Talk:Battlestar Group/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

2025-06-24T20:09:42Z

Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 24 June 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:::Well, the nameplate on the outside of Galactica is marked "BS-75", likewise the Pegasus is "BS-63" as seen (difficultly) in this picture. It could be an arbitrary number like US Navy taskforce numbers from WWII like TF 58. Of course the Pegasus could be the second battlestar of the name, keeping the number of the older, Galactica-like ship, thus explaining the lower number. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:27, 21 December 2005 (EST)		:::Well, the nameplate on the outside of Galactica is marked "BS-75", likewise the Pegasus is "BS-63" as seen (difficultly) in this picture. It could be an arbitrary number like US Navy taskforce numbers from WWII like TF 58. Of course the Pegasus could be the second battlestar of the name, keeping the number of the older, Galactica-like ship, thus explaining the lower number. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:27, 21 December 2005 (EST)
	::::Got a better pic, the first was that one I uploaded of the Peggie. Also, maybe the group number is based on the command ship, so a group commanded by the Galactica would be BSG-75 after the BS-75. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (EST)		::::Got a better pic, the first was that one I uploaded of the Peggie. Also, maybe the group number is based on the command ship, so a group commanded by the Galactica would be BSG-75 after the BS-75. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (EST)
	[[~~Image~~:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]		[[File:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]

	The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)		The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 41:		Line 41:
	This was contentious for some time, since the screenshots are really quite blurry, but this image posted by [[User:Talos\|Talos]] on [[Talk:Pegasus (RDM)]] resolved the matter to my satisfaction:		This was contentious for some time, since the screenshots are really quite blurry, but this image posted by [[User:Talos\|Talos]] on [[Talk:Pegasus (RDM)]] resolved the matter to my satisfaction:

	[[~~Image~~:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]		[[File:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]

	If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)		If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:40:55Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 11 April 2020
Line 35:		Line 35:
	==Galactica & Pegasus==		==Galactica & Pegasus==

	Why note move this page to BSG and have BSG-75 and whatever number the Pegasus ends up being both redirect there? There's not much to say about either group in particular, so much as the BSG as a concept and which ones are known. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 19:45, 26 September 2005 (EDT)		Why note move this page to BSG and have BSG-75 and whatever number the Pegasus ends up being both redirect there? There's not much to say about either group in particular, so much as the BSG as a concept and which ones are known. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:45, 26 September 2005 (EDT)

	==Pegasus Group Number==		==Pegasus Group Number==
Line 43:		Line 43:
	[[Image:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]		[[Image:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]

	If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)		If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

	*I am familiar with this image from the previous discussion: I can't tell if I'm seeing an "8", a "6", or a "2". I feel this image is too fuzzy. No, we should not note it as tentative, because it's really hard to tell. We can just wait until "Ressurection Ship"--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 23:57, 15 October 2005 (EDT)		*I am familiar with this image from the previous discussion: I can't tell if I'm seeing an "8", a "6", or a "2". I feel this image is too fuzzy. No, we should not note it as tentative, because it's really hard to tell. We can just wait until "Ressurection Ship"--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 23:57, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

Spencerian: /* Group */ --reply

2009-07-02T02:59:02Z

Group: --reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 2 July 2009
Line 30:		Line 30:

	The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)		The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

			:Welcome Newbe83. While the numbers, to our knowledge, are arbitrary, your speculation has greater ground than others, I think. I don't know where or how we can verify anything to support the idea, sadly. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

	==Galactica & Pegasus==		==Galactica & Pegasus==

Newbe83 at 22:36, 1 July 2009

2009-07-01T22:36:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 1 July 2009
Line 29:		Line 29:
	[[Image:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]		[[Image:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]

	The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.		The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

	==Galactica & Pegasus==		==Galactica & Pegasus==

Newbe83 at 22:34, 1 July 2009

2009-07-01T22:34:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 1 July 2009
Line 29:		Line 29:
	[[Image:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]		[[Image:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]

	The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.~~[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)newbe83~~		The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.

	==Galactica & Pegasus==		==Galactica & Pegasus==

Newbe83 at 22:32, 1 July 2009

2009-07-01T22:32:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 1 July 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:

	The designation Battlestar Group 75 would have no more relation to the hull number of a BattleStar then that if US Navy ship to the Task Force number it was assigned to. Example Task Force 38 (WW-II) was the same ships as Task Force 58, all that changed was which Admiral was in charge. Similar statements can be made for AirGroups.		The designation Battlestar Group 75 would have no more relation to the hull number of a BattleStar then that if US Navy ship to the Task Force number it was assigned to. Example Task Force 38 (WW-II) was the same ships as Task Force 58, all that changed was which Admiral was in charge. Similar statements can be made for AirGroups.


	== Group ==		== Group ==
Line 27:		Line 28:
	::::Got a better pic, the first was that one I uploaded of the Peggie. Also, maybe the group number is based on the command ship, so a group commanded by the Galactica would be BSG-75 after the BS-75. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (EST)		::::Got a better pic, the first was that one I uploaded of the Peggie. Also, maybe the group number is based on the command ship, so a group commanded by the Galactica would be BSG-75 after the BS-75. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (EST)
	[[Image:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]		[[Image:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]

			The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)newbe83

	==Galactica & Pegasus==		==Galactica & Pegasus==

OrionFour: /* ship, not group identifier */ reply

2007-12-29T22:20:45Z

ship, not group identifier: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 29 December 2007
Line 62:		Line 62:
	::Why even assume that the numbers are somehow in order or chronological? Real-life militaries don't do that either. Just because there is a 139th squadron of something, doesn't always mean that there are 138 before it. All in all, it's just a number. No reason to scrutinize it endlessly. And yes, the producers don't sign off on every detail the special effects team or the prop department does, which sometimes leads to contradictions. I'm sure they have more important things to worry about than the "correct" assignment of ships to fleets.		::Why even assume that the numbers are somehow in order or chronological? Real-life militaries don't do that either. Just because there is a 139th squadron of something, doesn't always mean that there are 138 before it. All in all, it's just a number. No reason to scrutinize it endlessly. And yes, the producers don't sign off on every detail the special effects team or the prop department does, which sometimes leads to contradictions. I'm sure they have more important things to worry about than the "correct" assignment of ships to fleets.
	::All the more reason, to just leave it as it is. Which kinda makes sense. No particular order, and battlestar groups are numbered after their lead ship for some reason. That might just be because the prop department simply wrote "BSG-62" on the patch for no particular reason (aside from going by the ''Galactica'' patch), but since there likely won't be any other battlestars shown in in the fourth season, it also won't be contradicted or clarified further. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 13:42, 29 December 2007 (CST)		::All the more reason, to just leave it as it is. Which kinda makes sense. No particular order, and battlestar groups are numbered after their lead ship for some reason. That might just be because the prop department simply wrote "BSG-62" on the patch for no particular reason (aside from going by the ''Galactica'' patch), but since there likely won't be any other battlestars shown in in the fourth season, it also won't be contradicted or clarified further. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 13:42, 29 December 2007 (CST)
			:::I think that's what I was trying to say, they're just numbers, who knows how they do it; not important.--[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 16:20, 29 December 2007 (CST)

Serenity: /* ship, not group identifier */ It's just a number, people...

2007-12-29T19:42:29Z

ship, not group identifier: It's just a number, people...

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 29 December 2007
Line 60:		Line 60:
	:If that's not enough, from the first shot of ''Galactica'' from the Miniseries where we zoom in to the port side of the ship, you should see the hull number, but you can only see "BS" - the number itself isn't even there. This shot has been recycled many times, including in "Razor". Sometimes, the entire hull number marking isn't even there (watch for that in the Miniseries, where Starbuck surveys damage to the port pod). We just have to take 75 and 62 for what they are, just numbers.--[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 02:31, 29 December 2007 (CST)		:If that's not enough, from the first shot of ''Galactica'' from the Miniseries where we zoom in to the port side of the ship, you should see the hull number, but you can only see "BS" - the number itself isn't even there. This shot has been recycled many times, including in "Razor". Sometimes, the entire hull number marking isn't even there (watch for that in the Miniseries, where Starbuck surveys damage to the port pod). We just have to take 75 and 62 for what they are, just numbers.--[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 02:31, 29 December 2007 (CST)
	::Could we [[BW:OC\|ask Bradley]]? He can't have ''that'' much to do at the moment...[[User:OTW\|OTW]] 12:22, 29 December 2007 (CST)		::Could we [[BW:OC\|ask Bradley]]? He can't have ''that'' much to do at the moment...[[User:OTW\|OTW]] 12:22, 29 December 2007 (CST)
			::Why even assume that the numbers are somehow in order or chronological? Real-life militaries don't do that either. Just because there is a 139th squadron of something, doesn't always mean that there are 138 before it. All in all, it's just a number. No reason to scrutinize it endlessly. And yes, the producers don't sign off on every detail the special effects team or the prop department does, which sometimes leads to contradictions. I'm sure they have more important things to worry about than the "correct" assignment of ships to fleets.
			::All the more reason, to just leave it as it is. Which kinda makes sense. No particular order, and battlestar groups are numbered after their lead ship for some reason. That might just be because the prop department simply wrote "BSG-62" on the patch for no particular reason (aside from going by the ''Galactica'' patch), but since there likely won't be any other battlestars shown in in the fourth season, it also won't be contradicted or clarified further. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 13:42, 29 December 2007 (CST)

OTW at 18:22, 29 December 2007

2007-12-29T18:22:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 29 December 2007
Line 59:		Line 59:
	:Well the thing is this. In "[[Razor]]" the patch on young William Adama's flight suit still reads BSG 75, which throws a serious wrench into the whole renumbering thing (which I hate because I thought the same thing you did for some time). I don't like it, because it doesn't make sense, but that's what's on screen. Keeping in mind Aaron Doral's statement from the [[Miniseries]] which tells us that ''Galactica'' was one of twelve original battlestars assigned to protect each of the colonies, I submit that it's ''remotely'' possible that ''Galactica'' was renumbered ''if'' more battlestars were built towards the end of the Cylon War, much like the dramatic buildup of the US Navy towards the end of World War II. However, for one, his statement seems to suggest that there were only twelve battlestars in the entire War. Two, it still makes no sense even then to renumber ''Galactica'', and three, the truth of the matter is that the costuming department just slapped a ''Galactica'' patch on Adama's flightsuit because that's what was lying around. It just goes to show you how little the idea of there being "battlestar groups" or hull numbers really matters to the writers or any of the production staff.		:Well the thing is this. In "[[Razor]]" the patch on young William Adama's flight suit still reads BSG 75, which throws a serious wrench into the whole renumbering thing (which I hate because I thought the same thing you did for some time). I don't like it, because it doesn't make sense, but that's what's on screen. Keeping in mind Aaron Doral's statement from the [[Miniseries]] which tells us that ''Galactica'' was one of twelve original battlestars assigned to protect each of the colonies, I submit that it's ''remotely'' possible that ''Galactica'' was renumbered ''if'' more battlestars were built towards the end of the Cylon War, much like the dramatic buildup of the US Navy towards the end of World War II. However, for one, his statement seems to suggest that there were only twelve battlestars in the entire War. Two, it still makes no sense even then to renumber ''Galactica'', and three, the truth of the matter is that the costuming department just slapped a ''Galactica'' patch on Adama's flightsuit because that's what was lying around. It just goes to show you how little the idea of there being "battlestar groups" or hull numbers really matters to the writers or any of the production staff.
	:If that's not enough, from the first shot of ''Galactica'' from the Miniseries where we zoom in to the port side of the ship, you should see the hull number, but you can only see "BS" - the number itself isn't even there. This shot has been recycled many times, including in "Razor". Sometimes, the entire hull number marking isn't even there (watch for that in the Miniseries, where Starbuck surveys damage to the port pod). We just have to take 75 and 62 for what they are, just numbers.--[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 02:31, 29 December 2007 (CST)		:If that's not enough, from the first shot of ''Galactica'' from the Miniseries where we zoom in to the port side of the ship, you should see the hull number, but you can only see "BS" - the number itself isn't even there. This shot has been recycled many times, including in "Razor". Sometimes, the entire hull number marking isn't even there (watch for that in the Miniseries, where Starbuck surveys damage to the port pod). We just have to take 75 and 62 for what they are, just numbers.--[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 02:31, 29 December 2007 (CST)
			::Could we [[BW:OC\|ask Bradley]]? He can't have ''that'' much to do at the moment...[[User:OTW\|OTW]] 12:22, 29 December 2007 (CST)

OrionFour: /* ship, not group identifier */ reply

2007-12-29T08:31:10Z

ship, not group identifier: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:31, 29 December 2007
Line 56:		Line 56:
	-[[User:Expatkiwi\|Expatkiwi]]20:26, 26 December 2007 (PST)		-[[User:Expatkiwi\|Expatkiwi]]20:26, 26 December 2007 (PST)
	:It can apparently be both. We know that ''Galactica'' definitely belongs to BSG 75 from the chart on the podium in "[[Water]]" (that's where the "battlestar group" thing comes from in the first place). So extending that to ''Pegasus'' makes sense. Cain is also an admiral, who could command a small fleet. Some people do indeed confuse that and tried to extend the group number of ''[[Valkyrie]]'' to the ship as well, but that was corrected. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 10:05, 27 December 2007 (CST)		:It can apparently be both. We know that ''Galactica'' definitely belongs to BSG 75 from the chart on the podium in "[[Water]]" (that's where the "battlestar group" thing comes from in the first place). So extending that to ''Pegasus'' makes sense. Cain is also an admiral, who could command a small fleet. Some people do indeed confuse that and tried to extend the group number of ''[[Valkyrie]]'' to the ship as well, but that was corrected. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 10:05, 27 December 2007 (CST)

			:Well the thing is this. In "[[Razor]]" the patch on young William Adama's flight suit still reads BSG 75, which throws a serious wrench into the whole renumbering thing (which I hate because I thought the same thing you did for some time). I don't like it, because it doesn't make sense, but that's what's on screen. Keeping in mind Aaron Doral's statement from the [[Miniseries]] which tells us that ''Galactica'' was one of twelve original battlestars assigned to protect each of the colonies, I submit that it's ''remotely'' possible that ''Galactica'' was renumbered ''if'' more battlestars were built towards the end of the Cylon War, much like the dramatic buildup of the US Navy towards the end of World War II. However, for one, his statement seems to suggest that there were only twelve battlestars in the entire War. Two, it still makes no sense even then to renumber ''Galactica'', and three, the truth of the matter is that the costuming department just slapped a ''Galactica'' patch on Adama's flightsuit because that's what was lying around. It just goes to show you how little the idea of there being "battlestar groups" or hull numbers really matters to the writers or any of the production staff.
			:If that's not enough, from the first shot of ''Galactica'' from the Miniseries where we zoom in to the port side of the ship, you should see the hull number, but you can only see "BS" - the number itself isn't even there. This shot has been recycled many times, including in "Razor". Sometimes, the entire hull number marking isn't even there (watch for that in the Miniseries, where Starbuck surveys damage to the port pod). We just have to take 75 and 62 for what they are, just numbers.--[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 02:31, 29 December 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 24 June 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:::Well, the nameplate on the outside of Galactica is marked "BS-75", likewise the Pegasus is "BS-63" as seen (difficultly) in this picture. It could be an arbitrary number like US Navy taskforce numbers from WWII like TF 58. Of course the Pegasus could be the second battlestar of the name, keeping the number of the older, Galactica-like ship, thus explaining the lower number. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:27, 21 December 2005 (EST)		:::Well, the nameplate on the outside of Galactica is marked "BS-75", likewise the Pegasus is "BS-63" as seen (difficultly) in this picture. It could be an arbitrary number like US Navy taskforce numbers from WWII like TF 58. Of course the Pegasus could be the second battlestar of the name, keeping the number of the older, Galactica-like ship, thus explaining the lower number. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:27, 21 December 2005 (EST)
	::::Got a better pic, the first was that one I uploaded of the Peggie. Also, maybe the group number is based on the command ship, so a group commanded by the Galactica would be BSG-75 after the BS-75. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (EST)		::::Got a better pic, the first was that one I uploaded of the Peggie. Also, maybe the group number is based on the command ship, so a group commanded by the Galactica would be BSG-75 after the BS-75. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (EST)
	[[~~Image~~:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]		[[File:Galnameplate.JPG\|thumb\|Galactica Nameplate]]

	The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)		The Battlestar Group number could also be related to how the US Navy named battlegroups in World War 2. The examples of Task Force 38 and Task Force 58 essentially mean that those were respectively the 8th task force of Third and Fifth Fleets. Decimals would also be added to further denote smaller groups or individual ships as a part of the whole. An example of this is that, since Task Force 38 had as many as seventeen aircraft carriers, it wasn't a common occurrence for all seventeen to be focused on attacking the same fleet or island. Task Force 38.3, for example, would only contain several carriers and would be far more practical to use against a target. Task Forces didn't always have carriers, either. For example: Task Force 34-the 4th TF of the 3rd Fleet-solely consisted of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. If these are similar to Battlestar Groups then, Galactica could conceivably be part of the 5th Battlestar Group of the 7th Fleet.[[User:Newbe83\|Newbe83]] 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 41:		Line 41:
	This was contentious for some time, since the screenshots are really quite blurry, but this image posted by [[User:Talos\|Talos]] on [[Talk:Pegasus (RDM)]] resolved the matter to my satisfaction:		This was contentious for some time, since the screenshots are really quite blurry, but this image posted by [[User:Talos\|Talos]] on [[Talk:Pegasus (RDM)]] resolved the matter to my satisfaction:

	[[~~Image~~:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]		[[File:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]

	If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)		If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)