Forum:Designations: Difference between revisions

''(reset indent)'' I believe scripting ''could'' provide a solution, though I'm not sure how to achieve it. I don't think the mediawiki settings have that kind of ability to hide and show certain redirects, though I could be wrong. Anyway, as for armor titles, I feel that the simplification of armor titles as to omitting "MJOLNIR/" promotes exactly that, colloquialism, and that this proposal would go beyond its intended purpose as to apply to all articles (i.e. "Gauss Warthog" instead of "M12G1 Warthog"). It cheapens the wiki's reputation as just a fan-managed Halo encyclopaedia and not a properly-maintained, comprehensive Halo encyclopaedia managed by dedicated members of the Halo community. Then again, this is just my opinion on the matter within the proposal. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  20:13, 10 October 2013 (EDT) <!-- Idealist nut?! -->

::I've often found myself questioning the decision to rename the weapon and vehicle pages (yes, I know I originally supported this), particularly since redirects are a thing—we now end up with bizarre mishmashes of formal and colloquial terms, like "Type-25 plasma pistol" or "Type-1 energy sword", when the designation is really only useful when there are multiple models of the weapon and this is immediately relevant to the content at hand. Redirects would've saved us all the trouble in the first place, though users tend to have a bizarre fixation on holding the article titles as gospel everywhere and "correcting" term use that may be perfectly fine in the context into whatever the article title happens to be at the time—e.g. "[[plasma pistol]]" is preferable to [[Type-25 plasma pistol]] in a recounting of an event because the weapon's formal model designation isn't all that relevant there, while "[[Type-25 Directed Energy Pistol]]" would work the best in a more technical equipment listing. Since linking all of those things produces the same result, i.e. a user clicking on the link will be led to the same page, there's no reason to homogenize the names in every context to match the current title.

::@Subtank: While I would prefer putting the variant's name first (as in "Variant-class MJOLNIR", which is used even in technically-oriented material), thus solving the search issue, "MJOLNIR/Variant" is also fine by me as long as we get this thing implemented. --[[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> 02:25, 12 November 2014 (EST)

::::If it means we're soon going to have articles such as "Plasma pistol", "Needler", "Mongoose", "Lich" and so on, then I'm all for it. As long as there are no other variants of course, otherwise it'll stay "M392 DMR", for example. Same for the Mjolnir armors, though my own favorite would be "Mjolnir Example armor" (somewhat similar to [[ODST armor]]), i.e. "[[MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/R variant|Mjolnir Recon armor]]", "[[MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/EOD variant|Mjolnir EOD armor]]",... along with "[[MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor|Mjolnir armor]]", "[[MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/Mark VI|Mjolnir Mark VI armor]]", "[[MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor (GEN2)|Mjolnir (GEN2) armor]]", etc. My main concern with your suggestions is that: First, the forward slash (i.e. "Mjolnir/Recon") may be awkward in an article, since it's a mixture of formal and informal naming scheme; Second, "Recon-class Mjolnir armor" —though an interesting technical term that could become the "official" bold name in the article, in my opinion— is still not always very practical when you're placing it in an article, i.e. anywhere where the technicality of the term is unneeded. (For the same reason, we would, as of now, almost never really call the plasma pistol the "Type-25 plasma pistol" outside of a technical section.) [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 18:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)

:Since this has to go somewhere... I really think Braidenvl's "Variant-class Mjolnir" format is the best option. It's concise, includes the Mjolnir part, and is more search-friendly as it puts the variant name first. However, 343i has lately shown a preference for having the variant name in classically Nylundian all-caps (as seen [https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/community/blog-posts/canon-fodder-conventional-warfare here] and the ''H4 EVG'', for example), so I wonder if it might be most appropriate to render it as "VARIANT-class Mjolnir". --[[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> 02:53, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

:::Agreed. "VARIANT-class Mjolnir" sounds good. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 17:44, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

:::::At last, I also agree. We should follow 343's designations. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (EDT)