| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
| |
|
| ==Reminder for deprecated templates== | | ==Reminder for deprecated templates== |
| Just a general reminder that we have [[:Category:Pages with deprecated content|outdated templates that needs to be replaced with updated ones]].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 [[Template:Unit infobox|the Unit infobox]]. For reference, check [[Elite Minor]] which has the updated template.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 14:05, 2 June 2014 (EDT) | | Just a general reminder that we have [[:Category:Pages with deprecated content|outdated templates that needs to be replaced with updated ones]].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 [[Template:Covenant Rank Infobox|Covenant Rank infobox]] needs to be replaced with [[Template:Unit infobox|the Unit infobox]]. For reference, check [[Elite Minor]] which has the updated template.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 14:05, 2 June 2014 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| == Suggestion for Improvement == | | == Suggestion for Improvement == |
| Line 23: |
Line 23: |
| ==Images of MJOLNIR armors== | | ==Images of MJOLNIR armors== |
| 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 [[:Category:Images of MJOLNIR armor|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. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 20:06, 17 November 2014 (EST) | | 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 [[:Category:Images of MJOLNIR armor|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. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 01:50, 18 November 2014 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Names used by the UNSC==
| |
| 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 "[[:wikipedia:NATO reporting name|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: <code>'''Type-25 Directed Energy Pistol''' <nowiki>([[UNSC designation]])</nowiki></code>. 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). [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :GrimBrother One details the UNSC naming conventions [http://carnage.bungie.org/haloforum/halo.forum.pl?read=1202385 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. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 17:54, 14 February 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ::We still don't have a specific name for the article, but the concept has been extensively detailed [https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/community/blog-posts/canon-fodder-have-s-moa 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 [[Template:Conjectural title|this template]] in the beginning of the article, as often). [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 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. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :::::Yes, it makes sense. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 17:20, 23 February 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Service record==
| |
| I have a suggestion. What if we added a "Service record" section for characters? Something similar to the current section "Decorations" that [[Terrence Hood#Decorations|Lord Hood]] and [[Jacob Keyes#Decorations|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 [https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/characters/kelly-087 Kelly] and [https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/characters/linda-058 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 [[User:Imrane-117/Sandbox#Service record|a rough example]]. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 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. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 14:55, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == SS mission name ==
| |
|
| |
| The link to "Mission 21: We Need to Talk" is rendered as "Mission 21: We need to Talk". Could someone fix this?--[[User:D9328|D9328]] ([[User talk:D9328|talk]]) 08:37, 9 March 2018 (EST)d9328
| |
| :Same with "Til Death Do Us Part" (should be "Till Death Do Us Part")--[[User:D9328|D9328]] ([[User talk: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'.--[[User:D9328|D9328]] ([[User 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.-[[User:CIA391|CIA391]] ([[User talk:CIA391|talk]]) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| == Possible Winter Contingency Vacation ==
| |
| In the [[Winter_Contingency#Glitches| first level of Reach]] there's a purported way to get out of the map borders via Jun's hijackable (via Plasma Pistol EMP) Falcon. Does this count as a "vacation" that's been overlooked, or is it something else? I haven't tried it myself, just going off of information from the article. The noted sub-section appears to go into great detail.-[[User:Spartan B004|Spartan B004]]
| |
| ([[User talk:Spartan B004|talk]]) 20:31, 12 August 2023 (EST)
| |