Editing Archive talk:Covenant Ship Classification Canon Debate

<div style="float:right; padding-left:5px;">
{| style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #999999; background-color:#f0f0ff;width: 330px;font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"
|- padding:5px;padding-top:0.5em;font-size: 95%; text-align:center;
|<small>'''Archives:''' <small>[[Archive talk:Covenant Ship Classification Canon Debate/Archive|1]]</small><br /></small>
|}
</div>
==Merge ''CAR''-class and Covenant Heavy Cruiser==
I propose that ''CAR''-class and Covenant Heavy Cruiser be merged in light of a line on ''FS'', pg. 167, para. 3 regarding the distinction between a heavy and a light covvie cruiser.  I do not remember the exact quote, but I'll put it here as best as I can, probably +/- a few words (note: fixed quote '''[[User:Rotaretilbo|Rot]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Rotaretilbo|Brandon]]</sup>):

"There were a total of thirteen heavy cruisers and three carriers moving three hundred kilometers above the surface of the planet. Two exceptions to this patrol pattern were a pair of light cruisers hovering over Menachite Mountain - trapped at the bottom of the gravity well and therefore not an immediate threat to her ship."

Nylud is clearly making a distinction. -- [[user:RelentlessRecusant|<tt>TRU</tt>]][[user talk:RelentlessRecusant|<sup>7</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/RelentlessRecusant|<tt>H</tt>]] 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:*The reason we split the article has nothing to do with heavy and light cruisers, it is because we couldn't find any reason to associate CAR with cruiser, let alone heavy cruiser.
::--'''[[User:Rotaretilbo|Rot]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Rotaretilbo|Brandon]]</sup> 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==Separate CPV-class and Destroyer==

In light of the debate surrounding the CAR-class, I have oft wondered how the CPV-class so easily evades argument. Similar to how we have little proof linking the CAR-class to Cruiser, we have little proof linking CPV-class to Destroyer, and we ought follow the same path we did with CAR: we ought separate the articles, at least until proof can be brought forward.
:--'''[[User:Rotaretilbo|Rot]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Rotaretilbo|Brandon]]</sup> 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::I could have sworn that one of the ships was mentioned in [[Transmissions]], [[Reverence|CPV Reverence]] and [[Esteem|CPV Esteem]] were also mentioned as being Destoryers ... but I can't find that now.  So yes I agree Split the class since there is nothing linking the two and nothing saying they're "Heavy" Destroyers. -- [[User:Esemono|Esemono]] 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Originally, I thought that perhaps the DE in the [[Transmissions]] denoted Destroyer, but then all the other ships have that as well so I don't know. Perhaps there is something out there somewhere. I think the main basis is that Covenant Destroyers tend to have short names, and Esteem and Reverence are both short names.
:--'''[[User:Rotaretilbo|Rot]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Rotaretilbo|Brandon]]</sup> 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Split only those of pagan beliefs still support that the Covenant have CPV Destroyers!   There is no connection between the two!  Transmissions established a CPV class and then later Bungie created a whole new Destroyer class! -- [[User:Fist of Rukt|Fist of Rukt]] 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I don't split them already is because I think there might have been a connection made by a Bungie employee or something somewhere that connected them. I'm hoping whoever made the connection would come forward. Perhaps that is not to be so.
:--'''[[User:Rotaretilbo|Rot]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Rotaretilbo|Brandon]]</sup> 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Since nobody has refuted your arguement I'm bowing to your wisdom and spliting the article. -- [[User:Esemono|Esemono]] 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==C Battleship==

i know it says he saw battleships but this doesnt mean that there is a class called battleships e.g. cruisers and frigates, destroyers are all battleships it is more of a some sort of class of ships i believe? [[User:J!MMY8806|J!MMY8806]] 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::In the context, it could be taken either way. For now, I believe the term Battleship is the fanon name containing the data about the 2km five bulbous ship seen by ''[[Unyielding Hierophant]]''.
:::--'''[[User:Rotaretilbo|Rot]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Rotaretilbo|Brandon]]</sup> 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)