Talk:CAA Heavy Burden

CAA, or UNSC?

If it's supposed to be CAA, then why does it say on the hull UNSC? This can easily be very confusing. --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 12:29, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Probably just a mistake on 343i's part (the 2012 E3 build had it designated as a frigate, so it's likely they just forgot to remove the "UNSC" from the hull). Anyways, I'd rather go with the map description.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:32, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Fair enough. Still, it does kinda irritate me. Sometimes I hate my freaking perfectionist tendencies. --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 12:34, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

In the infobox, it is stated that the era is "Second Human-Covenant War", shouldn't it be "Human-Covenant War"? (The only thing we know about it is that it participated in the Battle of Kholo). —This unsigned comment was made by Imrane-117 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

The vessel has not changed it's identity. Its name and registry number are the same as when it was a part of the CAA. But, recall that the UNSC took over the authority from the CAA at the beginning of the war. This mining ship was changed to ordnance transportation, but the CAA was now run by the UNSC even as of the Battle of Kholo, so you'd expect the UNSC might slap a UNSC logo on the side of the hull for it's re-purposed missions. Now, why it's a post-war UNSC icon and not the older style...well, if Halo 4 didn't already put that stuff all over the Dawn and its vehicle complement, I'd have said it was a slightly imperfect holographic recreation in the Spartan-IV training facilities on board Infinity where Adrift takes place. This freighter may be a very old design as well, since the Strategy Guide map content also alludes to it being from the UNSC's colonization days. ScaleMaster117 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Possible New Content Information?

Why was the New Content template removed? I put it there because Stephen Loftus speculated that there may possibly be new information coming soon, what with the Halo 4: Essential Visual Guide coming out in September this year. But it is just speculation. Another thing I'm speculating/wondering is, was or is the ship presumed lost? But still, maybe we should err on the side of caution... --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 12:49, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Rename

I believe the article should be renamed to CFM-88. If I'm not mistaken, the editing convention of this wiki on the use of "Unidentified ship DA DA DA" is only if there is no other identifier/descriptor that could be used for the subject. This vehicle however does have one: CFM-88. Just like FFG-127.— Hacame 22:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree with this move in part. We'll know more I'm sure by September, but consider this: If it's just changed to CFM-88 as a subject title and I'm doing a search for this ship because I saw it in Adrift and knew it was a mining vessel and I recall it was from the CAA but didn't remember its registry number, would I still find it in a search for "CAA" or "Mining"? Just curious. ScaleMaster117 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

I personally oppose this move. The present article title is much more specific. Moving it to just plain CFM-88 is a dumb move, to be completely honest. I say keep it the way it is. --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 23:11, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Oh, and BTW, CFM-88 is not a ships name, it's a hull classification symbol, a registry number of sorts. --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 23:14, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

The use of "Unidenfied Da Da Da" is just unnecessary IMO, per above. I don't know how it is a dumb move and hull classification symbol is a ship's identifier, which effectively identifies one ship from another. Best example, there are tons of ships named Enterprise but what sets them apart is their hull classification symbol/registry.— Hacame 23:32, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Still, it is just too generic, not very descriptive. In my Halo 4 Prima Official Game Guide, it is described as a mining vessel. Therefore, it should stay that way. --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 23:35, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

The description belongs in the content, not the title. You don't name John-117 as Spartan-II John-117 now, do you?— Hacame 23:39, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

(reset indent) No, I don't. I'm just saying, it is not descriptive enough. Please, I'm not trying to start an edit war or anything. What's wrong with the way it is? Why bother changing it? --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 23:43, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

What edit war? So far, we've been quite civil. Anywho, CFM-88 is just as descriptive as FFG-127: CFM is a classification for a mining vessel whereas FFG is for a frigate. And I just told you why I think the article needs a rename in my first post. :/ — Hacame 23:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Okay, yeah, I guess it won't hurt. But still, let's not be hasty, and let others have their say too. Let's not jump the gun just yet. Savvy? --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 23:52, 10 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

I agree with the rename. When we have anything resembling an official title, it's useless to include any extra words (especially the redundant "unidentified" - we know it's unidentified from the lack of a proper name). All of our other articles for ships that have not been named but whose hull classification symbols are known (FFG-127, DD-993, ONI PRO-49776) follow a similar format, so I don't see why this article should be any different. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Very well. If it must be so, then so be it. --Xamikaze330 [Transmit|Files] 12:00, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330