CnC Source Forums: GDSS kodiak in BSG? - CnC Source Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

GDSS kodiak in BSG? I think I saw the Kodiak in the battlestar final- Now there’s proof Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   Mighty BOB! 

  • Dark Lord of the Source
  • View blog
  • Group: Network Admin
  • Posts: 2,067
  • Joined: 24-March 05

Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:50 PM

Someone's got the clip on YouTube now:

#22 User is offline   Ackart 

  • Red Europe Lead, TD Texturer
  • Group: Network Mod Staff
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 17-April 04

Posted 24 March 2009 - 04:49 PM


I was glued to the TV during the finale and I never saw that. Saw lots of the Firefly though.

#23 User is offline   NodMan 

  • Group: VIP Member
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25-January 04

Posted 26 March 2009 - 10:02 AM

Here is a Video for you ladies ;)

I still say it is a Kodiak 2 if anything ;)

#24 User is offline   Mighty BOB! 

  • Dark Lord of the Source
  • View blog
  • Group: Network Admin
  • Posts: 2,067
  • Joined: 24-March 05

Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:50 AM

I just linked to that two posts ago. :P

#25 User is offline   Collins 

  • TD Concept Artist
  • Group: Network Mod Staff
  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 18-November 06

Posted 27 March 2009 - 12:50 AM

hey can y'all help me any they keep deleteing my bit about the kodiak on the wiki and Ill let a copy of the talk page speek as to why

wiki battlestar galatica daybreak talk page, on mar 27 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Its the exact same ship and if I knew how to post a photo I would to prove it, other then that; I only have this forum(http://www.cnc-sourc...topic=7360&st=0) as proof (in it we discussed it and I posted a photo from the episode), also I would ask that you consider the odds that two different groups created the exact same ship model independently (given that the Kodiak is a distinct design, albeit not so distinct as to not fit in the BSG fleet)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is still OR --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There comes a point sir where you can tell beyond a reasonable doubt that two things are one and the same; if I could place 2, photos of the ship right next to each other one from the original source and one from the episode, then all who see it could then tell its the exact same ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Post note on the forum site I sited earlier I edited my post (second down from the top) as to place an image of the ship from the episode and the original ship in question please look at them and tell me weather this counts as being one and the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That is fine, but it is still original research by you and others. You are taking two images and saying "Look they're the same!" What you need is a cited fact from a reliable secondary source that is verifiable, which blogs, other wikis and other sources of user generated content is not. Find that stuff and you can include it, otherwise it is subject to deletion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The rules against OR and requiring RS are meant to prevent people from posting misinformation. Obviously this isn't misinformation, so those rules don't apply, and it can be posted, per this rule. To say otherwise is to violate this rule. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you sir--Collinsas (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Really, would you like to put that up to an RfC? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will tell you the same thing - that argument is bunk. That has been tried before and in each case the result was the same the data that was questioned was removed. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. The Use Common Sense rule is a difficult rule to enforce. But that doesn't change the fact that if I managed to find someone in that rapidly shrinking segment of the population that does have common sense, then that person would agree that the information should be allowed to be posted. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, I think the problem here is that you are not considering the argument for inclusion or providing a reasonable argument for exclusion by weighing the facts at hand based upon the merits of the arguments presented. What you are instead doing is deleting things and then citing rules that all of us are already aware of, and then hiding behind those rules when someone calls you on it. Look at the spirit of the law AS well as the letter of the law, and don't indiscriminately apply the law without considering what things are there for. You will end up contradicting yourself. Provide a substantive argument for or against inclusion, and not just "this is OR, this is still OR, please cite, this is OR". Consider the article: Jesus. The first sentences state: Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God. Islam considers Jesus a prophet, and he is an important figure in several other religions. Notice that there is no citation. Is a conclusion drawn in these sentences? Yes. Is there a consensus that these conclusions are true? Yes. Is this then fact? Yes. Does it need to be cited specifically? No. Why? Because a consensus has been reached. This is one of the main purposes of a talk page. To reach a consensus. I am not arguing for or against the inclusion of the Kodiak issue...what I am trying to get across is that, by your desire to make things better or "right" by what you think is a justifiable citation of rules, you are actually denying others the same. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your efforts are appreciated, but please attempt to consider other viewpoints and don't be so quick to slash and burn.
Shaheenjim, I think calling Jeremy a "petty bureaucrat" isn't helping, either.
IRelayer (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see the point you have made, but the conclusion you reached is faulty. The facts you state are all cited later in the article. WP does not require the lead to be cited, since it is simply a summary of the article that is to come. If you delve deeper into the article you are using as an example, you will find cited references that back up these comments. Additionally the subject of the history of Jesus has been subject of scholarly research and debate for two millenniums, this subject is a little newer and still subject to debate.

The conclusions presented here are subjective in that the contributor went out and looked at data he found on the web and came to a conclusion about that data and presented it here, which is OR. On the other hand, the addition that Stu Phillips music can be heard is not subjective since the credits of the show list his contributions. Its is like the famous baked potato in The Empire Strikes Back asteroid belt scene, it has been written about many times and can be backed up by independent sources that meet the WP Sourcing guidelines; at this time that cannot be said about the ship in question but I am sure that this will change once a site such as IGN gets a hold of this. Once that is done it can be properly included. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is OR doesn't mean it's subjective. Look it up. But you didn't address my point. I repeat:
1. The rules against OR and requiring RS are intended to prevent people from posting misinformation.
2. This isn't misinformation.
3. The rules against OR and requiring RS aren't intended to prevent people from posting this.
4. IAR says you shouldn't use a rule for a purpose for which it wasn't intended.
5. You shouldn't use the rules against OR and requiring RS to prevent people from posting this.
If you object to my argument, be specific. Say which of those 5 points you disagree with, if any. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
From this picture (, you can clearly see that it IS the Kodiak from the game Command&Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Spectre01 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Time out
Yes, it is the CC Koidak, the resembense is remarkable. No we cannot put that in. Here's why: Wikipedia is build on the five pillars, three of them being reliable sources, verifiability and no original research. Those are policies, which everyone must follow. WP:IAR is also policy, but still governed by the fove pillars; it is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot. Common sense is not even a guideline; it only represents a state of mind.

The CC Kodiak is not on it's own; in the Miniseries, we saw the Serenity soar over Caprica. It is mentioned because the producers acknowledged it, which made it notable. But no such thing has happened here... yet. As it is, this is an observation. Until the media or the producers point this out, we cannot put it in the article. As it is now, it's a ship from a video game. On it's own it is not a reason for inclusion. Wait until there is media coverage, or the episode's podcast is out; if it mentions the ship, we can put it in. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was unable to post as I was at work. This was going to be my next point, and you stated it dead on. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, the music was specific to this episode: The original BSG theme only appeared two times during the series, in the first episode of the Mini-series where it was acknowledged as the Thirteen colony's national anthem and here at the end as the Galactica is being flown into the sun. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You still didn't address my point. In my post at 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC), I asked you a very specific question. I described my argument in five points, and I asked you which of those 5 points you disagree with, if any. You have failed to respond, again. I suspect it's because you can't respond, because you know damn well that all 5 points are correct. In addition to flagrantly violating Wikipedia's Use Common Sense rule, you are also now in violation of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, which says that instead of edit warring, you should discuss your objections, and say which part of your opponent's argument you disagree with. So I'm going to ask you one more time. Say which of the 5 points of my argument is wrong, or shut up. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I am at work, I will respond later. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If you were going to directly answer my question, you could do that at work. It'd only take a single character. You could've just typed the number of the premise with which you disagree. But you didn't. It sounds like your response is a prelude to another evasion. Save it. I'm not interested. - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I actually like to follow the rules as set forth by my boss. You should take a lesson in rule following, starting with WP:Civil.
As for the five standards of inclusion, lets me say it again so you will understand:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
I have been saying this over and over and you still will not listen. When you draw a conclusion that is not backed by a reliable secondary source you are engaging in original research. The common sense article is an essay and not a policy guideline. Using common sense would dictate that if the data you are presenting does not meet the five standards you must not include it.
As I have also stated, the pictures do appear to be the same ship, and as Edoktor and I have both stated until this is confirmed you cannot include it. Read my post above to see that I have also said once there is significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that can be verified, you can include it. Hell, I will even put it in myself and properly cite for you when that time comes. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I find it unlikely that your boss said that you're allowed to go on Wikipedia, read someone else's post, and give the response "I am at work, I will respond later." but that he said you're not allowed to go on Wikipedia, read someone else's post, and give the response "2." Perhaps he said you're allowed to say "I am at work, I will respond later" but you aren't allowed to make long posts. But a long post is not required. All I've asked you to do is post the number of my premise with which you disagree. You could've done that without a long post. But you didn't. As I expected, you have failed to my direct question, again. Since you refuse to observe Wikipedia's dispute resolution process by discussing your objections and saying which part of your opponent's argument you disagree with, I'm readding the material to the article.
As for your "point" we're all aware of the rules against OR and requiring a RS. We all know that this material violates those rules. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, as I have explained several times. Common sense does not dictate that if the data you are presenting does not meet the five standards you must not include it. Not when the five standards weren't intended to prevent you from including data like yours, and especially now when there's the IAR rule. I'm aware that you think it can be included once it has a RS. No one is disputing that, and I'll ask you to stop wasting everyone's time by repeating things that are not disputed. The question is whether it can be included before it has a RS. And the answer is yes, as I've explained, in an argument so perfect that you weren't able to explain which part of it was wrong. - Shaheenjim (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the answer is an unambiguous no. We can add it once it is sourced, not sooner. Otherwise it remains unverifiable. Please stop reinserting it until a source becomes available. If you want to put the infotmation somewhere, go to the Battlestar Wiki, they would welcome this information. — Edokter • Talk • 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Edokter. My comments were to Jeremy, but I'll address you separately now. In your recent edit you said "IAR does not apply here." In your comments above you said "WP:IAR... is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot." Elaborate on those statements. Where did you find the guidelines you're using about when IAR does and does not apply? My understanding is that it applies in any case where the rules prevent you from making Wikipedia better. In this case, the rule against OR and requiring RS are preventing us from making Wikipedia better, so it seems to me like IAR would apply. If you're aware of some other requirement for application, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Or is it your allegation that the rule against OR and requiring RS do not prevent us from making Wikipedia better in this case? Is it your allegation that adding OR information without a RS doesn't make Wikipedia better, even if the information is obviously and undisputedly true?
Also, the rules OR and RS would object to this. The verifiability rule does not. The information is obviously verifiable by looking at the pictures that Collinsas provided. - Shaheenjim (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
IAR does not apply because adding this information does not improve Wikipedia. And while looking at a picture may seem to verify that the ship is Kodiak, noone can verify the origin of that image, so it fails verifiability. Adding OR information without without a source is never an improvement. And yes, we do put verifiability over truth. — Edokter • Talk • 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it your position that this information is not obviously and definitely true? Or is it your position that adding information that is obviously and definitely true doesn't improve Wikipedia if it's OR and doesn't have a RS?
And you can easily verify the source of the images by watching the TV shows from which they came. In that sense it'd be exactly the same if it did come from a RS. - Shaheenjim (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, no matter how true it is, it needs to be verifiable. Right now, it isn't due to the lack of reliable sources. It is as simple as that. Now please stop pressing the issue. — Edokter • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a comment that violated WP:Civil from Shaheenjim. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me to verify the images, fine then here are 2 videos; 1) is the GDI intro from TS the kodiak first appers at the 2.10 mark, and 2) is a clip from daybreak with the kodiak in it.
--Collinsas (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
All that material is fan-submitted, so unfortunately unusable. Just be patient; I'm already reviewing some potential sources, so there is hope yet. — Edokter • Talk • 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
E! has an interview with RDM, you might look there as well. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
One guy censors dissenting speech that was a response to that guy's ally's attempt to suppress dissenting speech. Oh, the irony. Not to mention that deleting someone's comment is a pretty uncivil thing to do in the name of civility. Well sorry Jeremy, but this still isn't a dictatorship, despite the fact that apparently you also wish it was. I've restored my comment, and I'll direct it to you now too.
I just explained how you could verify it, despite the lack of a reliable source. If you have a problem with that explanation, you should say what it is, specifically. And you didn't answer my questions from my first paragraph. And I will not stop pressing the issue. If you don't think people should be able to express opinions different from yours, then move to a dictatorship. Wikipedia isn't one. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy either. I have explained the importance of verifiability through reliable sources multiple times now. If you do not want to accept the way we work here, you are free to leave. — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That very page to which you just linked says, and I quote, "[Wikipedia's] method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion." I'm pretty sure that article was not intended to be used to suppress discussion, which is the purpose for which you seem to be attempting to use it. I have no problems with Wikipedia's rules. I merely object to your misinterpretation of those rules, and fortunately for me, you aren't in charge, so that's no reason for me to leave.
It's true that you have tried on multiple occasions to explain the importance of verifiability through reliable sources. It's equally true that you failed. On multiple occasions I have explained that there is a problem with your reasoning, and asked you a direct question about it which you have been unable to answer. If you have a problem with my explanation of your problem, feel free to state it. But if you can't find any hole in my hole in your argument, then you have no case. - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You still have not provided a reliable source. No ammount of reasoning in the world is going to change that. For the last time: Any fan-submitted information is not reliable, therefor it cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk • 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge that I didn't provide a reliable source. But my position is that we shouldn't need a reliable source in this case. Therefore, whether or not I've provided a reliable source is irrelevant. Now, if you want to dispute my position, you're free to do so. But when I asked you a question about why you dispute my position, you were unable to answer it. That doesn't make your case look particularly strong. I'll ask my question again: Is it your position that this information is not obviously and definitely true? Or is it your position that adding information that is obviously and definitely true doesn't improve Wikipedia if it's OR and doesn't have a RS? - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me throw out some random thoughts that might help the discussion.
The ship in that picture certainly looks like the ship in that other picture. Unfortunately, I don't know where either picture came from, so I cannot say anything further with any certainty.
For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that one is an image from BSG and one from C&C. The similarity between the two models tells us that either the Kodiak model from C&C was used in BSG, or that an artist working for the BSG production team created a model based on the Kodiak model. Perhaps the polygon count or resolution / bit depth of texture maps (or other image components) was incorrect and had to be altered. Perhaps this work had approval from Westwood/EA - or perhaps they just had access to concept sketches, game footage, the game itself... we don't know. We also don't know the intentions of the BSG art team. Without a reliable source commenting on the issue, we cannot say for certain whether BSG features the Kodiak, or a copy or conversion or rip-off of it, or a tribute or homage to it. Choosing one statement from the various possibilities and adding it to the article is the essence of original research.
The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is pretty clear that one side in this dispute has truth on their side, and the other, verifiability.
Ignore all rules should never be cited to win a content dispute. Any good faith content dispute by definition involves two or more people who cannot agree as to which course of action improves Wikipedia, which is the key to IAR's applicability.
I do not believe that I am a petty bureaucrat or a kid.
I hope that this helps. The best course of action I can see is to seek out published sources discussing this. If necessary, contact the BSG people and ask them for an official comment on the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
you do understand (I say this because I had in the original ref as well in the article and here in my pervious posts), the kodiak first appered over 10 years ago, and nether video I posted was edited in any way (aside from time on the part of the BSG clip the Kodiak,and well trying to keep a civil tone, why do'es it matter if the videos were fan submitted if nither have been tampered withted ) , if the you tube clip doesn’t suffice I can post a link to C&C that is run by the owners of the C&C property, other then that all I ask is for you to re watch the episode to see that the clip is not a fake either it appears in the episode around the 11-13 minute mark Click 1999 and watch my judgment is sound Kane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 07:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Y’all think you could help me get the proof I need?

#26 User is offline   Mighty BOB! 

  • Dark Lord of the Source
  • View blog
  • Group: Network Admin
  • Posts: 2,067
  • Joined: 24-March 05

Posted 27 March 2009 - 09:33 AM

Well Assassin and I were talking to Rade Stojsavljevic and Adam Isgreen in a hotel bar on Monday and we talked about the Kodiak. Someone sent them a link about it, but they hadn't seen it because it wouldn't work on their iphones. :P But they said they knew the guys who did the CG for the series, and they did most of the CG work for Firefly/Serenity and were really good guys. And some guy who was on the credits for TS is working there now. Chris Demers maybe.

But all of that is firsthand research. :/ Your best bet might be

#27 User is offline   Kodaemon 

  • Flame Trooper
  • View gallery
  • Group: Network Staff
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:42 AM

I'll just add that TS had a reference to the original Battlestar Galactica series: the Nod cyborgs say "By your command!"

Thus, it comes full circle ;)

Share this topic:

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users