Talk:FFG-045

Source?

Where exactly does this FFG-045 come from? I would like to doubt that a hull registry would have a leading 0 since we've seen 2-digit hull numbers in the past without them. Can this entry have better attribution than just 'Halo 4'?

Well apparently it's just mentioned in the Armory, here's where it is : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZD1TluC-0s (skip to 6:29), not sure if there is anything much about this frigate.Imrane-117 (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

So despite the source indicating a the armor is tested in a combat lab, this is assumed to be a frigate and not a coincidental use of FFG which could have some other meaning? Seems its 'canonicity' could use some verification... ScaleMaster117 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

You're right in that there is no explicit proof, though just to play the devil's advocate I wouldn't say it's really a stretch to assume that it refers to a frigate, given how the format is identical to a frigate's hull number. When viewed from a purely Doylist perspective, why would the writer responsible for the armor descriptions want to confuse people if that wasn't their actual intent? Although it's true that the wording does appear somewhat strange in the assumed context - it's as if "FFG-045" is the name of the lab in its entirety, as opposed to being a lab on a ship designated FFG-045. Assuming it's a ship, could it be a whole decommissioned frigate repurposed as a testing facility? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

It could be and I don't discount it. I more object to the use of a leading 0 in a ship registry since it doesn't happen in Halo. Maybe I'm transferring my ire from the USS Kelvin's NCC-0514 from the 2009 Star Trek when it should have been NCC-514 based on all other precedent in Star Trek. (It was actually done so the director could put his grandfather's birthday on a ship hull, thus screwing over a minor piece of 4 decades of Trek continuity.) End rant. I'll see if I can get to the bottom of this and see if this is a frigate by intent. ScaleMaster117 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

If it's really a frigate, then we may consider the "0" to be an oversight, it makes me remember Soren's case. In Halo: Evolutions, he's (erroneously) referred to as Soren-66, but Halopedia safely chose to call him Soren-066 because it's the correct way to name Spartans. 343i let the UNSC Pillar of Autumn be called a frigate in Halo 4, so I assume they wouldn't even think that FFG-045 is a mistake. (Well I don't necessarily blame them, it's not the first time that so-caled "details" are messed up. What's important is to correct it here.) In this particular case, I still think FFG means that's a frigate, it would be too far-fetched for it to mean something else, though that's just my opinion. For now, I suggest we change the page from "045" to "45" (since it's the correct naming convention), and we may mention the error in the article.Imrane-117 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree with this suggestion. ScaleMaster117 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (EDT)