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)