Talk:M2859 Materiel Acquisition Pod

Merge

Hey, I think this article should be merged with the Resupply canister and be renamed accordingly in light of the new information from H4TEVG. It seems they are all one and the same. Thus, the proposal to merge. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 12:16, 17 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

They don't all have the same model number so that should be considered when deciding on a title. I'm already seeing that the M97 and M95 launchers are combined, yet the overall article title is M97-specific... I agree these do the same job, but watch the naming. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

Right then. But I still suggest the merge. We can split the same article to account for both if necessary, if there is further objection. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 12:26, 17 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

I don't know why people are ignoring this, but this should addressed. Should they be merged, or should they remain separate articles? This needs to be addressed now. If it must be made separate, fine, I will put some work into it myself. But it should be mentioned somewhere in the Resupply Canister article! So, in all due respect, please stop ignoring this issue and let a decision be made!! --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 12:46, 2 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Merge away.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 12:55, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

As long as we're doing it the right way - that is, make "Resupply canister" the "main" article and have the M2859 Materiel Acquisition Pod listed in a subsection, rather than the other way around (see Covenant drop pod for a similar example; the main title is generic and descriptive, while specifically designated models are detailed in the article). This is because the resupply pods in the previous games obviously do not share the same designation as the ones in Halo 4, and because we don't know their formal names the best we can do is use a generic descriptor for the main title. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:01, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

I'm not indicating I have a preference, but although there's an article on the assault rifle as a general weapon type (just like we're talking about the resupply canisters or the more verbose technical title of materiel acquisition pod), but that also has its own entry under, say the MA5C specifically, would this materiel acquisition pod also have its own article or is it considered too mundane an object to warrant that? I guess I'm wondering why all assault rifle types aren't batched in subsections of a main article? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

All right then. Looks like maybe we should keep it as is, meaning, as separate articles. Honestly, myself personally, I think I'm leaning more towards having them as separate articles now, rather than having them merged. But I still felt that it should be discussed whether or not these canisters in Halo 4 are not one and the same to the ones in Halo 3 and Halo: Reach. I guess my main concern, is that there aren't very many images in the Resupply Canister article if they were kept separate. But honestly, it may not really matter in the end. So, keep separate or merge? I vote keep separate. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 14:21, 2 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

In response to ScaleMaster, these kinds of matters tend to be judged based on both the notability of the item in question and the amount of information available, but there is no all-encompassing standard which can instantly be applied to every individual case. However, any one of the assault rifle models (at least those in the games) can be considered more significant than a particular type of ordnance drop pod, if only because of the amount of information we have on them. It's also a matter of convenience, as the information in this article is virtually the same as that on the resupply canister page; the pods in Halo 4 fill the exact same role as the ones in the previous game. As neither article can exactly be considered overly long, a merge does seem like a rather sensible solution. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:35, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

Okay, then, scratch my last. Perhaps Jugus is right, a merge does seem more sensible, more logical. How does one go about merging this stuff? I assume an admin has to be the one to do it, or whatever. I personally have no idea how to go about performing a merging of two articles into one. Did we say we were going to merge and split this particular canister into a subsection, or rename the article page entirely? If so, that I know I can do. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 14:39, 2 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

OK. I'm still learning the ropes of Halopedia. The notability factor is a good measure. But that bring up this point: The MA1 gets its own article and it's a casual one-off mention, whereas the Materiel Acquisition Pod actually has several screenshots as well as a page write-up in a book worth of info that could be added to enhance its article. Is the MA1 more notable because it's a weapon instead of just a weapon holder or is the notability based on one can have an image and the other is a minor text mention. Just trying to sort 'notability' out based on what I see here. How do you folks see it? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

Thinking on all the weapon pages I now say keep them separate. We have separate articles for the BR55 Service Rifle and BR55 Heavy Barrel Service Rifle.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 17:09, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

Scalemaster117 has it right. The MA1 is more notable than the MA Pod simply because of the nature of the object: one is a weapon whereas one is a weapon holder. It can be expected that there would be a reasonable future growth in an article on weapons, but not in an article on weapon holder. Also, the common reader, when navigating in a wiki about a science fiction franchise, would more likely search an article on a weapon than an article on a weapon holder. @Sith-venator: the reason for that is due to the differences in gameplay experience one weapon offers over the other. A better example would be between the MA5B and MA5C. Also, consistency in articles is a must.— subtank 18:09, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

Okay then I retract my previous statement and once again support the merge.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 19:22, 2 October 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, there's only so much one can say about an ordnance pod and that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a Halo: The Essential Visual Guide for Assorted Items with proper titles and an article's worth of text for each pod type, like functional properties, aerodynamic features, development histories, and so on. In the meantime, an umbrella article should be more suited for a subject like this. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:04, 3 October 2013 (EDT)