Battlestar Wiki talk:Characters

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

Because of their length, individual discussions which we believe have reached consensus have been archived. As further discussions are concluded, please move them to the archive as well, in order to keep this page topical and readable. If the first archive threatens to exceed 32 kilobytes, please create a new one. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details.

Previous discussions:

Naming, Verb Tense, Intro Paragraph?, Non-Canon Names, Layout in Humano-Cylon Articles

Layout in Human Articles

Biography vs. Biographical Notes

So... Do we make the first section Biography or Biographical Notes? The project page says "Biographical Notes" right now, but I just picked on arbitrarily when I typed that out. So if someone actually has an opinion, change the project page, maybe make it bold for noticibility, then we'll have to go through and police the articles for that while we're out doing all this formatting and picture-adding and template-fixing. --Day 17:10, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Since many articles already have a "Notes" section, I think "Biography" reads best. --April Arcus 19:53, 2 September 2005 (EDT)

Might Be a Cylon

This topic came up in another thread entirely, so here's a place where talking about it is on-topic. I think we should shy away from having too many <soandso>-is-a-Cylon theories on character pages. If some character has been cast in a questionable light intentionally by the show or has some discussion that has merit (i.e. the "theory" is not simply that it remains unprooven that so-and-so is actually human), then by all means, we should have a few paragraphs at the end, citing evidence with show links and quotes, etc. I also think it would be worth creating a Category for people who've been proven to be Human and who've been shown to be Humano-Cylons. Thoughts? --Day 22:15, 12 September 2005 (EDT)

Sounds good. I'm just curious... RDM has carefully (and brilliantly) set up a situation that allows for the exposure of Humano-Cylons but somewhat precludes the possibility of confirming whether a character is genuinely human. It would indeed be gratifying to check off favorite characters from a list of possible Toasters, but I'm not sure how we could establish with certainty (without an explicit reveal by RDM) that Adama or Roslin or Dualla or whoever is flesh and blood. --Watcher 22:10, 10 October 2005 (EDT)
I generally agree, although some ideas, such as the Baltar-as-Cylon subarticle on his character page, merits an exclusion because of the magnitude of discussion and arguments. There's plenty of room for brief synopses of all Cylon theories on the Humano-Cylon page. To answer Day's question, the only way for us to know Cylon from human, aside from the detector, is in procreation history, and even with the Adama theory, it may not hold water if he is a replacement of the original. Spencerian 14:54, 11 October 2005 (EDT)
I don't buy into the idea that the Cylons can make new humano-cylon models by copying a normal human. It's not been disproven, but that's so huge that to not hint at it until some late revelation would feel like a lie, more than a surprise, if you take my meaning. As for checking of characters... I was talking to, I think, Peter and he posited three lists. You have your Black List of humano-cylons, your White List of humans and your Grey List of probable humans. People like Bill Adama would be greylisted because they've got children, but that's not solid enough (for the afore mentioned reasons) to rule him completely out as a cylon. So, I think, anyway, the whitelist would only Helo. The greylist would include both Adamas (one has kids, the other has parents, both of which we can vouch for) and Col. Tigh (his whereabouts can be accounted for before the invention of Humano-cylons). The black-list is obvious. And everyone else isn't on a list. I don't know that we need to write these lists out, but that's how I think about the whole "Who's a Cylon" problem. --Day 18:20, 11 October 2005 (EDT)

Looks like the RDM information on what the Cylons are have ended this discussion in part. I recommend that the parent Humano-Cylon article remain the repository for speculation of minor characters. For major characters whose identity is all but proven (the Adamas), stays on the page. Baltar's speculation is very large, and should remain on his page, as should any other characters with large speculations. --Spencerian 16:05, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Fixing Name Links

If you want to make sure that a given no-longer-used name article is not linked, I've discovered a neat trick to hunt out the old links. Go to this URL:,_Lee

Except replace "Adama,_Lee" with whatever it is you want to check up on. Then you go down that page's list of articles and fix 'em. This way, you don't have to much about with trying to get a redirect-page to not redirect so you can click on the "What links here" link. Should we keep a list of all this? It would be quite spammy. --Day 17:30, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

On further thought, let me be a bit more explicit. Each name on the list would have to have the following in formation:
  • [[Kara Thrace]]: [[Thrace, Kara]], [[Kara]], [[Thrace]], [[Starbuck]]
So the list couldn't be done horizontally. It would have to be a vertical list of every character we have, and a horizontal list of any possible aliases they have which might be used as links in articles. Boo. --Day 17:56, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
No. This is easy to see by clicking on the "What links here" link on the left-hand side of the monobook skin. If you get that information on a page with redirects, those are also listed. --April Arcus 20:56, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
Er... Yes. That's how I got the URL in the first place. But we don't want anything to link to, say, [[Thrace, Kara]]. At least, Jow asked that we not do that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think you missed my point. --Day 01:52, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

Image Discussion


I don't think Valley of Darkness will help get a better picture, actually. It's so dark the whole time and most of his good screen time (right before he dies) all of the characters are pointing their lights away from themselves (and at the camera sometimes). I'll leave his entry the way it is, though, in case someone else thinks they can sneak a good frame. --Day 16:16, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

I tried getting an image as well, and I agree that the lighting conditions are too poor to get an adequate screenshot. Perhaps when the DVDs come out, we may get a better quality image... -- Joe Beaudoin 16:23, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

When to add a Picture

So there are, as of this writing, two characters in the "wanting pictures" list that I'm unsure of: Socinus and Sue-Shaun. Neither article is very long and I don't want to over-burden them with images. Especially considering that our usage of images is under "fair use", which, as I understand it, means we are supposed to take small samplings, I feel we could potentially put ourselves on thin ice by putting two pictures (close-up and action-shot), into very short articles. Anyone else have a thought? --Day 01:01, 2 January 2006 (EST)

I agree with your hesitancy. Each probably deserves a close-up only. --April Arcus 01:39, 2 January 2006 (EST)

Nelena/Helena Cain

Okay. So, according to this, Cain's name is Helena, not Nelena. The former seems like a much more, well, reasonable first name, but it could be a typo or whatever. Anyone know where we got Nelena from? --Day 16:43, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

Copying to Talk:Nelena Cain --April Arcus 16:45, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

More on Non-Canon Names

Someone needs to figure out who Layne, Ishay, and Kim are, and which is which. The current state of affairs is very confusing.

In which episode was Galen Tyrol's first name mentioned on screen? --April Arcus 17:22, 27 September 2005 (EDT)

Sorted and Resistance while he's being interrogated. I can't be credited with figuring either of those out, but I thought I'd mention that it has been done. --Day 00:56, 2 January 2006 (EST)

Number Six Notes Ambiguity

Hey, there. I condensed the Notes in the Number Six article since (1) there was only one item in each note, (2) the information there was trivial and not plot-related, and (3) there were three distinctive Notes...which wrecks sub-article referencing, such as Number Six#Notes as it cannot distinguish the last Notes subhead from the first two. I understand the advantage of separation there, but either each Note subarticle must have a unique name (such as "Notes about Gina") or they should be condensed into a single Notes item, unless there is a wiki way of doing it that I can grasp. Spencerian 12:11, 10 October 2005 (EDT)

It is possible to make section links disambiguate between two sections with the same name - see Wikipedia:Section#Section_linking. (Examples: Notes on Shelly Godfrey, Notes on Gina, Notes on Model Six) --April Arcus 18:32, 10 October 2005 (EDT)
With a sip of coffee, I think I understood the numerical count is the diambiguator where the article finds the next item named "Notes"? OK. That works for me. It still leaves the article a bit ugly in my mind, but if the collective says OK, then I'll stick with it. Spencerian 19:58, 10 October 2005 (EDT)
I agree that it leaves something to be desired. If you think of something better, let us know. --April Arcus 21:35, 10 October 2005 (EDT)

When to use the Template

I think, in light of this edit, that we need to be more explicit. It's not a bad edit, per se. I'd have left the template out (in fact, I did when I added the pic). The fact that someone else thought to put it in syas to me that more percision is needed, whether it finds my jugement or Rocky's to be the better--Or, anyway, the one we decide to go with on this Wiki, for the time being. ;) I don't really think a surmised age, a first name with no last, a role and an actor are enough to justify the template. If it were four solid things, I'd see it differently, but since two of the four are sort of shakey... I disagree. I could be wrong. Thus, I poll for others' thoughts. Have at it. --Day 01:56, 25 October 2005 (EDT)

I see what he means. I think for Hammerhead Palladino I did sort of the same thing. I just kind of like using the template b/c I think it provides an opportunity to put down isolated things aren't enumerated in the paragraph. And it that case if was positive because it led to the article getting well fleshed out from what we know. I think Simon could benefit from expansion at the hands of somebody who was paying particularly good attention during the episode, I don't feel like he was a really obscure character or anything.
I also think his article could use some help. I'm not sure how we should distinguish the individual copy from the "model" and I'm not sure it's very uniform between the Cylon models how to distinguish this. We see this in Boomer too. I think there ought to be separate pages for the different "incarnations" or whatever of the models. All I know is that right now we don't have it down perfectly and I don't know if it's been discussed in depth... Rocky8311 02:15, October 25, 2005 (EDT)
When in doubt, at least scan the topics of a talk page's archive at the top. Viola (or cello, if you like): Battlestar Wiki talk:Characters/Archive01#Layout in Humano-Cylon Articles. --Day 15:13, 25 October 2005 (EDT)
I agree with Day. --April Arcus 15:38, 25 October 2005 (EDT)

Character Picture Standards

I think it might be helpful if there were some policies (or at least guidelines) regarding character pictures (especially ones used in the character template). There has been some disagreement in the past over which picture ought to be in the template, and it might help if there were some standardized criteria that could help determine this. For example, some people have been uploading higher resolution images for use in the character template. While higher resolution is often better, in the case of the character template (when the images are going to max out at 200 px wide) a wide scene shot is going to look pretty tiny. A cropped shot of the head and shoulders will look pretty good at 200 px, and still look good at native resolution (if somebody wants to click through to the original). Personally, I try to use an 8x10 ratio when creating headshots, but others might have some ideas on that. --Steelviper 14:09, 24 January 2006 (EST)