Talk:Silesian Ostrava Castle

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First sentence[edit]

@Revirvlkodlaku: As I indicated in Edit summary, per MOS:FIRST, it is needed to write what it is in the first sentence and not to immediately skip to the location. I understand your concern that the repetition of the word does not look aesthetically pleasing, but this form is definitely more appropriate and in accordance with the rules. Also note that this is a common case, there are plenty of castles with the same first sentence structure (and we're only talking about the repetition in the case of castles). After a short search I found for example Aberdyfi Castle, Ballycarbery Castle, Boyabat Castle, Brancepeth Castle, Gvozdansko Castle, Markree Castle, Schallaburg Castle, Tratzberg Castle, Walzin Castle, Wittigkofen Castle. If in doubt, ask for Third opinion. FromCzech (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech thanks for starting a discussion. I understand your point about the rule, and I'm aware that rules are important to you from other disagreements we've had. I think sometimes, it is appropriate to eschew strict adherence to rules when context makes it necessary or preferable, and this seems to be one of those cases. I'm actually a fan of MOS:FIRST and have modified several articles to fit the rule, but in this case, I think it's completely unnecessary, as the article title is self-explanatory, so reiterating it adds no value to the reader and makes the lede rather clunky. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may seem "completely unnecessary", but the option with the omitted object seems more clunky to me. It will appear that way even to a user who navigates Wikipedia and is used to a certain format. The evidence is similar repetition in other cases and there is therefore no reason to exclude this particular case. FromCzech (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the experience of our previous discussions, I have already requested Third opinion, hopefully this will save us both time. FromCzech (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: I agree that "per MOS:FIRST, it is needed to write what it is in the first sentence." But I also find that saying "X Castle is a castle" is not good writing. Perhaps we could say "X Castle is a [certain type of] castle". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the sentence "It was recently after many years of dilapidation, caused by coal mining under the castle", is missing a word. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify that I'm not certain about my opinion, and Gaza Health Ministry is an example of a page which doesn't follow this rule. (Maybe that page is wrong and should be changed but that's an example I just came across anyway). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]