Halopedia talk:Projects/Improvement

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

General note: While users may nominate any article for the project, it is useful to first consider the significance of the article in question. As a general rule, it should be noted that canonically significant subjects with potentially higher page traffic should take precedence over lesser ones, e.g. supporting characters. Articles about recently-released media are also often in need of updating. Pages that require more drastic improvement should take priority over ones with less problems; a good rule would be that if an article can be fixed by a single user in a few minutes, it does not belong on the list.

Suggestion[edit]

I am not sure if this is the proper place to add this, so please feel free to remove this if I am wrong. Anyway, I have a possibly useful suggestion. After an article is considered complete, or improved, we can "check" it off in some form. This will let other users know what articles are done, and possibly lead them to ensure that the article is, in fact, improved. - NightHammer (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (EDT)

This was part of my original idea, but I thought it would add an extra layer of work to the project that could instead be spent improving articles. I also thought it might discourage editors from making an article even better even if the basic standards have technically been met. Still, I can see the benefit of it in terms of informativeness and motivation. Could try it on the next round. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (EDT)

Article suggestions[edit]

I have a couple article suggestions for future weeks. All pages relating to the Yanme'e need vast amounts of updating. I also think that Tartarus could use some work. A lot of the Halo 4 enemy rank pages could also use a bit of expansion, like the Sangheili Storm or the Kig-Yar Heavy for example. Although, I do think it is a good idea to improve the multiplayer content on the wiki. - NightHammer (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2014 (EDT)

Little bump. We really need to make some of the "newer" weapon articles bigger along with adding info to pretty much all the Halo 4 multiplayer maps. Old vs. New. Sith-venator Wavingstrider Fett helmet.jpg (Commlink) 00:35, 17 September 2014 (EDT)

Reminder for deprecated templates[edit]

Just a general reminder that we have outdated templates that needs to be replaced with updated ones. All the templates listed in that category page should be removed from all articles whenever possible. Also, the Covenant Rank infobox needs to be replaced with the Unit infobox. For reference, check Elite Minor which has the updated template.— subtank 14:05, 2 June 2014 (EDT)

Suggestion for Improvement[edit]

Here's an improvement suggestion. The list of Forge objects needs to be updated to include all Halo 4-related material, including creation of subpages for each individual category. It seems these lists have been forgotten.--Spartacus TalkContribs 16:19, 25 June 2014 (EDT)

In addition to the above, putting the feature list to use where necessary. :)--Spartacus TalkContribs 12:27, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Bornstellar's ancilla[edit]

I think someone who has a good knowledge of Halo: Cryptum could definitely be useful by creating an article for this ancilla. I can't really help, since I read the book in 2012, and I can't really remember the details about this character. (and my book is like at the other end of the world) But I do remember that she was a character with a decent amount of information and background, seen both in the first chapters of the novel and then later when she's reunited with Bornstellar for Faber's trial. I think the page title "Bornstellar's ancilla" should work fine, since she doesn't have a name as far as I can remember. It's been some time now that I've refrained myself from creating the article, since I can't really say more than four or five sentences about her. If no one does it, I will probably do it myself later. But I'm just checking if anyone think they can do a good job on this. Imrane-117 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2014 (EST)

I'm not sure if she's actually reunited with Bornstellar at any point later on (but then it's been a while since I last read Cryptum). But I agree there should be enough material for a page (as there is with Bornstellar's mother and sister). I've entertained the idea of having a constant "articles to be created" list on the page as there's a bunch of articles I've never gotten around to making; other people could also suggest their own additions here. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Images of MJOLNIR armors[edit]

I think it should be preferable to have an image category for each MJOLNIR variant (e.g. Images of MJOLNIR Recon, Images of MJOLNIR Commando...) instead of tossing everything either in Mark IV, V, VI or GEN2. It would be easier to find what you're searching for. And generally, I think it makes more sense to regroup every EVA armor (Mark IV, V, VI, GEN2) in the same category since they are supposed to represent the "same thing", instead of tossing Mark VI EVA, Recon, Centurion, EOD armors, as if they were all supposed to be the same. And as someone from 343 said it a long time ago (I can't remember if it was Frankie or Vociferous), the "Mark" designations mostly represent a change of firmware rather than hardware. So a Mark IV can look like anything (Probably in reference to Gray Team's MJOLNIR armor being different to that of Red Team in Halo Wars). So basically, we'd keep the Mark IV category for its baseline model (Fall of Reach - Covenant, Halo Wars) and other similar unnamed Mark IV armors (H4: FUD, The Package, H4's Prologue...). It would alleviate the main categories and be more practical for those who try to find the Warrior images among the enormous GEN2 category, for example. Of course, some exceptions might still exist, for example the Mark V GEN2 will stay both in Mark V and GEN2. Most of the new categories would end up being sub-categories of Images of MJOLNIR armor, as Mark IV, V, VI, etc are already; since most armors fall into many generations and cannot necessarily constitute a sub-category of a particular Mark. Of course, some GEN2 armors (Warrior, Soldier, Vanguard...) seem to be exclusively GEN2, so they might be sub-categories in GEN2, but I'd be cautious about this practice. When I read things like the Ranger armor rumored to be used to infiltrate Hight Charity during the Covenant War... We might as well disregard the fact that some armors seem exclusively GEN2, and simply consider them to be MJOLNIR armors. Perhaps it's complicated to explain, but basically I know what to do and that would prove to be easier to navigate among the hundreds/thousands of images. Imrane-117 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2014 (EST)

That's definitely more reasonable than what we have now. Feel free to implement it at any time. In general users shouldn't be too afraid to create new image categories when there's a need; I think that if you have more than just let's say 4-5 images of a given subject (depends on the case really and potential future growth) they can probably get their own category, particularly if the parent category is already very crowded. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 01:50, 18 November 2014 (EST)

Names used by the UNSC[edit]

We know that most of the Covenant names that we use aren't actually "Covenant" names but names given by the UNSC. This goes for species, weapons, vehicles, ships, etc. For example, both "Type-32 Rapid Attack Vehicle" and "Ghost" are designations used by the UNSC. The first one is a formal designation (the number is the year when the designation was established) and the second one is usually a colloquial name used by troops. The same goes for CCS battlecruisers and so on (Catalog confirmed that Reverence is a Covenant classification and that Covenant classes don't necessarily match with UNSC designations). The recent article on the Plasma Pistol also points out that although the UNSC always calls this weapon "Type-25 directed energy pistol", there are several variants (one per game) so in the end the plasma pistol is not just "one" weapon, for argument's sake let's say it may be comparable to the UNSC "assault rifle". The plasma pistol is the plasma pistol, and the assault rifle is the assault rifle, but the one in Halo 1 is not the same as the one in Halo 3 or Halo: Reach for example. Although I doubt if we'll ever get names for the different "plasma pistols", as the Covenant may just consider them the same weapon. So I was wondering if we could have an article explaining that several names in the Halo universe are only UNSC designations. Something to explain what is what, how it works, for species, ships, weapons, whatever. I'm sure most people don't know that names like CCS or Type-something aren't the real Covenant names. It's pretty well known for species names, but for the rest I'm not quite sure. I'm basing my reasoning mainly on the Wikipedia article "NATO reporting name". Although we should do it in our own way, of course. This possible article should be something like the "hull classification symbol" article. It's linked after every ship names (eg: UNSC Forward Unto Dawn), so people can actually understand the naming scheme. In our case, each Covenant article would start like this: Type-25 Directed Energy Pistol ([[UNSC designation]]). Or whatever name we'll have for the article. UNSC naming scheme, or something like that. The Prometheans would also have their little spot (The letter "Z" and so on). Imrane-117 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (EST)

GrimBrother One details the UNSC naming conventions here. I'd love to have an article on "UNSC reporting name," but until that phrase is explicitly used by someone from 343 or in canon I'd avoid calling it specifically that. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 17:54, 14 February 2015 (EST)
We still don't have a specific name for the article, but the concept has been extensively detailed here, in the last Canon Fodder. While there is no official name for such an article, I think it would be ok to use a descriptive name, like "Ship naming conventions" or something, assuming for now the article would only be for ships (and there would be this template in the beginning of the article, as often). Imrane-117 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2015 (EST)
We could also detail the naming conventions in a dedicated section of the Covenant fleet article. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 21:19, 22 February 2015 (EST)
I agree, it would probably be the best way to handle it. Especially since we only have 3 of the letters right now. - NightHammer (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (EST)
Yes, it makes sense. Imrane-117 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2015 (EST)

Service record[edit]

I have a suggestion. What if we added a "Service record" section for characters? Something similar to the current section "Decorations" that Lord Hood and Captain Keyes have, after the "Personality" section. It would include a concise list of every battle/engagement in which the character has participated so far. If we have a specific number of engagements, it should also be pointed out in this section (Like for Kelly and Linda). Finally, the decorations/medals/ribbons/awards would also be in this section. It wouldn't be longer than a list of things, with one or two sentences for the sake of explanation, maybe. If we know that a character has had various ranks, we could also point out when they were promoted (if we have enough information). I'm unsure if known training exercises should be included, though. Anyway, here's a rough example. Imrane-117 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

It's not a bad idea, though it adds yet another section to keep up to date as new content comes out. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:40, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
I agree with Jugus. And ideally, it would be something that should all ready be accessible in the "Biography" section. - NightHammer (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2015 (EDT)

SS mission name[edit]

The link to "Mission 21: We Need to Talk" is rendered as "Mission 21: We need to Talk". Could someone fix this?--D9328 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2018 (EST)d9328

Same with "Til Death Do Us Part" (should be "Till Death Do Us Part")--D9328 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2018 (EST)d9328
Going to bump this. All of SS Operation C is done, and the redlink is the typo identified above. And 'We need to Talk' still needs to be changed to 'We Need to Talk'.--D9328 (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2019 (EST)d9328
In a few weeks I am gonna sort out SA and SS article names cause the number things dont really help folks, so this will be sorted in the process.-CIA391 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (EST)