Talk:Destroyed battlestar/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:53:40Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 11 April 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:Perhaps an expansion for the anal-retentive among us who ''have'' to catalog every single battlestar shown in the show. That way there's a page that says, <nowiki><envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff></nowiki> Prevents us from making more separate pages. To my count, we can add the one Galactica type and the two or three seen in Razor. The page'll work like the [[Unnamed characters (RDM)]] page. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:Perhaps an expansion for the anal-retentive among us who ''have'' to catalog every single battlestar shown in the show. That way there's a page that says, <nowiki><envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff></nowiki> Prevents us from making more separate pages. To my count, we can add the one Galactica type and the two or three seen in Razor. The page'll work like the [[Unnamed characters (RDM)]] page. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	::That'd be fine... here's your [as]sign[ment]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:32, 11 December 2007 (CST)		::That'd be fine... here's your [as]sign[ment]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:32, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	:::Move to [[Unnamed battlestars]]? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:::Move to [[Unnamed battlestars]]? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	::::Agreed, "Razor" kind of makes this unnessesary. I should note that including the flashbacks, "Razor" gives us at least three unnamed [[Galactica type battlestar]]s alone (1 in the Flashbacks, and 2 different ships in the shipyards), and at least three types of vessels of unknown class. --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 19:07, 11 December 2007 (CST)		::::Agreed, "Razor" kind of makes this unnessesary. I should note that including the flashbacks, "Razor" gives us at least three unnamed [[Galactica type battlestar]]s alone (1 in the Flashbacks, and 2 different ships in the shipyards), and at least three types of vessels of unknown class. --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 19:07, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	:I don't really see the relevance either. The destroyed battlestars in "Razor" are already mentioned in a few notes pages. That should be enough. Maybe make another note here, but I don't see what there even is to document. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 18:21, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:I don't really see the relevance either. The destroyed battlestars in "Razor" are already mentioned in a few notes pages. That should be enough. Maybe make another note here, but I don't see what there even is to document. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 18:21, 11 December 2007 (CST)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:::ca. 120. We know that from the Miniseries. I think this is the a good time to stop catering to overly obsessive fanboys every time, and not go into excruciating detail with every minor technological gimmick. There is not much point in making a list of the ones we saw. Same reason why I'm not really a fan of making extra articles for every Viper and Raptor that's named or seen unless there is some signficance to it.		:::ca. 120. We know that from the Miniseries. I think this is the a good time to stop catering to overly obsessive fanboys every time, and not go into excruciating detail with every minor technological gimmick. There is not much point in making a list of the ones we saw. Same reason why I'm not really a fan of making extra articles for every Viper and Raptor that's named or seen unless there is some signficance to it.
	:::So, that said, we could merge this article with [[Galactica type battlestar]]. It already mentions this battlestar. We could make a new section and then also mention the "[[Razor]]" one. Given that appearance, the article should be slightly rewritten anyways --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 07:18, 12 December 2007 (CST)		:::So, that said, we could merge this article with [[Galactica type battlestar]]. It already mentions this battlestar. We could make a new section and then also mention the "[[Razor]]" one. Given that appearance, the article should be slightly rewritten anyways --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 07:18, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	::::I think there's something to be said for documenting how many and which classes of battlestar were present at the shipyards battle - particularly since we encountered a new, unnamed battlestar class there. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:21, 12 December 2007 (CST)		::::I think there's something to be said for documenting how many and which classes of battlestar were present at the shipyards battle - particularly since we encountered a new, unnamed battlestar class there. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:21, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	:::::Actually we don't know if that's a battlestar. It's likely one of the other ships mentioned by Cain. The artist calls it an escort ship. See [[Talk:Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards# Berzerk Orthos]] (which should be put in the notes I guess, but we need some better sourcing).		:::::Actually we don't know if that's a battlestar. It's likely one of the other ships mentioned by Cain. The artist calls it an escort ship. See [[Talk:Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards# Berzerk Orthos]] (which should be put in the notes I guess, but we need some better sourcing).
	:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)		:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Serenity: or not

2007-12-13T23:36:16Z

or not

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 13 December 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)		::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	:::It's not deleted, but a discussion page for a deleted ''article''. It's archived precisely because of that. We could ~~as well~~ move it ~~though...~~ --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:::It's not deleted, but a discussion page for a deleted ''article''. It's archived precisely because of that. We could move it, but it deals more specifically with the "destroyed battlestar" page and makes references to "this [article]" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Serenity at 23:35, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T23:35:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 13 December 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)		::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)
			:::It's not deleted, but a discussion page for a deleted ''article''. It's archived precisely because of that. We could as well move it though... --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)

OrionFour: fix link in my post

2007-12-13T23:30:32Z

fix link in my post

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 13 December 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:Well, that section specifically lists ''Galactica'' type battlestars. There are some others like ''Columbia'' and two more in the Razor Flashbacks after all. We could have a list article though, and then link to that.		:Well, that section specifically lists ''Galactica'' type battlestars. There are some others like ''Columbia'' and two more in the Razor Flashbacks after all. We could have a list article though, and then link to that.
	:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed ~~Battlestars~~]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)		::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)

OrionFour at 23:29, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T23:29:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 13 December 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:Well, that section specifically lists ''Galactica'' type battlestars. There are some others like ''Columbia'' and two more in the Razor Flashbacks after all. We could have a list article though, and then link to that.		:Well, that section specifically lists ''Galactica'' type battlestars. There are some others like ''Columbia'' and two more in the Razor Flashbacks after all. We could have a list article though, and then link to that.
	:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)
			::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed Battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Serenity: deleted discussion, since the redirect isn't needed anymore

2007-12-13T21:33:18Z

deleted discussion, since the redirect isn't needed anymore

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 13 December 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{deletion discussion}}

	Since "[[Razor]]" shows up many frakked up battlestars, is this even necessary now? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 16:58, 11 December 2007 (CST)		Since "[[Razor]]" shows up many frakked up battlestars, is this even necessary now? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 16:58, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	:Perhaps an expansion for the anal-retentive among us who ''have'' to catalog every single battlestar shown in the show. That way there's a page that says, <nowiki><envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff></nowiki> Prevents us from making more separate pages. To my count, we can add the one Galactica type and the two or three seen in Razor. The page'll work like the [[Unnamed characters (RDM)]] page. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:Perhaps an expansion for the anal-retentive among us who ''have'' to catalog every single battlestar shown in the show. That way there's a page that says, <nowiki><envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff></nowiki> Prevents us from making more separate pages. To my count, we can add the one Galactica type and the two or three seen in Razor. The page'll work like the [[Unnamed characters (RDM)]] page. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Serenity at 17:44, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T17:44:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 13 December 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Given that we have articles for documenting extras ([[List of pilots]], for one), it may be better encyclopedically to document all unnamed battlestars here as "Unnamed battlestars." We can use screen shots to show them and note their type. We needn't do much more than to state its fate if known. Better to do that here than to use the [[Battlestar]] page, which is a disambiguation page (supersized given the multiverse it covers) and not designed for specific referencing. This article shouldn't redirect to [[Galactica type battlestar]] for the same reason (and why has that article been renamed with capital letters?) since there are many ship types involved, not just Galactica's variety, or that specific one over Caprica in the big attack. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:36, 13 December 2007 (CST)		Given that we have articles for documenting extras ([[List of pilots]], for one), it may be better encyclopedically to document all unnamed battlestars here as "Unnamed battlestars." We can use screen shots to show them and note their type. We needn't do much more than to state its fate if known. Better to do that here than to use the [[Battlestar]] page, which is a disambiguation page (supersized given the multiverse it covers) and not designed for specific referencing. This article shouldn't redirect to [[Galactica type battlestar]] for the same reason (and why has that article been renamed with capital letters?) since there are many ship types involved, not just Galactica's variety, or that specific one over Caprica in the big attack. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:36, 13 December 2007 (CST)
			:Well, that section specifically lists ''Galactica'' type battlestars. There are some others like ''Columbia'' and two more in the Razor Flashbacks after all. We could have a list article though, and then link to that.
			:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Spencerian: +updated comment

2007-12-13T17:38:31Z

+updated comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 13 December 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)

	Given that we have articles for documenting extras ([[List of pilots]], for one), it may be better encyclopedically to document all unnamed battlestars here as "Unnamed battlestars." We can use screen shots to show them and note their type. We needn't do much more than to state its fate if known. Better to do that here than to use the [[Battlestar]] page, which is a disambiguation page (supersized given the multiverse it covers) and not designed for specific referencing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:36, 13 December 2007 (CST)		Given that we have articles for documenting extras ([[List of pilots]], for one), it may be better encyclopedically to document all unnamed battlestars here as "Unnamed battlestars." We can use screen shots to show them and note their type. We needn't do much more than to state its fate if known. Better to do that here than to use the [[Battlestar]] page, which is a disambiguation page (supersized given the multiverse it covers) and not designed for specific referencing. This article shouldn't redirect to [[Galactica type battlestar]] for the same reason (and why has that article been renamed with capital letters?) since there are many ship types involved, not just Galactica's variety, or that specific one over Caprica in the big attack. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:36, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Spencerian: +comment

2007-12-13T17:36:05Z

+comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 13 December 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)		::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)

			Given that we have articles for documenting extras ([[List of pilots]], for one), it may be better encyclopedically to document all unnamed battlestars here as "Unnamed battlestars." We can use screen shots to show them and note their type. We needn't do much more than to state its fate if known. Better to do that here than to use the [[Battlestar]] page, which is a disambiguation page (supersized given the multiverse it covers) and not designed for specific referencing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:36, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Serenity at 09:08, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T09:08:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 13 December 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)		:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)		::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)
			:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 11 April 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:Perhaps an expansion for the anal-retentive among us who ''have'' to catalog every single battlestar shown in the show. That way there's a page that says, <nowiki><envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff></nowiki> Prevents us from making more separate pages. To my count, we can add the one Galactica type and the two or three seen in Razor. The page'll work like the [[Unnamed characters (RDM)]] page. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:Perhaps an expansion for the anal-retentive among us who ''have'' to catalog every single battlestar shown in the show. That way there's a page that says, <nowiki><envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff></nowiki> Prevents us from making more separate pages. To my count, we can add the one Galactica type and the two or three seen in Razor. The page'll work like the [[Unnamed characters (RDM)]] page. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	::That'd be fine... here's your [as]sign[ment]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:32, 11 December 2007 (CST)		::That'd be fine... here's your [as]sign[ment]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:32, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	:::Move to [[Unnamed battlestars]]? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:::Move to [[Unnamed battlestars]]? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	::::Agreed, "Razor" kind of makes this unnessesary. I should note that including the flashbacks, "Razor" gives us at least three unnamed [[Galactica type battlestar]]s alone (1 in the Flashbacks, and 2 different ships in the shipyards), and at least three types of vessels of unknown class. --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 19:07, 11 December 2007 (CST)		::::Agreed, "Razor" kind of makes this unnessesary. I should note that including the flashbacks, "Razor" gives us at least three unnamed [[Galactica type battlestar]]s alone (1 in the Flashbacks, and 2 different ships in the shipyards), and at least three types of vessels of unknown class. --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 19:07, 11 December 2007 (CST)
	:I don't really see the relevance either. The destroyed battlestars in "Razor" are already mentioned in a few notes pages. That should be enough. Maybe make another note here, but I don't see what there even is to document. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 18:21, 11 December 2007 (CST)		:I don't really see the relevance either. The destroyed battlestars in "Razor" are already mentioned in a few notes pages. That should be enough. Maybe make another note here, but I don't see what there even is to document. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 18:21, 11 December 2007 (CST)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:::ca. 120. We know that from the Miniseries. I think this is the a good time to stop catering to overly obsessive fanboys every time, and not go into excruciating detail with every minor technological gimmick. There is not much point in making a list of the ones we saw. Same reason why I'm not really a fan of making extra articles for every Viper and Raptor that's named or seen unless there is some signficance to it.		:::ca. 120. We know that from the Miniseries. I think this is the a good time to stop catering to overly obsessive fanboys every time, and not go into excruciating detail with every minor technological gimmick. There is not much point in making a list of the ones we saw. Same reason why I'm not really a fan of making extra articles for every Viper and Raptor that's named or seen unless there is some signficance to it.
	:::So, that said, we could merge this article with [[Galactica type battlestar]]. It already mentions this battlestar. We could make a new section and then also mention the "[[Razor]]" one. Given that appearance, the article should be slightly rewritten anyways --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 07:18, 12 December 2007 (CST)		:::So, that said, we could merge this article with [[Galactica type battlestar]]. It already mentions this battlestar. We could make a new section and then also mention the "[[Razor]]" one. Given that appearance, the article should be slightly rewritten anyways --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 07:18, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	::::I think there's something to be said for documenting how many and which classes of battlestar were present at the shipyards battle - particularly since we encountered a new, unnamed battlestar class there. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:21, 12 December 2007 (CST)		::::I think there's something to be said for documenting how many and which classes of battlestar were present at the shipyards battle - particularly since we encountered a new, unnamed battlestar class there. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:21, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	:::::Actually we don't know if that's a battlestar. It's likely one of the other ships mentioned by Cain. The artist calls it an escort ship. See [[Talk:Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards# Berzerk Orthos]] (which should be put in the notes I guess, but we need some better sourcing).		:::::Actually we don't know if that's a battlestar. It's likely one of the other ships mentioned by Cain. The artist calls it an escort ship. See [[Talk:Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards# Berzerk Orthos]] (which should be put in the notes I guess, but we need some better sourcing).
	:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)		:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 13 December 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)		::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	:::It's not deleted, but a discussion page for a deleted ''article''. It's archived precisely because of that. We could ~~as well~~ move it ~~though...~~ --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:::It's not deleted, but a discussion page for a deleted ''article''. It's archived precisely because of that. We could move it, but it deals more specifically with the "destroyed battlestar" page and makes references to "this [article]" --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 13 December 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:The redirect could be deleted altogether, since it isn't actually used anywhere. It was used two times before I made the change, but I removed those links. We just need to slap on the deleted discussion template then --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:44, 13 December 2007 (CST)
	::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)		::I think this is an important discussion page - rather than deleting it, would it be alltogether unorthodox to copy and paste the discussion to the [[Unnamed battlestars]] talk page? --[[User:OrionFour\|OrionFour]] 17:29, 13 December 2007 (CST)
			:::It's not deleted, but a discussion page for a deleted ''article''. It's archived precisely because of that. We could as well move it though... --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 13 December 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)		::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)		:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)

			Given that we have articles for documenting extras ([[List of pilots]], for one), it may be better encyclopedically to document all unnamed battlestars here as "Unnamed battlestars." We can use screen shots to show them and note their type. We needn't do much more than to state its fate if known. Better to do that here than to use the [[Battlestar]] page, which is a disambiguation page (supersized given the multiverse it covers) and not designed for specific referencing. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:36, 13 December 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 13 December 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)		:::::And the ships present ''are already mentioned'' at [[Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and at [[Fall of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards]] and partly at [[Valkyrie]]. And we could make another mention in the ''Galactica''-type article. Just saying we don't really need more, especially not an own article about it. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)
	::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)		::::::Article is unnecessary. However, methinks that a listing discussion should happen at another article (general battlestar?). Also, the point that "eye candy" (i.e., this destroyed battlestar) should not require detailed explanation unless it has other signficance to the plot or story is a reasonable guideline. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 20:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)
			:::::::I made a small "unnamed" list at [[Battlestar]], but redirected the ''Galactica'' type ones to that article, because they are already listed there. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 03:08, 13 December 2007 (CST)