Talk:Battle of the Resurrection Ship/Archive 1

Number of Cylons?

Does anyone recall the exact number Number Six (not Gina) gives Baltar when angry over the impending destruction of the Resurrection Ship? Was it 10,000 or 100,000? -- Joe Beaudoin 21:39, 14 January 2006 (EST)

She says "tens of thousands of Cylons are about to die". It wasn't definite. --Redwall 10:27, 15 January 2006 (EST)

Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin 16:59, 15 January 2006 (EST)

Article Name

I preferred "Attack on". "Battle of" usually precedes the name of the battleground, which is unnamed here. --Peter Farago 20:15, 19 January 2006 (EST)

I'm sorry but that's the format we're using. --RicimerRicimer 22:08, 19 January 2006 (EST)

Ricimer, that was only slightly more polite than just telling me to shut up. The reason it's called a "talk" page is because we talk on it. --Peter Farago 22:41, 19 January 2006 (EST)

For the battles series, "Battles" are used for most things, "Skirmish" is for small but noteworthy engagements, usually when either A) a minor recurring character dies, or B) a Viper or Raptor is destroyed. "Skirmish over the Red Moon" is officially the smallest engagement that deserves it's own page; i.e. when 2 Raiders are destroyed with no losses in "Final Cut", it's so minor that it doesn't deserve a page. (also, on special occasions 'Fall of " can be used, etc). The basis I'm using is that the destruction of the Bismark is not referred to as "Attack on the Bismark "Battle of the North Sea" etc (something like that).

This is the basic format for these battle pages as they've been set up. They should fall into this, and I'm sorry I haven't made this more clear before. ==Ricimer, Ricimer 22:50, 19 January 2006 (EST)

It's appropriate to refer to the "Battle of the North Sea", since any historian writing about the Bismarck would know where it was. Since we don't know where the attack on the resurrection ship took place, the article would be better off being named based on information we do know. I favor "Attack on the Resurrection Ship".

As for your notion of standards for the battle pages, they would certainly be useful to discuss. As always, the appropriate place is Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions. --Peter Farago 22:59, 19 January 2006 (EST)

I clearly favor "Attack of", given Peter's reasoning. (Which is why I called it "Attack of the Resurrection Ship" instead of "Battle of the Resurrection Ship".) Also, we could get away with naming the article "Fall of the Resurrection Ship"... Just a thought. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:00, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Call for opinions

I want this page moved back to "Attack on the Resurrection Ship" for reasons discussed above and on Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions#Battle pages. If you have an unvoiced opinion on the matter, please chime in. --Peter Farago 16:25, 21 January 2006 (EST)

You will also see my counterarguements on the same page, which show the reasons why I think it should stay. --Ricimer 18:23, 21 January 2006 (EST)

Midway Similarities in Question

The article currently includes the language that the Cylons, "were surprised by the appearance of Pegasus, long presumed destroyed in the initial Cylon attack." The Pegasus had been performing hit-and-run tactics and even made an attack on a large number of raider squadrons. To say that the Cylons thought it had been destroyed and were suprised cannot be right. I'm not sure if there is a better way to correct the article other than to remove the language, however. Suggestions? - Keithustus 21:32, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

It should be refined to say "were surprised by the discovery that Pegasus had discovered Galactica", since the Cylons had not known that Cain found the Fleet until that attack. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 21:38, 8 October 2006 (CDT)