FANDOM

 
33,408 Pages

This article was made class 2 without a description. Now, that isn't such a big problem, but I think class two part articles should have one. This is what I think a class 2 part article ought to look like. (I wrote that article :D) Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge

Keep Class 2 Status

# Does appear to comply with the MoS. Not that I'm saying that I agree with the MoS (where the description is optional), but that isn't what this forum is about. Crown Knights NightblazeSaber 03:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Downgrade to Class 3 Status
  1. No way complete. Agent Charge 02:58, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per Charge's comment Crown Knights NightblazeSaber 05:45, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Crown Knights --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:39, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Crown Knights I wasn't a member of the QCG when I started this forum, but now I can vote on it. :D Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 07:45, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Crown Knights Klagoer TalkHalloween! Display1 01:16, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
Downgrade to Class 4 Status
  1. Crown Knights (Realise this could be very contraversial) I'm very close to C3, but all I can see a description saying is what you can already see from the image, so I'll go here (can I vote twice? :P) - nxt
Comments
  • I was under the impression that part articles didn't necessarily need a description, and that the description was optional. Although, I do think a description would be nice. NightblazeSaber 03:07, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that a description is mandatory. Besides, how can an article be complete without anything explaining what it looks like? Clig, however, agrees with you:
No description? And this is Class 2? Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge
Part articles don't need descriptions? -Cligra Join the redlink war!
They don't? To me, a description is essential. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge
(That was from the article's talk page.) Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.