Why we shouldn't have an article on Battlestar Galactica, the ship
- 20:03, 7 Apr 2005 AlistairMcMillan (Make REDIRECT to Battlestar. We know very little about the actual ship, so this page could never really go anywhere.)
- 11:39, 23 Apr 2005 user:188.8.131.52 If the new Sci-Fi seies doesn't provide details about Galactica, that;ll be a first. Changing to a redirect wasn't very forward looking.
- 14:57, 23 Apr 2005 user:AlistairMcMillan Revert to REDIRECT. Most of this is already covered on Battlestar. We don't need duplication. And the series, so far, hasn't told us much about the ship.
- If you think we know enough about the ship from the series to write a comprehensive article that doesn't include speculation and guesswork, then write the article. So far we haven't had that. We've had a stub with NO CONTENT marked with an expansion tag  and then a bunch of content that we already have in other articles and fan speculation.  We already have the Battlestar article that covers the ships perfectly adequately, especially considering we know very little about them. AlistairMcMillan 00:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Battlestar is perfectly adequate for describing the specific ship. No separate article is needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, given that the only Battlestar we've seen in the 2003 series (and the main battlestar we saw in the 1978 series) was the Galactica, perhaps we should have a specific article about the Galactica, sort of like the Enterprise-D or the Millennium Falcon. If lack of content is a problem, give me tomorrow. I'll write up a good description of the 2003 series Galactica. — Phil Welch 08:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Go for it. 184.108.40.206 23:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)