Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part II/Archive 1 - Revision history

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

2020-04-11T01:58:06Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020
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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 03:40, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:[[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown.jpg\|We've]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown2.jpg\|seen]] [[:Image:TheEnemysGateIsDown3.jpg\|them]], but thanks for the thought. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST)		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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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)

Serenity: /* Layout issues */

2007-02-05T21:31:47Z

Layout issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 5 February 2007
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)
			:Works fine here. Might be related to the resolution you use. You could try placing the image one line lower. Just experiment with the preview. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:31, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Catrope: Layout issues

2007-02-05T21:08:41Z

Layout issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 5 February 2007
Line 42:		Line 42:

	::I think they will say "two Basestars destroyed" in the season finale, and when they do, you owe me a coke. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)		::I think they will say "two Basestars destroyed" in the season finale, and when they do, you owe me a coke. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)

			== Layout issues ==

			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)

Straycat0: /* The Basestar that got away */

2006-01-23T23:12:02Z

The Basestar that got away

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 23 January 2006
Line 34:		Line 34:

	:::::Actually, we SEE the Vipers shooting up the Resurrection Ship, but the camera doesn't FOLLOW Galactica and Pegasus. We saw one Basestar blow up, then Pegasus and Galactica concentrating their fire on the other...which had ALREADY taken fire from one Battlestar alone, and had surface explosions. Honestly, just Zoic cutting budget corners. We see it on fire, see two Battlestars shooting it; We're supposed to believe that it's being destroyed while we see the Vipers destroying the Resurrection Ship.--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)		:::::Actually, we SEE the Vipers shooting up the Resurrection Ship, but the camera doesn't FOLLOW Galactica and Pegasus. We saw one Basestar blow up, then Pegasus and Galactica concentrating their fire on the other...which had ALREADY taken fire from one Battlestar alone, and had surface explosions. Honestly, just Zoic cutting budget corners. We see it on fire, see two Battlestars shooting it; We're supposed to believe that it's being destroyed while we see the Vipers destroying the Resurrection Ship.--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)

			::::::Ya know, I think that was the beauty of this episode that it didn't follow what tactically was going on at the high level. Who knows what tactical decisions the cylons made and why? Your guess is as good as mine. The story didn't really follow that. It was focused on the individual stories that the characters were going through. I have to watch it again but I thought that they did say the second basestar was destroyed but I'm not certain. [[User:straycat0\|straycat0]] 16:12, 23 January 2006 (EST)

	==Philwelch's Edit==		==Philwelch's Edit==

The Merovingian at 17:14, 23 January 2006

2006-01-23T17:14:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 23 January 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:

	::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)

			:::::Actually, we SEE the Vipers shooting up the Resurrection Ship, but the camera doesn't FOLLOW Galactica and Pegasus. We saw one Basestar blow up, then Pegasus and Galactica concentrating their fire on the other...which had ALREADY taken fire from one Battlestar alone, and had surface explosions. Honestly, just Zoic cutting budget corners. We see it on fire, see two Battlestars shooting it; We're supposed to believe that it's being destroyed while we see the Vipers destroying the Resurrection Ship.--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)

	==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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST)		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)

			::I think they will say "two Basestars destroyed" in the season finale, and when they do, you owe me a coke. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)

Mayosolo: /* Philwelch's Edit */ agreement

2006-01-23T06:54:45Z

Philwelch's Edit: agreement

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 23 January 2006
Line 35:		Line 35:
	==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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST)		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)

April Arcus: Philwelch's Edit

2006-01-23T06:21:45Z

Philwelch's Edit

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 23 January 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:

	::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)

			==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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST)

Philwelch: /* The Basestar that got away */ reply

2006-01-23T05:26:43Z

The Basestar that got away: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:26, 23 January 2006
Line 30:		Line 30:

	::::: In modern warfare, battles tend to be extremely short so it is reasonable to say that after one basestar was destroyed, it was only a matter of minutes before the second was destroyed and mind you that the Resurrection ship was also destroyed so you had the vipers bearing down on the second basestar at the same time. Now, once both basestars and the resurrection ship were all destroyed, them being heart of the cylon fleet there, it is reasonable to say that whatever cylon command was in charge of the Raiders would have made a tactical field decision to withdraw them. [[User:StrayCat0\|StrayCat0]] 11:39, 22 January 2006 (EST)		::::: In modern warfare, battles tend to be extremely short so it is reasonable to say that after one basestar was destroyed, it was only a matter of minutes before the second was destroyed and mind you that the Resurrection ship was also destroyed so you had the vipers bearing down on the second basestar at the same time. Now, once both basestars and the resurrection ship were all destroyed, them being heart of the cylon fleet there, it is reasonable to say that whatever cylon command was in charge of the Raiders would have made a tactical field decision to withdraw them. [[User:StrayCat0\|StrayCat0]] 11:39, 22 January 2006 (EST)

			::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)

Straycat0: /* The Basestar that got away */

2006-01-22T16:38:27Z

The Basestar that got away

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 22 January 2006
Line 28:		Line 28:

	::::Maybe, but a Raider fleet can operate autonomously of a Basestar, c.f. [[Flight of the Phoenix]]. OF course, Raiders are also fucking batshit insane—one of them flew right through a Raptor in Kobol's Last Gleaming, so you might expect them to make a kamikaze run on Galactica and Pegasus instead of jumping away. (And, back to the main point, I'm not sure if there was enough time to destroy the other Basestar, since it seemed mostly intact at the time. It appeared that the destroyed Basestar had some of its "spokes" destroyed before the main explosion, while the basestar in question appeared to have all six spokes intact. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 05:11, 20 January 2006 (EST)		::::Maybe, but a Raider fleet can operate autonomously of a Basestar, c.f. [[Flight of the Phoenix]]. OF course, Raiders are also fucking batshit insane—one of them flew right through a Raptor in Kobol's Last Gleaming, so you might expect them to make a kamikaze run on Galactica and Pegasus instead of jumping away. (And, back to the main point, I'm not sure if there was enough time to destroy the other Basestar, since it seemed mostly intact at the time. It appeared that the destroyed Basestar had some of its "spokes" destroyed before the main explosion, while the basestar in question appeared to have all six spokes intact. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 05:11, 20 January 2006 (EST)

			::::: In modern warfare, battles tend to be extremely short so it is reasonable to say that after one basestar was destroyed, it was only a matter of minutes before the second was destroyed and mind you that the Resurrection ship was also destroyed so you had the vipers bearing down on the second basestar at the same time. Now, once both basestars and the resurrection ship were all destroyed, them being heart of the cylon fleet there, it is reasonable to say that whatever cylon command was in charge of the Raiders would have made a tactical field decision to withdraw them. [[User:StrayCat0\|StrayCat0]] 11:39, 22 January 2006 (EST)

Philwelch: /* The Basestar that got away */ maybe, but raiders are autonomous

2006-01-20T10:11:29Z

The Basestar that got away: maybe, but raiders are autonomous

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:11, 20 January 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:

	:::::If I remember correctly, there was dialog that described the Resurresction Ship being accompanied by two Basestars and some support ships. I believe given the visual effects, the intent of the story is that the Basestars were destroyed and the support ships were the "remaining Cylons" that jumped away. Just adding my two cents. --[[User:Cp.hayes\|cp.hayes]] 23:37, 19 January 2006 (EST)		:::::If I remember correctly, there was dialog that described the Resurresction Ship being accompanied by two Basestars and some support ships. I believe given the visual effects, the intent of the story is that the Basestars were destroyed and the support ships were the "remaining Cylons" that jumped away. Just adding my two cents. --[[User:Cp.hayes\|cp.hayes]] 23:37, 19 January 2006 (EST)

			::::Maybe, but a Raider fleet can operate autonomously of a Basestar, c.f. [[Flight of the Phoenix]]. OF course, Raiders are also fucking batshit insane—one of them flew right through a Raptor in Kobol's Last Gleaming, so you might expect them to make a kamikaze run on Galactica and Pegasus instead of jumping away. (And, back to the main point, I'm not sure if there was enough time to destroy the other Basestar, since it seemed mostly intact at the time. It appeared that the destroyed Basestar had some of its "spokes" destroyed before the main explosion, while the basestar in question appeared to have all six spokes intact. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 05:11, 20 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 23 January 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:

	::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Wouldn't the Cylons retreat as soon as Resurrection Ship and one basestar were destroyed? Why would they wait until the second basestar was destroyed? Don't say they didn't have time, because Cylons are quick enough that they would jump as soon as they could. It is possible, however, that the basestar was too crippled to jump by that point. [[User:Philwelch\|Philwelch]] 00:26, 23 January 2006 (EST)

			:::::Actually, we SEE the Vipers shooting up the Resurrection Ship, but the camera doesn't FOLLOW Galactica and Pegasus. We saw one Basestar blow up, then Pegasus and Galactica concentrating their fire on the other...which had ALREADY taken fire from one Battlestar alone, and had surface explosions. Honestly, just Zoic cutting budget corners. We see it on fire, see two Battlestars shooting it; We're supposed to believe that it's being destroyed while we see the Vipers destroying the Resurrection Ship.--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)

	==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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 23 January 2006 (EST)		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)

			::I think they will say "two Basestars destroyed" in the season finale, and when they do, you owe me a coke. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:14, 23 January 2006 (EST)