Talk:X-303

From SGCommand

Contents 1 Ships of this class 2 USS Prometheus? 3 Merge/Move 4 BC-303 5 BC 6 Move 7 Asgard Energy Weapon

[edit] Ships of this class

Guys, the Korolev, Odyssey, and the Daedalus are all BC-304s. Not 303s. —Unsigned comment by 68.7.13.10 (talk • contribs).

[edit] USS Prometheus?

Isn't the Prometheus refered to as the United States Air Force Starship Prometheus or something along those lines? Wouldn't that mean that it's prefix would be USAFS instead of USS?--Raguleader 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Truth be told, I've never heard the phrase USS Prometheus. -- SFH 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Later ships such as the Odyssey and Apollo were referred to as USS (mission patches on crew uniforms), so it would be plausible that Prometheus would be retroactively given this prefix as well. For the time being, though, let's stick to just omitting any prefixes, like seems to be the standart on this wiki. - Bell'Orso 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/Move

I vote to have this article as well as Prometheus merged into 303, the reasons being that

• 1.: there is only one ship of this type, the Prometheus herself, and
  
• 2.: towards the end of its career, Prometheus was definitely not in experimental stage anymore, as it was referred to as BC 303.

Now since the BC 304s are also just referred to as 304s on this wiki, the X designation should be dropped and the article on the ship be made a subsection of the article on the type. - Bell'Orso 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why a merge, we have a page on a type of vessel, and seperate articles for the ships from that type, no matter if there's just one, because they are seperate entities, so I am willing to reckon that an admin would say the same thing. Plus, where did you here the BC bit from the 304s, because I never heard of it, a BC is probably just a made up name. Plus, the X-303 shouldn't be moved, as it WAS seen, in the episode Prometheus, when it was taking off from the hanger, you can clearly see "X-303". So in other words, I am voting against that proposal, sorry. -- Matthew R Dunn 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concede that the 304s were never referred to as "BC 304s" onscreen, but they were referred to as "battlecruisers", which would indicate a possible "BC" prefix. The Prometheus, however, WAS, at some point, referred to as "BC 303" onscreen. So, if the articles are not merged, at least the type should be renamed to either "BC 303" or just "303" as the type as a whole is clearly past the eXperimental stage. - Bell'Orso 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I (as an admin) do agree with Matthew). It would be like combining every 304 article with the page 304. How about we move everything relating to the history from the X-303 article to Prometheus. But on the X-303 article, leave info about weapons, the ship's design, layout... Sort of like the 304 article. And it's fine just as 303, just as 304 is fine as 304. That being said, don't move it to BC. It would be like making the article "Captain jack Harkness", even though the title "Captain" should be dropped.—Anubis 10545 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I'll just go ahead and move the entire X-303 article to 303 and leave it to someone else to move the history part to the Prometheus article. Just wanted to be clear on the naming convention for Tau'ri ship classes. - Bell'Orso 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC-303

I agree as well. The separate articles of each 304 should be moved into the descriptive article of the 304. Same thing should be done for the 303 article as well.

If I'm understanding you correctly, combining the 304 articles would be a terrible idea (no offense).—Anubis 10545 06:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what did they do w/ the unfinished 303s'? Did they scrapped them or something?—Tau'ri 21300 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Your response is to me right?) I guess they used it to build the 304s, since they have a very similar design.—Swedish guy 12:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BC

In the episode Enemy Mine, General Hammond actually says: "Colonel, General Vidrine is down from the Pentagon. He's been put in charge of BC-303 production." They actually DO call it a BC-303. Huh... never noticed that.—Anubis 10545 03:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

if they were already producing 303s', then what happened to them? —Tau'ri 21300 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the production was cancelled or frozen or something until they eventually decided to put their money on the 304s instead. —Swedish guy 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I suggest we move the "X-303" page to just "303" since the class has also been called "BC-303". —Swedish guy 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason we have the 304 page where it's currently located is because it's never been called the X-304 or BC-304. This page should remain here and we should have a complete separate page for the BC-303, much like we do for the X-302 and F-302. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the X-302s and the F-302s were two "very" different kinds of ships, while the only X-303 ever built, the Prometheus, was also referred to as a "BC-303" later in its service. That means that the Prometheus has been both a X-303 and a BC-303, if so; What's the difference? —Swedish guy 15:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually stated the reasons for having differing pages somewhere on this wiki, but here we go; while the Prometheus was the X-303 it only had Earth-based or backwards engineered Goa'uld technology on it, whereas when it was refit as the BC-303 it included Asgard technology. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do they mention that in the series? —Swedish guy 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

They don't mention it exactly like that, however it's called the X-303 for a long time, then it gets the Asgard refit, and called the BC-303 afterwards. As the two things coincide, I figure that the Asgard refit is likely the reason for the name change. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That sounds quite vague...—Swedish guy 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaymach. However, we should then change the redriect for BC-303 from X-303 to Prometheus.—Anubis 10545 18:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to make the BC-303 page then? —Swedish guy 10:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant I would make a redirect... which I did. BC-303 now redirects to Prometheus opposed to how it used to redirect to X-303.—Anubis 10545 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I was talking with the other guy, who said that we should have a separate page for the BC-303. —Swedish guy 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asgard Energy Weapon

THE PROMETHEUS DID NOT HAVE ASGARD ENERGY WEAPONS!! Every time that it is added to any article that it did... it WILL, 100%, without a doubt be reverted... DEFINITELY!.—Anubis 10545 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)