Editing Talk:Exodus, Part II/Archive 1
Discussion page of Exodus, Part II/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
: I'll check on that... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 13:27, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | : I'll check on that... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 13:27, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:You're assuming they came in with no initial velocity, but as we've seen with various Raptor scenes, velocity is carried through a jump. --[[User: | :You're assuming they came in with no initial velocity, but as we've seen with various Raptor scenes, velocity is carried through a jump. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:30, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::It was Captain Kelly, and he reads their altitude as "99,000 and falling like a rock". That's roughly 61 and a half miles up, which is ''frakking'' high. Seems a little ''too'' high, don't you think? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 14:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | ::It was Captain Kelly, and he reads their altitude as "99,000 and falling like a rock". That's roughly 61 and a half miles up, which is ''frakking'' high. Seems a little ''too'' high, don't you think? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 14:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
I am removing all the "discussion" about continuity error(s). The question is should error discussions occur on this talk page or the [[Continuity errors (RDM)]] talk page? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:11, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | I am removing all the "discussion" about continuity error(s). The question is should error discussions occur on this talk page or the [[Continuity errors (RDM)]] talk page? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:11, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
Frankie, regarding your deletion of answered questions - I think we should keep old questions, even once later episodes answer them. It represents important issues that remained unresolved at the time of the episode's airing. I wouldn't object to some level of summary and redaction, but outright deleting them obscures the record of the audience response. --[[User: | Frankie, regarding your deletion of answered questions - I think we should keep old questions, even once later episodes answer them. It represents important issues that remained unresolved at the time of the episode's airing. I wouldn't object to some level of summary and redaction, but outright deleting them obscures the record of the audience response. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:48, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:No problem, however, several of this question can not possibly be answered without speculation or opinion. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:53, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | :No problem, however, several of this question can not possibly be answered without speculation or opinion. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:53, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::My opinion on speculation (and it's just mine) is that when grounded in good evidence and clearly within the realm of reason and plot mechanics, it's okay. It only really starts to bother me when we venture into outright absurdities. In any case, I think we should really work out a policy on [[BW:TANK]] ''before'' we start removing stuff. --[[User: | ::My opinion on speculation (and it's just mine) is that when grounded in good evidence and clearly within the realm of reason and plot mechanics, it's okay. It only really starts to bother me when we venture into outright absurdities. In any case, I think we should really work out a policy on [[BW:TANK]] ''before'' we start removing stuff. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:01, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I was removing speculation and opinion because Joe had early this evening. The continuity errors was discussed during [[BW:ES]]. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 21:12, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | :::I was removing speculation and opinion because Joe had early this evening. The continuity errors was discussed during [[BW:ES]]. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 21:12, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::I missed that discussion, so I suppose I'll have to defer to the consensus there. It seems like we should at least mention the error, perhaps with a link to a fuller discussion at a different article. --[[User: | ::::I missed that discussion, so I suppose I'll have to defer to the consensus there. It seems like we should at least mention the error, perhaps with a link to a fuller discussion at a different article. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:23, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
In keeping the old questions, we should follow already established S&C guidelines on this, particularly point three of the [[BW:SC#Questions_Section|Questions Section]] at S&C. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:36, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | In keeping the old questions, we should follow already established S&C guidelines on this, particularly point three of the [[BW:SC#Questions_Section|Questions Section]] at S&C. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:36, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:I was wondering where I misplaced that... --[[User: | :I was wondering where I misplaced that... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:42, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::No worries. I am beginning to wonder, though, whether or not we should rework the S&C page so that it is better organized. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ::No worries. I am beginning to wonder, though, whether or not we should rework the S&C page so that it is better organized. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
== Trivia == | == Trivia == | ||
[[ | [[Image:BattlestarGalacticaFrack.JPG|Adama shaving his moustache.|thumb]] | ||
Is there room for a trivia section on the episode pages? Not sure if anyone reads this anymore but I felt this was too weird to be a coincidence and had to tell someone. The mirror located in Adama's bathroom is sold in Ikea stores (in Australia at least) under the name [http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=18&langId=-26&productId=13145 FRÄCK]. -- [[User:KEBESTIFT|KLEBESTIFT]] 22:26, 10 May 2007 (whateverST) | Is there room for a trivia section on the episode pages? Not sure if anyone reads this anymore but I felt this was too weird to be a coincidence and had to tell someone. The mirror located in Adama's bathroom is sold in Ikea stores (in Australia at least) under the name [http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=18&langId=-26&productId=13145 FRÄCK]. -- [[User:KEBESTIFT|KLEBESTIFT]] 22:26, 10 May 2007 (whateverST) | ||
:Lol. Could go in the notes section, I guess. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | :Lol. Could go in the notes section, I guess. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
Awesome episode! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | Awesome episode! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Yeah, such spoilers aren't always necessary, and should be avoided if possible. It depends on the case. Here, with the events of Season 4, this isn't true anymore anyways. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | :Yeah, such spoilers aren't always necessary, and should be avoided if possible. It depends on the case. Here, with the events of Season 4, this isn't true anymore anyways. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Nuclear Weapons == | == Nuclear Weapons == | ||
I was just watching this episode, and I realised that both the Galactica and the Pegasus had nuclear weapons on board. My question is: Why didn't they use them? I'm sure one nuclear warhead would have been more than enough to destroy a basestar, and on the algae planet it's revealed that galactica has 4. It makes no sense to me... | I was just watching this episode, and I realised that both the Galactica and the Pegasus had nuclear weapons on board. My question is: Why didn't they use them? I'm sure one nuclear warhead would have been more than enough to destroy a basestar, and in on the algae planet it's revealed that galactica has 4. It makes no sense to me... | ||
--> [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | --> [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Well a nuclear warhead is more than capable of blowing a basestar to shreds when it's detonated ''inside'' the basestar, but when detonated on the ''outside'', one nuke is probably not enough. ''Galactica'' survived a nuclear hit with not too much material damage in the [[Miniseries]] (although they did loose about a hundred crew members, the only way they could lose the ship at that point was by letting the fire get to the fuel lines), and ''Pegasus'' survived being hit by two nukes while the ship was in condition five (they probably had some more damage than ''Galactica'' did, but evidenced by the [[Battle of the Communications Relay]], they were back to full offensive capability relatively quickly after [[Scylla|they got some parts]]). A basestar can probably take about the same as a battlestar, so I think it doesn't worry too much when hit by just one nuke (it does significant damage, but it's far from a one-hit kill). | :Well a nuclear warhead is more than capable of blowing a basestar to shreds when it's detonated ''inside'' the basestar, but when detonated on the ''outside'', one nuke is probably not enough. ''Galactica'' survived a nuclear hit with not too much material damage in the [[Miniseries]] (although they did loose about a hundred crew members, the only way they could lose the ship at that point was by letting the fire get to the fuel lines), and ''Pegasus'' survived being hit by two nukes while the ship was in condition five (they probably had some more damage than ''Galactica'' did, but evidenced by the [[Battle of the Communications Relay]], they were back to full offensive capability relatively quickly after [[Scylla|they got some parts]]). A basestar can probably take about the same as a battlestar, so I think it doesn't worry too much when hit by just one nuke (it does significant damage, but it's far from a one-hit kill). | ||
:Also, bear in mind that a nuke doesn't necessarily reach its target, especially when there's hundreds (or, in the case of the [[Battle of New Caprica]], probably even two to three thousand) Raiders ready to shoot it down. Even out of seven nukes (not four, as you said), probably only one would get somewhere. Another disadvantage is that any Vipers in the vicinity of the blast would have their pilots fried (this probably applies to Raiders too, as the Cylons have never been seen going nuclear while they had Raiders in the air). In this case, I agree it would've made sense to use nukes, but I'd've targeted a large Raider wave instead (all Vipers were down on the planet, after all). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 18:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | :Also, bear in mind that a nuke doesn't necessarily reach its target, especially when there's hundreds (or, in the case of the [[Battle of New Caprica]], probably even two to three thousand) Raiders ready to shoot it down. Even out of seven nukes (not four, as you said), probably only one would get somewhere. Another disadvantage is that any Vipers in the vicinity of the blast would have their pilots fried (this probably applies to Raiders too, as the Cylons have never been seen going nuclear while they had Raiders in the air). In this case, I agree it would've made sense to use nukes, but I'd've targeted a large Raider wave instead (all Vipers were down on the planet, after all). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 18:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | ||