More actions
→Name Gleaning: Oedipus? |
BklynBruzer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:It's a weird name. I could understand night/instrument flight qualification (which doesn't make sense in this context) but as a ship name it sounds strange. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:44, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | :It's a weird name. I could understand night/instrument flight qualification (which doesn't make sense in this context) but as a ship name it sounds strange. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:44, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::It's a common American alliterative (see [[w:Night Flight|Wikipedia's disambig]]). Personally I find the ship's name less strange than ''[[Embla Brokk]]'' and the dreaded ''[[Faru Sadin]]''. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ::It's a common American alliterative (see [[w:Night Flight|Wikipedia's disambig]]). Personally I find the ship's name less strange than ''[[Embla Brokk]]'' and the dreaded ''[[Faru Sadin]]''. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:50, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::First thing I thought of was the Led Zeppelin song. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 12:09, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
About the "weapons" portion of the infobox... aren't we inferring too much on that one? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:05, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | About the "weapons" portion of the infobox... aren't we inferring too much on that one? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:05, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
:::Well, it ''is'' a battlestar, so it has to have a basic battery, Vipers and Raptors, right? Wouldn't be much of one without them. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | :::Well, it ''is'' a battlestar, so it has to have a basic battery, Vipers and Raptors, right? Wouldn't be much of one without them. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::::I suppose to a certain extent, but it can be dangerous to make assumptions based only on what we've seen. For example, in the Star Trek universe I would have assumed that all warp-driven ships would need two nacelles, but I'd have been [[MemoryAlpha:Hermes class|wrong]]. I wouldn't want to necessarily rule out the possibility of a battlestar that could only launch Vipers (and not Raptors), or one without significant batteries (smaller, faster, more dependent on other ships for firepower), or other kinds of specialized ships that were formed more around being fielded as part of a larger fleet rather than on their own. I suppose if we could get some sort citation documenting the minimum standard specs of all battlestars, we could probably safely assume at least those, but I wasn't sure that we had such a spec. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 21:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ::::I suppose to a certain extent, but it can be dangerous to make assumptions based only on what we've seen. For example, in the Star Trek universe I would have assumed that all warp-driven ships would need two nacelles, but I'd have been [[MemoryAlpha:Hermes class|wrong]]. I wouldn't want to necessarily rule out the possibility of a battlestar that could only launch Vipers (and not Raptors), or one without significant batteries (smaller, faster, more dependent on other ships for firepower), or other kinds of specialized ships that were formed more around being fielded as part of a larger fleet rather than on their own. I suppose if we could get some sort citation documenting the minimum standard specs of all battlestars, we could probably safely assume at least those, but I wasn't sure that we had such a spec. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 21:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::::Since they haven't "transporters", must be able to go quickly for mobilization, it would be logical to think that a battlestar has facilities for Vipers and Raptors, and have an FTL drive. Otherwise it couldn't be part of a battlestar group with other FTL ships. I agree on the Star Trek generalizations; that basic spec is as specific as it should get. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:My educated guess for the covered battlestar name would be ''Oedipus'', but of course we can't be sure. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | :My educated guess for the covered battlestar name would be ''Oedipus'', but of course we can't be sure. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::SV created a Sciffy thread to aid us. One writer put reverse-video caps that clearly defined the last four letters: "smus". Given that the first letter is a straight back, and I can't think of any other germanic words or names that could use those four letters, I'm more confident that "Erasmus" is the name behind the shell. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:25, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:::The thread can be found here: [http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showtopic=2275066 New battlestar name discovered?]. [[User:DrWho42|DrWho42]] 13:45, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:::That would be another Earth-reference, like Atlantia (named for [[w:Atlantis|Atlantis]]) and Columbia ([[w:Christopher Columbus|Columbus]]). [[w:Erasmus|Erasmus]] was a Dutch theologian. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 10:52, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
::::Or [[w:Erasmus Darwin|Erasmus Darwin]], Charles Darwin's grandfather, who was famous in his own right. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
OK, after some good help with friends on Sciffy, the word could only be [[Erasmus]] in the Am. English text. I'm going to be bold and create the article but not update any other templates for now and let it stew in the crucible of consensus. Please see the reverse-video shots in the Sciffy topic before it disappears to weigh in. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:09, 15 May 2007
Name Gleaning
The rending is hard, but magnification was sufficient to get one of two names there. Sadly, the second, which could be "Magnus" for all I know, is too covered to even guess at. --Spencerian 14:36, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- It's a weird name. I could understand night/instrument flight qualification (which doesn't make sense in this context) but as a ship name it sounds strange. --Serenity 14:44, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- It's a common American alliterative (see Wikipedia's disambig). Personally I find the ship's name less strange than Embla Brokk and the dreaded Faru Sadin. --Spencerian 14:50, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- First thing I thought of was the Led Zeppelin song. --BklynBruzer 12:09, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
- It's a common American alliterative (see Wikipedia's disambig). Personally I find the ship's name less strange than Embla Brokk and the dreaded Faru Sadin. --Spencerian 14:50, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
About the "weapons" portion of the infobox... aren't we inferring too much on that one? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 19:05, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- Probably. I just copied it from Atlantia. I'll simplify it. --Spencerian 20:42, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- Whoops. Beat you to it. Yanked just about everything (since we really don't know anything about it.) --Steelviper 20:44, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- Well, it is a battlestar, so it has to have a basic battery, Vipers and Raptors, right? Wouldn't be much of one without them. --Spencerian 20:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- I suppose to a certain extent, but it can be dangerous to make assumptions based only on what we've seen. For example, in the Star Trek universe I would have assumed that all warp-driven ships would need two nacelles, but I'd have been wrong. I wouldn't want to necessarily rule out the possibility of a battlestar that could only launch Vipers (and not Raptors), or one without significant batteries (smaller, faster, more dependent on other ships for firepower), or other kinds of specialized ships that were formed more around being fielded as part of a larger fleet rather than on their own. I suppose if we could get some sort citation documenting the minimum standard specs of all battlestars, we could probably safely assume at least those, but I wasn't sure that we had such a spec. --Steelviper 21:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- Since they haven't "transporters", must be able to go quickly for mobilization, it would be logical to think that a battlestar has facilities for Vipers and Raptors, and have an FTL drive. Otherwise it couldn't be part of a battlestar group with other FTL ships. I agree on the Star Trek generalizations; that basic spec is as specific as it should get. --Spencerian 08:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- I suppose to a certain extent, but it can be dangerous to make assumptions based only on what we've seen. For example, in the Star Trek universe I would have assumed that all warp-driven ships would need two nacelles, but I'd have been wrong. I wouldn't want to necessarily rule out the possibility of a battlestar that could only launch Vipers (and not Raptors), or one without significant batteries (smaller, faster, more dependent on other ships for firepower), or other kinds of specialized ships that were formed more around being fielded as part of a larger fleet rather than on their own. I suppose if we could get some sort citation documenting the minimum standard specs of all battlestars, we could probably safely assume at least those, but I wasn't sure that we had such a spec. --Steelviper 21:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- Well, it is a battlestar, so it has to have a basic battery, Vipers and Raptors, right? Wouldn't be much of one without them. --Spencerian 20:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- Whoops. Beat you to it. Yanked just about everything (since we really don't know anything about it.) --Steelviper 20:44, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- My educated guess for the covered battlestar name would be Oedipus, but of course we can't be sure. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 06:04, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- SV created a Sciffy thread to aid us. One writer put reverse-video caps that clearly defined the last four letters: "smus". Given that the first letter is a straight back, and I can't think of any other germanic words or names that could use those four letters, I'm more confident that "Erasmus" is the name behind the shell. --Spencerian 10:25, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- The thread can be found here: New battlestar name discovered?. DrWho42 13:45, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- That would be another Earth-reference, like Atlantia (named for Atlantis) and Columbia (Columbus). Erasmus was a Dutch theologian. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 10:52, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- Or Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, who was famous in his own right. --BklynBruzer 10:53, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
- SV created a Sciffy thread to aid us. One writer put reverse-video caps that clearly defined the last four letters: "smus". Given that the first letter is a straight back, and I can't think of any other germanic words or names that could use those four letters, I'm more confident that "Erasmus" is the name behind the shell. --Spencerian 10:25, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
OK, after some good help with friends on Sciffy, the word could only be Erasmus in the Am. English text. I'm going to be bold and create the article but not update any other templates for now and let it stew in the crucible of consensus. Please see the reverse-video shots in the Sciffy topic before it disappears to weigh in. --Spencerian 16:53, 10 May 2007 (CDT)