Talk:Cylon Tactics/Archive 1

I was opposed to the needless addition of this material to the main Cylon article by Jzanjani, and I am now happy that it has been given its own distinct page as opposed to cluttering up the main Cylon articles. Just wanted to meniton that. Stay the course. --Ricimer 21:16, 30 December 2005 (EST)

Light Bombers

There's a Heavy Raider link with a description including "light bomber." What's the justification behind this description? Raiders carry nukes, which are the closest thing to an anti-capital ship torpedo around, making them fighters with the (curiously under-utilized) capacity to act as torpedo bombers. I can't quite think of anything that could be analogous to more conventional bombers while spaceborne, so I have to assume torpedo bomber is the sense meant. Did I forget a Heavy Raider with nukes that appeared somewhere? If so, I might wonder why this makes it a light bomber while the Raider is not; it hasn't been seen to act regularly as such, and boarding parties and torpedoes are somewhat incompatible strategies, making simultaneous implementations in a single vehicle seem odd to me. --CalculatinAvatar 23:45, 30 December 2005 (EST)

This happened before your time Calc, but this entire section was rapidly written by that weirdo Jzanjani, who, in my personal opinion, never contributed anything of value to this wiki whatsover and had no firm grasp of anything BSG-related. Of course, this is my own opinion, to which I am entitled on a talk page, and for which the evidence speaks for itself. Regardless, I had many complaints when this section was added but consensus was against me. Quite frankly, most stuff he wrote here was either A) Totally redundant and covered elsewhere or B) Inaccurate. It was like he was trying to make his own light-fanfic by forcing BSG-stuff into the mold of some sort of hardcore military video-game set of rules, i.e. arbitrarily deciding that a Heavy Raider is a 'light bomber' when it is in fact a heavy fighter/troop transport. Just edit it and don't hesitate on this one.--Ricimer 00:20, 31 December 2005 (EST)

Oh, while I'm at it: Who is in favor of deleting this redundant page entirely?. We do not have a "Colonial Tactics" page, [u]nor do we need one[/u]. This page just restates stuff said elsewhere, and it's like someone was trying to write a fanfic battle-manual. It's just assumptions based loosley on the show; for example, if there was a SCENE in which Cain says to Adama "Cylon Tactics are as follows; soften up with humanoid-Cylon Trojan Horses; First attack wave is Raiders with Heavy Raiders giving support, followed by Basestars from the flanks" we could make a "Cylon Tactics" page out of it. But we've never had that. Someone just saw the capabilities of their ships (Raider=fighter, Basestar=heavy carrier, etc) and [u]made up[/u] a largely unnecessary page. I want to know the current consensus on this. We'll see what to do then. --Ricimer 00:25, 31 December 2005 (EST)

The current content is not good; however I think it can be improved (and that it would be worth doing so). I will be working on these articles extensively over the next few days, and I invite you all to join me. --Peter Farago 05:11, 31 December 2005 (EST)

Proposal for Deletion

I must again say that I feel this page is redundant and should be deleted. I think there is no informaiton of value here. Farago thinks there is but it needs changes; however no changes have yet been made. If this article is not heavily revised in one week or so, I think it should be deleted. (I myself am not going to try to change anything, because honestly it if were left to me the entire thing would be deleted; thus it would be wiser if I just left this to others).--Ricimer 20:59, 10 January 2006 (EST)

This page remains some of the best deductive speculation written on the wiki, given what little we know about the Cylons. The reasoning is good, speculations are grounded with example, and is logical. This is a must-keep; there IS no other page like it, and the recent breakup/reorganization of the Cylon pages makes this easier to digest. My opinion on it has not changed from when you last asked the question. --Spencerian 00:50, 20 January 2006 (EST)

I'll have to agree with Spencerian. This is detailed analysis and worthy of its own page. There should be no reason why something this significant shouldn't have its own page, and I certainly vote to keep it.--Mitsukai 01:15, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Weak keep. This article is not perfect, but is worth the effort it will take to improve it (along with the rest of the Cylon series, which I regret not having been able to pay more attention to before my winter term began). --Peter Farago 01:27, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Abstain, but I did want to comment that it'd be great if somebody could clean up the "cover" of the Cylons series. The Cylons are a pretty important part of the series, and having the "article needs cleanup" right on the front page doesn't seem to reflect all the effort that has gone on to catalog and analyze all the Cylon material. --Steelviper 08:32, 20 January 2006 (EST)

To be fair, there hasn't been much. --Peter Farago 10:39, 20 January 2006 (EST)

At any rate, my point was: This should either be cleaned up or deleted; we can't leave it as is. I myself should not clean it up, because I must say that in fairness to all others I would delete the entire article; as it seems some want to keep it, I probably shouldn't be the one to do it. However, someone should, soon.--Ricimer, Ricimer 13:19, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Peter is not the only person with sharp, pointy concision teeth. I'll add a tidy-up to my to-do list. By the episode "Downloaded", we may have a LOT more on Cylon tactics, if not culture. --Spencerian 17:55, 20 January 2006 (EST)

To put it mildly. Re: Dowloaded, I'm not one to use the phrase "slam dunk" lightly, but....--Ricimer 18:44, 20 January 2006 (EST)

The consensus here appears to be "keep." Removing the delete tag, but adding a cleanup tag to ask someone to make it less jargon-rich. --Spencerian 23:25, 30 January 2006 (EST)

Heavy Edit

The Consensus was to keep this page, but with heavy edits and cleanup. That was one month ago. No one has tried to clean it up since then, so I took it upon myself to at least try. It is my firm opinion that user "Jzanjani" was a troll, who really contributed nothing of any actual value to this wiki, such as this page in its previous form. We do not have Colonial tactics pages or anything, and really *everything in this article that he wrote was redundant because it was already stated in other pages*. Therefore, I decided that the best course of action would be, if the consensus was to keep this page (I wanted to delete it outright), to base it as closely to on-screen sources as possible. I believe this cleanup was for the best. If my actions are extreme, it is because we live in extreme times.--The Merovingian 04:08, 20 February 2006 (EST)

Oh, Ricimer! So zealous! So expeditious! My beautiful language! My learned syntax and grammar! All of it gone! You are too cruel. Jzanjani 02:38, 21 February 2006 (EST)

Me talk pretty one day. --The Merovingian 03:03, 21 February 2006 (EST)

Expansion Tag

Merciful, we actually wanted to edit down this page, and the compromise we more or less reached was to use the thing Sesha wrote up in "Sacrifice", and leave it at that. I think that discussion was before your time here. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:25, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure what else we'd put here, unless somebody actually spelled out the particular instances of the tactics used. This list, while somewhat accurate now, looks likely to become quickly obsolete come season 3 (other than the fact that a lot of the "tactics" can be interpreted rather broadly (like "takeover by brute force")). --Steelviper 14:34, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Delete?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:21, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Merv, I don't understand why the previous larger article components could not have been worked around the appropriate aired screen points to keep the article sufficiently large. I know of your history with this page and your issues with its initial creator. Further, I am not keen on deletion merely for deletion's sake, especially if the aired content is sparse. I will be returning concised elements of the original article to the appropriate points shown in the article as of this date. --Spencerian 11:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

We don't necessarily need to delete it. However, this entire article was a bunch of redunantant cruft which never justified an entire article, and was really just pulled together from various ship pages. A better place for it would have been a messageboard. We are not packrats who need to be afraid of throwing anything away, simply because it is here. I removed what was unnecessary, and as I stated above to Mercifull, the compromise was to put up what Sesha had on her computer in Sacrifice. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:00, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Spencerian's Latest Addition

I kind of liked the latest addition, in that it expanded on Sesha's list, keeping somebody who stumbled onto the page from having to read each of the episode summaries listed. Spencerian's work seemed like a good faith, sourced/cited effort that got smacked down/deleted pretty hastily. --Steelviper 11:26, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Agreed. I was reading it and I liked that information. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:27, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

It is the general policy of this wiki that we attempt to incorporate good ideas rather than to strike edits outright. For that reason alone I will rollback Merv's last edit. His opinion on a previous editor's contribution had some merit, but not enough to vote down the cleanup originally determined for this article. Again, the page content has been, time and again, discussed here with results above. Most of all, I added original content to what I gleaned of a previous edit here, so Merv's reverting of this page is also improper. SV's and Shane's comments appear to agree in the updated version of the article, so editors are asked (as with all articles) to avoid outright page reverts without a very good reason. --Spencerian 12:01, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

The added material all sounded good to me. Could the Merovingian please state his reasoning? --Noneofyourbusiness 13:20, 21 April 2006 (EST)

Nevermind. At first I felt it was more or less a revert, but it is not. I'd still rather not have it, but that's my opinion. I should not have reverted this, I was half-asleep and made a mistake, I am quite sorry. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:18, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Suicide Bombing vs Suicide Attacks

I'm not looking to get into a philosophical discussion on this one, but I think the category headers of this page were all derived (word for word) from Sesha Abinell's list. That's probably why the more awkward "suicide bombing" was used. --Steelviper 15:09, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Okay, but is there really a compelling reason to use her terminology verbatim? --Peter Farago 15:32, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

I've no problem with the use or non-use of exact wording since we should note that the list is from the character's POV and so may differ from what we (the all-knowing, all-seeing viewer) knows as the "truth." I tried to imply this at the start of the article. --Spencerian 13:17, 24 April 2006 (CDT)