Editing Talk:Galactica (TRS)/Archive 1
Discussion page of Galactica (TRS)/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 20: | Line 20: | ||
It seems to me that it should be the second. | It seems to me that it should be the second. | ||
:"''Galactica''" or "the battlestar ''Galactica''"; never "the ''Galactica''". Battleship and aircraft carrier are not proper nouns, so battlestar isn't either. See [[Battlestar wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships]]. --[[User: | :"''Galactica''" or "the battlestar ''Galactica''"; never "the ''Galactica''". Battleship and aircraft carrier are not proper nouns, so battlestar isn't either. See [[Battlestar wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:56, 17 October 2005 (EDT) | ||
==Tallies== | ==Tallies== | ||
FYI, I'm working on a fairly major revamp of these, using MASON and Joe's source page idea. --[[User: | FYI, I'm working on a fairly major revamp of these, using MASON and Joe's source page idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:59, 17 October 2005 (EDT) | ||
:Why does it state that Galactica had 2 squadrons of MKVII's on board the ship at the begining of the series? This would be a big inconsistancy with what we saw in the miniseries. | :Why does it state that Galactica had 2 squadrons of MKVII's on board the ship at the begining of the series? This would be a big inconsistancy with what we saw in the miniseries. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
::There are clearly twenty vipers on screen in Ripper's squadron. Galactica is then able to sortie a combined squadron of (roughly) 40 Mk. VIIs and Mk. IIs. This makes perfect sense if Galactica has two squadrons of Mk. VIIs based in its active (port) flight pod, and one squadron of Mk. IIs in the museum (starboard) flight pod. | ::There are clearly twenty vipers on screen in Ripper's squadron. Galactica is then able to sortie a combined squadron of (roughly) 40 Mk. VIIs and Mk. IIs. This makes perfect sense if Galactica has two squadrons of Mk. VIIs based in its active (port) flight pod, and one squadron of Mk. IIs in the museum (starboard) flight pod. | ||
::As for pilots, presumably the ones with ships had something better to do than be "climbing the walls down here". It's fairly typical for a military operation to have more pilots than craft in any case, so that's not an issue. --[[User: | ::As for pilots, presumably the ones with ships had something better to do than be "climbing the walls down here". It's fairly typical for a military operation to have more pilots than craft in any case, so that's not an issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:47, 4 December 2005 (EST) | ||
Well if there was another squadron of MVII's available at the time Starbuck mentions the 20 odd pilots in the ready room, where is that second squadron? If they are sortied after Ripper's mission, they would have been destroyed by the virus. If they're in the tubes waiting for a mission, why didn't they sortie to defend the ship? | Well if there was another squadron of MVII's available at the time Starbuck mentions the 20 odd pilots in the ready room, where is that second squadron? If they are sortied after Ripper's mission, they would have been destroyed by the virus. If they're in the tubes waiting for a mission, why didn't they sortie to defend the ship? | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::It is likely that they were unservicable and awaited transfer to a dock after ''Galactica'' was officially decomissioned. Also, on the off chance that I might be right, there may have been Vipers on other ships that survived as well. (For instance, there may have been a few were stragglers from earlier engagements, or even patrols that didn't see action during the assault on the Colonies that happened upon Roslin's fleet prior to Ragnar.) Just a thought or three... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:33, 7 December 2005 (EST) | :::It is likely that they were unservicable and awaited transfer to a dock after ''Galactica'' was officially decomissioned. Also, on the off chance that I might be right, there may have been Vipers on other ships that survived as well. (For instance, there may have been a few were stragglers from earlier engagements, or even patrols that didn't see action during the assault on the Colonies that happened upon Roslin's fleet prior to Ragnar.) Just a thought or three... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:33, 7 December 2005 (EST) | ||
::::It would be informative to get an actual headcount during the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage. I have the launch scene about 2/3 analyzed, and will probably be able to finish it next week, but the video quality of my recording isn't perfect. I'll let you know what I come up with, in any case. --[[User: | ::::It would be informative to get an actual headcount during the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage. I have the launch scene about 2/3 analyzed, and will probably be able to finish it next week, but the video quality of my recording isn't perfect. I'll let you know what I come up with, in any case. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:33, 7 December 2005 (EST) | ||
::::Oh, one more thing - In the mini, Adama says "I seem to remember an entire squadron of fighters down in the starboard hangar deck yesterday". If there were two squadrons of Mk. IIs, he would've said so. Again, two squadrons of Mk. VIIs (one destroyed) and one squadron of Mk. IIs fits the on-screen evidence nicely. --[[User: | ::::Oh, one more thing - In the mini, Adama says "I seem to remember an entire squadron of fighters down in the starboard hangar deck yesterday". If there were two squadrons of Mk. IIs, he would've said so. Again, two squadrons of Mk. VIIs (one destroyed) and one squadron of Mk. IIs fits the on-screen evidence nicely. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:48, 8 December 2005 (EST) | ||
::::The only problem with that is that the second squadron doesn't seem to show up until the battle at Ragnor. What was it doing all this time? If the count of MKVII's is under 20, it makes sense that the MKVII's at Ragnor were made up of a small group of spares that were put together onboard Galactica along with whatever refugees were picked up by Roslin's fleet. We know for sure that there were at least three MKVII's with that fleet that were shown onscreen.--Dallan007 | ::::The only problem with that is that the second squadron doesn't seem to show up until the battle at Ragnor. What was it doing all this time? If the count of MKVII's is under 20, it makes sense that the MKVII's at Ragnor were made up of a small group of spares that were put together onboard Galactica along with whatever refugees were picked up by Roslin's fleet. We know for sure that there were at least three MKVII's with that fleet that were shown onscreen.--Dallan007 | ||
:::::Didn't Starbuck's lines in that scene imply that there were no operational fighters. I believe it was something along the lines of "pilots you got, but Vipers..." I think the Mk VIIs they have were straglers the RTFF picked up before they jumped to Ragnar. These could have been on patrol or something and met up with Colonial One et al. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 00:03, 9 December 2005 (EST) | :::::Didn't Starbuck's lines in that scene imply that there were no operational fighters. I believe it was something along the lines of "pilots you got, but Vipers..." I think the Mk VIIs they have were straglers the RTFF picked up before they jumped to Ragnar. These could have been on patrol or something and met up with Colonial One et al. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 00:03, 9 December 2005 (EST) | ||
::::::Maybe the Mk. VII wing wasn't sortied before Ragnar because the systems had to be stripped of Baltar's CNP. There are far too many Mk. VIIs in the Ragnar battle to be anything less than a full wing, though. I'll have a real tally up as soon as I can. --[[User: | ::::::Maybe the Mk. VII wing wasn't sortied before Ragnar because the systems had to be stripped of Baltar's CNP. There are far too many Mk. VIIs in the Ragnar battle to be anything less than a full wing, though. I'll have a real tally up as soon as I can. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:38, 9 December 2005 (EST) | ||
::::::::They didn't know about the CNP weakness yet. The purging didn't happen until they were at Ragnar, after the first sortie. Remember, it was the same time as Doral was accused of being a Cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:09, 9 December 2005 (EST) | ::::::::They didn't know about the CNP weakness yet. The purging didn't happen until they were at Ragnar, after the first sortie. Remember, it was the same time as Doral was accused of being a Cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:09, 9 December 2005 (EST) | ||
:::::::::Perhaps, before the first sortie, Gaeta had the remaining Mark VIIs grounded as a precaution since he hears of the malfunctions from Dualla before the fight and makes the association with the CNP (he's bright that way). Or, yes, the Mark VIIs were gathered up in Roslin's search (most probable since Galactica should launch everything they had in sortie 1, and they would rather send Mark VII's than the museum pieces). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:10, 9 December 2005 (EST) | :::::::::Perhaps, before the first sortie, Gaeta had the remaining Mark VIIs grounded as a precaution since he hears of the malfunctions from Dualla before the fight and makes the association with the CNP (he's bright that way). Or, yes, the Mark VIIs were gathered up in Roslin's search (most probable since Galactica should launch everything they had in sortie 1, and they would rather send Mark VII's than the museum pieces). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:10, 9 December 2005 (EST) | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
::::Boxes provide quick and easy referrence. I mean, we wouldn't have a box listing ship class and armaments by that logic. It's fun, and makes it clearer. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 14:24, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | ::::Boxes provide quick and easy referrence. I mean, we wouldn't have a box listing ship class and armaments by that logic. It's fun, and makes it clearer. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 14:24, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::::That's not a box. The info box made for the purpose does mention the designation and CO. The BSG 75 thing is at best a curiosity utterly unworthy of quick reference, not that I agree that randomly ordered sentence fragments are actually easier to skim. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:36, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | :::::That's not a box. The info box made for the purpose does mention the designation and CO. The BSG 75 thing is at best a curiosity utterly unworthy of quick reference, not that I agree that randomly ordered sentence fragments are actually easier to skim. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:36, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::Seemed pretty redundant to me. --[[User: | :::Seemed pretty redundant to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:57, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
I still want to delete this. It taunts me in my dreams ...well, not quite, but I don't like it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 22:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT) | I still want to delete this. It taunts me in my dreams ...well, not quite, but I don't like it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 22:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
===Turrets=== | ===Turrets=== | ||
[[ | [[Image:BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg|thumb|An example of one of ''Galactica's'' large projectile weapons.]] | ||
''Galactica's'' defenses include an array of twenty-four large turret mounted, dual-role twin-cannons, and a multitude of smaller turret mounted twin-guns located between the ''Galactica's'' "[[Frame|ribs]]", along the [[flight pod]]s. Together, these provide the ''Galactica'' with a flak field that acts as a defense perimeter against incoming hostiles ([[Miniseries]], "[[Scattered]]"). In addition, the large cannons represent ''Galactica's'' main anti-capital ship weapon, and have been shown to be quite effective against targets like [[Basestar]]s ("[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]"). | ''Galactica's'' defenses include an array of twenty-four large turret mounted, dual-role twin-cannons, and a multitude of smaller turret mounted twin-guns located between the ''Galactica's'' "[[Frame|ribs]]", along the [[flight pod]]s. Together, these provide the ''Galactica'' with a flak field that acts as a defense perimeter against incoming hostiles ([[Miniseries]], "[[Scattered]]"). In addition, the large cannons represent ''Galactica's'' main anti-capital ship weapon, and have been shown to be quite effective against targets like [[Basestar]]s ("[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]"). | ||
=== Turrets Comments === | === Turrets Comments === | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
The composition of the turret armament is discussed on the page for the type. The details on the positioning are slightly incorrect, anyway. That they produce flak is obvious; that the large guns are effective against basestars could be assumed, and, if it must be mentioned, should be mentioned on the page for the type. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT) | The composition of the turret armament is discussed on the page for the type. The details on the positioning are slightly incorrect, anyway. That they produce flak is obvious; that the large guns are effective against basestars could be assumed, and, if it must be mentioned, should be mentioned on the page for the type. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
:Agree. [[Galactica type battlestar]] should host details relevant to the ship class in general. [[Galactica (RDM)]] should host information only pertinent to the individual battlestar in question. --[[User: | :Agree. [[Galactica type battlestar]] should host details relevant to the ship class in general. [[Galactica (RDM)]] should host information only pertinent to the individual battlestar in question. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:46, 19 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
==Battlestar Group== | ==Battlestar Group== | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
*Remove "Fleet Details" section, as this merely duplicates information available in the ship infobox | *Remove "Fleet Details" section, as this merely duplicates information available in the ship infobox | ||
*Reconsider the implementation of the "running tallies" section. My objection is mainly based on the fact that the current setup precludes the use of footnotes in this article, and is probably more information than the average user is interested in. I personally feel that we should break each tally into a separate article and link it from the appropriate summary in the equipment section. | *Reconsider the implementation of the "running tallies" section. My objection is mainly based on the fact that the current setup precludes the use of footnotes in this article, and is probably more information than the average user is interested in. I personally feel that we should break each tally into a separate article and link it from the appropriate summary in the equipment section. | ||
*If, however, we decide keep the running tallies on this page, a simple retitle of the section to "Sources and Rationalle" is necessary. Also, we should seriously consider moving over to the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag system, although doing so may make the editing process more cumbersome (with the running tallies scattered throughout the body of the text). --[[User: | *If, however, we decide keep the running tallies on this page, a simple retitle of the section to "Sources and Rationalle" is necessary. Also, we should seriously consider moving over to the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag system, although doing so may make the editing process more cumbersome (with the running tallies scattered throughout the body of the text). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:<strike>Item 1</strike> | :<strike>Item 1</strike> | ||
:As for #2 (a or b)... I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does seem to overwhelm the bottom, and any other footnootes would get drowned out. I guess I'd lean towards them becoming subarticles (of either Galactica (RDM) or of their respective topic (Viper (RDM), Raptor, etc)), or maybe to the front of their respective topics (on the main of Viper (RDM) and Raptor). I'll defer to others on this one, though. Also... could the article stand to have perhaps one more external shot of ''Galactica''? For an article about her, she doesn't get much visibility (outside the small shot in the data box and the gallery down below). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:21, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | :As for #2 (a or b)... I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does seem to overwhelm the bottom, and any other footnootes would get drowned out. I guess I'd lean towards them becoming subarticles (of either Galactica (RDM) or of their respective topic (Viper (RDM), Raptor, etc)), or maybe to the front of their respective topics (on the main of Viper (RDM) and Raptor). I'll defer to others on this one, though. Also... could the article stand to have perhaps one more external shot of ''Galactica''? For an article about her, she doesn't get much visibility (outside the small shot in the data box and the gallery down below). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:21, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
::::That's the EXACT same progression I went through. "Hey, that isn't in the... oh. There it is." --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:07, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | ::::That's the EXACT same progression I went through. "Hey, that isn't in the... oh. There it is." --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:07, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
I've tried breaking out the Raptor and Viper tallies into their own articles. Let me know what you think; it's easy to revert if people don't like it. --[[User: | I've tried breaking out the Raptor and Viper tallies into their own articles. Let me know what you think; it's easy to revert if people don't like it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:I didn't see anything wrong with the breakout; I was severely dismayed by the self-argumentative tone in one section of the article (now revised). I've also made significant concision and adjustments as well as adding more links to material that should give the article more ''ooompf''. I may review this again as I'm sure more things here just didn't sit right with me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT) | :I didn't see anything wrong with the breakout; I was severely dismayed by the self-argumentative tone in one section of the article (now revised). I've also made significant concision and adjustments as well as adding more links to material that should give the article more ''ooompf''. I may review this again as I'm sure more things here just didn't sit right with me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
What's left todo on this before "FA" status? Also... any thoughts on my picture thought above? (Another external shot of "Big G" somewhere else on this page?) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:32, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | What's left todo on this before "FA" status? Also... any thoughts on my picture thought above? (Another external shot of "Big G" somewhere else on this page?) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:32, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:External shots should be of ''Galactica'' doing something recognizably "Galactica-ish", to contrast with the beauty shots in [[Galactica type battlestar]]. --[[User: | :External shots should be of ''Galactica'' doing something recognizably "Galactica-ish", to contrast with the beauty shots in [[Galactica type battlestar]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:38, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:Agreed. I've also gone through the article again and given the language more polish and super-conventionized it. I'm happy with the text, but fresh photos of the Big G moving about would be neat. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | :Agreed. I've also gone through the article again and given the language more polish and super-conventionized it. I'm happy with the text, but fresh photos of the Big G moving about would be neat. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
::Looking through the "screenshots" category, I wasn't impressed by the selection. I hit Galacticastation for some examples and looked at the mini since I figured they'd feature her prominently there. I found [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(258).htm top view], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(290).htm side viper], and [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm side Fleet]. Of the three, "side Fleet" is my favorite, but that's a fairly small sample. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ::Looking through the "screenshots" category, I wasn't impressed by the selection. I hit Galacticastation for some examples and looked at the mini since I figured they'd feature her prominently there. I found [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(258).htm top view], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(290).htm side viper], and [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm side Fleet]. Of the three, "side Fleet" is my favorite, but that's a fairly small sample. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::They're all pretty nice. We could sprinkle them throughout the article for flavor. --[[User: | :::They're all pretty nice. We could sprinkle them throughout the article for flavor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I would love to see "side Fleet" on the pictureless [[The Fleet (RDM)]] article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | :::I would love to see "side Fleet" on the pictureless [[The Fleet (RDM)]] article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
::::Should I go ahead and upload the Galacticastation versions (576x320), or should we have one of our resident screen capture artists grab something higher quality (DVD or High-def)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ::::Should I go ahead and upload the Galacticastation versions (576x320), or should we have one of our resident screen capture artists grab something higher quality (DVD or High-def)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::::Upload the ones you've got, and put a notice on [[Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images|Requested Images]] for higher quality versions. --[[User: | :::::Upload the ones you've got, and put a notice on [[Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images|Requested Images]] for higher quality versions. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:20, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::::Internal links to: | ::::::Internal links to: | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
== Starboard flight pod == | == Starboard flight pod == | ||
[[ | [[Image:Starboard_pod.jpg|thumb|''Galactica's'' starboard pod ([[Maelstrom]]).]] | ||
That sure as hell looked like the starboard flight pod during the Adama Maneuver. Anyone agree? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 18:14, 11 November 2006 (CST) | That sure as hell looked like the starboard flight pod during the Adama Maneuver. Anyone agree? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 18:14, 11 November 2006 (CST) | ||
* Not only that, I'm pretty sure I heard a reference in A Measure of Salvation to a landing in the starboard pod. Fair to say it's back in service? [[User:Mr. Random|Mr. Random]] 14:57, 14 November 2006 (CST) | * Not only that, I'm pretty sure I heard a reference in A Measure of Salvation to a landing in the starboard pod. Fair to say it's back in service? [[User:Mr. Random|Mr. Random]] 14:57, 14 November 2006 (CST) | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
: Sounds good. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 00:51, 8 December 2012 (EST) | : Sounds good. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 00:51, 8 December 2012 (EST) | ||