Editing Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship/Archive 1
Discussion page of Battle of the Resurrection Ship/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Article Name== | ==Article Name== | ||
I preferred "Attack on". "Battle of" usually precedes the name of the battleground, which is unnamed here. --[[User: | I preferred "Attack on". "Battle of" usually precedes the name of the battleground, which is unnamed here. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:15, 19 January 2006 (EST) | ||
:I'm sorry but that's the format we're using. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]][[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 22:08, 19 January 2006 (EST) | :I'm sorry but that's the format we're using. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]][[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 22:08, 19 January 2006 (EST) | ||
::Ricimer, that was only slightly more polite than just telling me to shut up. The reason it's called a "talk" page is because we ''talk'' on it. --[[User: | ::Ricimer, that was only slightly more polite than just telling me to shut up. The reason it's called a "talk" page is because we ''talk'' on it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:41, 19 January 2006 (EST) | ||
:::For the battles series, "Battles" are used for most things, "Skirmish" is for small but noteworthy engagements, usually when either A) a minor recurring character dies, or B) a Viper or Raptor is destroyed. "Skirmish over the Red Moon" is officially the smallest engagement that deserves it's own page; i.e. when 2 Raiders are destroyed with no losses in "Final Cut", it's so minor that it doesn't deserve a page. (also, on special occasions 'Fall of " can be used, etc). The basis I'm using is that the destruction of the ''Bismark'' is not referred to as "Attack on the ''Bismark'' "Battle of the North Sea" etc (something like that). | :::For the battles series, "Battles" are used for most things, "Skirmish" is for small but noteworthy engagements, usually when either A) a minor recurring character dies, or B) a Viper or Raptor is destroyed. "Skirmish over the Red Moon" is officially the smallest engagement that deserves it's own page; i.e. when 2 Raiders are destroyed with no losses in "Final Cut", it's so minor that it doesn't deserve a page. (also, on special occasions 'Fall of " can be used, etc). The basis I'm using is that the destruction of the ''Bismark'' is not referred to as "Attack on the ''Bismark'' "Battle of the North Sea" etc (something like that). | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::::It's appropriate to refer to the "Battle of the North Sea", since any historian writing about the Bismarck would know where it was. Since we don't know where the attack on the resurrection ship took place, the article would be better off being named based on information we do know. I favor "Attack on the Resurrection Ship". | ::::It's appropriate to refer to the "Battle of the North Sea", since any historian writing about the Bismarck would know where it was. Since we don't know where the attack on the resurrection ship took place, the article would be better off being named based on information we do know. I favor "Attack on the Resurrection Ship". | ||
::::As for your notion of standards for the battle pages, they would certainly be useful to discuss. As always, the appropriate place is [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]]. --[[User: | ::::As for your notion of standards for the battle pages, they would certainly be useful to discuss. As always, the appropriate place is [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:59, 19 January 2006 (EST) | ||
::::I clearly favor "Attack of", given April's reasoning. (Which is why I called it "Attack of the Resurrection Ship" instead of "Battle of the Resurrection Ship".) Also, we ''could'' get away with naming the article "Fall of the Resurrection Ship"... Just a thought. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:00, 21 January 2006 (EST) | ::::I clearly favor "Attack of", given April's reasoning. (Which is why I called it "Attack of the Resurrection Ship" instead of "Battle of the Resurrection Ship".) Also, we ''could'' get away with naming the article "Fall of the Resurrection Ship"... Just a thought. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:00, 21 January 2006 (EST) | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Call for opinions== | ==Call for opinions== | ||
I want this page moved back to "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" for reasons discussed above and on [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions#Battle pages]]. If you have an unvoiced opinion on the matter, please chime in. --[[User: | I want this page moved back to "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" for reasons discussed above and on [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions#Battle pages]]. If you have an unvoiced opinion on the matter, please chime in. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:25, 21 January 2006 (EST) | ||
:You will also see my counterarguements on the same page, which show the reasons why I think it should stay. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:23, 21 January 2006 (EST) | :You will also see my counterarguements on the same page, which show the reasons why I think it should stay. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:23, 21 January 2006 (EST) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
It only takes 2 people to pilot a Raptor so what were 4 people doing in the one the Blackbird crashed into? Also, why was it disabled? [[User:Commander Mazien|Commander Mazien]] 18:48, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | It only takes 2 people to pilot a Raptor so what were 4 people doing in the one the Blackbird crashed into? Also, why was it disabled? [[User:Commander Mazien|Commander Mazien]] 18:48, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:It was never stated that there were four people on the raptor, just that six people died between this episode and the next, including Cain and the marine killed by Gina. The Raptor that Lee collided with could have survived entirely; it could have been destroyed with two pilots, in addition to two vipers, it could have had a crew of four, or anything in between. And who knows why it was disabled? There was a lot of ordinance flying around, and a casualty figure of four is astonishingly low already. --[[User: | :It was never stated that there were four people on the raptor, just that six people died between this episode and the next, including Cain and the marine killed by Gina. The Raptor that Lee collided with could have survived entirely; it could have been destroyed with two pilots, in addition to two vipers, it could have had a crew of four, or anything in between. And who knows why it was disabled? There was a lot of ordinance flying around, and a casualty figure of four is astonishingly low already. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:01, 22 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
==Support Ships== | ==Support Ships== | ||
Cain said that about a dozen support ships were protecting the Resurrection Ship in conjunction with the Basestars. But where were they during the stealth mission and subsequent battle? I only saw Basestars. Or was Cain referring to the Heavy Raiders in the formations '''as''' the support ships? [[User:Commander Mazien|Commander Mazien]] 18:12, 29 November 2006 (CST) | Cain said that about a dozen support ships were protecting the Resurrection Ship in conjunction with the Basestars. But where were they during the stealth mission and subsequent battle? I only saw Basestars. Or was Cain referring to the Heavy Raiders in the formations '''as''' the support ships? [[User:Commander Mazien|Commander Mazien]] 18:12, 29 November 2006 (CST) | ||