Talk:Columbia (TRS)

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

I've noticed some speculation that this is the lead ship of the original battlestar class. Is there a source for this? Since it's still in service at a time when Galactica is supposedly the only remaining ship of its class (as per the miniseries), I find this unlikely. --Peter Farago 12:46, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

The only source I've heard, noted in the Zoic information, was that all of the original battlestars except Galactica were upgraded. Zoic's original battlestar data matches some of the mentioned destroyed battlestars from the Battlestar article as well. If that is the case, none of the other original battlestars were likely to have survived the backdoor rooting that their networked computers allowed. I can verify nothing on Columbia, and until we get some studio data, I still see all this information suspect. Spencerian 14:26, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
I agree. Except for length figures and other information on the space ship models themselves, Zoic's information is highly suspect. --Peter Farago 16:59, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

Mixing Ship Data Template and TOS with RDM

This article looks awefully confused. The ship data template shows the RDM stuff, but a mention of the TOS is also here. The template really defines the page content when used, so, as this is a mentioned-only in both worlds, we can make two articles for each (and each with ship data template), we can delete the TOS information, or we can just delete the ship data template as we have no idea whatsoever of RDM Columbia's configuration (and likely never will). --Spencerian 10:20, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

Split, imo. --Shane (T - C - E) 23:20, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Columbia II?

Apparently, the tradition of calling the second Columbia "Columbia II" doesn't seem to exist in the Colonial Fleet... Does anyone know whether the US/UK navy do this? --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 09:30, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

They do not. For example, Enterprise is just Enterprise (in both Navies). The hull number serves to uniquely identify a particular vessel, but otherwise the name is the same. --Steelviper 10:23, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
Right. Apparently, they don't do the A, B, C, D, or E thing a la Star Trek. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 13:07, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
Well, even then it's just Enterprise... the C, D, E was just incremented on the hull number. It's not like they were all, "Quick, we need to beam back to the Enterprise D", or anything. --Steelviper 13:56, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
And the loss of the original one implies an improved version, possibly the first in the second generation of battlestar designs. (Damn, that flashback was fun!) --Spencerian 14:00, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
A good couple good examples of replacement ship names for ships lost in combat is the US carriers Lexington, Hornet, Wasp, and Yorktown, which were all replaced by Essex-class carriers of the same name but different hull numbers. --Talos 19:51, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Should this be two seperate articles for two seperate battlestars, or is one enough?--OrionFour 22:25, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

There current article is able to cover the two Columbias, unless we learn a ton more about either battlestar later on. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 22:30, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Fan Fiction Note

I'm going to go ahead and remove the following:

In fan fiction, Columbia is considered the class name of the Original Series battlestars. This
is not substantiated by any official sources. Battlestar Wiki does not support this or any other fan fiction.

It's fanfic. It's not notable and it's not relevant. --Slander 15:01, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Some people kept adding that as a matter of fact. So this is more of a clarification that it just fanfic and not official in any way. I don't really mind its removal though. --Serenity 15:04, 8 November 2007 (CST)
Well, looking further into it, the Citation Jihad guidelines state that fanfiction information shouldn't be added to canonical articles. Those same guidelines are linked from and reiterated on the fan fiction article. --Slander 15:12, 8 November 2007 (CST)
I think its function is to state that the rumor (or whatever it is) about the Columbia class is unsubstantiated, although many people (incorrectly?) believe it. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 15:28, 8 November 2007 (CST)
Yeah, that's what I meant. On the face of it, it violates the policy, but the intent is more to support it by stating the rumor is false. The exception (if it is one) was made, because it's a rather common assumption. --Serenity 15:32, 8 November 2007 (CST)
To be honest, it such a common misconception that it really should be noted, since people have added it in multiple times. It nearly ranks up there with the whole "12 battlestar" myth. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 15:59, 8 November 2007 (CST)
I'm satisfied with the current version. Thanks for the input, guys! --Slander 22:36, 10 November 2007 (CST)

Origin of Name

Columbia is not the most unlikely of all the names related to RDMs Version of Galactica. There are dozens of cultural references to old greek sagas like Capricorn/Caprica, Sagittarius/Sagitta, Pisces/Picon and so on, or names like Athena, Apollo, PEGASUS, and even the name of GALACTICA itself (Milky way, our Galaxy has it's name after a greek myth about a god that - while a toddler - spilled milk all around the place, gala- is a root referring to the greek word for milk). It seems rather tedious to write down the note that there possibly can't be anyone in the world of BSG who knows who Columbus was or what the name people gave to the continent he managed to "discover" is. Obviously there exists a whole family of "false friends" in Galactica-verse that sounds exactly like modern (or rather ancient greek and roman) myths but has come to exist unrelated to them. as well as a rather stunningly similar daily life dialect similar to modern american english :D It won't help visitors to state that this stuff CAN'T be related, the more so when it's only stated on very few of the pages --Nugget 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this sort of speculation was more interesting before the precise relationship between BSG's timeframe and the modern day was known. --Peter Farago 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)