Editing User talk:OrionFour
Discussion page of User:OrionFour
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 23: | Line 23: | ||
::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. | ::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. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 13:57, 24 September 2007 (CDT) | ::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. --[[User:Serenity|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. | :::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. Than the on-screen evidence. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 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 :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:30, 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 :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:30, 24 September 2007 (CDT) | ||