Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Talk:Battlestar Galactica Blue Prints/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Battlestar Galactica Blue Prints/Archive 1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Philyboy in topic Hard Work And No Reason
Philyboy (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Philyboy (talk | contribs)
Line 7: Line 7:
I see no reason why this page should be deleted. Those Blue prints are official from the [[Battlestar Galactica RPG]]  Guide which I purchased in PDF form. I spent a lot of time uploading the Blue Prints and organizing them on my slow PC.
I see no reason why this page should be deleted. Those Blue prints are official from the [[Battlestar Galactica RPG]]  Guide which I purchased in PDF form. I spent a lot of time uploading the Blue Prints and organizing them on my slow PC.
People come her to get info on [[Battlestar Galactica]] and other ships in the Fleet and those pics give info on where stuff is in the fleet. Can we a least talk about it.
People come her to get info on [[Battlestar Galactica]] and other ships in the Fleet and those pics give info on where stuff is in the fleet. Can we a least talk about it.
--[[User:Philyboy|P sutherland]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:56, 17 May 2009

The Deletion Question

I see nothing canonical or citable about these blueprints, and I see no reason why we should have them here as this verges on fanon. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 17:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hard Work And No Reason

I see no reason why this page should be deleted. Those Blue prints are official from the Battlestar Galactica RPG Guide which I purchased in PDF form. I spent a lot of time uploading the Blue Prints and organizing them on my slow PC. People come her to get info on Battlestar Galactica and other ships in the Fleet and those pics give info on where stuff is in the fleet. Can we a least talk about it. --P sutherland 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply