Talk:TCS Behemoth

Should we also throw in the info from S*S about later Behemoths? I'm just thinking if it's worth creating two articles (one for the ship and one for the class) given that we only know that more were produced and have extra names. --Dundradal 17:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Dundradal. --FekLeyrTarg 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree now that you've brought that up, but we don't have much on the ship's specifications, at least none that I'm aware of. It would really help a separate page if we could dig those up, if that's possible. -Aeronautico

We have nothing on the "later" model specs. We only known they exist from a few lines in S*S. I'm saying skip the separate page. It just spreads info out. Just add section to this explaining that there were additional Behemoths built post-2669. --Dundradal 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We should make sure that we create a Behemoth-Class Dreadnaught page that redirects here to put into the Ships category for organizational purposes. --Dundradal 21:19, 25 August 2010 (CDT)

The conventional spelling we have here on WCPedia is dreadnought, and also seems to be the etymological root of the word (as in dread nought, that is none). From what I've seen, dreadnaught seems to be more commonly used in American spellings. I will create the ship-class article when you decide which one should be the canonical spelling, keeping in mind that we already have several dreadnought articles. - Wedge

The problem is it is spelt both ways in sources. If ou is the more common than stick to that, but we should do a quick check of everywhere it appears in documents to see which is used more. --Dundradal 10:26, 26 August 2010 (CDT)