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.
NightblazeSaber 03:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Downgrade to Class 3 Status
- Downgrade to Class 4 Status
- 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:
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
Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge
- Now, I might as well state my intentions with this: I do believe that it needs a description, as do all c2 articles, but by downgrading it to c3 status, I can add a description and then promote it, thus getting the credit. Now, because I said that, someone's probably going to fix it up. My "plan", as you might call it, is not in any way altering how I would normally act, though: I do believe, either way, that it should be downgraded.