Talk:Galactica/Archive 1

I noticed on the first episode of the new series after the Cylon attack, Starbuck was told that they had lost 30 battlestars. Starbuck replied "that's a quarter of the fleet". Does this mean that there are approximately 120 battlestars in the fleet? Also, if they had lost a quarter of the fleet, what has happened to the rest of the battlestars?

Another question I have pertains to the amount of Vipers aboard a battlestar. A landing bay is noted as being about 2000 feet long which is about the size of 2 aircraft carriers. Our present day aircraft carriers carry about 85 aircraft most of which are larger than a Viper. I would assume with landing bays that large, a bay can handle at least twice the 85 aircraft load of an aircraft carrier. Why does it seem that they only have 40 to 50 Vipers? I'm comparing an aircraft carrier with 85 aircraft to support it with a battlestar that is 4 times it's length and many times the bulk carrying about 50 Vipers? It doesn't make sense.

Thank you for your time.

Mike michael99646@yahoo.com

The other battlestars were (presumably) destroyed by Cylons, and the small amount of Vipers is explained by the fact that A) the Galactica was being decomissioned on the same day of the Cylon attack, so many of its Vipers had been re-assigned; and B) all of its Mk. VII Vipers were destroyed by the Cylons because of the Cylon computer virus. Hope this helps.Kuralyov 08:57, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Video Game

Hate to say it but the info about the videogame is wrong. The game itself ties into the new imagined series than anything else. Seeing as how it states the Cylons were created by man in the introduction, gives you reasons as to the war so on and so forth. The few deviations in the game from the TV show are because Moore changed a few parts of the script. When I can I'll edit the part about the video game and include several quotes from the game manual. The Galactica is much much older than 40 years old but no wear near 500.

I'm working on an article on the canonicity of the Video Game (a necessary pre-requisite for the colonial history article), however, I don't own it. Would you be able to offer some assistance in this area?

My personal feeling on the canonicity of the video game is that it stands in its own sort of in-between realm with one foot each in the SDS continuity and RDM continuity. Where its events don't flatly contradict the RDM series and no other information exists, I would suggest they could be included with a proviso on the source. --April Arcus 03:19, 17 September 2005 (EDT)

The Big Disabiguation-Oops

This page should have been moved to Galactica (RDM) without a new page being created of the same name. The content at the current Galactica (RDM) page is free of TOS information. The TOS content is already moved to Galactica (TOS) and the video game data to Galactica (Video Game 2003). Need Joe B. or an admin to aid in this. There will obviously be a few bad links to this page, but other pages should redirect fine as they are new. I don't want to lose page history by doing a raw cut-and-paste move. Spencerian 13:23, 30 September 2005 (EDT)

Redirect vs. disambig

Why is this page a redirect to Galactica (RDM), whereas pages like The Hand of God, Pegasus and Apollo are all disambig pages? --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:19, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

This was one of the earliest decisions in the wiki history, and it has everything to do with the popularity and length of the Re-imagined Series. As the popular pages list shows, Galactica (RDM) is our third most accessed page. The page is loaded with disambig headers to Galactica (TOS) and others, but since that show isn't in production, it made more sense to keep it to the current series' version. Since it is also a very common search team here, a general disambiguation page would be less useful. For articles like Pegasus (RDM), the disambig makes more sense as a secondary player, although it too could be changed about to the same setup as the RDM Galactica page for the same reasons. --Spencerian 13:31, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the ship articles in general are very popular (bah! ;)). And Pegasus could directly point to the RDM version for the same reason, even if basically all articles use the disambiguation. In fact it has even more page views than Galactica. --Serenity 13:34, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

For reasons of popularity, I'm game on changing Pegasus (RDM) to be the central page when "Pegasus" is entered. Might make a LOT of sense as Razor reprises its adventures. --Spencerian 13:38, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Make it so, Number One. Engage. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 14:56, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

It's done. The whole disambiguation story is now at Pegasus (disambiguation) with all the other Pegasus articles linking there. Pegasus now redirects to Pegasus (RDM). This is pretty much the way they do it over at Wikipedia when one meaning is clearly dominant, like with "cat". --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:18, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

That looks fine, Catrope. You get an extra replication ration and 5 extra minutes on the holodeck. --Spencerian 16:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Only for use on Voyager... You don't need that kind of crap on the Enterprise. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 17:19, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Ditto. :D Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:28, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

On topic, I did the same for the Galactica (*) articles, with Galactica redirecting to Galactica (RDM) and disambiguation at Galactica (disambiguation). --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:24, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Double redirect

As I can't seem to edit the content page (I don't see edit, I see view source), I wanted to post this here as a reminder to someone to fix the redirect, which currently goes to "Galactica (RDM)" which in turns tries to point to (But doesn't) "Galactica (TRS)", wikia software doesn't seem to like double redirects (can't blame it, I guess), so I thought I'd make the note. --Typhoeus 08:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm fixing the 100+ double redirects that were created recently, too. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was merely trying to point it out, as I have been sing this particular one for a little bit now, simply making sure it didn't get lost (I know what it's like to have things get lost on mass fix it jobs, trust me). --Typhoeus 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)