Talk:Covenant portable shield

Necessary?

Why aren't the shields in Halo 4 an Halo 5 also just included on the other page? What makes these so different from the Pavise of the worthy/stationary shield generator? Japeth555 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2016 (EDT)Japeth555

Their function is very similar but their appearance is different, indicating a different model. According to Halo 5's Forge, this one is called a Covenant portable shield. We don't have a source for them being the same, and there's no source saying Pavise of the Worthy/stationary shield generator/Covenant emplaced shield is a blanket term for the shields either, so it should be assumed they're different models. -- Topal the Pilot (Talk|Contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

I disagree. "Stationary shield generator" or "Covenant portable shield" are not model names. They are merely descriptions of what the object is and what function it performs, and as such either is applicable to the other. Meanwhile, it makes sense that we only use "Pavise of the Worthy" for the war-era model since it is rather specific as a title (thought it's just as possible all portable shields are called that). However, both types are, without question, "stationary shield generators" or "portable shields", and despite minor aesthetic differences they are still functionally the same thing. Giving them their own pages is needlessly complicated and potentially confusing, IMO. --Jugus (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

"Stationary" and "Portable" would seem to me to be fundamentally different functions as the words are more or less antonyms; I don't think you really could apply either word to the other. Obviously they are very similar, however, and indeed similar in function and appearance to the deployable barrier, so I think it would be best to have a general article about covenant shields with subsections about the three different types (with Pavise of the Worthy referring only to the specific model to which we know it applies). The article for deployable barrier ought to be kept, of course, due to its gameplay role as an equipment. I think this would be the least confusing way of addressing the matter, especially as it would make it easiest to compare each to the other. DefeatingLine (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

I think I may have adopted a more inclusionistic perspective from my time on Wookieepedia. But if everyone wants it as one page, so be it. -- Topal the Pilot (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

@DefeatingLine: Well, both types are "stationary" when deployed, in comparison to things like vehicle or armor shields, but they've also always been portable (since Halo CE's first mission, in fact). So other than that slight quirk of terminology, there really is really no discernible difference in function between the two. As for the Halo 3 deployable cover, it can stay as its own page due to its gameplay significance, but we could have a link and subsection about it on this page.

@Topal the Pilot: Our "policy" on these things is quite contextual, but in general we tend to group things that meet the same definition under the same umbrella page. Take Covenant drop pod for example. If it's Covenant and a drop pod, it goes on the page because the title is a descriptor, not a name. If it were established that the war-era portable shield is called the, say, "Type-29 Deployable Infantry Energy Shield Generator/Portable" while the post-war one was the "Type-49 Portable Energy Barrier", there might be grounds to split them, but we could still have them on the same umbrella page since they are both the same type of object that performs the same function.

That said, I actually prefer "Covenant portable shield" for the main title. It's more specific and descriptive than "stationary shield generator", which could be anything and is, AFAIK, only mentioned once in Ghosts of Onyx. --Jugus (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

I guess that's fair enough. -- Topal the Pilot (Talk|Contribs) 05:12, 24 October 2016 (EDT)