Since in the book, this is mixed up, I was wondering ...

When using a "-", should the next character be uppercase when all words are uppercase...

Multi-Role or Multi-role

Gozanti-Class or Gozanti-class

Auto-Fire or Auto-fire

Should the word Mounted be preceded with a "-"

Half the time it is written Forward-mounted while the other half it is written Forward Mounted...

At which point should you talk about kilometers over meters...

In the books, sometime it is written 3000 meters.... while some other time it is written 1 kilometer ... (Maximum Altitude)

When there is only one weapon of one type.... I'd assume it is implicit and the word "one" shouldn't be written

"One Forward Mounted Concussion Missile Launcher"

or

"Forward Mounted Twin Concussion Missile Launchers"

but of couse One is useful in this case:

"One Port and One Starboard Turret Mounted Medium Laser Cannon"

This is not something I've thought about in a long time, honestly, so I'm not completely sure on all of this. Things like "turret-mounted" is correct, while "turret mounted" is not. In a thing like the Gozanti-class cruiser, only the proper noun ("Gozanti") needs to be capitalized. Remember that the books use a font in their title section that makes all the letters capitalized; it's more of an appearance things than anything.

As far as using 1000 meters or 1 kilometer, they're both correct so it doesn't really matter, though meters can be more precise.

As far as listing the number of weapons, it really boils down to preference of the writer. "One forward-mounted concussion missile launcher" or "forward-mounted concussion missile launcher" can both mean the same thing, though the former is a bit cleared in case of arguments.

1 hour ago, Mefyrx said:

In the books, sometime it is written 3000 meters.... while some other time it is written 1 kilometer ... (Maximum Altitude)

This is something that you really only get by immersion and lots of reading. As a rule of thumb, "thousand meters" can be used for vertical distances and "kilometers" can be used for horizontal distances. This isn't always the case, but it is generally applicable.

• However, "kilometers" can be used when talking about things in upper atmosphere/low orbit, where putting the altitude in meters would just sound pedantic;
• whereas "meters in thousands" could feasibly be used to talk about projectiles traveling at extremely high velocities, where kilometers-per-second would just sound imprecise.

But in any case, this will get you started, at least

Thanks for your inputs.... btw Gozanti-class is also used in the Type/Class section

While at it, why is there a distinction between planetary vehicle "Type" and Space vehicle "Class"?

As some of you know, I'm working on something to make cards for the game.... I'm going to rework the text for the vehicle...I found an errata on some cards I've made....so I'm waiting a little more before making a thread or something....but this is the reason behind my questions.....

2 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

Multi-Role or Multi-role

Gozanti-Class or Gozanti-class

Auto-Fire or Auto-fire

First off, in such a large book, you're gonna get some inconsistencies, typos, and other things that editors and proofreaders miss. So some mixups are just a reality of dealing with the product

That being said, it's "Multi-Role" if it's the specific title of something, rather than just a descriptor (for example, if there was a fighter called the "Saber Multi-Role Fighter," with the acronym "SMRF," then both parts of the hyphenated word are capitalized.

"Multi-role" looks incorrect, unless the "M" is at the beginning of a sentence or something. I wouldn't ever capitalize it if it was just a descriptor.

The Gozanti Cruiser, or "Gozanti-class armed transport," or "Gozanti-class cruiser," is a specific ship using a proper noun "Gozanti" where Cruiser can be part of the title or a descriptor. But the "class" is not part of the proper title. Gozanti is always a proper noun, so whether it is a descriptor as in "Gozanti-class," or a proper title as in "Gozanti Cruiser," it's always capitalized.

I would write it as "autofire."

15 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

While at it, why is there a distinction between planetary vehicle "Type" and Space vehicle "Class"?

Others might be able to answer this better than I, but regarding a ship "class", it's usually a nautical term, to denote a specific ship design. A "Reagan-class aircraft carrier" tells people who are familiar with military design, a LOT about the ship in question, with only a few words, as their design is pretty much uniform. This lets them know if it's the type of ship that is a support class, and not primarily focused on offensive/defensive capabilities. Or, for example the above mentioned Reagan-class, lets them know that it's an aircraft carrier, so you can expect lots of fighter jets and bombing runs, etc. It's also pretty much a term reserved for BIG ships, namely capital size ships, which also tells a person "hey this is a Capital ship, not a fighter" with minimal words used. It's also possibly used to denote vehicles that aren't space capable. "Type=planet bound vehicle" "Class=space worthy", though this breaks down a bit when you consider fighters, who may or may not be denoted as "Class".

As to what they mean by "Type", I really don't know how it applies in comparison to ship class. I'm not the best source of information on Star Wars vehicle specifications, as it's one of the aspects of the franchise that's never really interested me much.

32 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

As to what they mean by "Type", I really don't know how it applies in comparison to ship class. I'm not the best source of information on Star Wars vehicle specifications, as it's one of the aspects of the franchise that's never really interested me much.

A ship is a ship, which in this case means something you sit in that flies. The class indicates its purpose and size, pretty much. Vehicles on the other hand are more varied - even if a star destroyer and a tie fighter are hardly comparable, they’re both essentially flying vessels with people inside them, but a speeder moves differently from a walker which moves differently still from rolling crafts. Vehicle types identify broader categories of (planetary) transportation.

Just to clarify

As a title would you write "Reagan-Class Aircraft Carrier" or "Reagan-class Aircraft Carrier"

And for the -mounted thing.....is it something I understand wrong

https://www.linguee.fr/anglais-francais/traduction/front+mounted.html

half of the example over there are shown with a "-" and the other half without....

basically you can use either and it is good....that's the conclusion I get....

36 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

As a title would you write "Reagan-Class Aircraft Carrier" or "Reagan-class Aircraft Carrier"

I do not know. I'm terrible with grammar and the proper rules of English writing on the best of days, and details like that have never been a big concern for me.

Yeah there is a lot of inconsistencies in names...

I was looking back at the "class" description you guys gave me...

so anything associated with the class is merely to add description to the ships... and not part of it's name really..

So you have for instance:

G9 Rigger Light Freighter .... name should only be G9 Rigger and the Type already says Light Freighter

Action VI Bulk Transport .....name should be Action VI .... Bulk Transport the type...while it is only written Transport

Wayfarer - Class Medium Freighter .....name should only be Wayfarer and the Type Medium Freighter

ADZ - Class Destroyer..... name should be ADZ and the type is already Destroyer

Imperial I - Class Star Destroyer ....name should be Imperial I ....and the type Heavy Cruiser changed to Star Destroyer...

MC80 Liberty type Star Cruiser .....name should be MC80 Liberty and the type is already set to Heavy Star Cruiser...

lots of inconsistencies....this is intense if I have to rename everything.....anyway i'm about to recreate the ships cards and I have the text ready for more than 100 ships....just need to find the proper pictures to associate with.....well well....will see

English itself is full of inconsistencies. When in doubt, I'd just copy the names from their rulebook entries or Wookieepedia articles and have done with it. Don't worry about consistency—it's possible that "Class" could be part of a ship's proper designation anyway.

On 3/24/2018 at 9:56 PM, Mefyrx said:

G9 Rigger Light Freighter .... name should only be G9 Rigger and the Type already says Light Freighter

Action VI Bulk Transport .....name should be Action VI .... Bulk Transport the type...while it is only written Transport

Wayfarer - Class Medium Freighter .....name should only be Wayfarer and the Type Medium Freighter

ADZ - Class Destroyer..... name should be ADZ and the type is already Destroyer

Imperial I - Class Star Destroyer ....name should be Imperial I ....and the type Heavy Cruiser changed to Star Destroyer...

MC80 Liberty type Star Cruiser .....name should be MC80 Liberty and the type is already set to Heavy Star Cruiser...

lots of inconsistencies....this is intense if I have to rename everything.....anyway i'm about to recreate the ships cards and I have the text ready for more than 100 ships....just need to find the proper pictures to associate with.....well well....will see

While I think you're correct about the G9 Rigger (the Light Freighter at the end doesnt really flow), the Action VI Bulk Transport is the actual full title of the ship. The Bulk Transport is part of its name, not its classification. The designation is that it is a transport ship. I think thats also the case with the Wayfarer. Its usually only referred to as a Wayfarer, or you use the full title, the Wayfarer class Medium Freighter (where its designation is also Medium Freighter).

The Star Destroyer is also part of the full title of the ship. The classification of the Imperial I may be Heavy Cruiser (which comes from old naval parlance, and usually designates the average tonnage and the role the ship would fill in an order of battle), but that doesn't stop it from being a Star Destroyer, which means it has certain attributes that are common amongst all Star Destroyer vessels, such as it adheres to the wedge shape, has a superstructure that houses the bridge, is used mostly by the Imperial Navy, etc.

On 3/23/2018 at 12:39 PM, Mefyrx said:

As a title would you write "Reagan-Class Aircraft Carrier" or "Reagan-class Aircraft Carrier"

The first, since you're capitalizing all of the other words for the title.

A post about correct use of the english language punctuation has misspelled punctuation in the title. ??

I'm dying

Sorry, don't mind me...

11 minutes ago, Funk Fu master said:

mispelled

Yup.

On my own Vehicle Cards (Thread is on the front page as I write), I have simply copied what was printed in the book for the most part, but I have always used X-Mounted where it applies.

However, I have noticed that it does vary from block to block, It probably comes down to who wrote the entry, from what I understand, the writers provide their written work preformatted, and the layout team simply copy and paste it into the page, I don't know if they have a single editor, or an editorial 'team' so while one writer might have one way of writing, and a different editor has a different way of editing, I don't know.

Its only the OCD's amoung us who notice this, (Like myself and Brad).. I wouldnt worry about it too much (If you can).