More actions
Pearl Harbor Reference, and other ?'s
Is the Pearl Harbor Reference really all that appropriate? Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack against an unsuspecting stationary garrison. The Battle of Cimtar was more of a trap/ambush that lured the Colonial fleet into one spot, allowing the Basestars to do an end-around and wipe out the colonies. I was also unsure of the formatting (how many "="'s to use), and the tense, so I tried to leave them as close to the original as possible. Also, if anybody knows of a more appropriate picture for the battle template, I'd welcome it. I just grabbed the first picture of the old Galactica I could find here. --Steelviper 16:27, 15 December 2005 (EST)
- Looks good. Glad you took in Ricimer's battle page template; it will work great for the TOS battles (and there are a lot of them). I don't see the need of the Pearl Harbor reference, either, same criteria. Later someone with a DVD copy can get more than few good screenshots to place here; I think the battlestar there is a suitable placeholder. I'd stick with the header conventions that we use in the RDM pages to be a guide. --Spencerian 17:01, 15 December 2005 (EST)
- Since there was no battle of Cimtar in the RDM universe, I don't think this page needs to be namespaced. --Peter Farago 19:35, 15 December 2005 (EST)
- It seems like there are a lot of TOS articles that got (TOS) tagged onto the end of them, perhaps "just in case". What would the process be to get this moved to "Battle of Cimtar"? Just copy the content over to the "plain" battle and make this one a redirect? --Steelviper 13:53, 16 December 2005 (EST)
- No, that will wipe out the edit history. There's a "move" tab at the top of the page, after [edit], [+] and [history]. You should use that. --Peter Farago 14:38, 16 December 2005 (EST)