Forum:Renaming Korhal and other articles

Note: this discussion was originally on Talk:Korhal but moved here since it discusses renaming other articles as well.

Why not rename this article to Korhal IV and have Korhal be a redirect? Plenty of articles such as SCV are redirects from the commonly-used name. Who refers to SCVs as T-280 space construction vehicles? Nobody. But that's what the article is called, since that's the official name. If the actual name of the planet is Korhal IV, the article ought to be called Korhal IV, and all links to Korhal would automatically redirect to Korhal IV and it would not be any problem whatsoever. Look at Apocalypse-class nuclear missile for instance, and you will see the article text calls the planet "Korhal IV", acknowledging the correct name of the planet as Korhal IV but linking to the Korhal article directly, and leaving the "IV" out of the link. That to me indicates something is wrong. --The Overmind 12:02, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

While renaming this article to Korhal IV might make sense, the T-280 space construction vehicle page should probably just be renamed SCV. (There's new models now. Probably same with the dropship.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:08, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can get behind renaming Korhal to Korhal IV. Renaming the SCV and dropship articles to something more general would be a good idea too ("Space construction vehicle" and just "Dropship"?) - Meco (talk, contribs) 12:26, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like calling them "SCV" and "Dropship", and also I'd prefer the banshee article be "Banshee". It's just a bit simpler that way than using long names. I fixed the problem at Apocalypse-class nuclear missile with it referring to Korhal in a weird way, anyway. I won't rename any of these articles, you admins can take care of that if you wish. It wouldn't make sense for people to be renaming articles all the time without consensus, so I obviously won't do that. --The Overmind 12:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved SCV to space construction vehicle, moved Quantra-whatever to dropship, and moved AH-whatever to Banshee.


 * I think we need to get a consensus on Korhal IV, however. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 13:07, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a bit late now, but perhaps this should be moved to a forum. Anyway, while I support a move to Korhal IV, I'd prefer a T-280, Quantradyne and AH/G-24 designation. Thing is, they're the official names. And unlike, say, the Wraith, siege tank and battlecruiser articles, where there's distinct divisions of type, the SCV, dropship and banshee don't have these divisions, at least not in the same sense. There's no explicit references to any other model of SCV apart from a new BW design, and that likely follows the same generation format as the CMC-660. The Quantradyne is the same model from SC1/BW and while former dropships exist, they've never been explicitly identified. They are, in effect, a history of the quantradyne. While the likes of the assault dropship and medivac are explicit models, the hinted ones in the past aren't.


 * By this reasoning, we should perhaps move "Jim Raynor" to "James Raynor" for instance. However, I don't see anything wrong with that either, as redirects do their work. I don't see how full names are "confusing"-if anything, having a "space construction vehicle" article, yet staring it with T-280 SCV is confusing, as they don't match up. By your reasoning, a site like wikipedia should rename all its articles so they comply to the lowest common denominator of intelligence.--Hawki 23:24, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * We've been explicitly told there's a new model of the SCV, so it probably doesn't make sense to call the article T-280 space construction vehicle anymore. When we're talking about SCVs in StarCraft II or the interbellum period we could be talking about T-290s or who knows. (For instance, it's very doubtful the SCV mentioned in Orientation is a T-280, given that we're told it's a new model. The ones in Fear the Reaper used by Pfaff and that other guy are likely not T-280s, either.) Also the SCV article doesn't mention T-280 at the beginning anymore (unless I missed an edit); that's in the overview section, and it mentions a "newer model" later on. An article is less likely to violate a canon rule by just linking to dropship; if a dropship is being explicitly referred to as Quantradyne APOD-33, then obviously we'd identify that in the article linking to the dropship article. (And while a newer or older model might simply be a "new generation" of APOD-33, they could have a number which the source didn't mention, for whatever reason.) There also may have been different models of dropships in the past (they seemed to carry more passengers in I, Mengsk and Heaven's Devils).


 * The Banshee is trickier. There's so little information right now, splitting it into a lore and game unit article is probably pointless, but if it were split, the lore article should be called AH/G-24 Banshee, while the unit article would just be called Banshee (or maybe Banshee [StarCraft II]). In fact, the unit name is simply Banshee anyway, so both names are perfectly valid.


 * "By your reasoning, a site like wikipedia should rename all its articles so they comply to the lowest common denominator of intelligence."--Hawki 23:24, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are you talking to, and why are you using that tone? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:40, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the last comment-exam period and all that, and I've had to juggle stuff around.

Thing about the SCV is, as mentioned, is that it's really just an asthetic change, same as the shift in CMC design for instance. We have an in-universe precedent for both different classes and different generations, the latter only really counting for asthetic differences (later CMC-660 doesn't vary much from the SC1/BW design in terms of function. 'Sides, the new SCV doesn't really differ from its predecessor in terms of function. While they may be different models in form, they certainly aren't in function, so if a space construction vehicle article was named as such, it would be covering the T-280 in all aspects apart from a single blurb that "after the Brood War, a new SCV design was introduced." That was all Orientation gave us and given how Blizzard has changed some designs without explanation, such as CMC-300 and various zerg breeds, I doubt we'll get much more.

For the dropship, I don't think number carrying is really a justification, at least if the "more numbers" stems from game design. Don't have HD, but while I, M and SoD carried more troops and vehicles than they would in the game, I wasn't bothered by this, as game mechanics aren't always realistic for the sake of balance. Even if they are different designs, they're still essentially part of the Quantradyne's history-I don't imagine there's really enough info for them to stand on their own.

The Banshee falls inside a different argument, as there's only one model (maybe the KM ones in the comic are different models, but probably not). I don't think we have to slavishly conform to how a unit is designated in-game when it overrides other material. If it were to be split into a gameplay/lore divide, then the game one would indeed just be Banshee, but I agree with your stance on that-indeed, there's very few articles I think actually warrant a divide in the first place.

So, by way of conclusion, we have the SCV, where the only mention of another model is in Orientation, one that doesn't give a designation or any difference in performance. We have the dropship, which is perhaps the one that can have the most credence for a blanket term, though differences from game mechanics and vague references to early models don't really cut it. And the Banshee, where, to our knowledge, only one model exists.

Obviously there's a balance somewhere. There is a reason why the battlecruiser, Wraith and siege tank types are grouped together on the same page, as there may not be enough info to divide them and it saves us from repeating the same info on different pages. Still, as there aren't explicit class distinctions of the other ones, I don't think there should be a blanket format for them-same principle as absolute dates overriding relative ones, as model designations are more explicit than vague references to possible other designs.--Hawki 00:09, June 7, 2010 (UTC)