User talk:OrionFour

Welcome to Battlestar Wiki!

Welcome to the Wiki, OrionFour. Tell us about yourself on your user page. We have a template that lets you put some information about yourself in a nice-looking box.

Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on officially-licensed stories, aired episodes, and other products of the Battlestar universes. Make sure that your contributions fit Battlestar Wiki's purpose, avoiding what we aren't.

Our editing standards and conventions policies may differ from other wikis, especially in verb tense and voice, capitalization and the like. Please read this policy. We have an editing tutorial and wiki markup codes to help you.

Our policies on original research differ from places such as Wikipedia. We allow some research based on aired episode content, but don't allow speculation that isn't supported from episode events. Battlestar Wiki does not allow fan fiction articles.

Battlestar Wiki's many projects help improve our content. Are you an Original Series fan? Help out in the Original Series Article Project. Non-English versions of Battlestar Wiki also need contributors, and helpers for our podcast transcriptions are also welcome. New projects should be brought to our Think Tank, where we hash out large-scale ideas before implementing them.

Any questions about an article can be entered on the article's talk page. General questions about the wiki can be brought to the Quorum or the administrators' noticeboard. Please sign your posts on any talk page by simply entering four tildes (~~~~), which will be automatically replaced with your name and a time stamp.

Remember that talk pages are for questions about the article connected to that talk page, and aren't for long discussions about the show. To chat as much as you'd like about the show (or other topics), why not set up a free account on the Battlestar Forum bulletin board?

We look forward to your contributions to the Battlestar Wiki community! --Steelviper 04:03, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

BS / BSG

Hi, I have reverted your good faith edits to Pegasus (RDM) and Galactica (RDM). You had changed some of the names from BS 75 to BSG 75 and likewise with 62. This is an incorrect change as what is detailed on the ship info box is not the Battlestar Group but instead is it is the Battlestar Hull Number. Galactica has a hull number of BS 75 and is the leader of BSG-75, the same goes for Pegasus with its hull number of BS 62 and the flagship of BSG-62 --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:43, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

While I don't think it's really necessary to even include the hullnumber, it is indeed present below the ship's name on the outside of the hull. There it says BS 75/62. Not BSG. --Serenity 06:01, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Wow I always assumed it said BSG down there but I guess you're right it does say BS. For the sake of accuracy I'll go with your correction, however, it still doesn't make any sense and begs further inspection. We know for a fact that Galactica is a member of the 75th, that is proven from the episode Water. So why would its hull number be the same? My guess is, despite the missing "G", the number listed below the name of the battlestar still stands for the group number and is not any form of registry or hull number, despite the Battlestar Wiki standards (I'm assuming by hull number you mean that this is a form of registry, as it is in modern day military vessels, not simply just a number on the side of the hull, correct me if I am wrong). Can anybody find anything more official to clear this up? Thanks! --OrionFour 13:37, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

It's possible that Battlestar Groups are numbered after its lead ship. Granted, it doesn't make perfect sense, but it's in the realm of possibility. What I don't really see is why Galactica should be the flagship of its Battlestar Group (indeed I edited the article to just say "included Galactica" because we don't know). With Pegasus sure. But Galactica is an old ship and Adama commanded it for a few years, being just a commander, and a disgraced one at that (Hero). One possibility is that it used to be a lead ship many years ago, but didn't have a group assigned to it for a long time. It just sort of operated alone and on limited duty (e.g. it didn't do any FTL jumps in 20 years). Which of course begs the question of why even include the number on the patches, but to me it's preferable to assuming that it was the leadship. Now that's just speculation and not anything we can write on the Wiki, but personally I'm sticking with it.

Aside from that, as indicated above, I don't see any compelling need to even mention the hull number in any article. It's just some standard that one person started. It doesn't hurt us to keep it either though. --Serenity 13:57, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

It would be remiss of us not to mention it, as it is seen on screen. It's worthy of note, but any analysis or speculation as to what it is or means is out there, in my opinion, since we don't have anything more on it. Other than the on-screen evidence. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 17:25, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, yeah. That was worded a bit drastic. What I rather meant was giving it such a prominent status. It's even mentioned in SAC that "the first mention of a ship should include its hull number" or something. But putting the info in the ship data box wouldn't really change much, so never mind :) --Serenity 17:30, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Can anybody confirm that it does in fact say BS 41 on the Valyrie flight pod? It's possible that my copy is not of a high enough definition, but from the looks of it, it's not actually there. The episode gives us two fly-bys of the flight pod, one of which is extremely close so we should see something. --OrionFour 00:29, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that's on example where this fixation on the hullnumber is annoying. The Battlestar Group is the on the ship's seal in CIC, but I don't think it's anywhere on the hull. At least not visible on screen. They don't necessarily have to be the same. Especially since the ship seems to be some sort of escort carrier. --Serenity 06:05, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I think you're right. And it supports your theory that either the lead battlestar is marked after its group or vice versa, since it would seem that Valkyrie is not the leader of its battlegroup. It makes sense that Pegasus was the leader of the 62nd, since it is commanded by an admiral. As far as Galactica is concerned, the case of the 75th appears to be a special circumstance. I always found it odd that Galactica never called on its group for support during the Fall, but I always assumed it was because they had been reassigned. We know that Galactica was at one point the leader of its battlegroup, during the original Cylon War and perhaps later - maybe this is the source of the BS 75. But yeah this proves that not all battlestars should be marked BS followed by the group number, as it appears to be much more complicated than that. In fact, it's a real mystery that will perhaps never be answered. For all we know, it's the result of a miscommunication between the special effects/modeling department and the producers. As the man said, it's all speculation at this point. --OrionFour 21:21, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, given that they had destroyed their munitions (hence their trip to Ragnar Anchorage), it's not really surprising they didn't get orders to head into the fight. After all, one flight pod had been converted into a museum. Not exactly battle worthy stuff... -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 22:12, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Razor webisodes

Whoa was anybody watching Stargate Atlantis just now? They announced "Razor Flashbacks", new 2 minutes episodes to be aired during Flash Gordon covering the life of Adama during the original Cylon War! Cool! Of course I'm probably out of the loop and you guys have known about this for ages. --OrionFour

And just now another Razor teaser. Again, cool! --OrionFour

Yeah, they should be releasing them on Scifi Pulse (their online streaming video service) as well. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 23:43, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

They'll be similar to the Resistance webisodes, but compromised of material cut from "Razor" and not specifically shot for the webisodes I think. They'll be re-integrated into the movie for the DVD release (hence it's greater length), thus for now I'd include them into the Razor article themselves instead of creating an own article. --Serenity 05:43, 29 September 2007 (CDT)

During Flash Gordon lol, desperate for viewers eh? :P --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:09, 29 September 2007 (CDT)

Haha no kidding. Thank god for YouTube though. So I'm thinking somebody should mention them on the site. Definitely in the news section, maybe the airdates? Or is that a bit much? I like the idea of having something on the Razor page. --OrionFour 03:40, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Noooooo!

Never, EVER press the back button. EVER!! I just lost three hours worth of work. --OrionFour 02:03, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Ouch. Wow... when working on projects of that scale you may consider editing in an external app that you can save to. I too have suffered at the hands of the browser (especially when transcribing podcasts). --Steelviper 08:54, 11 November 2007 (CST)

You can actually submit whatever work you've done to the article at intervals. I call them "Murphy's Law" saves, since it saves you from Murphy's Law. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 11:56, 11 November 2007 (CST)

That's good advice, I'm going to definitely try those things when I get back to work on it. What I had was good too! Hopefully I can remember it. --OrionFour 13:56, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Another remedy is to use Firefox, so you can just press the forward button again without losing anything (hell, it even restores everything after crashes and power blackouts if configured correctly). --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:03, 11 November 2007 (CST)

That's a good point. I use Firefox and those techniques work as well. Mostly. Because there are times when it doesn't work, although the chances of losing your data are significantly lowered. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 15:05, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Yes, the whole restore functionality is buggy when multiple windows are involved. Since Firefox has tabs and all that good stuff, you should never open two windows. Of course not all of my family members know this ;) --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:27, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Sandbox

For template sandboxes, the preferred approach is to use something like User:OrionFour/Sandbox rather than Template:Sandbox. You can include the former with {{User:OrionFour/Sandbox}}. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:33, 18 December 2007 (CST)

Ah ok, thanks I'll try that.--OrionFour 15:31, 18 December 2007 (CST)

Gettin Fit With Dirk

I found this online earlier today while searching for VHS covers photos for the site. Just thought I would share it with you because I'm still laughing about it. Happy New Years Battlestar Wiki!--OrionFour 02:18, 1 January 2008 (CST)

Ah-ha! Very funny indeed! -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 11:24, 1 January 2008 (CST)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Re-imagined Series definition: technology enabling travel across distances faster than the speed of light would permit, see: FTL

Original Series definition: marriage

Re-imagined Series definition: nerve center or "bridge" of a battlestar, see: Combat Information Center

Re-imagined Series definition: in military parlance, directive to continue the attack; otherwise used to refer to journalists ^{(TRS: "Maelstrom")}