Forum:Designations

I'll spare the formalities with a long, overwritten dialogue about how....eh, shit, I'm doing it again. Anyways, just give me a comment if any of the following suggestions either make you agree wholeheartedly or the naming aspect of your obsessive compulsive disorder makes you want to kill me for it. Voting in approval will mean that article names for technology will be shortened to the best possible title that leverages a specific canon designation with a more casual name.


 * F-41 Broadsword is better for your brain and hyperlinking abilities than F-41 Exoatmopheric Multirole Strike Fighter
 * M41 rocket launcher encourages refusal to self-lobotomy when put side by side to M41 Surface-to-Surface Rocket Medium Anti-Vehicle/Assault Weapon
 * M510 Mammoth would make you want to harm another person less when compared to Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy
 * Type-47 Scarab seems like a more interesting article to write about than Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform
 * MJOLNIR Commando makes you want to join the Insurrectionist cause less than MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/K variant

Anyhoo, thanks for reading! :)

Love,

Comments
So, what would happen to consensus made on MJOLNIR and Weapons naming convention then? Vehicle naming convention is pretty much a done deal. — subtank   23:13, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
 * This is based mostly off the MJOLNIR suggestion from the middle names proposal and I didn't concern myself over previous discussions. Looking at your M41 SSRMAVAWBLERG vote, the others didn't seemed to only care about the title of the page when read, not when hyperlinked.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. As an encyclopedia, we should be using the technical names, not shortened simpler names which are what redirects are for. The why: If a reader wantx to find information about the Mammoth, he/she will simply type "Mammoth" or "M510 Mammoth" in the search bar and be redirected to "Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy". They won't care what the article name is, as long as they are getting up-to-date and accurate information. And besides, when talking about the item outside of the title, it can simply be referred to as the "Mammoth" of "M510".-- 23:27, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
 * The exact same argument could be applied to the use of full names in character article titles. Redirects are fine, but having the main title be so specific, something that not even the most die hard Haloverse fanatics memorize entirely is completely absurd. This proposal, if approved, will be VERY similar to the middle names proposal. Simplified title as the main, full extremely-specific name in intro paragraph.
 * The summary of M41 SSRMAVAWBLERG naming proposal is essentially this, that all four users were against renaming the weapons articles, opting for either the Title template (Spartacus and S-331) or not renaming at all (Alex and Smoke). Grizzlei voted for. I am simply the mediator. The only reason why I made that proposal was because it didn't look nice for those using 1024px screens... — subtank   23:36, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
 * Additionally, with some infoboxes lately automatically titling themselves, it makes the templates look a bit disheveled. Just another point to clarify, this move is for your everyday reader not to be overwhelmed by attempting to differentiate everything and for new contributors to accustom themselves to each article. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will be changed within the articles themselves to make our wiki more "casual." Can't stress that enough. :P
 * Actually, all infoboxes still retain the  field (available via  ). It's just hidden from plain view due to the common issue of editors forgetting to update that field after renaming the articles. I made sure that all the basic field parameters are intact. ;) —  subtank   23:46, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
 * I did not know that (apparently)! I suppose that I need to refresh/cache clear more often or whatever.

I actually support the idea of using common names for article titles like Wikipedia does since we're an encyclopedia and not a technical manual. This would at least be one consistent policy that applies to character names, weapons, vehicles, and everything else. -- 23:53, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
 * If there is a majority vote in favour of this, we can add it to the wiki's manual of style.— subtank   23:59, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Honestly I think we should use full names for the article names but the short hand names for the name above the image.ArchedThunder 00:01, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Totally saw that coming. For vehicles and weapons article names, I think we should stay with the official designation. We can absolutely mentioned their nicknames and have the them in the infobox, but not as the hyperlink. I guess it's okay to have "M12 FAV Warthog" as the hyperlink (similar to the "D77-TC Pelican" we have right now). The designation must be part of the name. "Grunt", the nickname, is not the hyperlink and article name for "Unggoy". Like Spartacus said, "[Visitors] won't care what the article name is, as long as they are getting up-to-date and accurate information. And besides, when talking about the item outside of the title, it can simply be referred to as the 'Mammoth' of 'M510'". People type the nickname into the search bar, they still get what they want. I also like the current armor designation names. —  SPARTAN 331  05:18, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

I largely agree with this proposal. It seems we're finally starting to get that the article title isn't the only place to convey information and it would be best to keep it as concise as possible - this is beneficial both for the sake of convenience when looking for information but also ease with linking. I've never really understood the obsession with favoring the technical designation over the actual name anyway - plus I've started to think that many of the designations are part of some running joke to find as many words as possible to describe things that are otherwise fairly straightforward ("Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy"? Really?). As has already been pointed out, it's also important to remember that changing the article title doesn't mean that the full designation will be somehow removed from the wiki altogether; there's always redirects, and besides, if readers care enough to read the article itself, then they should be able to see the full technical designation in the introductory paragraph.

Overall, I think a good guideline for determining what is suitable as a title is to consider what is comfortable and natural to link in typical article text; for example, when writing a plot summary, there is no reason to use "MA5C Individual Combat Weapon System" over "MA5D assault rifle"; thus the latter is more suitable as a title (though this kind of thinking only applies up to a certain point - designations like "MA5D" should still be used, it's just the word clutter that isn't necessary to differentiate the subject from others that should be cut down). The formal names are only applicable in niche usage, like the list of products on the Misriah Armory page.

One thing, though: as for MJOLNIR variants, I'm still in favor of using "MJOLNIR/Commando" over the idea of having a space between "MJOLNIR" and the variant for reasons Subtank described here. As for the rest, I mostly agree. As long as we use proper designations to differentiate weapons and equipment (e.g. MA5B, MA5D, et al) and keep the terminology consistent and in-universe (e.g. not using "Master Chief" over "John-117" or the human nicknames for the Covenant species) it should be all for the better. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:03, 30 October 2012 (EDT)


 * On second thought, a weapon titling standard as described above may end up being too arbitrary when dealing with weapons that can't be described with existing terms like "assault rifle" or "pistol"; for example, we shouldn't call the M6 Grindell/Galilean Nonlinear Rifle "M6 Spartan Laser" because the latter is established to be a nickname in-universe. Something like "M6 G/GNR" would work for me though, or maybe we can just use the current title since it's a one-of-a-kind weapon and the designation isn't too long or painful to type or look up. Still, exceptions such as this one would create a discrepancy with titles like "MA5B assault rifle"; the question is whether these irregularities really matter. Though they're useful as guidelines most of the time, slavish adherence to consistent standards may also be detrimental in some cases, which is why I wouldn't exactly have a problem with seeing titles like "M6 Grindell/Galilean Nonlinear Rifle" and "MA5B assault rifle" existing side by side. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:34, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
 * The proposed style is workable for UNSC-related articles but how 'bout the Covenant? Would we just abandon using their technical designation (i.e. Type-33 Guided Munitions Launcher) in favour of their common name (i.e. Needler, Fuel Rod Gun, Plasma Rifle)? — subtank   07:12, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
 * The Spartan Laser could be shortened to "M6 nonlinear rifle" or "M6 laser" as "Grindell/Gailiean", to our knowledge, doesn't describe the type or origin of the weapon.


 * I suppose we could go with "Type-33 Needler", "Type-25 Plasma Pistol", etc. Some of the Covenant weapons in the new Halo 4 interactive guide are labeled this way in the descriptions. Granted, capitalizing descriptors like "plasma pistol" here would also result in a discrepancy if we don't do so with UNSC weapons (e.g. "MA5B assault rifle" as opposed to "MA5B Assault Rifle"). However, we might just not capitalize them since it's not done in the books; the practice of treating them as proper names only seems to exist in marketing material. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 07:25, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
 * If I remember correctly, the "Type" system for designating Covenant equipment is a UNSC format similar to the NATO Reporting Names for Soviet/Warsaw/Russian kit. Unlike the Humans who generally use simple designations (MA5, M6, etc.), the Covenant and successor states has obviously refused to use the UNSC names (just like species nicknames; Elite, Brute, etc.) and exclusively uses their simple names that we were only once accustomed to. For example, many have blended the Soviet designation "MiG-29" and the NATO reporting name "Fulcrum" to distinguish it further. Something similar as you mentioned above will work perfectly.

Armor titles
While I realize I'm necro'ing a year-old thread, this should be more relevant than ever right now given the fact the proposal is finally being put into effect (about time). Anyways, I thought I'd open up a discussion for our new titling standards on armor variant articles before the move ball starts rolling, as I'm still not quite satisfied with the format I proposed a year ago. Basically, instead of having the superfluous "MJOLNIR/" in the title, we'd keep it to the barest minimum, only including the name of the armor type, followed by "variant"; for example, "Air Assault variant", "HAZOP variant" or "EVA variant". This would also make it easier to find the articles by typing the name in the search field; if we used the "MJOLNIR/" prefix, the search wouldn't return anything for "Air Assault", for example. This would, obviously, only apply to variants; mainline armor pages would stay the way they are. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 00:11, 7 October 2013 (EDT)


 * Addendum: "variant" in this case could be replaced with "armor", but I'm not sure which flows better. "Armor" is more descriptive but "variant" gets across the idea that they're subsets instead of wholly independent systems. -Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 05:39, 7 October 2013 (EDT)


 * Why not something like "Air Assault armor variant"? Maybe include both armor & variant into the title?-- Killamint  [Comm |<font color="Black">Files ] 12:33, 7 October 2013 (EDT)


 * Yeah, but I was trying to be as concise as possible, since that's what this title overhaul is really all about. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (EDT)


 * True. Well its hard to choose between variant & armor. Both are good titles but I guess I would sway more towards variant. Sounds alrite to me.-- Killamint  [<font color="Red">Comm |<font color="Black">Files ] 13:03, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

I would prefer if we were to follow your previous suggestion. As I said before, "MJOLNIR/NAME variant" works better than "NAME variant" (omitting "MJOLNIR/") because the former format sorts out the organising issue the wiki's been facing since 2007 (and note that organising using Categories is a chore). Searching is not an issue as long as we place sufficient search terms that redirect to the relevant articles. Lastly, the Title template sorts out any personal preference one has over article's title. — subtank   21:37, 7 October 2013 (EDT)


 * I realize that there are always redirects, but since they don't show up in the search field they're not particularly helpful to an uninitiated user searching for a given type of armor; I'm thinking of the average visitor who hasn't a clue about our titling standards. Categories can be a chore, but since most armor variant pages are mass-categorized via a list template anyway, it isn't that big of an issue here. As for the Title template, I'd prefer we didn't use it to tinker with article titles, instead following Wikipedia's example and limiting its use to applying italics wherever needed (that is, we should also stop hiding disambiguation parentheses). It can cause needless confusion when the actual title is something else than what's displayed on top of the page, and as said before the title itself doesn't even matter all that much - what's in the article proper does.--<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 01:16, 8 October 2013 (EDT)