64,687
edits
Forum:Designations: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "{{User:Porplemontage/sig}}" to "{{SUBST:User:Porplemontage/sig}}"
mNo edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "{{User:Porplemontage/sig}}" to "{{SUBST:User:Porplemontage/sig}}") |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- Please don't remove anything above this line, and put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please don't remove anything above this line, and put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
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. | 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''' | *'''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''' | *'''M41 rocket launcher''' encourages refusal to self-lobotomy when put side by side to '''M41 Surface-to-Surface Rocket Medium Anti-Vehicle/Assault Weapon''' | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Comments== | ==Comments== | ||
So, what would happen to consensus made on [[Forum:Human_middle_names#Comments|MJOLNIR]] and | So, what would happen to consensus made on [[Forum:Human_middle_names#Comments|MJOLNIR]] and Weapons naming convention then? Vehicle naming convention is pretty much [[Talk:D77-TC_Pelican#Renaming|a done deal]]. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 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. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | :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. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:::::I did not know that (apparently)! I suppose that I need to refresh/cache clear more often or whatever. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | :::::I did not know that (apparently)! I suppose that I need to refresh/cache clear more often or whatever. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
I actually support the idea of using common names for article titles like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names 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. -- | I actually support the idea of using common names for article titles like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names 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. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''[[User:Porplemontage|Steve]]'''</span> (''[[User talk:Porplemontage|talk]]'') <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.getfirefox.com https://www.halopedia.org/images/firefox_27x15.png]</span> 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''.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 23:59, 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''.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 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.[[User talk:ArchedThunder|ArchedThunder]] 00:01, 30 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.[[User talk:ArchedThunder|ArchedThunder]] 00:01, 30 October 2012 (EDT) | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:::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. --[[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> 07:25, 30 October 2012 (EDT) | :::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. --[[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> 07:25, 30 October 2012 (EDT) | ||
::::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]]?--''[[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) | |||
==Armor titles== | ==Armor titles== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 66: | ||
::I am all out for a new title format for MJOLNIR armor and its variants as long as best possible title leverages a specific canon designation with a more casual name. That being said, I would still prefer using "MJOLNIR/Soldier variant" or "MJOLNIR/Soldier" over "MJOLNIR Soldier variant", and the suggested "Soldier variant" and "Soldier armor variant". In my opinion, the use of the forward slash as well as the inclusion of "MJOLNIR" puts it firmly to any reader that the armor variant is part of the MJOLNIR armor.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:40, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ::I am all out for a new title format for MJOLNIR armor and its variants as long as best possible title leverages a specific canon designation with a more casual name. That being said, I would still prefer using "MJOLNIR/Soldier variant" or "MJOLNIR/Soldier" over "MJOLNIR Soldier variant", and the suggested "Soldier variant" and "Soldier armor variant". In my opinion, the use of the forward slash as well as the inclusion of "MJOLNIR" puts it firmly to any reader that the armor variant is part of the MJOLNIR armor.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:40, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
:::It's ultimately not just to streamline searching or cater to casual wiki users - it also has to do with linking. These things tend to be linked as "Soldier variant" as opposed to "MJOLNIR/Soldier variant" as the former flows better; one almost never uses the styling "MJOLNIR/Soldier" in article text. More often it's written in the vein of "Soldier variant of the MJOLNIR armor", resulting in "Soldier variant" and "MJOLNIR" being linked separately; thus the convenience and ease with the search field are really just a helpful byproduct (to regular and non-regular visitors alike). I do acknowledge that taking off the "MJOLNIR" part diminishes the informational value of the title alone, but I can live with that given the fact the information will still be there in the article proper. Besides, we already omit the name of a larger whole in many other similar cases. | :::It's ultimately not just to streamline searching or cater to casual wiki users - it also has to do with linking. These things tend to be linked as "Soldier variant" as opposed to "MJOLNIR/Soldier variant" as the former flows better; one almost never uses the styling "MJOLNIR/Soldier" in article text. More often it's written in the vein of "Soldier variant of the MJOLNIR armor", resulting in "Soldier variant" and "MJOLNIR" being linked separately; thus the convenience and ease with the search field are really just a helpful byproduct (to regular and non-regular visitors alike). I do acknowledge that taking off the "MJOLNIR" part diminishes the informational value of the title alone, but I can live with that given the fact the information will still be there in the article proper. Besides, we already omit the name of a larger whole in many other similar cases. Habitat El Ciudad doesn't contain a mention of "the Rubble", nor does [[Beta-5 Division]] contain "ONI". It's only there if the title comes off as absurd or too general without the context of its "parent" subject (e.g. [[New Mombasa city center]], [[MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/Mark V]]) and this is hardly the case with armor types, many of which are even referred to as ''"(SUBJECT)-class armor"'' in their official descriptions (e.g. Air Assault-class armor, CIO-class armor), which in my mind justifies the omission of the "MJOLNIR/" part. --[[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> 10:13, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
:::On a tangential note, could it be possible to implement a template or any other bit of code that, when applied to select redirect pages, would make those redirects show up in the search suggestions? This would solve the issue with casual users (not just when it comes to armor but also everything else), though my point about the linking still stands. --[[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> 10:13, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | :::On a tangential note, could it be possible to implement a template or any other bit of code that, when applied to select redirect pages, would make those redirects show up in the search suggestions? This would solve the issue with casual users (not just when it comes to armor but also everything else), though my point about the linking still stands. --[[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> 10:13, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
| Line 76: | Line 80: | ||
''(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?! --> | ''(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?! --> | ||
:Well per Jugus' lead I changed the title of most of the vehicles. Kind of would like the weapon titles to stay the same though, I don't want to go back to calling the [[BR55 Service Rifle]] the BR55 Battle Rifle.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith-venator Wavingstrider</span>]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Commlink</span>]]) 06:01, 28 October 2013 (EDT) | |||
:Would also like to point out some pages actually have longer titles now <.< [[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith-venator Wavingstrider</span>]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Commlink</span>]]) 13:29, 11 December 2013 (EST) | |||
::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) | |||
:::You may have noticed that I've recently shied away from my obsession with avoiding redirects. I now accept that they can be our friends. Anyway, I agree that simplifying our article nomenclature would be for the best. The "Variant-class MJOLNIR" setup would work nicely since it's often used in official media these days. However, given the ''H4EVG''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s clarification that "MJOLNIR" is the project and "Mjolnir" is the armor (mirroring the SPARTAN/Spartan dichotomy) it may be preferable to render armor titles as "Variant-class Mjolnir"; frankly, I think "Variant-class Mjolnir armor" flows a just teensy bit better. --[[User:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">'''''Our vengeance is at hand.'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">Talk to me.</span>]]) 09:10, 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) | |||
:::::To clarify, simplifying the titles further is not exactly what I meant; I was merely noting that we could've kept our titles as they were in the first place because you might as well link to redirects like [[plasma pistol]] with no ill effects (as long as the redirects make sense and their numbers stay in acceptable limits). It's just that a lot of users tend to view the use of redirects as "wrong" somehow (I was one of them for a long time until I realized there's really no difference between linking a redirect and the actual page title). Redirects can also be useful when linking to subsections of pages; <nowiki>"[[human technology]]"</nowiki> is functionally identical to <nowiki>"[[Human#Technology|human technology]]"</nowiki>, just quicker to type and tidier looking when you're editing an article. --[[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> 09:17, 14 November 2014 (EST) | |||
Let's go with the simple "MJOLNIR/SOMETHING variant". "MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/SOMETHING variant" is quite lengthy. :P — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:03, 15 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) | |||
::Needless to say, I agree. "VARIANT-class Mjolnir" is the best approach. --[[User:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">'''''Our answer is at hand.'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">Talk to me.</span>]]) 13:02, 13 June 2015 (EDT) | |||
:::Agreed. "VARIANT-class Mjolnir" sounds good. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 17:44, 13 June 2015 (EDT) | |||
::::Agreed on "VARIANT-class Mjolnir".[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 19:35, 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) | |||
Okay looks like we have a general consensus. I'll get started.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 01:19, 14 June 2015 (EDT) | |||