Talk:Zephyr/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:30, 5 April 2008

Shouldn't we call the Space Park something more Galactica like. This ship could be the Rising Star even with Libran registry. it could've been in orbit around Picon during the attacks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoreyDanian (talk • contribs).

If the "Rising Star" resembles the TOS version, it would look nothing like the Space Park. In any case, we've had no indication that they are the same ship - remember, it's a big fleet. --Peter Farago 19:37, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

You never know, Peter. But I believe that that is the Rising Star.--CoreyDanian 3 October 2006

Do you have a source on that? --Peter Farago 22:43, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Nop. Just intuition.--CoreyDanian

Unfortunately, intuition isn't enough for us here. You might want to give BW:CITE a read. --Peter Farago 01:21, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Space Park has been the term used on all official sources, SciFi website, Sky One profiles and i belive the companion books. Giving it a name without an official source would be pure speculation --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:11, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

How sure are we of some of the info presented here?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A lot of the stuff about the Space Park being of an older design - utilized before artificial gravity became readily available - comes from the Sci-Fi website and hasn't been proven on screen or in dialog (not to mention that the ship looks way too advanced to be of an old design). As is the notion that it was a military vessel converted to civilian use. Should we perhaps remove this information? Really, it's just speculation. -- Helo87

I've never really been fond of information from SciFi's website... However, they are an official website, but it should really be cited. If we can't find the older version of the site via the Wayback Machine, then we should really remove the information, I think. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Revision as of 21:18, 5 April 2008 view source Helo87 (talk \| contribs) 320 edits →‎How sure are we of some of the info presented here?: new section ← Older edit		Revision as of 21:30, 5 April 2008 view source Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk \| contribs) Senior Chiefs, Marines, Interface administrators, interwiki, Sponsors, CAP, Chiefs 62,766 edits →‎How sure are we of some of the info presented here?: reply Newer edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:

	A lot of the stuff about the Space Park being of an older design - utilized before artificial gravity became readily available - comes from the Sci-Fi website and hasn't been proven on screen or in dialog (not to mention that the ship looks ''way'' too advanced to be of an old design). As is the notion that it was a military vessel converted to civilian use. Should we perhaps remove this information? Really, it's just speculation. -- [[User:Helo87\|Helo87]]		A lot of the stuff about the Space Park being of an older design - utilized before artificial gravity became readily available - comes from the Sci-Fi website and hasn't been proven on screen or in dialog (not to mention that the ship looks ''way'' too advanced to be of an old design). As is the notion that it was a military vessel converted to civilian use. Should we perhaps remove this information? Really, it's just speculation. -- [[User:Helo87\|Helo87]]
			: I've never really been fond of information from SciFi's website... However, they are an official website, but it should really be cited. If we can't find the older version of the site via the [http://web.archive.org Wayback Machine], then we should really remove the information, I think. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)