Talk:Night Flight/Archive 1

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)

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)