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 | ::::I clearly favor "Attack of", given Peter'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) | ||
==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 34: | Line 34: | ||
: It should be refined to say "were surprised by the discovery that ''Pegasus'' had discovered ''Galactica''", since the Cylons had not known that Cain found the Fleet until that attack. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:38, 8 October 2006 (CDT) | : It should be refined to say "were surprised by the discovery that ''Pegasus'' had discovered ''Galactica''", since the Cylons had not known that Cain found the Fleet until that attack. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:38, 8 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:: That sounds good, except that since the only Cylon we ever observe in the episode is 'Gina,' our saying that the Cylons were suprised is tenuous. If I were commander of two base stars, a res ship, and whatever else might have been there, following a human fleet away from their homeworlds, and kept getting outerspace-ambushed by a different human ship, I might expect them to link up at some point. - [[User:Keithustus|Keithustus]] 07:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT) | :: That sounds good, except that since the only Cylon we ever observe in the episode is 'Gina,' our saying that the Cylons were suprised is tenuous. If I were commander of two base stars, a res ship, and whatever else might have been there, following a human fleet away from their homeworlds, and kept getting outerspace-ambushed by a different human ship, I might expect them to link up at some point. - [[User:Keithustus|Keithustus]] 07:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT) | ||