Template talk:Battle Data

Discussion page of Template:Battle Data

Suggested changes

{{PAGENAME}} should probably be used instead of {{{name}}}, unless there is a use for this template other than on battle pages. "Attacker" and "defender" probably shouldn't be used in the output, though they are fine variable names unless brevity argues strongly enough for "L" and "R." The word "strength" is used twice for two distinct purposes; Fall of the Twelve Colonies uses "Combatants" for the first instance, and I am inclined to agree with its usage. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 16:18, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

{{{name}}} is only used if the name of the template should be named different due to size or "(SERIES)". --Shane (T - C - E) 14:35, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

"Combatants" is better than a division of "attacker" and "defender".--The Merovingian (C - E) 22:13, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

The heading "General Information" seems superfluous. I dislike the phrase '"Life" Casualties,' but I haven't thought of a solid replacement yet. Otherwise, the thing is beautiful; y'all have done very good work. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 14:24, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Personnel Casualties?--Steelviper 14:29, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
Actually, based on both my own unerstanding of the term and [1], I think "Casualties" implies "Personnel," so I suppose I dislike "Ship Casualties," as well. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 14:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
Anymore comments before I impliment this template? --Shane (T - C - E) 09:17, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

table inside a table

Was the only way for it to look right. --Shane (T - C - E) 10:45, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Final comments

Any other comments before I start the changes to add this template into the articles? Suggestions for change of the variable names? --Mercifull 05:48, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

  • Current variables:
    • scasualties1
    • scasualties2
    • lcasualties1
    • lcasualties2
  • New variables?
    • shiploss1
    • shiploss2
    • casualties1
    • casualties2

What about those with title Personnel Caualties changed to just Casualties --Mercifull (T - C - E) 07:44, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok i will be making the changes to the template this week.--Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:56, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

What about "material losses" instead of "ship losses"? That's more general, and technically speaking, Vipers and Raptors aren't "ships". --April Arcus 08:52, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I like "material losses". That would allow the people to go back to "casualties" that much more smoothly, and could account for any other critical pieces of equipment that might be a factor. --Steelviper 08:56, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

For Wikipedia's Battle of Midway page, which I'm basing a lot of the battle pages on, they just have "Casualties". I actually think "material losses" makes it look like there's one too many subheadings, and there's be less clutter if just merged with "Casualties". --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:27, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

I see your point. I wish you could have mentioned this before it was implemented but nvm. Wondering what other people think about this issue? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 02:53, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
Those have excat counts. We don't really have that infomation. We also identifity better with "names" and assoactions better than general comments. Grouping them, also, would create style problems. One thing I do suggest is a palce for the "caption" and move the "teather" above the image just like the Battle of Midway page. Shane (T - C - E) 02:59, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
I kind of like having them separate. Equipment losses aren't really "casualties", properly speaking, but are still of interest to a casual viewer. --April Arcus 08:48, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

My ongoing concern with this is that for "casualties", it's often hard to determine what to say about the Cylons: is a Centurion material or a casualty? I don't think that can be really differentiated, which is why I'd prefer merging. --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:19, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Maybe establish a "two-legged" rule? If the typical model walks on two legs, it's a casualty, otherwise it is a material loss? That might not give enough "credit" to Raiders as "beings", but Raiders really are fighters and casualties usually refer to troops/infantry/people. --Steelviper 06:50, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Thats how i organised it really. You can argue about Raiders being sentient and all that but i assumed casualties to be centurions and cylon agents rather than raiders --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:25, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
I guess we can include Centurions and Humanoid Cylons as Casualties and not Raiders, as USUALLY, their consciousness downloads away. Okay, we'll stay with the current system, due to the complications inherent in the storyline (Man? Machine? Alive?). --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:09, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

New field suggestion

I have a suggestion to make as an edit to this template. I think that it wqould be useful to have the episode name in which the battle takes place as a field in this template. It would be optional as not all battle do take place on screen (fall of shipyards for example) but might be useful in linking the relevant battle to the relevant episode. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 09:11, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

That's a good suggestion, although we should anticipate for the template field that a battle could extend over two or more episodes, as the Battle of Kobol did. --Spencerian 10:45, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
Could make it always like... |epi= [[Episode 1]]<br/>[[Episode 2]] --Shane (T - C - E) 23:08, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
That could work... Related Episode(s) --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:15, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

Conditional link suggestion

This is a bit beyond my wikicoding skills, but it would be great if the words "Battle Chronology" linked to Colonial Battles Chronology if and only if a flag for being RDM were set. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 17:29, 30 October 2006 (CST)

Done. All you need to do is define "|rdm=y" in the template. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:19, 30 October 2006 (CST)
Thank you. I've slipped the flag into the rest of the RDM battles. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 23:58, 30 October 2006 (CST)
No problem. Glad I could help. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 05:01, 31 October 2006 (CST)


The correct spelling when considering military equipment is materiel, rather than material. I've made this correction. OTW 12:47, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Looks ugly as hell IMO, but if it's correct, it's the way to go. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 12:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)