Editing User talk:3DMaster
Discussion page of User:3DMaster
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 26: | Line 26: | ||
:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ|citation]] and [[BW:FANW|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT) | :Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ|citation]] and [[BW:FANW|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS | ::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT) | ||