Talk:Colonial Viper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Battlestar Galactica
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Battlestar Galactica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

About the page[edit]

The mess that was this page was the result of a cut-and-paste dump from the Battlestar Wiki article on the Reimaged series Viper. I've fixed the headings, cut out any 'incorrect' formatting (such as the [edit] boxes), and removed some of the speculation. Footnotes are fixed, and I've added a sourced claim or two.

Sometime in the future, I may look at Battlestar Wiki's article on the original Vipers, and integrate that here. 211.30.35.62 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Design?[edit]

The article talks a lot about the features of the Viper within the BSG series. It is a TV prop. Who was the prop designer? What was the inspiration? What was it built from? Did it have components from real aircraft (such as joystick or instruments?) Did the appearance of the prop change over time?[[[Special:Contributions/78.18.20.99|78.18.20.99]] (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)]

Images[edit]

Do we really need all those images? I'd say leave the first two, but drop the one with Chief in the shot and the 'squadron' shot... they just clutter up the article and add nothing to it. I'd support the addition of a decent Mk VII shot, and think the second image, while alright, would be best replaced by a "inside the launch tube" shot. Thoughts? 211.30.35.62 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd dump the first one, which appears to be a behind-the-scenes shot of a viper in a parking lot. I like the other three, but the squadron shot could go if I had to pick another one to drop. -Dallan

The reason I like the first one is that it shows an entire Viper, even though its a BTS shot (which means it definitely needs a caption update). None of the other images show a clear Viper in its entirety.
The second and third images are pretty much the same, both showing the Viper from the cockpit back. We only need one, and as I said above, I think it would be more encyclopedic to replace both with a single screenshot of a Viper mid-launch
Finally, the squadron image doesn't really add much to the article... all it is is a collection of engine-glows, until you actually open up the image and look at the high-res version. We can do better than this! 211.30.35.62 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

I've been a bit bold, and have removed or replaced the follwing images with screenshots that I personally believe provide more visual information to the readers of this article. -- Saberwyn 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Just make it look best as possible. StargateX1 21:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Viper Missiles[edit]

Listing a companion book as its source, this article states a potential yield of 50 megatons for the Viper's missiles. Based on the size of the missiles seen, and the deminutive stature of the Viper, this figure is impossible. A 50 megaton thermonuclear bomb would require about 700kg of deuterium and tritium in its warhead. Once propulsion and guidance systems are taken into account, each missile would have to weigh several tons. It would seem much more likely that the actual yield is 50 kilotons, a number which is realistically achievable based on the technology as seen in the re-imagined series.

  • We don't debate if the sources are correct or not, we just say what the sources say. Theorising about the science and technology of the Re-Imaged series would probably be more welcome at www.battlestarwiki.com, the Battlestar Galactica Wiki. -- Saberwyn 11:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Whether we debate what the sources say or not, this information has never been stated in the series itself. As such it is non cannon and probably shouldn't be listed at all. Furthermore, it is at odds with information that is given in the series. Canon references (in actual dialogue) to similar missiles, fired by the Cylon Raider in the mini-series, put their yield at fifty kilotons. It seems entirely innappropriate to use a non canon source to put forth the idea that the nukes carried by Vipers are 1000 times as destructive. As for the debate issue, that is why it is on the discussion page.
      • When you put it that way... thanks for removing the bullshit! -- Saberwyn 00:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reimaged??[edit]

I think the word should read "reimagined" instead of "reimaged".

I think this page should be split between the two different series. They exist in separate universes. One series should not be linked with the other.

Trivia section[edit]

That section is really shitting me at the moment as 1) it is unverified (and please don't come on and say "I'm a fighter pilot, and I call it the Viper, find a print or media source for it), and 2) leaves the article open for all kinds of POV crap, like the recently reverted "The Viper looks kinda-sorta-maybe like a starfighter from a video game. If its not sourced in one week, I'm pulling it down. -- saberwyn 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] It's mentioned on this page.

Source has been sent to the F-16 article, where the naming is mentioned on the first page. However, I still think that 'trivia' sections are cruft magnets. Someone else has removed it, and I'm perosnally going to leave it that way. -- saberwyn 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Couldnt agree with you more, trivia sections are exactly that "trivial". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the arguments against a trivia section. I'd consider trying to work in a brief note mentioning the F-16's nickname coming from the show (as it is done for the F-16 article), but there's really no graceful way to do that here without rewriting the article more than I think is warranted for this. On an unrelated note, does anyone know of the Viper VII's were designed (in production of the show, of course) to more strongly resemble F-16's from certain angles?--Raguleader 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That we could use. However, do you have a externally verifiable source for this? -- saberwyn 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • For the Viper VII looking similar to an F-16? None, I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything that would suggest it wasn't just me fanwanking. Not gonna put it in unless I find a source for it.--Raguleader 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

F-16 "Viper" nickname[edit]

Someone dropped in a reference to the F-16's nickname. It wasn't in a seperate trivia section, and the spot for it (the end of the section for the '78 Viper) seemed a fairly good, nonintrusive place for it. I touched up the sentence flow, added a short note for the Mitsubishi F-2's similar nickname (though it's based on the F-16's nickname, and not the Colonial Viper, as far as I know), and someone else put in a cite for it. It's probably fairly safe that we not add anything else there, though if it's taking up too much space, the "Viper Zero" bit can be removed to make it more discrete.--Raguleader 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone put it in, I just added the reference. If we're gonna have it, we better source it. I like it right where it is. -- saberwyn 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

reqimage[edit]

Does anyone have shots of the MkII in space? 132.205.93.32 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request completed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Manual Control?[edit]

Just a random question, the article mentions that the Viper VII's were modified to be controlled manually rather than with computer assistance. I recall the Sci-Fi channel's promo website for the series also mentioning this, but is this something they actually stated or showed in the series? --Raguleader 08:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding from what was said in the miniseries was that it was the presence of Gaius Baltar's navigation program in the new Viper mk VIIs that allowed remote shutdown by the Cylons, rather then their design as 'fly by wire' craft. As a spacecraft, I assumed all its thrusters and other control surfaces were electronically operated, they just were not intigrated with the navigation system. It was the intigration of the navigation system, which also contained the vulnerable computer program that made the mk VII vulnerable, while the Mk II either did not have the navigation program, or the navigation program was unable to influence the other systems. ColonelCurt 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So... does that mean there's nothing in canon to suggest that the Mark VII's were actually switched to "full manual control"? I just assumed the computer helped out similar to an R2 unit on an X-Wing, or the flight computer in an F-16 (apparantly it would be damn near impossible for any mere human to control the F-16 without the computer acting as an automated flight engineer and copilot.) That bit has bugged me ever since I saw it on the Sci-fi channel's website, cause it just didn't make sense (yeah, I know, "Just repeat to yourself: It's just a show, I should really just relax.")--Raguleader 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the bit about manual control until someone can find a cite for it from the show.--Raguleader 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit]

I must say thanks to the inconsiderate person who added in the info about the destruction of the Pegasus to this article without also including a spoiler warning. In Australia we are only about halfway through season 2, so thanks for ruining that part of the show for me. Darth Windu

30mm[edit]

I removed the 30mm link in the article, as this redirects to an article about the NATO 30x173mm and Warsaw Pact 30x164mm rounds. Unless I've missed something, since I haven't watched the show lately, I'm pretty sure the Colonial Fleet doesn't use NATO ammunition.--Raguleader 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

new BSG weapons are not railguns[edit]

there is no on screen or press release info specifying that the kinetic weapons in the new BSG are railguns. in fact, there is much more evidence that their normal autocannons. the battlestar wiki has a good page summing up what is known. http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Weapons_in_the_Re-imagined_Series "In fan circles, the battlestar and Viper weapons are sometimes called railguns. However this has never been stated on screen and a lot of evidence, like the use of chemically propelled rounds, points to them being conventional guns. Indeed, the exact nature of these weapons is still being discussed by the production team (some like Gary Hutzel want them to be based on railgun technology, while some in the writing staff feel that they are not railguns) "

so we should remove the link to railguns in fiction until we have definite proof from the show or writers.

Fair use rationale for Image:Colonial viper original-series.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Colonial viper original-series.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Fair Use Rationale provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

reqphoto[edit]

A MkVII in addition to the MkII would be useful. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed?[edit]

There are several references to "speed" in the article, which are amusingly silly. In space there is no "maximum speed" (relativistic effects aside). Acceleration is the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.140.241 (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mark 0" Viper[edit]

How shall we deal with the precursor viper, older than Mark 1 - ergo Mark 0, that appeared in the tandem flight sequence on Caprica? 155.84.57.253 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In Starhunter[edit]

There's no "In popular culture" section here, so I'll just note this on the talk page. In season 1, episode 10 of Starhunter, the character Percy creates a home-made AI-piloted camera drone (a miniature aerospace craft), in the form of a crude and somewhat elongated and greatly simplified Colonial Viper (original series style), including wing stripes.[1] The same episode (at 18:42 and 34:17) features a visual homage to the Aerial Hunter-Killer of the "Terminator" franchise, so the resemblance is highly unlikely to be coincidental.

  1. ^ Ghiran, Nelu (writer) (November 15, 2000). "Family Values". Starhunter. Season 1. Episode 10. 24.05 minutes in. The Movie Network. 

SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)