Talk:Destroyed battlestar/Archive 1

This is a deletion discussion page This is the archived talk page of a deleted article. Do not restart discussion on this page unless you have a valid reason why this page should not have been deleted.

Since "Razor" shows up many frakked up battlestars, is this even necessary now? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 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, <envallmode>"Yes, we ''know'' about dead battlestar #3...''here's your page.''"</envallmodeoff> 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. --Spencerian 17:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)

That'd be fine... here's your [as]sign[ment]. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 17:32, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Move to Unnamed battlestars? --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 battlestars alone (1 in the Flashbacks, and 2 different ships in the shipyards), and at least three types of vessels of unknown class. --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. --Serenity 18:21, 11 December 2007 (CST)

True. There's not much to document, unless we were keeping a tally on how many battlestars the Colonials had, which might be better as a part of the general battlestar article. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 23:24, 11 December 2007 (CST)

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 --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. --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).

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. --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. --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. --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. 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. --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 --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? --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 move it, but it deals more specifically with the "destroyed battlestar" page and makes references to "this [article]" --Serenity 17:35, 13 December 2007 (CST)