Talk:Basestar (TRS)/Archive 1

I just registered 5 minutes ago, so be gentle... Is there any reason why the references to BattleStar's and Raiders are neither capitalized, or links?

Hi! Welcome to the Wiki -- I hope you have a blast here!  :-) Anyway, to address your question, Battlestar can be spelled one of two ways ("Battlestar" or "battlestar"). ("BattleStar" is an incorrect spelling, by the way.) As for raiders, you can capitalize them or not; it's similar to writing the "stealth fighter" or "naval carrier" -- you can choose whether or not to capitalize the first letters of each word. As for the links, by default the first letter of any article is capitalized. Why? It's just how the software we use works.  :-) Hope that answers your question! -- Joe Beaudoin 16:54, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I noticed that Kuralyov had a number of Talk entries regarding basestars. Was he just tweaking the language?

Just redirects from the various names used to describe Basestars, so any newcomer will be better able to find it via search. 68.9.113.183 22:23, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Whoops, I was logged out for some reason when I posted that. Kuralyov 22:24, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Corrected minor spelling mistake - Lordmutt 18 February, 2006

I'm not sure if the new bulleted list works or not. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:39, 22 March 2006 (CST)

Each bulleted segment refers to a specific instance of an encounter between depicted Colonial forces and (a) Cylon basestar(s). The section title of "Encounters With the Colonial Fleet", and the way that the material was structured when I initiated the edit, implied that this was a list of some kind, at least a loosely associated one. The material that was there was also grammatically sloppy, overly detailed in some areas, and vague in others. -- Hawke 23:47, 22 March 2006 (CST)

You did a good job re-editing it, I'm just "not sure" it's best to keep it as a bulleted list, I don't know if this would be "aesthetically pleasing" or whatever. Point is I'm not sure; I dunno, just bringing up the point; whatever you guys decide I'm fine with; wouldn't be a problem if it stays the way Hawke left it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 00:17, 23 March 2006 (CST)

TOS Basestar

Can someone please add a some information about the original basestar.

See the first line of the article, please. --Day 01:26, 17 January 2006 (EST)

Question. If the Cylons rebelled against mankind (an open rebellion on all twelve colonies, with the Cylons previously having been servants of mankind) where did they get the resources, time, and infrastructure to build basestars? There would have to be massive shipyards to accommodate building them, and then it would probably take well over a year to build even one, which strikes me as being something hard to accomplish when you're busy serving mankind. Seems like mankind might notice?

User:UNATCO 04:30, 29 November 2006 (PST)

In the original series the Cylons were no created by man and instead were made by an alient race. The original basestar seen in the miniseries is more liikely to be a homage rather than actual canon of their past. However even if it was the original war went on for a number of years. The cylons can been seen in paintings to be using swords, its not like they decided one day to build basestars and pummel into the colonials. It had also been many many years between the time when the Cylons left the colonies and the attack in the miniseries, plenty of time to build an army and basestars. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 07:45, 29 November 2006 (CST)

It's possible that the basestars were created to be used by Cylons, since it's been hinted at that the Colonies were at war with one another prior to the Cylon rebellion. Also, this may very well address the question of how the battlestars came into existence as well. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:57, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Image placement

So, rather than a revert war: I had shifted one of the images on this page to the left for balance. That's the scheme that's used on many character pages and I think it looks best. However, Bane Grievver seems to disagree but reverted without comment, so I'm soliciting one here. Any particular reason, Bane, or just because that's how it was before? --Day 01:30, 17 January 2006 (EST)

I liked it your way, FWIW. --Peter Farago 17:10, 17 February 2006 (EST)

I just made it what I'd imagine your way was in ignorance of the previous revert issue. I also added another image on the right, so hopefully that will remove any objection. --CalculatinAvatar 20:01, 31 March 2006 (CST)

792?

Maybe I'm being dense, but how do you count the number of launch slots with such certainty? I could understand a Zoic source, I suppose, but just counting leaves me less sure. --CalculatinAvatar 20:03, 31 March 2006 (CST)

Isn't it from the official magazine? --Madbrood 13:50, 29 November 2006 (CST)

It's listed in the Official (now defunct) Magazine in the June/July issue. --Spencerian 14:27, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Hey I have recently paused the dvd of Kobol's last gleaming at the point shown here: [[1]] and I have done some counting and it comes out the same.... There are five 'Raider rows' and they get bigger by 2 each time.... The smallest has 19 'slots', the second 21, then 23 then 25 and finally 27.... This equals 115 raiders per 'lower arm' of a Basestar.... That means that if every arm had the same amount of slots then a Basestar (Before the recent ret-con) would have 690 Raiders..... Though I suspect that the arms that are the base of the Y shape would have more even rows with more raiders. Okay sorry if I am babbling but this is going somewhere! I was wondering if this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? And also if anyone could help me with a count of the Y base arm of a basestar that would be great, a time index for an episode would be great or a picture link! Also any help with finding out the numbers of a 'new' basestar would be great! Thanks! Armyoforigin 05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I am adding something here as I have been re-checking all my assumptions... Well the picture here: [[2]] shows the 'upper' bays of a 'original' look and they have six rows of 28... If the lowwer rows are the same as the baseship from KLG then that gives me this.... 115 For the V parts of a basestar or 115 x 4 = 460 Raiders and 168 x 2 = 336 and tah dah = 460 + 336 = 796 And of course the only other calculation I have is just a random high end one.... It is that if the upper arm number displayed in the pic above was the same for every arm (l68 x 6) then a basestar would have 1,008 Raiders.... So yeah could you guys possibly give me some feedback? Also that 796 figure fits in quite snugly with the 792 figure of the official magazine.... no? Armyoforigin 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Images linked to in article

As the wiki doesnt count the images linked in this article to be counted as being used I have thumbed them here so that they will not be deleted. <removed>
--Mercifull 07:50, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Placed images in new gallery feature so removed from Talk page --Mercifull 08:39, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

Size

Do Basestars really 'dwarf' Battlestars like the Pegasus and Galactica? Personally I think that they do, thats just the feel I get for them, but the truth is that I can't find any really good comparisons of a Battlestar and Basestar close togther. Theres a scene from Ressurectin Ship Pt. 2 where Apollo is drifting in space and you can see a Basestar and the two Battlestars, but the perspective is such that you can't really tell the size of them. Are theyre any concrete numbers on Basestar size, or at least some good comparisons?Antagonist 22:32, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

When Pegasus rams one in the Battle of New Caprica, Pegasus actually appears noticeably larger in comparison, or at least in bulk. Commander Mazien 20:32, 25 November 2006 (CST)

In looking at the above image, just how is it that basestars "dwarf" battlestars as a whole (Galactica maybe, but not Pegasus)? Commander Mazien 14:03, 26 November 2006 (CST)

I think the fact that there's debate should be enough to remove the word "dwarf", at least for the meantime. If the difference in size were that stark there'd be no debate.--Pearse 15:36, 26 November 2006 (CST)

Heavy Raiders?

Do we have proof that Basestars field Heavy Raiders? I don't really recall any Basestars launching Heavy Raiders. If I recall correctly, every time we've seen Heavy Raiders, they've been self powered. And as for Scattered, that Heavy Raider wasn't seen launching from the Basestar, and thusly could have come in under its own power. I'd suggest that until we see Heavy Raiders launching from Basestars, we don't take an assumption as fact. --BklynBruzer 09:04, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Heavy Raiders, however, have been seen flying next to Basestars deep in space. I personally would assume that the Heavy Raider was launched from the Basestar itself rather than accompanied it all the way from the Cylon Homeworld --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:20, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

And, I think it's a good assumption, but I'm saying that we shouldn't take it as fact. I added a small note to the page saying Heavy Raiders are likely. --BklynBruzer 09:24, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Actually, we do know they dock in Basestars. In KLGII, when Boomer and Racetrack land inside the Basestar Hangar, some of the Landing Bays neighbouring the one they dock on have Heavy Raiders in them. --Sauron18 20:12, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

No less then seven Heavy Raiders have been launched from a basestar in "The Eye of Jupiter". --Catrope 01:51, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Numbers

I'm not sure, but did we ever get any comments on the size of the Cylon Fleet? Wasn't there a comment in a podcast or something, I think I recall it, but I am unsure. If anyone knows if they've mentioned numbers anywhere, I think it would be great for the article, since we can keep a "kill" count, or something. --Sauron18 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

The exact number of Basestars is unknown, but I would place a guess of there being at least 50 of them. If the Cylons did decide the Colonial Fleet was superior to theirs, it might suggest there were at the least not enough Basestars to match the approx 120 Battlestars Commander Mazien 20:24, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Article Name

Hey, we all know that the terms "Baseship" and "Basestar" are basically interchangeable, but I've noticed that in all the new season, everytime we hear the Cylons refer to their ships they call them "Baseships" and they've never called it "Basestar". Maybe, considering the actual creators use that term more, we should change the main article name to Baseship? --Sauron18 18:14, 12 November 2006 (CST)

• For that matter, how many times have the colonials called it a "basestar"? If I recall, they haven't used it so much. --Sauron18 21:44, 12 November 2006 (CST)

The Cylons prefer "baseship," but we hear either from the Colonial's side. I don't think a move is particularly useful, especially when there are redirects for the same term, no matter what series. "Basestar" also works because of its RDM ship's star shape. As this is also a homage to TOS, best to leave it be. --Spencerian 22:36, 12 November 2006 (CST)

Well I was just thinking, maybe the article should have the "main name" that is used by it's creators. --Sauron18 23:27, 12 November 2006 (CST)

Its called a basestar because thats its original series name. Everyone knows its a basestar but we also know what the Cylons mean when they refer to a a baseship. Keep the name basestar imo. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:24, 13 November 2006 (CST)

True, but I found it odd that the only name the Cylons ever use is "Baseship", even if for us it's the same thing, the fact that they've never used the term "Basestar" made me wonder if perhaps these ships are mainly referred to as "Baseship", while "basestar" is a nickname also commonly associated, though not the actual name of the ship class. --Sauron18 06:39, 13 November 2006 (CST)

In the most recent podcasts RDM has definitely favored baseship over basestar. He seems to use them interchangably though, and baseship is a bit easier to say. I can't testify to the use of the word in-show, though a quick search of the episode transcripts could verify its use. Even with its prevalent "baseship" usage, "basestar"'s appeal lies in the consistency, whereas baseship is the word they're using right now. It might at least be worth a note in the article about the consistent usage of the newer term. --Steelviper 07:40, 13 November 2006 (CST)

It should be noted that, even in the original series, "baseship" and "basestar" were also used interchangably. The Colonials even use the term "Cylon battlestar" in one episode, as I recall, so nothing is really served by upsetting the status quo, since all the redirects are in place already. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:46, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Hey, I only bring this up again in light of what Bradley Thompson answered regarding the name of ships, and he actually included this ship in his answer:

"During the first season, we asked Mr. Eick for a decree on the subject: Are the Cylon vessels Base Ships or Base Stars? One word or two? He quite definitively stated that Base Ships was what they use. Of course, not everybody got the word and you'll hear both throughout the series."

So it seems that the official term is "Base Ship", and that the only reason we here the other term sometimes is because the writers of some episodes were not aware of this information and used both terms.

I think that this official statement, coupled with the fact that Cylons always call their ship "Base Ship", should warrant a change in the article name. I know the words are basically interchangeable, but we should have the term that is the most official, no? --Sauron18 14:41, 16 December 2006 (CST)

• Any Thoughts? --Sauron18 16:28, 19 December 2006 (CST)
  • I know it might not seem like it matters that much, and I hate to appear anal but I do think we should go by the term that is the one they wanted to use, and would've used completely if all writers had been informed. It also gives us a chance to easier differentiate these from the old ones because their "Main Name" is different. And hence we only need to call it "Base Ship". --Sauron18 01:40, 21 December 2006 (CST)

However, they are labeled "basestar" on DRADIS, at least as of "Exodus". -- Kingfisher 01:56, 21 December 2006 (CST)

I know, and they've been labelled "basestars" in other places (From Colonial point of view), but it has been quite noticeable that the Cylons themselves always call them "Base Ships", and as Ngarenn said, it is supposed to be "Base Ships", but since not all the writers heard this we might hear a different term now and then, but this is because of misinformation rather than anything else. That's why I think that, given the revelation that the "most official" term is "Base Ship", it's the one we should use, while the others serve as secondary. --Sauron18 02:20, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Nevertheless, given the existence of both terms on the show, the current title is not invalid, and the argument that it serves as a useful point of comparison/reference with the vessel's counterpart in the original series may have merit. There is also the logistics of moving such a well-linked article, and the usages of "basestar" in other articles. I do see your point, but the problem may not be severe enough to warrant such a measure. -- Kingfisher 02:42, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Well, we wouldn't have to change the name on every article, since the term is still basically the same, but we would only change the name on the article itself, with a little modification with the redirects but I think it would just be more...professional if we used it. --Sauron18 02:50, 21 December 2006 (CST)

We cannot "rid" ourselves of the use of "basestar" since the term has been used in RDM, although not often in recent episodes. Again, Joe's comment fits best here; the status quo serves best here. We already have redirects to all variations so, encyclopedically, all are served. I'm not against the use of "baseship" or "basestar" so long as an article uses them consistently. I am against the changing of the central article name for two reasons: confusion with its Original Series counterpart article as well as changing the name of a popular page. We could ask for a vote on this; but honestly we may be shooting ourselves in the foot over semantics. Remember that Battlestar Wiki works as an encyclopedia and we will mess things up by changing things about for small reasons. --Spencerian 16:30, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Well no, I wouldn't go as far as ask for a vote, nor do I mind leaving it as "Basestar". I was simply wondering if we would not prefer the best use of the term to the one we've been hearing. We were given an official one, but it doesn't matter, we'll keep "Basestar", but I would ask that we start placing "Base Ship" if we can, though not actually go back and change things.....--Sauron18 16:54, 21 December 2006 (CST)

"Encounters With Colonial Fleet"

Should we change the name of this section to "Appearances" since now that Baltar is over there we have a lot more on the Baseships without it necessarily being an encounter with the Colonial fleet. --Sauron18 17:27, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Basestar modifications

Should there be some mention of how all the basestars seen after "Exodus Part II" have a different appearance? Many details are different, such as the window pattern in the central hub, the hull pattern in the sections between the arms, more "pronounced" raider bays, and rows of what look like guns on the arms? -- Kingfisher 00:55, 21 December 2006 (CST)

If we do, we should add it in a BTS section since the change isn't supposed to actually "happen". I asked Bradley Thomspon on the matter about a month ago [3], and this is what he said-

"We're always upgrading the imagery (compare the Centurions from Season 1 to those of Season 3, for example). Gary Hutzel, Mike Gibson and the VFX crew decided to echo the internal design elements of the base ship on the exterior"

So it seems that the change is actually a retcon for the Base Ship appearance. They also seem to be smaller than the other Base Ships, which is why I wondered if maybe it was a new Base Ship model, but it seems it's just a retcon and they officially have always looked like this. --Sauron18 01:30, 21 December 2006 (CST)

• Hey, I added the comment to the notes section. --Sauron18 01:36, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Original Basestar Update?

With the fascinating and nostalgic version of the Cylon War-era basestar as seen in the Razor Flashbacks, we should update this article, with the classic basestar (with pic) shown chronologically with what we see there. Like its modern version of 40 years later, it is a gigantic missile platform and launches Raiders (an article that also needs a similar update to this one). This information needs to be coordinated with the Basestar (TOS) and Raider (TOS) articles for comparison and disambiguation/contrast. --Spencerian 01:28, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

That's fine by me. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 01:37, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

To be honest this page needs a major overhaul. It focuses far too much on battles and encounters with the Cylons. That whole part can be severely condensed or even cut entirely. The page doesn't have anything about the basestar interior. With the Baltar arc in Season 3 we have some information and pictures about that (better if we had DVD or iTunes caps). --Serenity 01:57, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I've completed the Razor additions, creating two sections for original and modern ships. I had originally removed the cleanup tag, but with Serenity's notes about the content, particularly the interior, I'll return it to warrant additional work. --Spencerian 10:20, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Great work! :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 10:27, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Well, I removed the superfluous battle section already and the content is fine as it is now. I hope I'll have the time to add something about the interior soon though. --Serenity 10:31, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Hybrid's ship

Did anyone notice that the the first hybrid's ship in "Razor" looked conspicuously like a newer basestar? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 10:27, 6 November 2007 (CST)

It looked like some weird mix of the TOS and RDM basestars. Note that the Hybrid also seems to be sentient and self-aware, unlike the 'modern' Hybrid we saw in "Torn". --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:23, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Yeah, it did. Plus regarding the hybrids: apparently the hybrids seem to have been abandoned, at least according to Sharon, so it makes me wonder whether or not any newer basestars have them aboard. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 11:36, 6 November 2007 (CST)

The "evolutionary dead-end" comment is interesting, as the Hybrids seem to be a logical stepping stone inbetween the bio-mechanical Raiders and the fully human-like Cylons. --Serenity 11:41, 6 November 2007 (CST)

I'm thinking that the Cylons under the first Hybrid were looking to be more bio-mechanical, cyborg like than their more organic successors. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 11:45, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Organic Design

In Season 4 we see that the Rebel Faction's basestar is organic (which we assumed from Torn) in faith we see that where it's missing "limbs" used to be there are massive "wounds".

Also in "Guess whats coming to dinner" Natalie says the their basestar will Heal over time, maybe like the hive ships of the Wraith in SG-Atlantis. I'm going to mention this in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centurion (talk • contribs).

Yeah. It'd also be good to describe the interior of basestars generally in more detail now that we've seen Guess What's Coming to Dinner. OTW 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-imagined Series definition: used to signify a civilian transport vessel over a certain gross weight/mass, i.e. Colonial Heavy 798

Re-imagined Series definition: "Direction, Range, and Distance", Colonial equivalent of radar or lidar