Talk:Core of Requiem

I hesitated between this title and "Core (Requiem)". I'd be glad if you had any suggestion, because I feel the current title may not be the best one. (especially regarding the future image category) Imrane-117 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2016 (EST)


 * Honestly "Core of Requiem" works, as it is a pretty descriptive title, similar to Covenant cruiser at Longhorn Valley. Though, I would be fine with "Core (Requiem)" as well. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (EST)
 * I'm fine with Core of Requiem. Sith Venator Mega Blastoise.gif ( Dank Memes ) 19:49, 16 February 2016 (EST)
 * Is there a reason it's its own article and not just something within the entry for Requiem itself? Is it just to keep the info compartmentalized? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (EST)
 * Core of Requiem is alright but at the same time "Requiem's Core" seems more concise.-- 23:12, 16 February 2016 (EST)
 * Core of Requiem sounds fine to me as I prefer avoiding brackets whenever possible. @ScaleMaster117: It's compartmentalization and because it allows for a more in-depth examination of the subject without making the Requiem article too bloated. Same reason we have articles for other locations on Requiem. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (EST)


 * It's a consequence of the phrase structure, but I worry that "Core of Requiem" might get mistaken for an official name due to the double capitalization. "Requiem's core" seems like it would be better at getting across that this is just an general descriptor. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 03:13, 17 February 2016 (EST)


 * I'm with ScaleMaster, a bit iffy on why this needs to be a separate article from the main Requiem page. --  Qura 'Morhek   The Autocrat     of Morheka   04:28, 17 February 2016 (EST)