- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Mandator II-class Star Dreadnought
- Nominated by: Loqiical (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: 1000 Recusants my a- Loqiical (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Date Archived: 00:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Final word count: 186 words (0 introduction, 70 body, 116 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional):
(3 ECs/2 Users/5 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 01:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)- UberSoldat93
(talk) 05:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC) - —spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- AmazinglyCool
(talk) 23:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
BloodOfIrizi(Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- Imperators II(Talk) 10:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)) (Syndicure) 23:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Object
Uber
Please use the article's full title in the prose.- I used it: "The name Mandator II-class Star Dreadnought was provided in the encyclopedia's English version." Loqiical (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, when you first introduce the subject. UberSoldat93 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think that this is a requirement, and here I prefer the current words. Loqiical (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's especially strange to forego such a thing when 1.) The title is not conjectural, 2.) All your other ship articles already do this, and 3.) Doesn't line up with how articles are typically written here, or on the internet as a whole for that matter. Such practices are usually not spelled out in policy as they are assumed to be "no-brainers," and codifying them will only contribute to instruction creep, if it makes sense. UberSoldat93 (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- To the first point, a non-conjectural title does not require that specific title to be written at the start. To the second point, there shouldn't be a problem with variation and, more importantly, other Wookieepedia articles are neither fossilised nor an official instruction. I could have been wrong when writing those other articles, and I think that I make mistakes. To the third point, again I do not think that typical practices must always be followed, and I also think that you can find various examples on the Internet which are similar to this. Loqiical (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Manual of style says that for non-conjectural articles "The name of the article should be bolded in its first usage in the article's text, as should any alternate formal names and nicknames mentioned in the article's text (or in its introduction, if present)." The current article has the full name as infobox and BTS exclusive so please add the full title to the body. Precedent is that it should be in the first sentence where you currently just have Mandator II. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- This precedent is not always followed, and I don't see the harm in deviating from it. Loqiical (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can you kindly point to some examples? I've personally never seen non-conjecturally-titled articles completely ignore the full name of a subject for a shorter one. When you're introducing the subject to the reader, you don't want them wondering why the full name isn't to be found in the prose. UberSoldat93 (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean that I can skip the full name in the first sentence as long as it is somewhere else in the article's body? To your question, we can see variation in this article: Moff Royen's fleet. Also, can you explain why you changed the plural to the singular and the spelling of "Dreadnaught"? Loqiical (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've just pointed the nominator to it, it was an oversight. Also, articles should go by the singular nouns. For spelling, does the source not use the "Dreadnought" spelling consistently? UberSoldat93 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Correct, it is not consistent. I wanted to use a plural here since I want to be referring to the whole class of ships, and it seems that I cannot say Mandator II class. Loqiical (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I will also point out that using the singular is not really a precedent. For example, the article thinekk tree uses the plural. However, you may point out that using the plural implies that more than one tree existed, about which I am unsure. Loqiical (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Might need codification in the MOS after all. UberSoldat93 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Might need codification in the MOS after all. UberSoldat93
- I've just pointed the nominator to it, it was an oversight. Also, articles should go by the singular nouns. For spelling, does the source not use the "Dreadnought" spelling consistently? UberSoldat93
- Do you mean that I can skip the full name in the first sentence as long as it is somewhere else in the article's body? To your question, we can see variation in this article: Moff Royen's fleet. Also, can you explain why you changed the plural to the singular and the spelling of "Dreadnaught"? Loqiical (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can you kindly point to some examples? I've personally never seen non-conjecturally-titled articles completely ignore the full name of a subject for a shorter one. When you're introducing the subject to the reader, you don't want them wondering why the full name isn't to be found in the prose. UberSoldat93
- This precedent is not always followed, and I don't see the harm in deviating from it. Loqiical (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Manual of style says that for non-conjectural articles "The name of the article should be bolded in its first usage in the article's text, as should any alternate formal names and nicknames mentioned in the article's text (or in its introduction, if present)." The current article has the full name as infobox and BTS exclusive so please add the full title to the body. Precedent is that it should be in the first sentence where you currently just have Mandator II. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- To the first point, a non-conjectural title does not require that specific title to be written at the start. To the second point, there shouldn't be a problem with variation and, more importantly, other Wookieepedia articles are neither fossilised nor an official instruction. I could have been wrong when writing those other articles, and I think that I make mistakes. To the third point, again I do not think that typical practices must always be followed, and I also think that you can find various examples on the Internet which are similar to this. Loqiical (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's especially strange to forego such a thing when 1.) The title is not conjectural, 2.) All your other ship articles already do this, and 3.) Doesn't line up with how articles are typically written here, or on the internet as a whole for that matter. Such practices are usually not spelled out in policy as they are assumed to be "no-brainers," and codifying them will only contribute to instruction creep, if it makes sense. UberSoldat93
- I don't think that this is a requirement, and here I prefer the current words. Loqiical (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, when you first introduce the subject. UberSoldat93
- I used it: "The name Mandator II-class Star Dreadnought was provided in the encyclopedia's English version." Loqiical (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"The starship was considered to be mighty..." Avoid "considered" if the source doesn't use this word or specify who considered the ship mighty.- Ok, but it seems a little biased :) Loqiical (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's kind of speculative to say the least. UberSoldat93 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's kind of speculative to say the least. UberSoldat93
- Ok, but it seems a little biased :) Loqiical (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in Star Wars Complete Vehicles, New Edition?UberSoldat93 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean to ask if this subject is mentioned in that book? I don't see anything. Loqiical (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah. Just checking. UberSoldat93 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah. Just checking. UberSoldat93
- Do you mean to ask if this subject is mentioned in that book? I don't see anything. Loqiical (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Does the English encyclopedia have a copyright year? That can be used as the release year in the BTS.UberSoldat93 (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comments
- As far as I am aware, the English publication date is unknown. Loqiical (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 10:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)