5,323
edits
Forum:Designations: Difference between revisions
m
→Comments
m (→Comments) |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
::::If I remember correctly, the "Type" system for designating Covenant equipment is a UNSC format similar to the [[Wikipedia:NATO Reporting Name|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. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ::::If I remember correctly, the "Type" system for designating Covenant equipment is a UNSC format similar to the [[Wikipedia:NATO Reporting Name|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. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
I agree entirely with Spartacus's first comment. In addition, I say the article's name is something much more official and unchanging than the first paragraph. Something's official technical name is much more set in stone than its casual name, so why choose the name which is much more arguable and subjective than the complete official name for the spot that's much more of a hassle to change? Yes, it's hard to memorize the technical name sometimes when hyperlinking, but it might be even harder to remember what the agreed-upon established casual name is. Anywho, it's not like my voice will matter in this; I'm '''a bit''' late to this discussion. Also, thoughts on the name for [[ARC-920]]?-- | I agree entirely with Spartacus's first comment. In addition, I say the article's name is something much more official and unchanging than the first paragraph. Something's official technical name is much more set in stone than its casual name, so why choose the name which is much more arguable and subjective than the complete official name for the spot that's much more of a hassle to change? Yes, it's hard to memorize the technical name sometimes when hyperlinking, but it might be even harder to remember what the agreed-upon established casual name is. Anywho, it's not like my voice will matter in this; I'm '''a bit''' late to this discussion. Also, thoughts on the name for [[ARC-920]]?--''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 12:09, 18 December 2013 (EST) | ||
:I am aware there were issues with this and I noted some of those above. Still, I don't think it was a change for the worse. Some of the titles we used to have were absolutely horrible to look at. Anyway, the ARC-920 is one of those cases where this exact same format can't really be applied without adding redundant words to the title - going by the same standard it would be called "ARC-920 railgun", but since the acronym is already a description of the weapon it would end up being just a little repetitive. Same goes for the SRS series sniper rifles. But no standard is ever perfect and all-encompassing, and since the whole point of this was to make these things just a tad easier to type, the acronym should do fine by itself. It's not unlike abbreviating "United Nations Space Command" in article titles such as [[UNSC Defense Force]] - it should be even less objectionable than most of the affected articles since there are no "arbitrary" descriptors involved. --[[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> 12:29, 18 December 2013 (EST) | :I am aware there were issues with this and I noted some of those above. Still, I don't think it was a change for the worse. Some of the titles we used to have were absolutely horrible to look at. Anyway, the ARC-920 is one of those cases where this exact same format can't really be applied without adding redundant words to the title - going by the same standard it would be called "ARC-920 railgun", but since the acronym is already a description of the weapon it would end up being just a little repetitive. Same goes for the SRS series sniper rifles. But no standard is ever perfect and all-encompassing, and since the whole point of this was to make these things just a tad easier to type, the acronym should do fine by itself. It's not unlike abbreviating "United Nations Space Command" in article titles such as [[UNSC Defense Force]] - it should be even less objectionable than most of the affected articles since there are no "arbitrary" descriptors involved. --[[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> 12:29, 18 December 2013 (EST) | ||