Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Grappling turret

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Grappling turret

Nominated by: - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination comments:
Date Archived: 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Final word count: 131 words (0 introduction, 101 body, 30 behind the scenes)
Word count at nomination time: 132 words (0 introduction, 104 body, 28 behind the scenes)
WookieeProject (optional): Wookieepedia:WookieeProject Fantasy Flight Games

(3 ECs/1 Users/4 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
—spookywilloww^talk 19:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
OOM 224 (he/him) 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Object

Lew

I just wanna confirm that they do indeed appear? Asking since the Legends, which solely has info from Friends Like These, say it was only mentioned, and I just find it weird something which originates from the same source would have different on both Lewisr (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, should be a mention rather than an appearance as it's only mentioned in the statblock for the Aurores rather than the adventure proper. Fixed. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Nano

~~Variety seems inappropriate to designate the subject as a kind of turret (or artificial objects in general), since it's a word most often associated with botanical and linguistical typology.~~
- I'm not sure what you mean here. In real-life turrets are certainly also a botanical object, but turrets have an accepted definition as a type of weaponry or emplacement. Given the fact the object defines itself as a turret by name alone, which in Star Wars specifically follows the weapon-based definition with extensive precedent (including on the turret article this page links to), not designating it as one would be explicitly inaccurate. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  - Where are you going with this... simply call it a "type of turret", not a variety. Also... I don't know about any plantae, but I know of "turret" used to describe anatomical elements in the animalia kingdom, in sponges. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 23:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    - Given the context of what turrets are in Star Wars itself, I see nothing wrong with the wording. If biological turrets were commonplace terminology in Star Wars then I'd perhaps see your point, but as it stands the term in the context of weaponry is far more prevalent. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point entirely. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
      - My point is simple: change "variety of" for "type of". In precise language variety is not an appropriate word to describe an artificial object like a weapon. You're the one who started talking about "biological turret", not me, re-read what I said. I was specificaly talking about typology vocabulary... NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 07:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
        Now I see your meaning. I was tripped up by your mention of botanical and linguistical typology in your initial objection and thought you were referring to the word "turret." As for the use of "variety," I greatly disagree that its use here is inappropriate as there are ample widely-accepted definitions that make its use grammatically and contextually correct (nor would this be its only use in this manner on the wiki); I feel like needing to change this is a matter of semantics at this point. That being said, I will still change it as I ultimately don't feel strongly enough to stand my ground on that. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
"Shots fired within the range [...]": this sentence could use some rewording, since "flying closer" (which you associated with an easier task) is still being "within range" (which you generally associated with being difficult). NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 20:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The wording here is admittedly confusing, but it is based on how it was worded in the source. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  - Because the original source is confusing, that doesn't proscribe you for making it clearer. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 23:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    - I believe that delves into the territory of assumptiveness. I can't presume to know precisely what they meant. That being said, I've re-read the source in question and it appears I can still rephrase it to be less confusing within the confines of how they worded it. So tweaked. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)