Jump to content

Talk:List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Created pages for episodes 3x12-3x20

I just created pages for episodes 3x12-3x20 of BSG.. Just thought I should let people know :) . --Illyria05-- 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but please remember not to put disambiguating suffixes on articles that don't need them. I've moved Taking a Break from All Your Worries, The Woman King and The Son Also Rises to the titles they should have, according to WP:TV-NC and WP:DAB. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, oops, I am so sorry.. I'll keep that in mind... --Illyria05-- 07:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Forgot to sign post

Don't be beaten down by the bully tactics my son!, there is nothing wrong with suffixes per WP:TV-NC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on, Matthew. There's a clear consensus to disambiguate only when necessary, a fact which the ArbCom is in the process of confirming. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Titles of episodes of television series and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Closing of a consensus decision making procedure. Pointing out a guideline which has consensus support is not bully tactics. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Kind of ironic that Matthew Fenton advises someone to not cave in to "bullying" when he and Sceptre are themselves guilty of numerous infractions of this. Were he still alive, Sixty-Six would have not been surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.250.148 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Airdates

The US and the UK (Sky One) both co-produce Battlestar Galactica TV series, the UK aired the first season first as well, both dates are notable in their own rights as they are both from the primary countries, (not to mention you could also say it gains more notability for being broadcast in high quality as well) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, no problem :) . I do not mind :) .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is a US show filmed in Canada. The UK dates shouldn't even be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.226.188 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recap episode

Why isn't "The Story So Far" (the recap episode broadcast before season 3) included in the list?--ragesoss 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 release

Does anyone know when season 3 is coming out on dvd? if so, post it on my talk page. Sith Penguin Lord 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mid-August, says Bear McReary.[1] Matthew 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Season 3 DVD release date for Australia says "FALL 2007", Australia doesn't have a season called fall, we call it autumn. Also Autumn is between March - May in Australia. Why not put something like "September 2007" instead of an ambiguous Americanism. 203.143.238.107 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

because there is like 200 austrians in the whole world, who cares what u call anything. get used to americanism, you're lucky we dont come down there and make your toilets swirl in the correct direction! You fraking cat eaters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.89.31 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ezydvd have a release date of 21st November for Australia. [2] 124.170.114.54 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 19:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that particular move, but there are too many BSG articles. This one, the one on the mini-series and the one on the reimagined series need to be merged, since they are all about the same content (plus more in the case of the series). At very least, the difference between them needs much clarification, and I cannot think of any reason that the miniseries needs an article at all; nothing non-redundant can be said about it that cannot be covered in a single paragraph at the article on the series, which in fact is simply a repeat of the miniseries with additions, continuing into an ongoing series. No justification for redundant articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The following paragraph contradicts itself:

The first season was released to DVD on 28 March 2005 and 20 September 2005 in the UK and North America respectively and included deleted scenes. The American set also included featurettes, and a tongue-in-cheek promotional special filmed for the Sci Fi Channel in addition to the miniseries, however without its deleted scenes and making-of documentary from the standalone miniseries DVD.

It says that the US version both did and did not contain the deleted scenes. Also, "its" before "deleted scenes and making-of" has no clear referent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In America the retail chain "Best Buy" released season one on 4 Disc DVD almost 4 months prior to the comercial realse or any mention of an anticipated release date.The DVD box set had an alternate cover Black and red cover featuring the caracter six with a red cyclon-type stripe going between her eyes surrounded by cylon centorians in the background.The box set also did not contain the mini-series which had also been sold seperatly by Best Buy prior. The packaging bosted exclusive deleted scences however the box set itself contains less special features and less then up to par dvd menues then the later comercial release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.12.181 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think centorians are just old people, centurians are those shinny cylon dudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.89.31 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Who posted March 27, 2008?

Someone posted that is when R1 Season 3 comes out. It's on a Thursday, so I doubt that is the actual date. Also, I can find no link to this. Who did this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.8.28 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GalacticaS1DVD.jpg

Image:GalacticaS1DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference for episodes 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9 titles

The reference is this: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/02/battlestar-ga-2.html How do you put references in? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put it in. — Edokter • Talk • 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Crew

I wonder if its worth considering adding the episodic directors and writers to this list for consistency with featured episode lists like List of The Sopranos episodes?--Opark 77 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that would be something that could be worth considering BUT there is the issue of space on the table which (if someone doesn't ahve a wide screen) could make it look crammed and or rather wide. If you/someone does it, jsut make sure it doesn't look too crammed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myles Trundle (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WEBISODES PAGE

What are everyone's thoughts on making a page entirely devoted to Battlestar Galactica webisodes. The main reason for this is because of the Razor flashbacks which really don't a central loaction of wikipedia and there isn't probably enough informaiton on them to write/start an article entirely devoted on them. Also, I can't remember where exactly I heard this, but Moore was interesting in making some season four webisodes (which are not the razor flashbacks might i add) so if these are done (possible during the break midseason 4) then it would be most ideal to have all of the webisodes in one place instead of creating individual (and potensially small) pages. It seems silly to have a page entirely devoted to the resistance and none of the razor flashbacks. Thoughts... Myles Trundle (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CLEAN UP OF TALK LIST

I am not sure on what to do about it but at the top of this page (the discussion list not BSG episode list page) there are two somewhat random notes which are under no heading. Someone who knows the propper convention or appropiate action to take on this issue, would you please do so - it looks sloppy and i am not sure whether it is appropriate to delete them as discussion lists don't really ahv deleted sections in them. Cheers Myles Trundle (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Count listing

Hi, I'm the one who popped in twice and changed the first cell in the the "Survivor Count" column to note the 20 billion that existed before the nuclear holocaust. Please note that I think this whole section is wonderful, and I'm eagerly reading and reliving. I don't want to keep making that change without explaining why.

The "From" in that column indicates what the number was before the attack. Nuclear Holocaust is the reason that the number decreased to 49,998. But Nuclear Holocaust is not a count. After my first edit (which deleted the "Nuclear Holocaust" link) was reverted, my next edit kept the link by stating "From 20 billion to 49,998 via Nuclear Holocaust." However, that was not acceptable either, and it was again reverted.

I won't attempt it again, as it IS a minor point. However, it's an important one, as grammar matters and the entire column is not consistent with itself. Something needs to be changed. Either include the 20 billion as an original count (which is what the column is all about), or change the name of the column to accomodate including a cause (unrealistic, as you would then need to explain why every other decrease happened), or change the statement itself to something like "49,998 due to Nuclear Holocaust."

Thanks for everyone's work! Grendel25 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My thought is: keep it empty. Remembers it states "survivor count"; any count prior to the attack does not denote survivors, just population. There are no "20 billion survivors". — Edokter • Talk • 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Talking about splitting hairs! Anyway, I agree with Edokter; it is a really tedious point but it does say "survivor count" but I can understand where Grendel was coming from. but i also think that the word "unknown" should be "none" because quite frankly, it is not unknown, i am pretty sure that you, Edokter, said that there are no survivor so why does it say "unknown"? Myles Trundle (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll replace it with a dash. — Edokter • Talk • 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, i am fine with the dash. BUT, the miniseries' survivor count is still a bit contradictory between the red and top tables. First of all, the survior count does not end at 49,998 in the miniseries, that number occurs at the beginning of the 1st episode of the 1st season. The thing to remember is that there is a period of time which is between the miniseries and 1st season which made the number of survivors 49,998 after being whittled down after the attacks every 33 minutes which had been going on for days- the miniseries doesn't directly end at the beginning of season 1. If you were to relook at the 33 where Roslin is at the white board, the number was 300 higher before the assults on the fleet hence the number at the end of the miniseries would have arguably been even higher. As a second point, all of the episode's survivor counts are the number of people alive at the beginning of the episode and (because of the reason's i have stated above) the miniseries can not have a survivor count of 49,998 and it is contradictory to what is said in the other table of it being ~50,000 which is far more correct so i have changed the top season summary table value to that. I am open to this being altered. Myles Trundle (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The survivor count is off. Episode 52, Crossroads: Part 1, places the survivor count at 38,838 the day New Caprica was abandoned.

Order/rephrasing needed

This isn't a major point but it is said several times at the top of the page that the episodes are in chronological order (as well as being on the bottom of the all epidoes' infobox by saying saying "episode chronolgy" as a link to this page). Now, this isn't really true because of Razor and the Razor flashbacks (by which I am making them their own page too, up soon) which are NOT in the apropriate time periods which would be expected if this page were in chronological order considering when their events took took place. It all was in chronolgical order, might I add, at least until late 2007 with the premier of Razor. If this page were to be called "chronologically ordered" this would have to be changed or the title removed and replaced (the latter being my preferred personally). Thoughts? ... Myles Trundle (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't even in exact chronical logical order even before Razor. "Downloaded" covered the time period from around time of miniseries to the time around the end of the previous episode largely from the perspective of Caprica 6. Jon (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
True but still it would be good to havve a kind of concensus here as to what to do about it. Myles Trundle (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

4th season numbering

What's with the numbering in 4th season? they began as 403- "He That Believeth in Me". it must be 401. Also the release dates seems off. After correcting the numbering, "the Hub"'s release date should be June 07,2008. Fotte

SciFi.com starts from 403, so that is the numbering we use. — Edokter • Talk • 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already a talk section on this like 6 topics up if you cared to look. titled "Razor numbering" Myles Trundle (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone has an issue they want to discuss they might not read every section, and I'm not sure it's readily apparent to someone interested in the numbering of Season 4 episodes that it has anything to do with the numbering of Razor. There used to be a section on episode numbering (where I first brought up the issue of Season 4 and Razor), but it was archived. Then the Razor numbering section came about because that section was no longer here. I understand the need to archive old discussions, but maybe ones that still have relevance should be kept, or this problem may keep occurring. Cvalin (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. If it possible, it would be particularly usful to keep important sections unarchived or even have like a symbol of somesort at the bottom of a section which would tell somone that the issue is either resulved or not (for example a tick or cross). Myles Trundle (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 Numbering Proposal - Consensus on what should be done with Razor

Please do not change the numbering of Season 4 and Razor on your own accord from its current state. This section aims to resolve any disputes involving this matter and will hopefully come to a resolution. In order for this section's dispute to be as thorough as possible, all people's views are needed in order for this to be an equal and nonbiased debate. Thank You

My proposal is that the 401 and 402 status be abolished from Razor and that it isn't given an episode number but is just simply accepted as a part of/being made alongside Season 4 which is already recognised in Razor's descrpition anyway. So, I would like to point out that it is not like the TV Movie's origin are being neglected, just altered to suit many people's yearning for He That Believeth in Me being 401 status. Yes the Sci-fo Channel says that Razor does take up these epiode numbers but they are impracticle. So through concencus the final outcome of this section's debate will determine once and for all what to do with Razor and Season 4. Leave thoughts and opions below as to whether you agree or disagree with the statements above. comment added by Myles Trundle (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SciFi and RDM have always sustained that Razor is part of season 4, therefor we should follow their lead, even though others don't. However, if it makes more people happy, we could consider them Production codes instead of episode numbers, but I think that it wouldn't make a lot of difference. — Edokter • Talk • 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't so much a question of Razor not being part of season 4 - no one is disputing that. The issue is that it is a separate TV movie rather than part of the episodes that make up that season. All the print TV guides I have checked list "He That..." as episode 1 in the series, with Razor either being episode 0 or an unnumbered special. Many online guides ([3][4]) do it that way too, as do archival and release groups. Furthermore, Razor was show before the regular start of season 4, as an extended special or movie. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said... we can regard the numbers given on SciFi.com as production codes. — Edokter • Talk • 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as production codes go, BSG's is the least disputed. See, for example, List of Scrubs episodes (7x9 aired after 7x11) or List of The Simpsons episodes (where prodcodes aren't adhered to most of the time). Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got a link for the SciFi.com numbering? I took a quick look but the episodes seemed to be listed by name, rather than number. The only hint of numbering was in the URLs, but those could just be related to how their web site works and not official episode numbers. I think unless there is strong evidence to support the numbering of Razor as episodes 1 and 2 it should be treated as a special. Not only is it a made for TV movie, it was released separately to season 4 on DVD, shown as one long movie (rather than two episodes) on TV, is not part of the season 4 general continuity and had a limited cinema release. Mojo-chan (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The podcasts[5] are numbered the way this wikipage is, as well as the official episode threads in Sci-Fi's forum[6]. V-train (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like SciFi themselves are not consistent then, by the way they have released Razor and refer to it. It's strange that TV guides using official data, presumably from SciFi, do not agree with them. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, what I have gathered so far is that we might be able to regard the epiode numbering given by SciFi as simply production codes (meaning Razor could have its 401 &402 status abolished) as now stated twice by Edokter. Now, just to set this section back on track, what are people's thoughts on this? and also who agrees or disagrees with changing the episode numbering? We need alot of participation to make this section's intentions worthwhile. Myles Trundle (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My own feelings are that Razor should not be counted as part of season 4 numbering. It makes more sense to do it that way, and you can bet that the DVDs will start numbering from 1 with episode selection menus, and for the sake of matching up the list here with the lists in published TV guides. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose we rename the "Episode" column to "Production #", as that is what they essentially are. Then add an "Episode" column the the regular series' (1-4) tables to show the episode number. — Edokter • Talk • 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Good plan, I agree.Mojo-chan (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am all for an "Episode" column but is there really any need for a "Proudction #" column? I mean it is very clearly & firmly established in the texts above Season 4 and Razor that teh TV movie was made with season 4, it would also make things a bit crowded and it might look a tad weird in the first 3 seasons... However, in saying that, if that is what everyone else agrees on I won't go chuck a hissyfit, it isn't a bad compromise at all. By the way, just to clarify and be 100% clear on what you are proposing, would the episode numbering column be cumulative or be eps. in each season? I don't see much point to the latter really. Myles Trundle (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the update with the "episode" column... I would call that working progress. It does look a bit weird and why does it have to be written differntly from Seasons 1-3 (eg S4 eps are 4.1 while S3's eps are 301) or are yet still to be edited? And also why are they out the from of the front. if that does become the trend then it shoud go through to Seasons 1-3 too. Also, i re-ask the qiestion, is establishing the "production #" really that necessary? As i said it is clearly established in the text above the season 4 box that Razor was made with Season 4 etc etc... Meanwhile it is good to see we are actualy getting somewhere with this. Myles Trundle (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to deviate from what Sci-Fi and the BSG production team call the episodes. There are a lot of things I think could be more conveniently done in not only Wikipedia but other Wikis, but when it comes down to it, my understanding is that we are supposed to follow what is "canon," and every indication I have seen is that Razor is officially considered the first two episodes of Season 4. I review BSG for a web site, and was sent a preview DVD weeks before it aired, and it clearly indicated on there that it was considered the first two episodes of Season 4. I don't see how we can change it based on our perception or convenience. But I seem to be in the minority on this. Cvalin (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait. You have the DVD. The DVD says that Razor is 401/402? What exactly do you mean by clearly indicated? 87.194.250.89 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me tweak it a bit... I do think we need the production codes, as those are the most unambiguous. — Edokter • Talk • 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is quite a strong point Cvalin, thanks for chipping in. I agree with the whole "following canon" notion and in this instance, that idea is indeed being stretched a bit. But here, i think it comes down to "what is an episode" and "what is production code". Razor clearly doesn't continue on from the end of Season 3 and link it to 4 whereas "He That Believeth in Me" does. Razor is not a typical "episode" (or episodes) by any means it was a TV movie made with Season 4's production sceduel. As far as i am concerned, Razor is quite seperate and as long as it is recognised that it was made with Season 4's prouction order etc I don't think there is any need for a seperate "production #" list at all (for any season in fact), just an episode number like 11 or 8 not 311 or 208 etc. Personally, i think that this would cover most of the issues. Thoughts/Feedback?... Myles Trundle (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just saw a blog ([[7]]) where a producer said taht he was filming the final shots for Episode 12 and anotehrone was there for 13... I will repeat the most important part again: the final shot of "episode" 12 which is at the ruins which is, without a doubt, the episode "Revelations"... (ironic much?)... Myles Trundle (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if producers/directors, or whoever they are, are inclsuding razor as two episodes then why shouldn't we just accept it and get on with it. 210.49.254.18 (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes... ultimately I think we will just have to go with Sci-fi now. I have had a change of heart for the moment. I think that added "episode" column should be eliminated. I think this section is on its way to reaching a conclusion... FINALLY. Myles Trundle (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to mess things up but I think the episode numbering should stay :-) At least some mention of it should be made. I re-iterate the point that current scene numbering and probably DVD episode numbering will start with "He That..." It's really helpful for people who want to check on a particular episode using the list.Mojo-chan (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the creators of the show count it as part of season four, but who knows, the creators also thought it would be a five season show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.183.177 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The creators count razor as part of season 4, BUT they don't say anywhere that they're to be considered episodes (being equivalent in length to 2 episodes does not mean being counted as 2 episodes)or that they should partake in the numbering. The only actual reference to episode numbers on the SCIFI website is from the official forum, where razor isn't counted. Can someone tell me who's in charge and why consensus isn't being followed? 87.194.250.89 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does anyone else want that episode column completely removed from the front of season 4? Myles Trundle (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there's a decent consensus to not count razor. Too bad that sci fi doesn't have an official stance anywhere. I'll edit temporarily with razor excluded from the numbering. Paulginz (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

future titles

  1. Sometimes a Great Notion
  2. The Disquiet that Follows My Soul
  3. The Oath
  4. Blood on the Scales
  5. No Exit
  6. Someone to Watch Over Me
  7. Episode 4.18
  8. Episode 4.19
  9. Episode 4.20

http://www.galactica.tv/battlestar-galactica-2003/battlestar-galactica-2003---episode-list.html

perhaps someone could add these already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.137.47 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me!?!?!?! There is clearly a mistake in this information how on earth can we use it authoritively? There are, listed, ONLY 9 episodes here yet the last episode is titled as "4.20" and the midseason finale finished at episode 10 (if you disregard razor) so how on earth can we put in th is information if it isn't mathematically right to begin with?!?!?! There are 10 episodes left, not 9! there is a missing episode and you CAN'T guess it is one of the later unnamed ones because the source doesn't say that at all. So NO, we are not adding them yet; the titles may be right but are not confirmed and it is far too earlt to start putting this stuff on when most haven't even been made yet. Hence we wait... Myles Trundle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The numberd don't add up, due the "Guess..." being counted as a double episode. The source is outdated, and probably not reliable, as they do not cite their sources. We cannot use it. — Edokter • Talk • 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Mark Verheiden, one of the producers, posted the full list on his blog yesterday. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a blog is not considered a reliable source, even if it is from one of the staff, as it is not 'official'. Plus he indicates the titles are subject to change. — Edokter • Talk • 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not a blog is considered a reliable source, I suspect it would be best to put up the remaining episodes and then simply update them if newer reliable info becomes available. Especialy considering the episodes will start to air soon. The article section has a disclaimer on it saying that info is subject to change anyway. I've already started adding the episodes, but if someone disagrees with my reasoning, revert my changes and we will continue the discussion. Nathan Adolph (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Actualy, I won't update the article unless I get the go ahead from someone else. Instead, I am making the changes to a temporary page. Nathan Adolph (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(←) The only requirement is that the titles are verifiable to a reliable source, such as SciFi.com or trusted affiliates. — Edokter • Talk • 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The first 3 episode titles can be verified on SciFi.com, but the dates for all of the episodes have been verified by an article at tv.ign.com. Is it possible to fill in the dates with no title name? Many people goto episode lists just to know what days the show is playing and don't actualy care what the title is. Is a blog or other "non-reliable" source still considered unreliable if it is authored by informed by a Producer of the show? I would expect this type of source to be considered just as reliable as a news article that quotes a Producer, since they both get their information from the same place. Do you not agree? Battlestarwiki has some info on the episodes that comes directly from Bradley Thompson. The "unreliable" info is probably 95% correct. I think it should be used, and then the sources can be update to more reliable ones once they are available. Nathan Adolph (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to be 100% sure; even the blogs from one of the producers (linked above) turned out to be wrong. Once the titles can be traced to Scifi.com, we know we have reliable information. Even dates can change, so we cannot fill out the dates in advance; the expected schedule was often interrupted by an unexpected hiatus. BTW. Where did you find the first three episodes on scifi.com, and where did you get the complete list? — Edokter • Talk • 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Scifi.com's on-air schedule has been updated. It now includes the date and names of all of the episodes until Feb. 27. I will add these to the article. I will not include the names of the last 3 episodes, as we have no reliable source for these, other than the blog posted above. The date of the final episode has been verified by tv.ign.com, who got their info from SCI FI Channel. Thus we can also deduce the dates of all episodes in between, since we know the number of episodes, also from a reliable source. Nathan Adolph (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I corrected a few errors; please make sure not to delete correct data that is already there. Also, IGN does not know the date for for the finale for sure, so that is removed as well. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
At the bottom of the IGN article (where it says Update:), they say that SCI FI Channel confirmed the date for the finale. Nathan Adolph (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seasons 4 webisodes

Well, i have been thinking about this for a while and I was just wondering what ideas everyone had about the Season 4 webisdes linking the first and second half of the S4. now my issue which i would like to raise is whether to put the webisodes BEFORE episodes 12-22 table oe or put the webisodes AFTER and keep S4 as one table or mabe like a combination of somesort. Opinions or Ideas? Myles Trundle (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I vote for a chronological order putting the webisode BEFORE episodes 12-22. Season 4 is splitted (and aired) in 2 halves so I see no reason to do it here otherwise. --77.64.129.115 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • OK but that means i will have to move the razor flashbacks BEFORE Razor and as the flashbacks are not a part of Season 3 that means it will have to under a new heading maybe... or perhaps under "season 4" even more. Myles Trundle (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Crew

Who wrote these episodes? Who directed them? Other (featured) episode lists like List of Lost episodes typically detail the major episode specific crew members. Would there be any objections to working that information into this list?--Opark 77 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No objection from me but as long as it doesn't look too crowded, i will be happy. this came up a while ago as well but no on really did anything but if u want to do it i perosnally have no real objection Myles Trundle (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Well someone's going to have to go through and fix and link all those dates and it ain't gonna be me. In order for MediaWiki date preference functions to work, Wikipedia needs and prescribes dates be in the following format: [[9 September]] [[2008]] or [[September 9]] [[2008]]. Regardless of which is used, the date is then parsed and presented to American editors as September 9 2008 and to people using real English as 9 September 2008. Also note the absence of the comma, which is never used in dates. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • EVERYONE, DO NOT LINK ALL THE DATE AND KEEP THAT COMMA IN or change the order to DD MM YY - just read this link Wikipedia:MOSDATE. I changed them all as you suggested on this page and several others and then it was reverted - a huge waste of time for me. Next time pelase check before making accusations and suggestions like that but I can appreciate you were simply trying to make the page better and didn't know of the date standard which Wikipedia follows. --Myles Trundle (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Linking dates is outdated. That is the outcome of several discussions on WT:MOSDATE. The main reason is that auto-formatting only works for readers with an account anyway, which is a small group in comparison with the total reader base. Best practice is to format the dates as they apply to the origin of the subjects. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's preposterous, isn't it? Linking dates harms no-one, and helps 8 million registered users. I'll keep linking dates, thanks. The biggest criticism seems to be "Well like, we might use a bunch of different formats on one page, cos like, we are idiots and don't read the source code we edit, so like.. yeah". I don't know why I should spend that extra second decyphering American dates when there is a clear, and already working solution to this problem. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Because you are not the only reader, perhaps? Linking dates only helps those with accounts. And since non-registered users will be presented with the US formatting of linked dates — even if they do use British formatting — you would be doing readers from the UK and other parts of the world a disservice, just to serve your own preference. You cannot simply please all. — Edokter • Talk • 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I cannot make sense of your reply in this context. I am aware of the alleged difficulties in linking dates, but your reply is very confusing. Please clarify what you meant. Linking the dates does not magically make them less useful than they would otherwise be unlinked for IPs, it just adds the benefit of increased usability for the eight million registered users that read and work on Wikipedia every second of the day. Were I an unregistered Australian user, there would be no change for me whether or not dates are linked. As it is, I am a registered Australian user, and I reap the benefits of logical dating whenever the dates are linked. It's a win-win situation. Well, a no change-win situation to be precise, but still better than nothing. There is no downside to linking dates. I just can make no sense of your reply. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that linked dates are always formatted in US form for unregistered users, even if the subject is non-US related and the dates within the links are not in US format. IE, if an article contains the date [[30 October]] [[2008]], it would be presented as October 30, 2008. — Edokter • Talk • 12:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a software bug to me, there should be no problem either coding it to display the dates as they are written, or have some sort of switch. I still don't see any problem with linking the dates on this article, since they're in the US forms anyway there are only benefits that could arise out of linking them. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That is not a bug; that is just a consequence of not having an account, which is what sparked the debate in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a deficiency in the code which has led to a pre-programmed feature being depreciated, if that is not a bug, what is? +Hexagon1 (t) 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Users without an account have no prefered time/date setting or anything else to go by, so the code uses a default (US standard) rather than not showing the date at all. Jon (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding text before individual season episode lists - NEED HELP PLEASE

It has come to my attentions that from the miniseries to season 3, there is no text written above the episodes unlike season 4, Razor and the webisodes. This really makes the page look a bit cheap and very lopsided. I have just put in a small introduction paragraph to the miniseries but I would really appreciate some help with season 1-3 or even adding or editing to what I have written abou the miniseries. Cheers. --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add {{intro-missing}} to the pages. I recommend getting Wikipedia:Friendly for adding such templates.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is a list; while introcudtory text can be helpful, it is not required, and would be better served on seperate season articles. — Edokter • Talk • 02:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Very true. Since creating this discussion section I have had further aspirations to help make this season pages. Myles Trundle (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate season articles

Many TV series have separate articles on each season (e.g. Stargate SG-1 (season 1), The Wire (season 1)), and I believe that Battlestar Galactica would benefit from similar articles. As for naming these articles, I think "Battlestar Galactica (season #)" (as opposed to "Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) (season #)" or a similarly long title) to would work fine with the following template at the beginning of the article:

This page is about the season of the 2004 Battlestar Galactica series. For the original series, see List of Battlestar Galactica (1978, 1980) episodes.

I hope to get a lot of feedback on whether and how these articles should be produced.--Marcus Brute (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't think we ought to be worried about the old series, it gets comparatively very few hits. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

YES YES YES!!! I thought about doing that ages ago but i wasn't sure how many people would be into it and i didn't want to do it all by myself. However, the thing which i thought might make this very difficult is finding information to go on these BSG season pages. I mean apart form the tables of episodes i don't know what else can really go on them especially with the older seasons; eg. season 1 probably doesn't have all that much info on it seeing as though it was like 5 years ago and most of the useful info is already on the "Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)" page and if all the information we can get simply repeating what is already written on other pages then i don't think it is worth making the season pages. So yeah, all-in-all I think we should make sure we have enough info for the pages. And yeah I don't want to bother about the old series. --Myles Trundle (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not even coherent, let alone cogent. Is your main point that because the series is 5 years old there'll be a lack of information surrounding it? Are you aware of the wealth of information we have on antiquated shows like M*A*S*H and Addams Family, not to mention historical concepts such as the Renaissance and Neanderthals? Five years ago is not the distant past by any means, and thanks to the Internet we've preserved basically all the information available to us at that date. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok fair enough, obviously i havn't looked very hard (at all) but if someone would like to start with creating a season page at a time i will be more than happy to latch on and contribute. --Myles Trundle (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 4 episode count

Why is "Razor" listed as episodes 1 and 2 of season 4 ? This was a TV movie much like the upcoming TV movie "The Plan". Counting one and not the other is inconsistent. Additionally "Razor" aired 5 months before "He That Believeth in Me" which is considered the season 4 premiere. "Razor" and "The Plan" should both be listed as TV movies and not regular episodes.

Should the season 4 finale be counted as 2 episodes or 3 episodes ? The Sci-Fi Channel schedulebot lists "Finale - Part 1" for Mar 13 at 10pm (http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3?date=13-MAR-2009) and "Finale - Parts 2 and 3" for Mar 20 at 9pm for 2 hours which means 2 episodes (http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3?date=20-MAR-2009). In this case that means season 4 has 21 episodes instead of 20; usually 1 hour = 1 episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.208.146 (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 4 is comprised of 22 episodes, and the producers do count Razor as the first two episodes, even though it's a stand-alone movie. We go whatever the producers say, as that can be sourced. As for the final episode; it is a two-part, and as yet unnamed. Ronald D Moore has already hinted that the final part is double-length. — Edokter • Talk • 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The producers said that before the 2007 writer's strike, things have certainly changed since then. It doesn't make sense that "Razor" is considered a stand-alone movie AND two episodes. It was aired as a stand-alone movie and released on DVD as a stand-alone movie so it should be counted as such. Besides the storyline of "Razor" is a flashback to past events much like the upcoming "The Plan" will be. Saying that one movie counts as two episodes but the other does not is quite inconsistent and doesn't really make sense.

As for the finale, well the Sci-Fi Channel's schedule lists it as Parts 1, 2 and 3 so that certainly sounds like three episodes and it's from an official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.215.130 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is subject to change, as the title has yet to be announced. — Edokter • Talk • 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Channel schedulebot for Nov 24, 2007 does NOT list Razor as being part of a season. Notice a few episodes listed as being part of season 3 in the same listing - http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3?date=24-NOV-2007&feed_req= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.215.130 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Production-wise, Razor is counted as the first two episodes. It was also produced as part of season 4; the production codes confirm this. — Edokter • Talk • 01:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Schedule-wise Razor is not counted as part of season 4 and the Sci-Fi Channel's own schedule listing confirms this. This is definitely an official source of information so why keep sticking to an inconsistency ?

Based upon the Sci-Fi Channel's schedules and knowing that "The Plan" will be a TV movie, BSG should be ultimately (June 2009) listed as follows:

  • Miniseries: 2-parts, 4 hours total
  • Season 1: 13 episodes
  • Season 2: 20 episodes
  • The Resistance: 10 webisodes between seasons 2 and 3
  • Season 3: 20 episodes
  • Razor Flashbacks: 7 webisodes prior to Razor
  • Razor: 2-hour TV movie
  • Season 4: 21 episodes
  • Face of the Enemy: 10 webisodes mid-season 4
  • The Plan: 2-hour TV movie

Final total after "The Plan" airs: 1 miniseries, 74 episodes, 2 TV movies, 27 webisodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.230.213 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Episodes are produced as part of a season; Scheduling has no bearing on how the producres wish to number these episodes. We cannot accept the schedule (which does not contain any episode numbers to begin with) as a source for the episode numbering. If we did that, the last ten episodes would be season 5. The bottom line is: wse use sourced production numbers. Using the schedule to detirmine the episode numbers would be original research. — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Guys, in case any of you are confused as to exactly where the numbers 401 and 402 (for Razor) come from and why we consider it a part of season four, this part of Sci-Fi should explain it hopefully. http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/episodes/episodes.php?seas=4&ep=401&act=1
You should notice that Razor is UNDER the season four section and if you look at the title of the page (which appears in the tab on most browsers) it says episode 401. when you go to "He that Beliv..." you will see that number changes to 403. and on Battlestar's SciFi page, you will also see that in the right hand side panel where is shows links to previous episodes or recaps, they number their episodes as we do (eg "No Exit" is labeled as 417). However I would like to question what will be done about the last episode of season four; should it be considered 2 episodes given that is says it is parts 2 and 3?- or should we just wait and see what happens? --Myles Trundle (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Lets see and wait. As I understand it, the final part is double length, not two seperate episodes. The "part 3" is just a placeholder on the schedule. — Edokter • Talk • 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Edokter, saying that the current set of episodes would be "season 5" based upon the Sci-Fi Channel is absolutely ridiculous, especially when the schedule clearly says "Battlestar Galactica Season 4.5" meaning the second half of season 4 (the way the DVDs are released to get extra money out of consumers). See here - http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3?date=20-FEB-2009
Battlestar Galactica airs on the Sci-Fi Channel so how is using the schedule listed on the Sci-Fi Channel's website original research ? That is an official source of information. Saying this is "season 5" is your opinion and original research (and poor research at that). Also production numbers are not necessarily the same as episode numbers, for example Stargate SG-1's two-hour premiere has production numbers 101A and 101B but is definitely considered two episodes. Finally how would you count "The Plan" ? It is a TV-movie just like "Razor", will you count it as part of season 4 as well ? As season 5 ? You can't count one TV-movie and not the other though you seem to ignore this inconsistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.212.169 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That was just an example; your reasoning behind the numbering still based on your own observation instead of reliable sources. We number the episodes as they are sourced by the official website, where the producers release lots of information. They have repeatedly stated that Razor is considered the first two episodes of season 4, so that is what we put here. The Plan is produced seperately, so it is not part of season 4. Again, this information is based on what the producers have stated on the website. I know it doesn't count as nicely as "episodes 1-20", but the fact is, we can only put up information that can be verified through reliable sources. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as the release groups are concerned. Season 4 starts with "He That Believeth in Me" That's why they are calling today's episode "Islanded in a Stream of Stars" s04e18, not 420 like wikipedia does.
Well, last time i checked, wikipedia isn't driven by what what groups are concerned by; it is about facts. According to both the Sci-fi site (see http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/episodes/episodes.php?seas=4&ep=401&act=1 ), Ron D Moore and other writers (see http://verheiden.blogspot.com/2008/09/battlestar-galactica-cruise-book.html ), Razor is the first two episodes of season 4. Razor was even in the Season 4 (part 1) box set. You can not go against all these fact --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Razor should be part of the season 4 production series and the overall season 4 section. The production codes are clear.
However, it should not be described as episodes - one TV film does not make two episodes. Razor is not an episode at all but a out of the ordinary film. Hence, there should be no episode number - currently 54/55 for this film (and certainly not two).
The production codes should remain but He That Believes In Me should be episode 54.
Str1977 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New Table Layouts

Though i totally approve making of season pages, i do not really approve of the new tables. I think the other tables which were there were more clear. the only changes i think should be made is simply getting rid of the plot synopsises below each episode and just leave them for the season page. And even if it isn't changed, i believe the proudction number should go before the series number. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? --Myles Trundle (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are these new season pages? — Edokter • Talk • 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, found them. — Edokter • Talk • 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode numbers and production codes

I'm inviting anyone for additional input on Talk:33 (Battlestar Galactica), where pd_THOR and I are engaged in a discussion regarding (sourcing of) production codes and episode numbering. — Edokter • Talk • 12:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Description of episode 422 is a spoiler

That description has way too many details. We should change it so that we don't spoil the episode for people who haven't seen it yet (like it happened to me :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.101.25 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER; we do not hide spoilers. — Edokter • Talk • 14:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, the 2nd sentence on the soylent green page is "soylent green is people", so get bent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.89.31 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That was out of line. Please remain civil. — Edokter • Talk • 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

season 2 dvd

why was the 2nd season released on dvd in 2 parts, 2.0 and 2.5. I get that the writers strike split the 4th season, but whats the rational for splitting 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.89.31 (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was because they needed a couple month break due to the production order being pumped up to an additional 7 episodes more the previous season. --Myles Trundle (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

HD-DVD section

Is there any practical reason for keeping this bit of the article? A plan to release the series that never actually took place, on a format that is now officially dead does not seem relevant or informative. If the Bluray/HD-DVD war was still going on, I could see a point in keeping it. As things are, HD-DVD lost the war. The only people who care in the least are the scant few who are BSG fans and were bought an HD-DVD player. Even for them however, all it does is remind them that they made an unwise purchase and of what might have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.146.92 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I can see what you are saying but we can't escape the fact that it exists. I don't think we should delete it because it is a part of the history. --Myles Trundle (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right. I did some checking, and it turns out that it was more than just an announcement. It was actually released. I was under the impression that all they did was plan on doing it, and then abandoned the notion when the format died. If it were merely a plan, deletion of the section would be warranted. Since they went ahead and did it (only a month before HD-DVD was effectively dead), it warrants a mention.Wyldstaar (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode Tables

A couple of issues have come up with the episode tables recently. Firstly is the changing of the general style and configuration of the tables and secondly is the removal of the survivor count. Neither of these issues/changes have been discussed properly and I want to know what people think about the changes whether they want the tables to stay the way they are or change back to the way they were. If I had the final say in the matter I would prefer to keep the previous tables. However I don't really care about what happens to the survivor count anymore. --Myles Trundle (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not every change needs a discussion. Someone was bold and edited the tables, and noone opposed (until now). As far as I can see, no dramatic changes were made to the table, only the removal of the survivor count, which I think had no value. Do you have a link to a revision with your preferred tables? — Edokter • Talk • 10:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I was reluctant at first, I do now have no problems with the tables now that I have fixed them up. They were not the same as other show's episode tables so I have corrected them and in the process of correcting the miniseries and webisode tables. --Myles Trundle (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me putting a list of all the webisodes on this page instead of the one summary box that currently exists(like what we have done with the seasons)?--Myles Trundle (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Question MT: Why did you take out the small season episode descriptions and left behind those from the miniseries, Razor and the webisodes? If you're taking the season ep summaries out and leaving the others in, that seems unfair. Keep them all or remove them all. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the season 4 page is currently non-existent so the text above "Razor" and the broken up season 4 tables contain info that can put into the yet-to-be-made main page. So, in other words, those things will go too when the main page is made. As for the text above the "Miniseries", that could probably go. Also, what I intend to do with the miniseries table's summary bar (as we did for the other seasons) is get rid of it on this page but then insert the whole table on the main Miniseries page under "Synopsis" or "Summary" or something like that, I am not 100% sure yet. I mean we can't really get rid of the plot summaries below all the episodes and not the miniseries (or the web series for that matter). That is why I wanted to put a list of the webisodes on this page without the plot summaries rather than just one summary table. Any have any alternate ideas or opinions? --Myles Trundle (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Series #

The series # of the last episode in season 1 (no 14) has the same number as the first episode of season 2 (no 14 as well)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.88.126 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler!

Re season 4 Episode 12 "Revelations": the summary of that episode had a major spoiler (that they finally arrive at, or find, Earth), which I've taken the liberty of modifying to communicate the same thrust of the drama without that spoiler. If I had not seen this episode previous to reading that, a spoiler like that would dissapoint me very much. The episode took me by surprise, as it should..--Openhatch (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't do spoilers-avoiding; we're not a TV guide. The summaries should cover the entire episodes. — Edokter • Talk • 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Daybreak" Episode Numbering

I believe that "Daybreak: Part 2's" numbering should show that is it episode 75 and 76 and that it is season four's 22nd and 23rd episode...

1. About halfway down [[8]] from Mark Verheiden's blog (one of the writers and produces of BSG) he says that Daybreak could well be a 3 part episode. In a sense he was write in that the show does go for the same length (or there abouts) as it takes 3 normal episodes.

2. Following on on from that, iTunes released "Daybreak" in 3 parts even though "DB: Part 2" finale ep aired altogether on the same night. It did not need to break it up into pt 2 and pt 3 but they did. In the past with S03 E01 + E02, the released them as a single download as they were shown one after the other when they initially aired, and despite this, the file was named correcting by calling it both the names of Occupation and Precipice. In other words, iTunes doesn't seem to have a track record (at least with BSG) for incorrectly titling its TV shows.

3.The iTunes podcasts are released with the episode code at the beginning of them. Razor was 401 and 402 which dictated the numbering of subsequent eps like Revalations being 412 and not 410 etc and the podcast numbers which reflect the shows production order eps where one of the primary reasons we call Razor ep 1 and ep 2 of S04. For Daybreak, they released as "Battlestar Galactica Episode 421-423 Commentary" which clearly shows Daybreak as being a three-parter (421, 422 & 423). And id the PC numbers are episode numbers then why should we consider Razor as being the first 2 of S04? we either stick with it or abandon it.

4. If you look at the way List of Lost episodes deals with a similar issue of long episodes, you will see that it breaks them apart and refers to them as being 2 eps. take for instance season 5. It was announced as being a 17 episode season but at the end they decided to have a 2 hour final and in doing so they increased the ep # to 18 with the last episdoe (Incident) being 17 and 18. So what I am proposing is not that much of a new idea.

For all intents and purposes, the 2nd part was announced, promoted and aired as one episode. How iTunes treat the episode of not really relevant here. We should stick with the current numbering. — Edokter • Talk • 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The only other alternative I will accept is that we ignore the PC and thus remove Razor's ep 1 and ep 2 of season 4 status (but keep it under the Season 4 banner) and then perhaps consider Daybreak: Part 2 as 1 episode and ignore the PCodes.

Comments? --Myles Trundle (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

that argument doesn't really make sense. If we call "Razor" two episodes then why can't we call "Daybreak: Part 2" two episodes also? They both run for one and a half hours and the PCs clearly indicate DB: P2 as being 422 and 423. I fail to see any authoritative source in which someone clearly indicates that DB: P2 is a single episode.--Myles Trundle (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Razor & Season 4 Numbering

In the season 4, Razor should be further seperated from the table of season four episodes. It was a TV movie and yes it was filmed as a part of the season 4's production line but it is more than just an "episode". Hence its segregation from the the rest of the list should be so but in saying this i still think it should still remain under the "season four" heading but just a seperate part or subsection of S4.

Personally i think that that the numbering system of season 4 should reflect upon what the DVD release of Season 4 says (though this obvious isn't going to be for a while). In the meantime i think Razor whould revert back to a seperate section of season 4 completely. In saying this though, it is definantly remain under the "umbrella" of season four as it was produced during season 4's production sceduel and intended to lead into season 4 but it is unique as a television movie. As I am quite sure that Season four DVD release will not unclude Razor directly in it, "He That Believeth in Me" should be 4x01. This should reflect on the INDIVIDUAL Episode Article (which it currently doesn't follow anyway, see the first episode after Razor, "He that Believeth in Me, the article puts it at episode 2). Razor should have its 4x01 and 4x02 status abolished to "TV movie" or 4x00 (which does not sync with the season four episode pages) or something similar to what was done with the Miniseries tables.

Secondly, the razor flashbacks should also be in some form of a table of some sort to follow prcident with "The Resistance Webisodes."

ALSO, whoever made that colour co-ordinated season table at the top of the episode list page hasn't included Razor at all- please finish the job or colour co-ordinating the tables etc and fix this. Thank you.

Myles Trundle (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Razor is not season 4, it's a standalone TV movie. It was not billed as the season premiere and aired four months before the real season four! He That Believeth in Me continued the cliffhanger that was Crossroads. --TheTruthiness (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with that at all, that was actually my most preferred option but it seemed pretty adament through the articles that it was season four that i didn't think anyone else would actually agree. the only two points i will make about that though is that a) as I mentioned above it was apart of season four production line and b) it was intended to lead into season four but i agree is seperate hence why i was bidding for a comprise. but either way i think it should be seperated from season four episodes offically. -- Myles Trundle (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The offical podcast/commentary for "The Ties that Bind" is up. It is labeled Episode #405, not #403.--146.145.215.58 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That settles it then; Razor is 401/402, "He That Believeth in Me" is 403 and so on... They always stated season 4 would have 22 episodes, so this would be more inline. — Edokter • Talk • 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • NOT HAPPY! if you were to go to any sharing site, the numbering starts at 4x01 being He that Believeth in Me. Now, you could say that "hosting sites/limewire (and so on) don't now what they are talking about etc etc etc but (for starters) Razor is quite obviously one continuous and unique episode which takes up 2, of what you might call, slots of the 22 episode order. Which brings me to my second point. The only link that Razor has with Season 4 (excluding a very minor plot theme on starbuck) is with the production order which called for 22 episodes. Just because they had two of the epsiodes on the order taken up by a movie doesn't mean that it is a part of season four (after all, it even aired independantly), it is clearly just more convenient to do it while get into the rest of the episodes instead of openning and closing production between seasons. FINALLY, going back to the topic of the given slots, the episode takes up two slots right? but it is (as i mentioned earlier) ONE CONTINUOUS EPISODE/TV MOVIE. the production order simply broke it up into two 42 odd minute blocks and said the order was 22 to give a better perspective on how many episodes had to be done - but the reality is, saying that Razor is episode 4x01 and 4x02 is IRRELEVANT for us as the viewers/public to call it two episodes which is stupid and i can guarentee you, no one will be calling it both! The only way i think this could be completly setteled is when the season four box set comes out which will have all of season four's episodes in it which i am pretty sure will not contain Razor as the production code is irrelevant to proper S4 numbering of the episodes (which the podcast's nubering would most likely be referring to.) And, as (another) final point, could i point out that if the nmbering were to be changed my way, it is still recognised as a part of the season four production order underneith Razor so it is not as if it is completely neglecting the fact it is under Season 4's "umbrella" but what i am proposing is that Razor should not have the numbering system which reflects upon a production order but something which has more relevance to what the episode actually is; a special (very near independant of the chronological events between S3 & 4) TV movie which should be singled out beyond the stupid prouction order numbering Myles Trundle (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Happy or not... we follow whatever convention the producers choose to follow. If they decide to call it Episode Gazillion, we just follow their lead. I'm happy either way and will abide by consensus, but the podcast link is the first solid lead we have for the numbering for now. — Edokter • Talk • 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • ...I'll leave it for now but i think this would be best settled when the season 4 box set comes out which (as is suggested by its name) will hold all of season four. Now, if Razor IS in it, then I will let it go, but if it isn't then it would imply the need for a greater segregation between the movie and S4 (in terms of episode numbering that is). As the box set obviously won't be out for a while, I think it is best to avoid "editing wars" on the matter so I think (depite me not agreeing completely) that we just leave the issue in "hibernation" so until then (or until some other event occurs) may it just remain as is. Myles Trundle (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This is confusing... there should be another column to portray the episode release order for that season if its not the same as the episode number.--67.135.15.12 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • To summarise everything above. 1) Sci-Fi Channel identifies Razor as 2 episodes (despite the fact it is one continuous feature) because it goes for roughly 2 x 45 minute "slots". 2) when the production order was put in for 22 episodes, the first two were taken up by the moive. 3) There are no official resources which say Razor isn't an episode in Season 4 and that the only information provided by the current official resources (like the Sci-fi channel and actual producers) says Razor is 2 episodes so that is what is being said on this page. Now, for the record, I personally would rather that Razor didn't have that status of 401 and 402 but that is just the way things are for now. Anyway, as for your proposed episode count, that wouldn't be too bad an idea but visually might look really weird having two rows of numbers. Ultimately, things are going to stay the way they are for the moment until further events unfold for a comprimise reached. (which i will make right now)Myles Trundle (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but that's not what I see. I can't find the podcasts mentionned, but the scifi website DOESN'T specifically give the Razor movie episode numbers. It does include it in the list of season 4 episodes, but doesn't give any official stance on the numbering. Some people are piecing together little clues to make scifi say something they never did. To say that Razor has the length of two episodes, and to say that it is part of season 4 does NOT imply that the official stance on the numbering is to put Razor as 401/402.

If you want the official stance, there's three solutions: 1) Wait for the DVDs to come out with the official numbering. 2) For now, use the numbering that is used on the official promos/trailers. (I can only find reuploads. If someone knows where the scifi uploads are and wether or not they have numbers, please speak up.) 3) The best I could find, is that on the official SCIFI forum, the common-sense numbering is used, with "sometimes a great notion"=401. Considering the fact that the writers actually pop up on the forum from time to time, it's a pretty strong indicator. It is not AT ALL clear what the official stance on this is, and there's just as much evidence one way as the other if you care to digg. If the pro-and con comments are counted as votes, there's a net win for the common-sense numbering. I'm changing it again untill someone shows some HARD evidence that the official stance is for Razor to be counted.87.194.250.89 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

        • The DVDs for 4.0 are out and it is clear the numbering on this page is wrong. The official DVDs do not number Razor as 1 and 2. I accidentally skipped over 2 frakkin episodes because of the incorrect numbering on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.99.167 (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, the DVD shows the numbering here is incorrect. Unless there's some objections, I'm going to correct the numbering for season 4 next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbreaker (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
            • The numbering is correct with regards to airplay and information from the website. DVDs often deviate from that. — Edokter • Talk • 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
              • That hasn't been established, as far as I can tell and from the talk above. From what I understand, the only pin hinging that train of thought together is the studio "ordered" 22 episodes, and Razor was two of those. That doesn't mean Razor is part of Season 4, and now that the DVD has been released (which the talk above indicates that's what we were waiting for) and shows Season 4 Episode 1 as not Razor, I think it's pretty clear. Besides that, no other episode guide I've ever seen lists the numbers for Season 4 starting at Episode #3. It's confusing and should be changed. Even tv.com shows the Razor shows as part of Season 4 but listed as "special" and the numbering doesn't start until the "real" episode 1. IMDB also shows Season 4 episode 1 as the first non-razor episode. Finally, SciFi.com shows Razor as "Episode 0" as to not mess up the Season 4 numbering. So, with all of this in mind, and unless you have some real, verifiable reason to keep it the way it is, I'm still on track to change it. I'll make the appropriate changes to the Razor section to ensure continuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbreaker (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

@Edokter: I do not understand why you consider the numbering used in DVDs to be irrelevant. Especially since there is no hard direct statement by sci-fi that weighs in a significant way against the ordering of the DVD. Personally, I cannot think of an example where the DVD of a series uses a numbering that directly contraddicts the official numbering. Paulginz (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) Please do not change anything until a consensus has been established. Current sources such as production numbers and podcasts are pretty strong, and what other websites choose to use for numbering is not a consideration here. Remember there is no deadline. — Edokter • Talk • 11:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode list redesign

Want to some feedback on this episodes list redesign I have made in order to let the episode list better match other DVD shows like List of Stargate SG-1 episodes or List of Lost episodes. Also need to add Blu-ray releases, but not sure which release date to include. Would appreicate any feedback you can give me. Its located here User:Mollsmolyneux/Sandbox/BSG Episode List. Thanks --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Series not completed#

One of the major problems with Battlestar Galactica is it is almost like the writers got tired of the show and ended it. Too many unanswered questions. Like for example: What about Starbuck, who is she etc. Probably enough room for a 6 a dozen episodes here. This is one example of a dozen other aspect of the saga that were not properly written. The story needs completion. I am many other fans want all the missing bits sorted. - Lenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.24.175 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC in one of podcasts, Ronald D. Moore stated that the network could not guarantee a fifth season and he didn't want the series to be cancelled and left incomplete, so he decided to play it safe and wrap up the series in season 4. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange Movie List

Hey, I´m new here. I have duscovered BSG just recently and was looking this table and I´m a bit confused. Especially with the Movie List. It only shows one movie (The Plan) and omitts the other (Razor), which is however listed between Seasons 3 and 4. Can someone please help me? 87.174.211.252 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Razor is a bit ambiguous; while broascast as a movie, they are produced as the first two episodes of season 4 and are part of the series' chronology, while the other movies are stand-alone stories. — Edokter • Talk • 12:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I see. I´ve seen it now (have been catching up). It really sets up some of the threats of season 4 (The End of the first cylon war, developement of human models, karas destiny), but still, it seems rather stand-alone. It is not directly connected with the season (in terms of it´s main plot), and I´ve got a feeling a lot of the "confusion" comes from the fact, that it was produced as the first two episodes of season 4, which was very likely for ease in production terms. Instead of arguing how this film should be possibly listed as part of the movies section, how about turning the movies section into a "The Plan" section, since it really is just this movie standing there. It would take some confusion out of the list. 178.203.20.49 (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That would make more sense. — Edokter • Talk • 12:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Razor placing

Ok, I guess there were a lot of discussions and everyone is tired of them, but still: I think the Razor placing is quite odd between seasons 3 & 4 as part of the television series and The Plan as it's own section (which was originally called "TV-Movies" I think). I think, there are three options to fix this: 1. Move "The Plan" to the "televison series" umbrella, after Season 4. 2. Treat "Razor" as a TV-Movie and move it together with "The Plan" into a Movies section. 3. Treat "Razor" as an Episode of the Series and count it as part of Season 4. Production-wise it counts as the first two episodes (whicht has been adapted bei wikipedia already). 91.19.224.57 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't around for all the original discussions about this type of stuff (new fan!), but I think what you already did, simply placing The Plan as a subsection with the Television series section is suffice enough. It may have been placed in its own section since it was produced after the TV series and is not included with the series' episode count. Razor obviously sparks controversy/confusion, given it was produced with season 4, but chronically is set within season 2. Razor's placement is fine, everything is listed by their release date, and in the summary for Razor it says where it chronologically fits. To place it within the season 4 table is too illogical (given it was released as a standalone movie many months before season 4 began) and again would spark much debate—so to leave it in between season 3 and 4, when it was released, but to not place it within season 4 seems to be the best bet. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I figured would be the best compromise. The thing with Razor is indeed the discontinuity with Season 4. I figured they wanted to do a TV-Movie and for production ease (setting up the paperwork etc.), they simply produced it as two episodes of season 4. And because they were locked by the contracts, they "had" to release it in the Season 4 Box Set (It actually was the DVD release, that "forced" the agreement on moving it somewhere near Season 4 in a listing, rather giving it a separate movie listing). However the producers keep calling it the "Special Episodes". If it would have fitted into the continuity of Season 4 (reloving the Cliffhanger), it might have simply been viewed as a 2-part-opener, like DS9's "Way of the Warrior". Well "might" and "would" and "figure" doesn' really help now, does it, so I think the current version is best (at least for now). 91.19.224.57 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)_episodes/Archive_2&oldid=1136912675"