Forum:Designations: Difference between revisions

Forum:Designations (view source)

Revision as of 06:03, October 30, 2012

2,516 bytes added , 11 years ago

→‎Comments

Tacitus

Bureaucrats, Administrators

35,264

edits

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 [http://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=Forum:Updating_policies,_guidelines_and_the_wiki&diff=prev&oldid=986735#Changes.2FIntroduction 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 <u>must</u> 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. —<span style="font-family: Eurostile;">'''[[User:Spartan331|<span style="color:#000;">SPARTAN</span>]][[User talk:Spartan331|<span style="color:#888;">331</span>]]'''</span> 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 [[Forum:Human middle names#Comments|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. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 06:03, 30 October 2012 (EDT)