Editing Talk:Galactica (TRS)/Archive 1

==Accidently mucked up this page. Can someone revert it==
Not sure what happened and this talk page has gone crazy. Cann someone revert it to before my edit. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 11:43, 9 December 2012 (EST)
<pre class="_fck_mw_lspace">== Nice Work! ==
</pre>
<p>I enjoy reading about the new Galactica starship and look forward to more details as the series progresses...and to adding my own edits, too.
</p><p>Keep up the good work on this page.
</p>
<dl><dd>On behalf of the rest of the team, thanks! This wiki has grown a lot from the work of a few hundred people and a lot of readers!  <a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 22:44, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>I am here, I make the edits.  There was little choice in the matter.  --<a href="User:Ricimer">Ricimer</a>, October 13, 2005
</dd></dl>
<h2> Formatting Question </h2>
<p>When formatting the "full name" of <i>Galactica</i> is it:
</p>
<ul><li>...the <i><a _fcknotitle="true" href="Battlestar">Battlestar</a> <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Galactica">Galactica</a></i>
</li><li>...the <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Battlestar">Battlestar</a> <i><a _fcknotitle="true" href="Galactica">Galactica</a></i>
</li></ul>
<p>or
</p>
<ul><li>...the <a href="Battlestar">battlestar</a> <i><a _fcknotitle="true" href="Galactica">Galactica</a></i>?
</li></ul>
<p>It seems to me that it should be the second.
</p>
<dl><dd>"<i>Galactica</i>" or "the battlestar <i>Galactica</i>"; never "the <i>Galactica</i>". Battleship and aircraft carrier are not proper nouns, so battlestar isn't either. See <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships">Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships</a>. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 20:56, 17 October 2005 (EDT)
</dd></dl>
<h2>Tallies</h2>
<p>FYI, I'm working on a fairly major revamp of these, using MASON and Joe's source page idea. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 20:59, 17 October 2005 (EDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>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.  
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>At the decommisioning ceremony we see one squadron of vipers led by Apollo doing a flyby.  This squadron leaves the ship for Caprica after the ceremony and is rerouted to engage the cylons.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>When Starbuck is released from the brig she reports 20 pilots available but no vipers.  Adama then orders the MKII's in the museum pressed into service.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>The squadron of MKVII's led by 'Ripper' is then destroyed by the cylon virus.  
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>IF there were 2 squadrons of MKVII's on the ship, where is that second squadron during all of this?  It didn't launch with Ripper's squadron and it wasn't available for Starbuck and the other stranded pilots to use. (They didn't know the MKVII's were useless until after the first squadron was destroyed.)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>It's more likely that the MKVII's we see at Ragnor and later in the series are made up from homeless vipers that were carried to Ragnor with Roslin's fleet, plus a few spares put together from storage aboard Galactica.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>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.
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 18:47, 4 December 2005 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<p>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?
</p><p>This second squadron is never seen onscreen or mentioned in dialogue in the miniseries.  It's more likely it didn't exist and the later MKVII's are refugees.  Those vipers are at least seen on screen once, and later in the series its mentioned that there are some pilots from other battlestars flying off Galactica.  (Crashdown is described as a refugee from "Triton", for example.)
</p>
<dl><dd>Crashdown was a Raptor pilot; Raptors have FTL and could go to another system, but I don't think Vipers could easily escape to Ragnar that well (unless, like Apollo, they landed on a nearby Civilian ship with Jump engines then escaped aboard that, but that seems unlikely).--<a href="User:Ricimer">Ricimer</a> 17:50, 7 December 2005 (EST)
<dl><dd>Didn't Doral say during the flyby at the museum that it was performed by the last Galactica squadron. Since this was the squadron led by Ripper, it pretty much precludes a second squadron. Also, there could have been several Mk VIIs in storage, for spares or down for repairs. Maybe there were extra Mk IIs stored in the starboard hanger. --<a href="User:Talos">Talos</a> 17:57, 7 December 2005 (EST)
<dl><dd>It is likely that they were unservicable and awaited transfer to a dock after <i>Galactica</i> 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... -- <a href="User:Joe.Beaudoin">Joe Beaudoin</a> 19:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 20:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 17:48, 8 December 2005 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>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
<dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Talos">Talos</a> 00:03, 9 December 2005 (EST)
<dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 01:38, 9 December 2005 (EST)
<dl><dd><dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Talos">Talos</a> 07:09, 9 December 2005 (EST)
<dl><dd>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). --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 13:10, 9 December 2005 (EST)
<dl><dd>The squadron ready room would seem to imply a 20-ship squadron. There are 24 seats in the ready room, 20 pilots plus a few seats for guests like Apollo. Boomer and Helo were flying with the last Mk VII squadron so it would make sense that they would be there in the mini. --<a href="User:Talos">Talos</a> 12:27, 13 December 2005 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<h2> Redundancy </h2>
<h3> Fleet Details </h3>
<p><b>Designation</b>: warship, battlestar type, <a href="Galactica type battlestar">original battlestar class</a> (class name unknown).
</p><p><b>Deployment</b>: Formerly an element of the <a _fcknotitle="true" href="75th Battlestar Group">75th Battlestar Group</a> (BSG 75)
</p><p><b>Current Status</b>: One of <a href="Pegasus (RDM)">two</a> remaining Colonial military units. <i>Galactica</i> is commanded by <a _fcknotitle="true" href="William Adama">William Adama</a>.
</p>
<h3> Fleet Details Comments </h3>
<p>The only piece of information in that block which is not mentioned before it is the membership is BSG 75; this was an oversight. I'll add mention of it in the paragraph before. The remainder is redundant and shockingly poor in formatting. --<a href="User:CalculatinAvatar">CalculatinAvatar</a> 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>Since you've been around and not commented, Merovingian, I'll pull it. --<a href="User:CalculatinAvatar">CalculatinAvatar</a> 01:26, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>I was busy.  It's not redundant, and I am restoring it.  --<a href="User:The Merovingian">The Merovingian</a> <sup>(<a href="Special:Contributions/The Merovingian">C</a> - <a href="Special:Editcount/The Merovingian">E</a>)</sup> 12:46, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>What information does it contain that is not elsewhere in this article? --<a href="User:CalculatinAvatar">CalculatinAvatar</a> 13:55, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>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.  --<a href="User:The Merovingian">The Merovingian</a> <sup>(<a href="Special:Contributions/The Merovingian">C</a> - <a href="Special:Editcount/The Merovingian">E</a>)</sup> 14:24, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:CalculatinAvatar">CalculatinAvatar</a> 14:36, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd><dd>Seemed pretty redundant to me. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 17:57, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<p>I still want to delete this. It taunts me in my dreams ...well, not quite, but I don't like it. --<a href="User:CalculatinAvatar">CalculatinAvatar</a><sup>(<a href="Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar">C</a>-<a href="User talk:CalculatinAvatar">T</a>)</sup> 22:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<h3>Turrets</h3>
<p><img src="http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/thumb/8/81/BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg/180px-BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg" _fck_mw_filename="BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg" _fck_mw_type="thumb" alt="" class="fck_mw_frame fck_mw_right" />
<i>Galactica's</i> 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 <i>Galactica's</i> "<a href="Frame">ribs</a>", along the <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Flight pod">Flight pod</a>s. Together, these provide the <i>Galactica</i> with a flak field that acts as a defense perimeter against incoming hostiles (<a _fcknotitle="true" href="Miniseries">Miniseries</a>, "<a _fcknotitle="true" href="Scattered">Scattered</a>"). In addition, the large cannons represent <i>Galactica's</i> main anti-capital ship weapon, and have been shown to be quite effective against targets like <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Basestar">Basestar</a>s ("<a _fcknotitle="true" href="Resurrection Ship, Part II">Resurrection Ship, Part II</a>").
</p>
<h3> Turrets Comments </h3>
<p>I don't mind the picture, though I don't think it adds much. It could be tied to the page simply as an illustration of "Armament" per the title of the larger section.
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. --<a href="User:CalculatinAvatar">CalculatinAvatar</a> 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>Agree. <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Galactica type battlestar">Galactica type battlestar</a> should host details relevant to the ship class in general. <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Galactica (RDM)">Galactica (RDM)</a> should host information only pertinent to the individual battlestar in question. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 19:46, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
<h2>Battlestar Group</h2>
<p>See <a href="Talk:Pegasus (RDM)#Battlestar_Group">talk on Pegasus page</a>
</p>
<h2>Improvements for featured article status</h2>
<p>I think that we should make the following minor changes before declaring this a featured article:
</p>
<ul><li>Remove "Fleet Details" section, as this merely duplicates information available in the ship infobox
</li><li>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.
</li><li>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 <span class="fck_mw_nowiki" _fck_mw_customtag="true" _fck_mw_tagname="nowiki">&lt;ref&gt;</span> tag system, although doing so may make the editing process more cumbersome (with the running tallies scattered throughout the body of the text). --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 17:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
</li></ul>
<dl><dd><strike>Item 1</strike>
</dd><dd>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 <i>Galactica</i>? For an article about her, she doesn't get much visibility (outside the small shot in the data box and the gallery down below). --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 13:21, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>I agree with SteelViper on #2:  if you just move it to another article, but keep a link to the tallies section at the bottom, I have no strong feelings on such a change.  (BTW, what do you mean "Rationalle"?).   ---&gt;However, I have to disagree on "Fleet details": I agree that saying its "designation" and "current status" is already in the box, however, the box doesn't mention what Battlestar Group it (nor does this justify changing the box template, because only this article and Pegasus would have such info):  I'm going to change it back to a compromise position and tell me what you think.  --<a href="User:The Merovingian">The Merovingian</a> <sup>(<a href="Special:Contributions/The Merovingian">C</a> - <a href="Special:Editcount/The Merovingian">E</a>)</sup> 14:04, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>On second thought, nevermind:  it already says enough about BSG info in the introductory paragraph.  --<a href="User:The Merovingian">The Merovingian</a> <sup>(<a href="Special:Contributions/The Merovingian">C</a> - <a href="Special:Editcount/The Merovingian">E</a>)</sup> 14:06, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>That's the EXACT same progression I went through. "Hey, that isn't in the... oh. There it is." --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 14:07, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<p>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. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 13:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>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 <i>ooompf</i>. I may review this again as I'm sure more things here just didn't sit right with me. --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 20:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
<p>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?) --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 12:32, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>External shots should be of <i>Galactica</i> doing something recognizably "Galactica-ish", to contrast with the beauty shots in <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Galactica type battlestar">Galactica type battlestar</a>. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 12:38, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>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. --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 12:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>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 <a href="http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(258).htm">top view</a>, <a href="http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(290).htm">side viper</a>, and <a href="http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm">side Fleet</a>. Of the three, "side Fleet" is my favorite, but that's a fairly small sample. --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 12:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>They're all pretty nice. We could sprinkle them throughout the article for flavor. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 13:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>I would love to see "side Fleet" on the pictureless <a _fcknotitle="true" href="The Fleet (RDM)">The Fleet (RDM)</a> article. --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 13:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>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)? --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 13:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Upload the ones you've got, and put a notice on <a href="Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images">Requested Images</a> for higher quality versions. --<a href="User:Peter Farago">Peter Farago</a> 18:20, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Internal links to:
</dd><dd><a href=":Image:Mini gal top.jpg">top view</a>
</dd><dd><a href=":Image:Mini gal side viper.jpg">side viper</a>
</dd><dd><a href=":Image:Mini side fleet.jpg">side fleet</a>
</dd><dd>They're prepped and ready to be added to the gumbo that is the wiki (though they could probably use better tagging, but being from Galacticastation I'm not sure of the original signal source). --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 07:53, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>Side viper and top view added. I added them as non-thumbnails in an effort for them to be less intrusive. I left out "side fleet" as that got added to <a _fcknotitle="true" href="The Fleet (RDM)">The Fleet (RDM)</a>, but it could be added if somebody wants to make room. We should be careful not to overdo it. --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 14:10, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd> I changed them to thumbs because I think it looks cleaner having a clear delineation between text and image. Revert if you wish and we can talk about it. I also added some kind of place-holder captions, which might be improved upon by someone who has a clearer idea of the purpose of the images are (other than look: a space boat). --<a href="User:Day">Day</a> <sup>(<a href="User talk:Day">Talk</a> - <a href="Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard">Admin</a>)</sup> 23:55, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<p>I added appropriate captions to the thumbs. I'm normally a non-thumb guy as I think we overuse it for pictures where the context is already present and so further captioning is unnecessary, nor do I see the bordering as needed. However, the thumbs here don't detract, so there you go. --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 09:13, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>So is this good to go for "FA"? --<a href="User:Steelviper">Steelviper</a> 10:25, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
<dl><dd>I think the article's come a long way; yes, I believe it's ready. --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 10:32, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<p>What do you guys think of the orthos I added to the bottom. (Thanks Mercifull, I forgot to add back in the bottom one.) --<a href="User:Talos">Talos</a> 17:30, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd>That Starship Modeler booger on the 2nd image annoys me since it wasn't their image in the first place. I'd rather get rid of it or get a clean one (it appears to be merely cropped from the first, anyway). --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 10:13, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
<h2> Starboard flight pod </h2>
<p><img src="http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/thumb/a/ab/Starboard_pod.jpg/180px-Starboard_pod.jpg" _fck_mw_filename="Starboard pod.jpg" _fck_mw_type="thumb" alt="" class="fck_mw_frame fck_mw_right" />
That sure as hell looked like the starboard flight pod during the Adama Maneuver. Anyone agree? --<a href="User:Kevin W.">Kevin W.</a> 18:14, 11 November 2006 (CST)
</p>
<ul><li> 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? <a href="User:Mr. Random">Mr. Random</a> 14:57, 14 November 2006 (CST)
<ul><li>The launch tubes might be in operation, but the bays are apparently still encased, as seen in a sweeping shot in Maelstrom.--<a href="User:Fredmdbud">Fredmdbud</a> 02:57, 12 January 2008 (CST)
<ul><li>But Raptors cannot use the launch tubes. Actually although the front of the flightpod is closed, the back has been fully opened up (although there are very few shots of it). By the Episode No Exit the front can be seen as fully open in one new shot of the ship. <a href="User:VARGR">VARGR</a> 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
</li></ul>
</li></ul>
</li></ul>
<h2> Missile tubes </h2>
<p>I think we should include the missile tubes along with Galactica's other weapon systems. When Adama ordered the Galactica to prepare for the ground strike, he had them load tubes 4 through 10, which means there are at least 10 missile tubes. However the effect shot seemed to show (at least to my current recollection) 2 rows of missile tubes, one of which had every door open but one, which would mean Galactica has 14 tubes, at least. She may have more on the other side of the ship (were the tubes mounted on the top of the hull or the bottom? I couldn't tell.) <a href="User:Gutter Monkey">Gutter Monkey</a> 20:55, 16 December 2006 (CST)
</p>
<dl><dd>Top of the ship, and I think it was 12 tubes not 14. --<a href="User:BklynBruzer">BklynBruzer</a> 22:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>Yep, definitely twelve tubes; two rows of six. --<a href="User:Madbrood">Madbrood</a> 03:58, 17 December 2006 (CST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Good, my eyes aren't failing me (Yet). --<a href="User:BklynBruzer">BklynBruzer</a> 13:07, 17 December 2006 (CST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<h2> Nuclear warhead yield </h2>
<p>The author of the nuke section considers that by the size of the missiles, their yield could go from 5 to 150 kilotons. Yet, if the missiles are particularly huge, such a low yield is illogical. Not even modern nukes would easily fit in decent compact casings and be capable of delivering many hundreds of kilotons, but if those missile tubes are supposedly large, so would the missiles, and cramming multi-megaton warheads into them would be a cinch. --<a href="User:Mister Oragahn">Mister Oragahn</a> 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
</p>
<h2> Armor plating </h2>
<p>If I recall, the ribs on <i>Galactica's</i> hull were supposedly covered with armor plating originally.  Which would imply that at the time of the First Cylon War it was in place.  However, in the first Razor flashback, there was no armor plating, even though the ship was fairly new at the time.  Just an oversight maybe, any thoughts? --<a href="User:Maserati1945">Maserati1945</a> 22:07, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
</p>
<dl><dd> Firstly, this has been floating around the fandom for sometime now. I don't know why, because there's nothing official to back it up; the only things that we know got changed on the Big G were the starboard landing bay for it to become a museum. Actually, as so far as we've been able to tell, the ribs are actually part of the design. This seems to be backed up by <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Lee Stringer">Lee Stringer</a>, who worked in the Miniseries. <a href="http://www.mediablvd.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&amp;client=printer&amp;f=180&amp;t=8278">From a post he made on MediaBlvd</a>, "In regards to the ribs, I believe that the ribs were always part of the design. In my opinion, they are a defense feature that would protect the Galactica from any incoming missiles unless they approached it from a perpendicular trajectory. Any angular deviation from 90 degrees would have the missile impact the ribs and not the hull underneath." 
</dd><dd> Also, I believe the hull armor removal claim was later refuted as well... I just haven't been able to dig that up yet either.
</dd><dd> Either way, the visible ribbing makes wonderful sense, as you don't need a smooth hull in space for the fact that you don't have any atmospheric drag to worry about. -- <a href="User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">Joe Beaudoin</a> <sup><a href="User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">So say we all</a> - <a href="Battlestar Wiki:Site support">Donate</a> - <a href="http://www.sanctuarywiki.org">Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; <i>New</i></a></sup> 22:46, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
<dl><dd>I think it comes from the fact that there are some areas on the hull with seemingly incomplete plating. The armor there is, is very irregular. Sometimes it's just a very small slab of metal that seems to have no function, thus appearing incomplete. --<a href="User:Serenity">Serenity</a> 01:34, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<p>In season 4 the idea that Galactica is not armored is put to rest when we see that she has an inner hull as well as an outer hull; the very nature of an outer hull in that of armor. With this in mind, the ribbing and the top platting is a second and third layer of armor. Though unconfirmed in the series, the idea of the ribbing may be related to real-life Explosive reactive armor used on tanks; the top plating obviously is additional protection over vital areas.--<a href="User:ViperMkII">ViperMkII</a> 23:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
</p>
<h2> Cargo </h2>
<p>Is it just me, or do the crates and boxes in Galactica's corridors seem to increase in number over time? In the miniseries, there are nearly none, and by Season 3 they seem to be everywhere. Why exactly would this happen? --<a href="User:Isidis">Isidis</a> 14:38, 11 November 2007 (CST)
</p>
<dl><dd> I imagine <i>Pegasus</i> had something to do with that. Also, <i>Galactica</i> had to house families after <a _fcknotitle="true" href="New Caprica">New Caprica</a>, so they might have moved stuff around in order to set up living space. -- <a href="User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">Joe Beaudoin</a> <sup><a href="User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">So say we all</a> - <a href="Battlestar Wiki:Site support">Donate</a> - <a href="http://www.sanctuarywiki.org">Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; <i>New</i></a></sup> 14:45, 11 November 2007 (CST)
<dl><dd>I agree. It is probable that things have been moved out of storage rooms to provide bunking space for a ship that not only has the bulk of <i>Pegasus'</i>s old crew, but some VIP civilians, the remainder housed in <a _fcknotitle="true" href="Camp Oil Slick">Camp Oil Slick</a> as a result of the destruction of <i><a _fcknotitle="true" href="Cloud 9">Cloud 9</a></i> and several ship's worth of crowded space. --<a href="User:Spencerian">Spencerian</a> 14:57, 11 November 2007 (CST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<h2> Page Cleanup and Organization </h2>
<p>I've been thinking that with Blood and Chrome finished, leaving us with some new information on <i>Galactica</i> to digest, that maybe it would be better to try and re-organize her page a little bit in order to prevent "data overload" in some spots. Her first war outfit seems like it could use its own data chart, and I would think it would look nice to split the gallery up too, to highlight the differences in her outfits during her 50+ years in service. Thoughts? - <a href="User:Frylock86">Frylock86</a> 12:41 AM 12/8/12 EST
</p>
<dl><dd> Sounds good. -- <a href="User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">Joe Beaudoin</a> <sup><a href="User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">So say we all</a> - <a href="Battlestar Wiki:Site support">Donate</a></sup> 00:51, 8 December 2012 (EST)
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd> The Galactica seen in the Razor Flashbacks has its full hull plating but the same number of Weapons like in the Miniseries. So it must be refitted between B&amp;C and Operation Raptor Talon. And maybe later again.  --<a href="User:Enabran">Enabran</a> 11:26, 9 December 2012 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd> Well, more than likely, they just reused the CG model they had on hand for the "Razor" flashbacks. -- <a href="User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">Joe Beaudoin</a> <sup><a href="User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.">So say we all</a> - <a href="Battlestar Wiki:Site support">Donate</a></sup> 11:28, 9 December 2012 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd> But thats what we got to see... --<a href="User:Enabran">Enabran</a> 11:38, 9 December 2012 (EST)
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>