Forum:Designations: Difference between revisions
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
m (→Comments) |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
I'm going to have to disagree with this. As an encyclopedia, we should be using the technical names, not shortened simpler names which are what redirects are for. The ''why'': If a reader wantx to find information about the Mammoth, he/she will simply type "Mammoth" or "M510 Mammoth" in the search bar and be redirected to "Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy". They won't care what the article name is, as long as they are getting up-to-date and accurate information. And besides, when talking about the item outside of the title, it can simply be referred to as the "Mammoth" of "M510".--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 23:27, 29 October 2012 (EDT) | I'm going to have to disagree with this. As an encyclopedia, we should be using the technical names, not shortened simpler names which are what redirects are for. The ''why'': If a reader wantx to find information about the Mammoth, he/she will simply type "Mammoth" or "M510 Mammoth" in the search bar and be redirected to "Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy". They won't care what the article name is, as long as they are getting up-to-date and accurate information. And besides, when talking about the item outside of the title, it can simply be referred to as the "Mammoth" of "M510".--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 23:27, 29 October 2012 (EDT) | ||
:The exact same argument could be applied to the use of full names in character article titles. Redirects are fine, but having the ''main'' title be so specific, something that not even the most die hard ''Haloverse'' fanatics memorize entirely is completely absurd. This proposal, if approved, will be '''VERY''' similar to the middle names proposal. Simplified title as the main, full extremely-specific name in intro paragraph. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | :The exact same argument could be applied to the use of full names in character article titles. Redirects are fine, but having the ''main'' title be so specific, something that not even the most die hard ''Haloverse'' fanatics memorize entirely is completely absurd. This proposal, if approved, will be '''VERY''' similar to the middle names proposal. Simplified title as the main, full extremely-specific name in intro paragraph. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
::The summary of M41 SSRMAVAWBLERG naming proposal is essentially this, that all four users were against renaming the weapons articles, opting for either the Title template (Spartacus and S-331) or not renaming at all (Alex and Smoke). Grizzlei voted for. I am simply the mediator. The only reason why I made that proposal was because it didn't look nice for those using 1024px screens... — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 23:36, 29 October 2012 (EDT) |
Revision as of 22:36, October 29, 2012
Forums: Index → Community Proposal → Designations |
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
- M41 rocket launcher encourages refusal to self-lobotomy when put side by side to M41 Surface-to-Surface Rocket Medium Anti-Vehicle/Assault Weapon
- M510 Mammoth would make you want to harm another person less when compared to Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy
- Type-47 Scarab seems like a more interesting article to write about than Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform
- MJOLNIR Commando makes you want to join the Insurrectionist cause less than MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/K variant
Anyhoo, thanks for reading! :)
Comments
So, what would happen to consensus made on MJOLNIR and Weapons naming convention then? Vehicle naming convention is pretty much a done deal. — subtank 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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ
I'm going to have to disagree with this. As an encyclopedia, we should be using the technical names, not shortened simpler names which are what redirects are for. The why: If a reader wantx to find information about the Mammoth, he/she will simply type "Mammoth" or "M510 Mammoth" in the search bar and be redirected to "Mobile Anti-Aircraft Weapons Platform M510 Siegework/Ultra-Heavy". They won't care what the article name is, as long as they are getting up-to-date and accurate information. And besides, when talking about the item outside of the title, it can simply be referred to as the "Mammoth" of "M510".--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 23:27, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
- The exact same argument could be applied to the use of full names in character article titles. Redirects are fine, but having the main title be so specific, something that not even the most die hard Haloverse fanatics memorize entirely is completely absurd. This proposal, if approved, will be VERY similar to the middle names proposal. Simplified title as the main, full extremely-specific name in intro paragraph. Grizzlei ♥ ツ
- The summary of M41 SSRMAVAWBLERG naming proposal is essentially this, that all four users were against renaming the weapons articles, opting for either the Title template (Spartacus and S-331) or not renaming at all (Alex and Smoke). Grizzlei voted for. I am simply the mediator. The only reason why I made that proposal was because it didn't look nice for those using 1024px screens... — subtank 23:36, 29 October 2012 (EDT)