Halopedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive

(no subject)

Comming from Wookiepedia myself, I have a huge problem with the way the pages on this site are formatted. I know this is only the voice of one person, but i find all of these in-article references to real world sources appalling. I beleive we should format a Manual of Style that holds all references towards the end of the article, with the in-universe information staying as such. For example, compare the Master Chief to Anakin Skywalker (sorry for such a long page to link to). Notice how the article is well written, the pictures are scattered and alternate from left to right as the article continues. There is no reference to sources or the real world until the "Behind the Scenes" section. From here, look at the Chief article. There is great disorder, the pictures are all on the right side and out of chronological order. There is even a book cover in the middle of the article. If you refer to Johnson's page, there are references to sources in inappropriate ways:

"Johnson mowing down Grunts in Halo: Combat Evolved."

— Picture quote from the Sergeant Major Avery Johnson article

We should save all references to the real world for the end of the articles.

Also, we need a new naming system here. While Anakin and Darth Vader are different names for the same character, Wookieepedia takes this into account and puts all biographical information under the one true name: Anakin Skywalker. Here we have Covenant names mislabeled, with the true name Unggoy being redirected to the human slang term: Grunt. Instead of Avery J. Johnson, we have Sergeant Major Avery Johnson, rank and all. Personally, i believe that ranks should follow and be bolded in the introduction paragraph (e.g. Sergeant Major Avery Johnson was a dear ally to Master Chief).

While i may just be one person griping, I'm a devoted Halo fan and have come to this site often. That being said, i am dissapointed at the formatting of the articles here and wish for a revolution for the better. I say this only to improve the site, not to bash it or flame it in any way. I hope the administrators take this into consideraton. I have a busy school schedule, and i won't be able to help out that much, but nevertheless i would be glad to contibute to any reformatting if it does indeed take place. Thank you for reading. Dude984 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what, while I had never thought about this before, I completely agree. To start reformatting and making everything better, we should start with rewriting all the articles that are written poorly, re-captioning images, general stuff like that, and I'll put a poll on the main page talk, since more people look at that than this, I think, about renaming articles. If we get enough votes, I'll start changing all the articles like Master Chief and Sergeant Major Avery Johnson to either redirects or disambiguation pages, and all that. Thanks for coming by and pointing all this out, and contratulations on writing what I think is quite possibly the longest talk page comment I have ever seen. ;D g^ue_st^y-p_er^so_ny-^th_in^gy^{I too have an AI... his name is Supreme Honcho.} 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we can get enough backing to upgrade this site to its true potential. While i may have my times of absence, I'm with you 'till the end. Dude984 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good way to make the articles smoother, but just be careful not to make fanfiction. Wanting to stay in the tone of the universe can lead to stuff like "ONI operatives have uncovered information suggesting (insert Bungie's latest teaser here)" when the info came from a source not in universe. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 02:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

Okay, this one should be pretty obvious, but I just want to make sure we're at a consensus: Should we link to an article every time it's stated, or only the first time? It can be rather hard to determine which is the first time, and it can be annoying if someone wants to find information about something and it's not linked to further down, but the page gets really blue if it's linked to every time, so I'm kind of neutral... or does it really matter? g^ue_st^y-p_er^so_ny-^th_in^gy 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally we just link to things the first time they are stated. -ED 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not really that big a deal, but it's best if we just link to the first one? Got it. Thanks! Guesty-Persony-Thingy Early 90's to March 31, 2007. RIP. 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe if a page is really long you could link again like halfway down the page or soemthing, I guess, but in general, one link to an article per page. --ED_(talk)^(shockfront) 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Way too many links

I'm trying to disambig Halopedia (daunting task) but I've notice due to the point system people are linking everything.

This makes trying to disambig very very hard. What is in the MoS about linking every other word? Can I take them out or should I just leave them and forget about disambiging anything? Whispering 04:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Our manual of style says to see Wikipedia's manual of style for more information. However, part of Wikipedia's manual of style says to use the most common name of a person or thing. This is a practice that we do not follow. See, for example, the inane naming of the Needler article: Type-33 Guided Munitions Launcher. As you can tell, I think this practice is horrifically moronic. Nevertheless, it conflicts with Wikipedia's manual of style, so note on our naming conventions needs to be added here. I'd do it, but I'm bitter. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over that. We'll look into it. Tigerrrrr 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked some Wikipedia articles, and I found that most common names are used. For example, the article on the AK-47 is named AK-47, not Automatic Kalashnikov Model of 1947. If we really are trying to follow the style of Wikipedia articles, we should rename all of our weapons and vehicles. But we also must remember that content must conform to canon, and these are not the official names. This is really an issue of Halopedia's objectives. Therefore, I am Neutral. Jora 'Mantak_{An elite '92}-Battlenet-Brothers-Combat History 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vote. --Andrew Nagy 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unggoy" is better than "Grunt" because while it is used less, it is almost equally recognizable and more accurate; "M41 LAAG", on the other hang, is far less recognizable and used than "Warthog". Original names for species and maybe even weapons should be used, but for vehicles, the most recognizable name (the name used in-game) should be used. It's a "Wraith" first and a "Type-Something Whatever Carriage Thing" second. My rationale? A mix of canon and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:UCN (That link actually does work -- UCN in the Wikipedia namespace on Wikipedia). DavidJCobb 01:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearances

I think it'd be helpful if Halo universe articles all included an "Appearances" list, same as at Wookieepedia. Anyone agree? --Andrew Nagy 03:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the Era template. Jora 'Mantak_{An elite '92}-Battlenet-Brothers-Combat History 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the advantage of that over simple text lists? What's the syntax to include a footnote when a subject's appearance somewhere isn't obvious? What about to add annotations like "Mentioned only", "Possible appearance" and so on? --Andrew Nagy 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm glad my originally unappreciated idea of splitting the trivia has been made official in the MOS. Thx Subz! Arby116

Recommendations

A few recommendations for changes, amendments, etc.:

The placement of the Walkthrough template in a level article is not intuitive. New users may miss it entirely. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies between practice and the specification: we place the Walkthrough template in the "Behind the Scenes" article if there is one; otherwise, we stuff it in "Transcripts". The spec fails to mention that conditional alternative location for the template.

I would recommend either returning to the Section-With-

Main article: notation we used to use, or modifying the Level Infobox template to contain a clearly-marked Walkthrough link. If the latter idea is used, I'd recommend that for aesthetic purposes, we put the walkthrough link next to or below the level title, move the Prev/Game/Next links below the level title, and "stack" them horizontally (with a nested table or by setting colSpan="3" on every other cell in the 'box).

In the Level spec, do the "Summary/Brief Introduction" guidelines cover the sectionless intro paragraph? If so, then we may need another section called "Background" or "Description", as the intros for levels like The Covenant are detailed and long, traits that are explicitly discouraged by the spec.

We may wanna also specify a max-width for level thumbnails/images in Level Infoboxes, preferrably one that can be consistently met across all levels. (That is, no level image should have to increase in size to match other levels.) I'd recommend something like the intros I write for glitch articles: brief, maybe one or two sentences, providing a really brief summary.

Example:

"The Covenant is the eighth mission in Halo 3's Campaign. In this level, the eponymous Covenant Empire makes its last stand, and the Covenant Separatists and UNSC cooperate to attack the Prophet of Truth, who is hiding in the Ark's Citadel."

...And then toss everything else in a "Description" or "Background" section. An added benefit is that the new section could also summarize and explain the level's plot and actions (such as the breaching of the barriers and Truth's dependency on Johnson to activate the Ark).

Thoughts? DavidJCobb 01:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Anyway, I've modified the Level Infobox and it should now show a Walkthrough Link. However, the "Prev/Game/Next" stays. Secondly, yes it covers the sectionless intro. Could you add the sections into the MOS? Lastly, the Level Images should be 300px and yes, a brief summary such as the one above should be practised. Again, sorry for the late reply.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 10:34, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Added a basic spec for a "Description" section. DavidJCobb 18:57, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Seizing the use of 1st and 2nd person pronouns I strongly recommend that the MoS calls for an end of using first and second person pronouns. First pronouns are vague and with the new call for stopping signatures, it becomes all the more useless and improper. In addition encyclodpedias or any informative article should leave out all first person pronouns, making sure the article is objective in everyway. The second person pronoun is also improper. Though it is not necessarily incorrect for objective articles to use them, it does show a poor demostration of proper writing. In short it just makes the article look bad. I believe these suggestions are things that are overlooked by the admins. Thought it may not be the BIGGEST problem, it sure is one that should be changed and restricted! Thanks for reading.~ oy0sh1o

Link Once

If an article is really long, are we allowed to add more links to the same article that was already linked to at the top on the bottom area, so people don't have to scroll all the way up to the top to find the link? It can get really frustrating on an iPod or a slow computer. Teh lolz! Bionicle+Lotr 01:25, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Link once MoS suggestions

This section should be more specific. I will be using the Flood article for examples in this. The current policy (A given page should only contain one link to any other page. Typically this link should be the first instance of the term in the article) is somewhat vague in it's explanation, and we should specify which circumstances allow a second link. Here are my suggestions as to those circumstances.

• A: A second link is allowed if it is the title of a section, such as "==Flood Combat Form==" in the Flood article, even though it is not the first link to the "combat form" article. (Use of Template:Main is meant here)
• B: A second link is allowed if the first link is within a picture, such as the second link within the article to John-117, even though there is one inside the subtitle to a picture. This is to allow people viewing only the picture to see the context of the picture, without having to search the rest of the article for the first mention of John-117.
• C: A second link is allowed if the first is within the infobox at the top of the page, such as the forms mentioned within the infobox of the Flood article, and those mentioned within the article itself.
• D: A second link is allowed if it is within a listing of people/places/things, such as the "Known Victims" section of the Flood article. This allows easier research without having to search the rest of the article.
• E: A second link is allowed if it is within a reference, for obvious reasons.

When a second link is not allowed.

• F: If the first link is within a quote at the top of the page.

When the first mention should not be a link.

• G: The first links should not be within an {{Article quote}} template. In my opinion, it makes it look bad, but others may feel differently. (new!) --16:17, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
• H: The first link should not be within a section title. This is the opposite of former suggestion "a."

There may be other circumstances, but these are the ones I have run into the most in the Wiki. --KickButtUnggoy 21:56, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the usage of links in section titles, but other than that, I think you've made some good points. DavidJCobb 22:13, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Instead of putting links in section titles, remove them and use the Main Redirect template.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:15, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

And in cases where that's not so fitting (like the level headers in Hall of Mirrors), try wording it so that you can mention the title again in the text. DavidJCobb 22:26, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Aye.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:27, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Clarification for Appearances Section

I just noticed that several articles with Appearances Section had two different formats: 1) Either listing what level they appeared in or 2) Detailing how they changed visually across the series.

Shouldn't we put more emphasis on how they changed visually in the franchise rather than having a list of appearances? It sounds very redundant, referring to the list of appearances, and the Era Template has filled up that role.--Lol@Phailure 03:00, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

See above. --Andrew Nagy 18:20, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

what are redirects NOT for?

I've seen people using them for abreviations, typos Etc. What are they not for? ~ UserWiki:Galacticdominator|~]] ~ ~ 19:18, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used for typos or abbreviations... (there's some exceptions to the abbreviations though like UNSC...)- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 17:53, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

About Character MOS

Should character articles have a "Personality and traits" section? Some other wikis use one, and it seems to work pretty well. The Summary and Biography sections seem somewhat insufficient to detail the characters' personalities and such, plus they aren't really even meant for it. On the other hand, the "Combat" section seems kind of redundant; it could mostly be replaced with the Personality and traits section. Thoughts? --Jugus 16:18, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should have "Personality and Traits" section if applicable. Regarding the "Combat"; aye, it is redundant. Replace it away!- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 17:53, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Action Figures

Okay... Its been a while since I've first glanced at the action figure articles, and in simple form, I have to say they need serious cleanup attempts. Below I have a simple form for them which may help us build up a better idea of standards for articles in the Category:Action figures.

== Summary ==

Brief summary about the Action Figure, such as colour, and manufacturer listed here. Without too much detail.

 === Details ===

Greater details about the Action figure here. Including but no limited to Release Date, Weapons and Equipment (if any), size, etc.

This probably isn't the best layout, so feel free to adjust it to any better ways.

- Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 18:06, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of mine like this:

A very brief statement that includes the name, the era of the figure, and who produced it.

==Description==

Includes what color, armor, weapons, etc., etc. There should be nothing about prices in here, as they are often unreliable and change quite often as the value goes up or down.

==Trivia==

Mistakes, stuff like that.

==Gallery==

That's usually how I set up my pages...-- General5 7 talk contribs email 01:28, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Added to the page. I would suggest follow the McFarlane articles as they are the best action figure articles for now.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:56, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Caps in section headers

Wikipedia's manual of style recommends article and section titles like these (some made up, some on this wiki):

• Auto-Aim details
• First-person shooter
• Face painting

But we use titles like these:

• Auto-Aim Details
• First-Person Shooter
• Face Painting

Which is correct? DavidJCobb 00:49, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that page titles were allowed to be capped. Section titles should have the first capitalized and the rest lowercase.-- General5 7 talk contribs email 00:56, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Initial caps only... on Wikipedia. But we're not Wikipedia. And capped titles (for both articles and sections) are rather common here. So we have a choice: do we do what we've (very inconsistently) done for a while now, and capitalize each word in a title? Or do we attempt to increase consistency with Wikipedia? I'd prefer the latter, but my preferences shouldn't be immediately enacted into Halopedia policy, hence this section. DavidJCobb 02:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Halopedia has been a nonconformist for quite some time now... so, I would say ignore Wikipedia's capitalisation of section titles.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 03:02, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

So do we explicitly enforce caps (change "Face painting" to "Face Painting" when we see it), or do we just do whatever we feel like? (Like the dialect rule: don't edit solely for the purpose of changing the English dialect, but in large edits, feel free... But try to maintain consistency within the article either way.) DavidJCobb 03:38, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

In order to maintain consistency within articles, I would say enforce caps in sections.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:55, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Walkthroughs

In my opinion, the standards for walkthroughs are extremely broad. I'm seeing a lot of inconsistency between walkthroughs of the same game. (coughHALO3cough) I think that the standards should perhaps be made more defined. (Or perhaps different sets of standards can be established for different (groups of) games? If, for example, H2 and H3 are similar (levels broken into chapters, starting weapons, etc.), then they could share sets of standards?)

My suggestion for Halo 3: (section titles)

• intro
  • General overview of the level, giving details of what to expect. Example:
  • Floodgate is essentially a reversal of The Storm. Players will have to backtrack from the Covenant Anti-Aircraft Battery to Lakebed A, fighting their way through a massive Flood infection. The level is the first Flood-only level in the game, introducing Combat Forms, Infection Forms, and Pure Forms.
• Overview
  • Skull-related information and general strategies. (E.x. things like "It doesn't hurt to break Flood bodies after each engagement, to prevent their reanimation", or perhaps "There is no need to break Flood bodies after battles, as the Flood are rarely encountered", depending on the level.)
• Statistics
  • Information about Campaign Scoring, starting weapons, etc..
• Walkthrough
  • Subsections should be chapters of the level. (E.x. Infinite Devil Machine in Floodgate.) These can optionally contain subsections of their own. (For example, Floodgate's section It Followed Me Home is divided into Storage Area and Warehouse.)
  • Subsections should take the form of either "Chapter Name", "Chapter Name (Mission Start)", or "Chapter Name (Rally Point Alpha)". (Rally Points always coincide with chapters.) Italics should probably go in the headers.
  • If absolutely necessary, multiple walkthroughs can be included for different styles of play. I've seen more than one "Alternate Walkthrough" section; perhaps we can have "Walkthrough (Aggressive)", "Walkthrough (Co-op)", "Walkthrough (Ranged)", etc.. Of course, we wouldn't require variants... But this would allow variants to be added in an organized fashion. It would also be prudent to specify that variants should only be added if they change multiple facets of play. (E.x. on The Covenant, an aggressive player would likely, en route to Tower 1, load up a 'Hog full of Marines armed with Fuel Rod Guns and Splasers, whereas a ranged player might instead follow behind the Marines in a Mongoose, and take it upon themselves to Splaser the Wraith and Shades from distance and cover, while the Marines take out the easy targets using the Warthog.)
• Succession template.

Few other ideas:

• Template for starting weapons.
• Template for Campaign Scoring information.
• Template for lists of allies/enemies/weapons encountered.

I could write such templates, but I'd first need to know what they should resemble and what they should contain.

DavidJCobb 03:18, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Added to MOS. I suggest asking Spamhammer as he's leading the cleanup on the walkthroughs for now.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:09, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Action Figure Template

This is just an idea, but would it be possible to create a template for action figures? It could contain info such as the creator, armor perm, release date, etc. -- General5 7 talk contribs email 23:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer not to create an infobox for action figures as it would just lead to the creation of multiple individual articles and delay our goal in keeping everything concise.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 23:54, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

So, you would like to have all individual pages redirected to their respective waves/series? -- General5 7 talk contribs email 01:58, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Add {{Delete}} to the individual pages. Redirecting them would be a mess.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 23:04, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Error.

I am kind of picky when it comes to spelling so it shouldn't come as a surprise when I say there is a misspelling in the second sentence of this entire article. It's the "the" at the start of the second sentence, it isn't capitalized.

Now, I'm sure some of you might think it's no big deal, and that I'm making it into one, but consider: this page discusses the Manual of Style and right off the bat there is a spelling error? Putting aside the irony of the situation it doesn't do the article, or all of Halopedia for that matter, gratis. I would have changed it already without posting this if I could but I cannot find the edit page button for some reason.

Can someone help out? Thanks.

- The Dude Marky

We are all humans. :| - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 13:01, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Stupid ass hell: multiple edits cause blocks

"Though it sounds fun, excessive amount of edits in an article can lead to a block. As such, editors are reminded to edit an article to a maximum of three. "

As someone who edits an article 20 times at once, remind me to never edit here. I have heard of some dictatorial, heavy handed systems, but this is one of the worst. I wonder how many good editors this site has lost because of such an assine policy? Anno1404 01:04, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with what you said, YELLING LIKE THIS ISN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING. Perhaps you should make a new proposal about possibly removing this absurd block. Vegerot (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2010 (EST)!!!!!

This policy has proved beneficial in ensuring the quality of Halopedia is within standards of a encyclopaedia; it teaches users how to become better and concise editors, avoiding edit-wars, and improves the reputation of the wiki as a professional site. If you can't learn anything from this policy, then I guess there's nothing that could be done.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 10:46, 17 November 2010 (EST)

Proposal, new weapon pages

I have a new proposal for the wiki. I'm sorry but this will have to be brief as my bus will be here soon. I am looking at the weapon pages and am seeing a whole lotta' gameplay related stuff in there, and when I look at the pages for different species, there is a lot less of that stuff. Why? Because it has its own /gameplay section. I think that it's even MORE important to have a /gameplay section for weapons also. Vegerot (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2010 (EST)!!!!

I think that's because most species pages would be overly long if all gameplay info would be dumped into the same article. This is not a problem with most weapon pages, some of which would almost be stubs if gameplay content was moved to a subpage. We're not a gameplay guide, but that information is what many people will be looking for, so it doesn't hurt to include it alongside in-universe information - as long as the distinction between the in-universe and gameplay info is made clear enough. It's also because articles with subpages may also suffer from overlapping info and redundancy, not to mention the desired info being harder to locate. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:47, 17 November 2010 (EST)

I know but the articles are FULL of uncanoncle stuff! Unless we make a new section on the bottom for that stuff. Or we address every time there's something uncanoncle. Any more ideas community?! Vegerot (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (EST)!!!!

Uncanonical stuff like what? I think gameplay and canon are split quite well on most pages already. DatrDeletr 22:49, 17 November 2010 (EST)

AR in disadvantages off the top of my head. Vegerot (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2010 (EST)!!!

On the topic of gameplay information vs. legitimate canon, the distinction is not always that clear-cut. When we only have in-game info of the properties of a certain in-universe item, a weapon for instance, that in-game information is as canon as anything. If there's conflicting information in a novel regarding the properties of the said weapon, then we can assume the in-game properties are just for the sake of gameplay and are not considered canon. Most of the time however, the games serve as the primary sources of info for the properties of each weapon and vehicle, so we can't just outright dismiss all gameplay information as non-canon. That, and the games still rank highest in our canon hierarchy. While I have previously stated the obvious fact that some things you see in-game (such as the Armor Abilities) should be taken with a grain of salt, that doesn't still mean all gameplay info is non-canon. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (EST)

Italicizing fleet titles

I've been wondering, is there any particular reason why we italicize the names of fleets? I don't think this is ever done in the books, nor anywhere else for that matter. For me, it just seems like one of those odd practices that have been going on without anyone ever questioning their purpose. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Really? I thought they were supposed to be italicised as military names. Well, you can always just remove the "{{title}}".-- Forerunner 14:29, 3 February 2011 (EST)

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't recall seeing it anywhere. I wasn't specifically referring to the Title templates you added, just the general practice of using italics in fleet names. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 3 February 2011 (EST)

I guess I must have seen an old halopedia edit and mistook it for fact. Yeah - I think we should decide on how to use the template.-- Forerunner 14:45, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Unspoken Rules

It seems like this wiki has a lot of what I like to call "unspoken rules". Basically, that is a rule that everybody who has been on this Wiki for 3 months knows, but it is not written in the MoS. I recommend that we put these unspoken rules into the MoS. Just so we can have backing if someone questions one of them. The only problem with that is that it might be kinda hard to find these rules, as the consistent members are so used to following them we can't even name them! Vegerot (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2011 (EDT)!!

Second Person Writing

This happens frequently on Halopedia. We do not assume every person who reads the articles is a player of the game. Using "You" is vague and informal. The player isn't the Playable Character. "When you killed Regret..." I didn't kill Regret. The Chief did. We need to add this rule of "Using third person instead of second person" into the MoS. Please discuss and thank you. —S331_{Talk • Contributions} 10:06, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Support I'm not sure this is a vote. But I just put this to say that I agree with his point and we got to stop it. And I think it's already in there, if not, then you can add it yourself. Vegerot (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2011 (EDT)!!!

No vote needed. Added to "Do not use conversational style" section. — subtank 13:56, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. Speaking of which, one question: You know in the transcript of the campaign levels, we get the "If" situations? For example: "If Six doesn't get on to the Mongoose:". In this case, should it be "If Six doesn't get on to the Mongoose", or "If the player doesn't get on to the Mongoose"? Using "player" sounds more legit, since the player chooses what to do, and not the playable character. But once again, I'm not sure... —S331_{Talk • Contributions} 21:47, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Definite articles in titles

We've supposedly followed an unwritten policy of using "the" in select article titles for a while now, and I've started to question whether we should keep doing it. This doesn't concern media titles (e.g. Halo: The Fall of Reach or The Forerunner Saga) but mostly in-universe ones (The Didact, The Flood, The Composer, et al). Now, I know there's a rationale for using the definite article; it's used to identify the subject as a specific entity as opposed to a generic use of the term like "composer" or "flood".

However, just because the definite article is used for the sake of grammatical convention does not always mean it is an inseparable part of the subject's proper name. It also spawns a number of problems, such as the obvious question of where do we draw the line? If we followed this standard consistently, we would have to title "United Nations Space Command" "The United Nations Space Command", or "Battle of Earth" "The Battle of Earth", etc. Using the "The" in the titles also creates an issue with linking, in specific cases in which the definite article is not used, such as "a Flood-controlled ship" or "a different Didact", which also demonstrate that the "The" is not used in every single instance.

That is why I'm proposing we follow a similar convention as Wikipedia, which is to avoid indefinite or definite articles in article titles wherever possible (see here for a comprehensive breakdown). Though our notability standards aren't obviously the same, I've come to regard Wikipedia as a rather reasonable precedent for formatting and I find this policy to make perfect sense. To return to the aforementioned examples, in "the Didact", "the Flood", or "the Composer", "the" is not an inseparable part of the name, nor is it capitalized mid-sentence, similar to Wikipedia's example of using "Joker (comics)" as opposed to "The Joker". In rare cases, such as "The Rubble", the "The" is actually part of the proper name and is always capitalized in the original source, and thus should also be part of the article title. However, this is probably the only in-universe example I can think of.

In short, using "The" in most article titles is superfluous and unnecessary. Obviously, this doesn't mean abandoning grammar within articles themselves, just that it should not be part of the title. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

I can agree with this. Using "the" has never made sense to me.--Spartacus, Halopedia Administrator ^Talk 11:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

It seems I was wrong about the Rubble example - "The" isn't capitalized after all, despite my recollection. Anyways, I've drafted a basis for a workable titling policy (format shamelessly copied from Wikipedia, but hey, it works so why not use it):

Definite and indefinite articles in page titles

In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a page only if at least one of the following conditions is met:

1. If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page.

   For example, a heretic is someone who has offended the Covenant religion, while The Heretic is the first level of Halo 2.

2. If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not.

   For example, The Arbiter includes the article "The", because sentences such as "In the level The Arbiter, the player assumes the role of the Arbiter" are written with a capitalized "The".

   On the contrary, Flood should not include the article "The", because sentences such as "The Halo Array was designed eradicate the Flood" are written with a lowercase "the".

These conditions are sometimes met if the page name is:

• the title of a work or publication (e.g. The Forerunner Saga, The Mona Lisa) or
• the name of a game level (e.g. The Truth and Reconciliation, The Ark (level)) or
• another official or commonly used proper name which invariably includes the definite article

Not all of the page names which belong to these categories meet the above-listed conditions. For instance, the Halo Encyclopedia (2009 edition) is a publication, and Keyes is the name of a level, but neither includes a definite or indefinite article.

---

Any more thoughts? Comments? Or should I go on to implement this? I thought I'd ask first because putting this into practice would involve a lot of page moves, which would probably spark confusion from people who have gotten used to our current standard. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

This has my approval. You can probably implement this now.--Spartacus, Halopedia Administrator ^Talk 13:52, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Stub Section

"Generally the {{stub}} template is put at the bottom of the page."

— MoS

Ok, reading that, people would know to place the template at the bottom of the article, but to me, it makes more sense to put it at the top. It is more noticeable at the top, and doesn't clog up the sources section with an extra template. Wouldn't you want someone to know the minute the article loads that it is a stub or after scrolling down the page? Also, click on any page listed here, and you will most certainly find the stub template at the top as opposed to the bottom. Saving us from having to do hundreds of edits moving the stub template to the bottom, let's just save our work and change the MoS to reflect that stub templates should be placed at the top, like hundreds of pages on the wiki already do.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)

I agree. I can't see any reason why it should be put to the bottom. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 13:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

But doesn't an article being a "stub" implies that its length is so short (1-2 sentences + image + list of appearances) that the stub can be seen in the bottom without scrolling? Articles like Voi Greater Outlands Police Bureau have one sentence and hence have the stub template in the bottom (also, is that article even notable enough for its own page?). If you need to scroll down to see the stub, the article is probably not really a stub unless it has three to four templates at the top (which is a very rare case and we try to avoid that). In the Series 12 Single Operator Lift Apparatus article, the only reason why I need to scroll down is because of the section under the Category box ("Contribute" and "Recent contributors to this page"). Isn't this how most wikis work? —SPARTAN331 23:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

A stub just implies that the article is short and could use expansion. Having the template on the top looks better and is more noticeable since people tend to look at the top of the page first. Wikipedia places them on the bottom, a fact that has always annoyed me. Since Halopedia generally places them at the top, it just makes sense to put it in writing.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

So, if nobody else objects, I'll change the MoS to reflect that stub templates go at the top of the article.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 13:42, 7 March 2013 (EST)