's a 1st part of a 2 parter. Merv, I think you are overinpreting his words. It could mean 1 and 2 being played back-to-back but it could mean episode 1 is 2 hrs long. That's why I think that the original wording should be used because there is ambigouity there. And besides, I may be wrong, my understanding is that the midseason break is supposed to be after episode 10 on Decembter 8th and it will take 10 episodes starting from October 6th when the 1st episode is to air. Anyways, I think the original quote is best used rather than interpretation. --StrayCat0 16:48, 16 July 2006 (PDT)

I really think he meant "premiere" as in "the day/event starting the season". If episode 1 is 2 hours long....there are 10 episodes in Season 3.0 (this has been confirmed), so they'd just break it up later: this happens all the time on scifi shows, I mean DS9; "Emissary" and "The Way of the Warrior", or TNG's "All Good Things..." are "two episodes" each, but first aired back to back. No, "The Way of the Warrior" was the "season premiere" but it was a 2 part episode, aired back to back. --->Basically, if "episode 1 is 2 hours long"....that means that it is in fact episode 1 and 2, aired together; I mean think about it logically what the studio does; we have 90 minute specials ever and anon, but why wouldn't they just refer to this as 2 episodes? --->Further, yes, we have no idea when the mid-season break is. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:04, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

Point taken. But it's always safer to go with the written word in cases like this because a trend doesn't necessarily indicate fact. If LYBDII had infact been 2 hrs long as RDM had initially thought, then would it have been LDYBII & LDYBIII played back-to-back? I don't think. --StrayCat0 09:16, 17 July 2006 (PDT)

Yes, if Lay Down Your Burdens II had been 2 hours long, in all subsequent airings it would have been broken into 2 episodes and called "Lay Down Your Burdens, Parts II and III". ---->But really, this Season 3 thing is just like what happened when BSG premiered in America: "33" and "Water" aired the same night back to back, but they're actually not one big episode and in the UK, they were even aired a week apart. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:13, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

I didn't know that. I watched much of season 1 postmordem or by iTunes. Well, it'll be nice to get 2 episodes at the beginning after the 6 months off but the story arc is supposed to be 3 episodes long so it will hurt just as much. --StrayCat0 10:59, 17 July 2006 (PDT)

I'm sorry I should have pointed it out right away; yeah they've done that before, with 33 and Water, is what I meant (plus lots of other shows air 2 hour premieres that are really 2 part episodes). To be honest I don't think Water worked very well as a standalone episode, and it was for the best that they just added it on to 33 like that: originally I actually thought they were meant as a 2 parter, though they're not exactly (much of season 1 is serialized and very arc-heavy and you have to watch in order, but it's not really "part 2 of 2". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:20, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Sourcing Rules

I wonder if the desire to be "authoritative" here at Battlestar Wiki isn't getting twisted and perverted. We know a lot about Season 3 that is somehow not getting into print. For instance, we have photos of some episodes, casting "sides" from some of the scripts, and comments from some of the participants that amount to a pretty clear picture of some of the major plot points of the first few episodes, yet we are not writing what we clearly KNOW because the episodes have not aired and anything would therefore be "speculative." THIS IS RIDICULOUS. These are tougher sourcing rules than they have at the New York Times and the Washington Post, and let's face it, that is now what people are coming to us for. They want to know what is going on with their favorite show, and god knows we have spoiler warnings everywhere to protect those who don't want to know. Most major newspapers have the "three source rule," which means all or part of what you write needs to be covered by three independent sources. We have that in many cases but are sitting on our hands and not writing the info. The "overview" section we do have for the episodes is not really an overview but a collection of speculation from various sources. If Ron Moore said something at a conference three months ago, we treat it as a grand pronouncement ex cathedra even though three months is a long time and a lot of things can change in TV at the last moment. But we have photos of scenes shot (and published!) and we are not writing what is clearly in them. Something is very screwed up here. No journalistic or editorial operation should be operating this way, being so skittish and chicken s--t about things that any reasonable person can conclude are true. We are a month from the start of Season 3, and Battlestar Wiki is lagging way behind other sources, on the Web and elsewhere, about what will be happening in the new season. We need to grow some brass ones, and write what we know. The whole rest of the world is writing about what will be happening starting Oct. 6. We have decided to wait until after it happens. That's not authoritative; that's stupid. --Elach 02:31, 6 September 2006 (CDT)