Editing Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part II/Archive 1
Discussion page of Resurrection Ship, 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 2: | Line 2: | ||
I have found a few spoiler pics for the upcomming episode. (You have been warned) [http://static.flickr.com/42/78613683_f09776998e_o.jpg Pic 1], [http://static.flickr.com/38/78613674_b16762349b_o.jpg Pic 2], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613656_d89c65ba6e_o.jpg Pic 3], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613628_cfb3e5df9d_o.jpg Pic 4], [http://static.flickr.com/41/78613606_63c01fb6a3_o.jpg Pic 5], [http://static.flickr.com/39/78613585_82c2d24d36_o.jpg Pic 6], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613544_b764955ab4_o.jpg Pic 7] --[[User:Blacklight|Blacklight]] | I have found a few spoiler pics for the upcomming episode. (You have been warned) [http://static.flickr.com/42/78613683_f09776998e_o.jpg Pic 1], [http://static.flickr.com/38/78613674_b16762349b_o.jpg Pic 2], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613656_d89c65ba6e_o.jpg Pic 3], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613628_cfb3e5df9d_o.jpg Pic 4], [http://static.flickr.com/41/78613606_63c01fb6a3_o.jpg Pic 5], [http://static.flickr.com/39/78613585_82c2d24d36_o.jpg Pic 6], [http://static.flickr.com/43/78613544_b764955ab4_o.jpg Pic 7] --[[User:Blacklight|Blacklight]] | ||
:[[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown.jpg|We've]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown2.jpg|seen]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown3.jpg|them]], but thanks for the thought. --[[User: | :[[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown.jpg|We've]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown2.jpg|seen]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown3.jpg|them]], but thanks for the thought. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:40, 7 January 2006 (EST) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
==Philwelch's Edit== | ==Philwelch's Edit== | ||
I find it uncontroversial. There's nothing wrong with narrowing the statement to be more precise, and it ''is'' true that we didn't actually see the second basestar destroyed on screen. Although I agree with Ricimer that it probably was, I don't think we should pretend to know more than we'e seen. --[[User: | I find it uncontroversial. There's nothing wrong with narrowing the statement to be more precise, and it ''is'' true that we didn't actually see the second basestar destroyed on screen. Although I agree with Ricimer that it probably was, I don't think we should pretend to know more than we'e seen. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST) | ||
:Agreed. "At least one basestar" is more than fair, I think. We appear to have consensus that the second basestar's fate is not explicit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 01:54, 23 January 2006 (EST) | :Agreed. "At least one basestar" is more than fair, I think. We appear to have consensus that the second basestar's fate is not explicit. -- [[User:Mayosolo|Mayosolo]] 01:54, 23 January 2006 (EST) | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
When I view the article (Windows XP, Firefox 2.0), the layout [http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/7259/naamloosix8.png doesn't work out], the picture of the basestar under fire overlaps with the text. Does anyone else have this problem, and if so, how do we fix it? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:08, 5 February 2007 (CST) | When I view the article (Windows XP, Firefox 2.0), the layout [http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/7259/naamloosix8.png doesn't work out], the picture of the basestar under fire overlaps with the text. Does anyone else have this problem, and if so, how do we fix it? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:08, 5 February 2007 (CST) | ||