Talk:TCS Behemoth: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The problem is it is spelt both ways in sources. If ou is the more common <span style="text-decoration: line-through">than</span> then stick to that, but we should do a quick check of everywhere it appears in documents to see which is used more. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 10:26, 26 August 2010 (CDT) | The problem is it is spelt both ways in sources. If ou is the more common <span style="text-decoration: line-through">than</span> then stick to that, but we should do a quick check of everywhere it appears in documents to see which is used more. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 10:26, 26 August 2010 (CDT) | ||
Well, as I said I'll make one whenever we have a consensus. The Secret Missions uses the dreadnought spelling when talking about the Sivar. I don't have the paper manuals with me at the moment, but on-line sources also talk about the Confederation-class dreadnought in WC2 and the Behemoth and Hvar'kann dreadnoughts for WC3. - Wedge | Well, as I said, I'll make one whenever we have a consensus. The Secret Missions uses the dreadnought spelling when talking about the Sivar. I don't have the paper manuals with me at the moment, but on-line sources also talk about the Confederation-class dreadnought in WC2 and the Behemoth and Hvar'kann dreadnoughts for WC3. - Wedge | ||
I don't like this task sitting in the background niggling at me. I'll set up some redirects - we can always change them later, if you so decide it is appropriate to do so. - Wedge | |||
Latest revision as of 00:36, 28 August 2010
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 then 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)
Well, as I said, I'll make one whenever we have a consensus. The Secret Missions uses the dreadnought spelling when talking about the Sivar. I don't have the paper manuals with me at the moment, but on-line sources also talk about the Confederation-class dreadnought in WC2 and the Behemoth and Hvar'kann dreadnoughts for WC3. - Wedge
I don't like this task sitting in the background niggling at me. I'll set up some redirects - we can always change them later, if you so decide it is appropriate to do so. - Wedge
