Talk:Fall of New Caprica/Archive 1

This isn't a battle, or a "fall" of anthing. Please see our Standards and Conventions page's Battle write up. This was an "event", but no ships engaged each other and no soldiers shot at anything. It should be deleted. --The Merovingian 06:38, 15 March 2006 (CST)

While it is kind of a "fall", I agree it isn't really a battle. It's even less of a battle than Galactica vs Pegasus (and that one barely survived). No shots were fired in anger, and there wasn't even a serious threat that Galactica and Pegasus would stay and fight. In Galactica vs Pegasus, both sides had their weapons ready and aimed at each other. In this instance, only one side was effectively armed. There's no doubt that this is a significant event that deserves to be described, but it's too much of a stretch to classify it as a battle. The actual battle text could be summed up as "The Cylons show up, the Colonial Fleet retreats." --Steelviper 08:20, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I think it qualifies as a battle, or at least a rather significant military action, and was certainly a "fall," in fact, the fall and occupation of the newly established home planet of humanity. A massively superior Cylon force jumped in, the Adamas evaluated the siutation and made a tactical or strategic retreat from their position, which was then overrun by the Cylons. If this was not a "battle," (or at the absolute minimum a military event at least as significant as the "battle" between Galactica and Pegasus in "Pegasus" and "Resurrection Ship, Part I") then neither was the fall of Saigon or the evacuation at Dunkirk in World War II. We can argue all day about the technical definition of a "battle" (and point me to the proper Standards and Conventions definition, I cannot find it on the standards and conventions page), but this is a significant event, and the page should remain. --Felix Culpa 08:46, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Standards & Conventions can be found here, but there's nothing on it about the battle pages yet. Merv may be referring to the guidelines outlined in the talk page. I'll quote what I believe he is referring to:

Generally, something deserves an article if:

1) A Colonial ship is destroyed (Vipers, Raptors, etc). They can't easily be replaced, and the loss of even one can be considered a blow. (The upcoming engagements in "Scar" might be a skirmish instead of a battle, depends how many ships are involved at once).
2) A massive number of Cylon vessels is destroyed, making the engagement a noteworthy event. For example, the "Great Cylon Turkey Shoot" resulted in no Colonial losses whatsoever, yet so many Cylons (hundreds of ships) were destroyed that it warrants it's own page.

An example of something that would not deserve it's own page is like when 2 Raiders were destroyed in "Final Cut", with no Colonial losses. No personnel or ships were lost, and the losses to the Cylons were insignificant in the extreme (considering that they still have production facilities and the Colonials do not).

As a rule of thumb, any engagement that involves a Battlestar or a Basestar firing it's own guns at the enemy is a "Battle" (Battle of the Coral Sea was a full scale battle, yet no enemy ships directly engaged each other; just fighters). However, if a Battlestar launches Vipers, but doesn't actually get involved in a small scale fight against enemy fightercraft, it's probably not a battle (case in point, "Skirmish over the Red Moon".

As for myself, I wouldn't necessarily advocate deleting all the content, but just moving it out of a "Battle" format. If we're to take the fall of Saigon as an example, we see that on wikipedia Fall of Saigon doesn't have a battle box. It's just got a description of the events. The evacuation at Dunkirk gets roped into the Battle of Dunkirk, which is still a battle (with casualties on both sides). --Steelviper 09:04, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I am the original author of this page, and I cannot see the logic behind deletion. Looking through pages that are considered battles, very few of them actually sound like battles. Galactica vs. Pegasus was more of a standoff, the so-called "Battle of Kobol" was no more a battle than the Enola Gay dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, by your logic, should be divided up into a battle of the Scorpion Fleet Shipyards, the obvious battle around Caprica, the slaughter of Galactica's Mark VII Viper squadron, the first battle that Galactica participated in (when they were nuked), the destruction of Armistice Station, and the numerous other battles that happened. In terms of what consitutes a battle, it seems that the Battle of the Tilium Moon, the Battle of the Resurrection Ship, and the Battle of the Binary Star System are the only true battles. I think the battle pages should reflect the major events and engagements of the Second Cylon War (which in my opinion should be made into its own page and not redirect to the Fall of the Twelve Colonies). The Fall of New Caprica was without question the most important event in the Second Cylon War after the Fall of the Twelve Colonies and I do not see why it should not be treated as such.--Helmandsare 11:24, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Sorry to jump in here but why is it being called a 'fall' at all? Isn't it more of an 'occupation'? And I agree that it's not a battle; the Cylons arrived and the remains of the orbiting fleet ran off. --Misco 11:29, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I have to agree that this should be deleted or at least the battle template. I don't see any fighting yet. --Shane 11:46, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I agree. Delete the battle template and merge the content into the New Caprica article. Joe McCullough 11:49, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I can live with the battle template being deleted from this entry, but I am not sure it should be merged into the New Caprica article. I have to strenuously agree with Helmandsare that the fall of New Caprica, on its own merits, is one of the most significant events of the series so far. Let's leave the entry as "Fall of New Caprica" sans the battle template and leave it at that. --Felix Culpa 13:19, 15 March 2006 (CST)

No, you haven't really given enough justification for that. It should realy be merged with "New Caprica".--The Merovingian 13:41, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I believe I have, but let's restate it. The arrival of the Cylons at New Caprica, the decision of the Adamas to flee in response, and the Cylon landing on and occupation of New Caprica (while all a part of the 'history' of New Caprica) is a momentous event in the Battlestar universe, and worthy of its own page whether it is designated as a 'battle' or not. Otherwise, all pages would be non-specific, and (for example) an entry on the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would be unnecessary because it would be 'encompassed' by entries on World War I, Serajevo, Yugoslavia, or what have you. (The same logic applies, incidentally as I mentioned above, to the Fall of Saigon...that could be encompassed by the Vietnam War, Saigon, Vietnam, etc.). Now as to the internal editing of this entry, I agree it is mostly duplicative of the New Caprica entry, and should be shortened or else focused to deal with the facts directly related to the Cylons showing up, the Colonial fleet bugging out, and the Cylons landing on New Caprica unresisted. This may become an even more important entry (and worthy of more expansion) down the road as we learn a bit more about exactly what happened on that day. But I think the fact that it is a discrete event and one of the most important ones in the series is inarguable at this point, and it is deserving of its own page on this basis. --Felix Culpa 14:51, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Adama getting shot was also a "momentous" event in the BSG universe. Finding the Tomb of Athena was a momentous event in the BSG universe. The birth of the Cylon/Human Hybrid Hera (she's the messiah) was a momentous event in the BSG universe. But they don't warrant their own pages. This is an online encyclopedia. We make up some special pages for terminology, battles, Cylon speculation, etc. but we're not writing a chapter book. None of the other "momentous" events are receiving their own page and neither should this one. We've already established that it's not a battle, but it appears that the consensus is in agreement that it's just restating things which should be said on "New Caprica". --The Merovingian 15:00, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Momentous, yes, but not discrete or truly amenable to separate description/designation. "New Caprica" is a (theoretically) large subset of things, and encompasses every physical 'fact' about the planet as well as everything that happens on or in relation to it. Take this logic to its logical end, and there should only be one article on this entire wiki, entitled "Battlestar Galactica," containing absolutely all the information about the show. It makes perfect sense to segregate the fall of New Caprica, at least partially, into its own article because it is a major event. Adama having been shot and the birth of Hera are important events....they are also solely involve major (or potentially major) characters in the series, and are distinguishable on that basis alone. Major discrete happenings about which we have appreciable information (individual battles, the election, and yes, the fall of New Caprica) do deserve their own articles. See Peter Farago's comments below, I think he hit the nail on the head. --Felix Culpa 20:22, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I've found that a large portion of this information was already contained within the New Caprica article. Very little of this information can be considered unique in comparison to New Caprica. If you read the two articles you find nearly the same information. Therefore, the little information that is especially significant should be added to the New Caprica article and this article should be eliminated.--Zareck Rocks 13:57, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I agree that the information is mostly duplicative of the New Caprica article, but I still think it shoul dhave an abbreviated entry in its own right. See my comments above to The Merovingian. --Felix Culpa 14:54, 15 March 2006 (CST)

This does not seem to be a popular opinion, but I believe that the occupation of New Caprica does deserve a position in the military timeline, especially since it features Baltar's surrender of the colonies to Cylon forces, and will probably form the backdrop for much of season 3. The Occupation of Czechoslovakia was also initiated in a bloodless manner, but it would be foolish to argue that it wasn't a military event. --Peter Farago 17:20, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Nicely put, I concur absolutely. --Felix Culpa 20:22, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I agree with this assessment as well, this page is a valid part of the military history of Battlestar Galactica. Just because the fight was bloodless and the government surrendered doesn't mean that this wasn't a significant military engagement. Not only do I think that this page shouldn't be deleted, I say that it should have the battle format. Naming conventions and standards are all well and good, but in this case they are clearly arbitrary and shouldn't be open to modification when necessary (especially when dealing with a show such as BSG). --Sdball 14:24, 16 March 2006 (CST)

At the very least, I think the consensus of us agreed that it isn't a "military" event and should lose the battle template. My own personal view is that it should be removed and merged back into "New Caprica".--The Merovingian 17:18, 16 March 2006 (CST)

The consensus appears to be changing rather rapidly on this. Furthermore (and I mean this respectfully, I am not trying to flame you) how in the world can ten plus basestars jumping into New Caprica space followed immediately by a full retreat of all Colonial military forces from the system not be a "military" event? It may not be a "battle" (and that itself is debatable), but it is most definitely a profound military event...which is why the season ended on it, and why I suspect most of the next season will involve dealing with the aftermath of that decision. --Felix Culpa 20:43, 16 March 2006 (CST)

I think that this should stay. This is a military event. The front page should be cleaned up. --Quig 19:15, 16 March 2006 (CST)

By the way, while we are all arguing the definition of 'battle,' 'military event,' and general semantics, has anyone noticed that not a single person has referenced anything in the deletion standards page, and arged why this page should be deleted pursuant to those policies? It seems to me a bit silly to be arguing for deletion...without arguing for deletion. No one has made the case for deletion, at best some people have advanced an argument for modification. --Felix Culpa 20:52, 16 March 2006 (CST)

We haven't really worked on such a thing, to be honest. --Peter Farago 21:01, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Well, there is Battlestar Wiki:Candidates for deletion. If someone is going to put the deletion tag on an article and argue for it to be done, the relevant section should be referenced/argued. (Sorry, it's the lawyer in me talking.). --Felix Culpa 21:17, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Hmmm, it doesn't meet any of those criteria as far as I can see.--Noneofyourbusiness 23:05, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Precisely my point. There is no good reason for the deletion of this page, at best people have (highly debatable) problems with its content/presentation. --Felix Culpa 21:45, 16 March 2006 (CST)

I agree that this should be kept as a military event. Philwelch 02:10, 17 March 2006 (CST)