Talk:John-117

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

Update[edit]

Somebody should update the "Apparent treason" section. His name was cleared in the last episode of HunttheTruth.—This unsigned comment was made by 184.4.53.140 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Halo: Fractures[edit]

Why are we just assuming he is in Fractures? —This unsigned comment was made by Japeth555 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Gob dammit guys don't let me edit when I'm tired.Sith Venator Mega Blastoise.gif (Dank Memes) 11:35, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

We should wait.

Images[edit]

I've added a few appropriate images of John 117 in a few sections as its more encompassing to feature both Bungie and 343i images. TheEld felt that the images were too cluttered and "horrible!", so to compromise I organized them better so they wouldn't overflow out into the next section. Despite this compromise there is still no cooperation. Editorguy (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

They are not appropriate. I am trying to improve the quality of this page. One image is a piece of artwork from The Art of Building Worlds that in no way represents the scene where John is in a tent with Halsey and two technicians getting his Mark V for the first time. You have also shrunk images to be able to fit in more when one was sufficient for the low volume of words in the requisite paragraph. I appreciate your desire to contribute but I would urge you to focus more on adding to either this page or others instead of just trying to cram more and more images in where there is no room. Thank you. :) 15:21, 19 July 2018 (EDT)TheEld (talk)TheEld
Alright, I can see how much effort you've put into this page and that it matters a lot to you. I'll remove the images as they aren't critical to the article, though I do think it would be beneficial to include a balance of both 343i and Bungie depictions to give readers a broader depiction. Editorguy (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
Images should be selected for their fidelity, relevance, and lore friendliness. Whether they come from Bungie or 343 is irrelevant. Should the Battle of New Mombasa page include images from both Halo 2 and Halo 2 Anniversary? No, of course not. It should only have H2A images in the text because they are a lot better.TheEld (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (EDT)TheEld
In the instance of the circa 2007 commercial depicting John versus the circa 2012 commercial depicting John. It could be argued that the circa 2007 one closer matches The Fall of Reach's original description of John "tousled brown hair, etc" this is a better example of fidelity, relevance, and lore friendliness. Editorguy (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
The image quality is crap, however. Someone ran it through some effects so you could actually see him in the darkness. Showing the beach, Eriadnus II, his mom, and him all together is much better.TheEld (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2018 (EDT)TheEld


"Ownership (lol)[edit]

This is for editorguy117. Hey man, no need to be like that, lol. I don't own anything. We need as much help as we can get from everyone around here. I just tried to point out that a penel showing his eye in Escalation was already on the page, making it unnecessary to repeat gratuitously. :)TheEld (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2018 (EDT)TheEld

Look, I'm really sorry for being harsh. Removing all the images I included without room for compromise didn't seem fair as we're both going off of subjective criteria. It just came across as controlling. I welcome discussion for compromise - Editorguy (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
Hmmm well at times of disagreement. The first place that you two should have gone is here. Disagreeing via edit summaries is not 100% helpful all the time. So for that I am going to close this in hopes that the next talk section can be used to discuss stuff fully and I can get involved after hearing both your sides fully. -CIA391 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

Compromise[edit]

Johns adult face in the "Physical characteristics area should it be done? I personally am 50/50 on this as ultimately there is plenty images of it on the article but could look great in that area also I wont lie. So to make an informative choice I am hoping "TheEld" and "Editorguy" can weigh their sides in this.-CIA391 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (EDT)


I think it would be helpful to have a more encompassing for readers to have the adult depiction of John as well rather than only his child/teen self in The Fall of Reach. What are your thoughts TheEld? You've said it's unnecessary though that just seems really subjective, feel free to elaborate. Editorguy (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
The image you want to include just showing a his eye through his cracked faceplate is already included in the article elsewhere.TheEld (talk)TheEld
Perhaps it would be better suited in the Age and Appearance section. Though the other image that has the more vivid closeup that shows more of his face, wrinkles, and crows feet would be better. There were also several other images that I think would be helpful, but I dropped debate of them to compromise. Would 1 really be too much?Editorguy (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
No response :/ Editorguy (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2018 (EST)


The Eld, I added in John's ages in the captions to help readers differentiate his child, teen, and adult depictions. You discretely removed it all without an edit summary or discussion. Once again, you aren't even willing to compromise on anything, this is why I brought up the issue of ownership in the first place. I don't have the time, and edit warring is prohibited, so you're probably going to get away with this again too. You're forbidding any additions or changes to this page that you disagree with, based on subjective criteria. As a writer and an editor you're fantastic TheEld, but as a community member you've demonstrated really poor conduct. I don't think I'm going to keep editing this page as it's draining and time consuming to see you revert every contribution I make. Your conduct here is really not okay, nor is it fair to other editors (or me, if I'm being singled out) who wish to contribute as well. Editorguy (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Most of what you did was entirely redundant. A sentence would say: "John at 14 years old" and you would change it to "Young John at 14 years old." It is entirly unnecessary to add "young" in there. Additionally, you just made a point about John's age in almost every single image caption, regardless whether the caption had anything to do with that. Dates and ages are already painstakingly documented in the text. I am not forbidding anyone do anything. I am extremely grateful for any help anyone wants to give to make any page on Halopedia better. Someone else recently filled in the section about John's relationship with Lasky. That was great! By all means, please help out in any way you can to update and expand articles. Just try not to make pointless minor changes that don't really make sense or just make the passage or sentence more clunky. No hard feelings, man. I really am sorry you're taken this personally. I promise I haven't singled you out. If you look closely, there are indeed minor corrections you've made that I left and I do thank you for. Proofreading is sorely needed, seriously.TheEld (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2018 (EST)TheEld

Trailer canon?[edit]

Like most reveal trailers can we really say the events of the Halo Infinite E3 Trailer are canon? Hints of the game yes. But them actually happening I have yet to see proof of that outside assuming numbers equals a date, and assuming its Zeta Halo to which right now is still only hints and not confirmed. If proof of that isnt given (that isnt just the trailer and its making of video cause they only prove that the trailer is hints and not particularly canon) I plan to just remove the sections till proof comes along. Tbh I am more just disliking the assuming making it on a few pages and would rather have stuff that is clear cut.-CIA391 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2018 (EST)

This article needs trimming[edit]

As per the subject, the article needs a considerable amount of its content trimmed. While I really appreciate the efforts editors are putting into the article, I have to point out that the article is not concise and reads more like a short story or novel (like "The Chronicles of John-117") than an encyclopedic entry. There are too many immaterial/irrelevant information in this article that could be better off mentioned in other articles or not mentioned or included at all (the first that come to mind is the sentence "The second day of training, September 25, began just like the first." under Training begins).

An article should cover the material content covering the "Who, When, Why, Where, and How" and it should do so in a concise manner. This article, as of writing, does not achieve that. — subtank 00:13, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Ok yea I have been wondering how to trim some parts. The opening should be 1 paragraph at the very least for example.-CIA391 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2019 (EST)
Good call with the "September 25" note. Unnecessary and redundant. I took it out.TheEld (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
What about splitting the early life and training into an "Early life of John-117" article? Wikipedia does this with notable people in cases where the main article would be far too long. Here is a good example of the practice.--Spartacus TalkContribs 19:27, 4 February 2019 (EST)
I would be 100% opposed to doing that, as I am extremely proud of the work I've put into this and think the article deserves to be comprehensive and show off the full range of who the character is and where they have been. Splitting that off would make it less likely that all of that important material would ever be seen. I want someone to be able to pull up the Halopedia entry on the Master Chief and to suddenly see all this backstory they may not have been aware of. I want the images of John as a child and teen to catch their eye and pique their interest. I have tried my best to keep things focused only on John here and what is important for each section. The result, I believe, is not only as accurate as possible but also aesthetically pleasing, allowing multiple images to be shown off naturally without cramping things. I don't think we need to expect every single article to be read in one sitting. The individual sections do that well enough and the opening paragraph (which I've yet to get to) should also serve as the perfect brief overview of everything to follow. These should be complete resources that someone can go to in order to look up details, all of which are preserved. Obviously I'm not in charge here but were such a thing to happen I know that I'd lose all motivation to continue to update this and other articles.TheEld (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
I don't believe the comparison to Wikipedia and biographies of real people is applicable because in that case we literally could find out what those people did every minute of every day, so to speak. That isn't the case here. This is a fictional character that we only learn of through what canon resources put out. All of that should be documented.TheEld (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
One more note in my defense: I had all the pre-CE history finished on here back in August (Except for SILENT STORM stuff, of course). Cia told me it was good :) https://mobile.twitter.com/cia391/status/1026111493950058496
Not all of them needs to be documented; just the material facts. Take for example Facing Tango Company. It's too fleshed out to the most trivial of details. The biggest offender in that section is this line: "When all the stun grenades went off, confusion and panic swept the camp." This entire ordeal with Tango Company could be easily summarised in one concise paragraph.
I'm agreeable to Spartacus' idea. Please don't think of it as detracting the worth of your efforts you've poured into this article. We're presenting the details from a historian's perspective (like the CAA Factbook) and not from a biographer's: this article reads like the latter. Just as Spartacus suggested, anything that pits the article delving into unnecessary details ought to be its own page (subject to notability, of course). — subtank 23:55, 4 February 2019 (EST)
If anyone wants to take a crack at making improvements I'd certainly have no issue there. I guess I thought this was supposed to be a biography (and still do)TheEld (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
(reset indent) While I agree that the article does get a bit long with this much content, I can also see the other side (including all the detail canon material has on the character). If that info isn't here, it's good to have it somewhere on the wiki in the name of comprehensiveness; and in any case I tend to be of the opinion that too much info is better than too little, as long as that information is accurate. However, if I were to present an alternative to having all that detail here in the biography, a lot of it (especially when it comes to John's participation in battles) could be described in the relevant battle articles, with the pertinent sections on this page being more brief and focusing more tightly on John's role; links to said battle articles would obviously be provided.
As for the opening paragraph, I think it's fine as it is. Five paragraphs is still manageable as an introduction for a character we know a lot about, and the content itself is concisely written. Wikipedia, for example, routinely has introductory sections this long or longer. --Tacitus (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2019 (EST)
  • thumbs up* Well, I will keep plugging away here. I'm trying to get this article to be completely finished before Infinite comes out. If anyone wants to tighten things up where appropriate, proofread, etc. that would be great.TheEld (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
I'm inclined to agree with splitting the biography into separate articles, similar to how Wikipedia does it with notable people. Wouldn't be without precedent, we already have one (albeit an outdated one) for Covenant history. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 18:00, 5 February 2019 (EST)
I beg you guys not to do this. It is entirely unnecessary and will have to then be done to any longstanding character I try to get to FA status as I have done with John here. I'll be honest and I say part of me is quite resentful that when so much needs to be updated here we're worried about undoing work so that it will never be seen. Again, this is of course not up to me but I want to express my frsutration here regardless.TheEld (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
If the length of the article is the problem, then cia391 was presented with a cool idea recently whereby sections could be divided among tabs on the same page, rather than seperate pages. I think this would be a great solution. TheEld (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
Oh dear, I've been working on edits to the biography page, primarily fleshing out the sections detailed in First Strike but also cleaning up some of the sections within the games. Working on a separate page I hope to integrate what I've got once I reach a standard I'm satisfied with. Hope I'm not stepping on any toes, particularly regarding TheEld, as know you've done a lot for the page already. ArcticGhostXCV (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2019 (EST)
No, that's great! The First Strike events do need yo be fleshed out still so tthank you! I just hope we can keep avoid ssplitting this into two pages. I really like the tabs idea.TheEld (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
Awesome! I've already completed the sections regarding John's activities between Halo CE and Halo 2, namely the raid on Ascendant Justice, return to Reach, Eridanus Secundus and Operation: First Strike. Just wanted to ensure that I wasn't doing something you had already started working on :D and yeah I'd be interested in seeing how the tabs could work.ArcticGhostXCV (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2019 (EST)

[Reset] No one's questioning the work you put in to this, Eld. The effort you've put in here is amazing and really dedicated, and no one's advocating to remove it. One thing I feel we should remember is that a wiki's primary purpose is to be informative to those who don't know about the subject, and I feel like the article as it is right now may be a little bit imposing/ intimidating to new fans or those not particularly well versed in the lore. If people aren't reading the books, it's likely they probably won't be wanting to read a novel-length wiki page about the character (and to be clear, this is not a criticism of you or your work, the article as it stands now is amazing). The suggestion to split it up would simply put it into different sections to ensure that every area can be fleshed out appropriately. Imagine if the Battle of Earth page also included all the in-depth info from the Battle of Mombasa, for example. It's more an issue of (at least, for me) of when detail overweights user accessibility. Splitting up the article into, say "John-117/ Early Life", "John-117/Human-Covenant War" and "John-117/Post-War" would simply involve taking the text you've wrote and placing it across those pages, with the main John-117 page giving brief overviews of those subjects and links to the more in-depth articles for those who want to read it.

If I were a new fan to the series and I wanted to get the gist of who the Master Chief is, I'm not sure I'd want to read this entire article as it stands now. It's a problem I've often found on some wikis like Wookiepedia and it's Legends pages (see: Darth Vader). This isn't meant to be an attack or anything, it's just that at this point John has a massive history and dozens of stories, and splitting the page may be a way of simply helping with accessibility. But at the same time, I would never want to get rid of the work you've put in so far either, because you've been doing a great job. BaconShelf (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2019 (EST)

Do you think we could split the biography portion of the page into sections that can be flipped through with tabs? Each section could include its own concise summary of events as well above the detailed breakdowns (training, Covenant War, CE events, FS events, H2 events, etc.) Funnily enough, pages like Vader's on Wookipedia were actually an inspiration for me to try to improve this. Oops, lol.TheEld (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
Source for this idea:https://twitter.com/cia391/status/1092557327725666307
My only concerns with such an implementation would be the ease of use for those on mobile. I'm not sure how well tabber works on phone devices. BaconShelf (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2019 (EST)
Good thinking. It works well enough for when we have two tabs in an infobox. Just open up CENTURION-class Mjolnir on mobile, for example.TheEld (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
(Indent reset) Its an idea for later, I am keeping it in mind for after the merger of the wikis. Its a huge undertaking we need full attention on to do right, and thats assuming its accepted. Cause it does have issues that make me not wanna push it. (A common complaint is it breaks pages)
That said I am in favor of "John-117/Early life" so on pages. We do it with other pages pages, and well this is one wiki page that could do it quite well.-CIA391 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2019 (EST)
I also want to note a concept I call the "Opening scroll dilemma". For articles long enough to have sections in it, the opening lines should only be 1 paragraph long that goes over the very basic information on the character or thing. If the info is to much and needs to be more than 1 paragraph a new section is made called "Overview" that goes over what would be in those other paragraphs.
The reasoning here is that it helps make the start of articles easier to digest to the average reader. The bigger the opening section, the quicker they will leave the page cause its harder to follow.
You can see this logic in most if the armor variant pages. The opening lines tells the very basic info, while the following paragraphs go into detail about it.
Its nothing against the work mind you. Just to be 100% clear, I been very open about how much I love how much this page has improved. This is just stuff to make it better and easier on the readers.-CIA391 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2019 (EST)
Totally. I haven't touched the opening blurb on the page yet. That's all been there since before I started messing with it.TheEld (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
Oh I know, I was just getting it noted here cause the talk page is about trimming and felt it may help in the overall purpose of the topic here.-CIA391 (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2019 (EST)

(Reset indent again) Tabs (or Tabber) is not a suitable solution for an article as it is designed for snippet content. It wouldn't really resolve the length/trimming issue as readers would still be bombarded with a overdetailed content. Furthermore, Tabs would be unusable once it goes beyond five tabs (especially in Mobile theme where it looks squashed and ugly). We've tried it in the past with some articles (I believe it's either MJOLNIR or some related article to MJOLNIR... can't remember which one). The end result was that it was squished and inaccessible to general users, not to mention ugly. Granted, Tabs now works better in Mobile theme now than it did a few years back but it still wouldn't be a suitable solution for overdetailed articles once it goes beyond five tabs or so.

Splitting up the article into, say "John-117/ Early Life", "John-117/Human-Covenant War" and "John-117/Post-War" would simply involve taking the text you've wrote and placing it across those pages, with the main John-117 page giving brief overviews of those subjects and links to the more in-depth articles for those who want to read it.

The current solution that works best to my mind would be what Spartacus and BaconShelf proposed: the biographical content would be relocated to a subpage or an article of its own. I prefer the latter as it follows Wikipedia's presentation style and we could use this as a precedent for future articles with overdetailed content. It would also help to balance the details out and put some focus back into the article (funnily enough, John-117 was used as an example of a concise article when we updated the MoS in 2015). Furthermore, it will encourage editors such as TheEld to introduce more biographical-style content into the wiki for other fleshed out characters. If written well, it could be a Featured Article on its own. There's quite a number of pros over cons for going down this route, so I believe this would be a great solution to implement.— subtank 22:20, 5 February 2019 (EST)

Agreed. Personally, not a fan of tabs seen on some wikis. Moving forward, I think the best plan for lengthy and detailed articles would be to split them into relevant smaller articles. E.g., let's say in 5 years we have significantly more information on the Sangheili. We could divide that article into "History of the Sangheili", "Culture of the Sangheili", etc. as Wikipedia does now for lengthy articles. In addition, I prefer Spartacus's suggested naming scheme. "Early life of John-117" or "Military career of John-117". --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 23:12, 5 February 2019 (EST)
I think this naming system works better than the one I proposed actually. I can't think of one for the post-war era however.BaconShelf (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2019 (EST)
That would just be included under "Military career of John-117". As others have said above, adopting this style will allow us to have a precedent established for other characters who have massive articles. I could list out some other pages where this may be needed soon.--Spartacus TalkContribs 11:27, 6 February 2019 (EST)
Okay let's split this up, lol.TheEld (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2019 (EST)TheEld
The only problem I see with the suggestion as it stands is that John's military career is almost the entirety of his life, and the rest only needs one article. I think smaller divisions will be necessary if we don't want one normal-ish article and one huge article when this is split. Also, is there a policy about language on talk pages? Also also: just curious, Eld, when you're going to finish up with the section on Silent Storm. The fact that only about a chapter's worth of stuff is missing is kinda bugging me. I don't mean to rush or insult you, I'm just a little completionist/neat-freaky about that sort of thing.--D9328 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2019 (EST)d9328
Yeah, I need to get to that still. Been putting it off because it is somewhat confusing where I stopped because Denning seems to have mixed up what Kelly and Linda are doing in the scene. Right now I want to get Halsey's article updated as far as SILENT STORM stuff and then go back and finish John's there.TheEld (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2019 (EST)TheEld

(reset indent) As D9328 mentioned, there's very little info on John's life outside of his military career, so I'm questioning if "Military career of John-117" would be the best option for the detailed side article. What if there was just one detailed biography under a title like "Biography of John-117"? This would also make it easier to use the same format for other pages and consequently, keep track other such pages should they become necessary later on (a category for them would be useful as well). I'm aware an overall biography page would also run into the issue of being extremely long, but at least users would know what they were in for (unlike here, where the length and level of detail makes reading the biography an intimidating task; someone looking to learn more about John's life doesn't necessarily need to know what exact type of weapon and number of magazines he was carrying at any given time). --Tacitus (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2019 (EST)

No issues with a biography page. We could place it as a subpage (i.e. John-117/Biography), just like how we manage with the weapons and levels articles (e.g. the gameplay/walkthrough content have been moved to their respective weapons and levels articles' subpage). We could also insert a header/banner at the top of the page to inform readers that it is a biographical article and that the encyclopedic version is available in a given link. This would be a fine addition to our Layout Guide as well as to the Manual of Style. — subtank 10:35, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Pending the current reverts 15/04/2019[edit]

A like on a tweet does not imply GEN3 sadly, unless you have a source that says otherwise.

And the Interactive Strategy Game stuff is very suspect atm due to how it breaks canon in numerous places. Blue team at Castle Base, an Arbiter in several places(That has undeniable proof sadly now), Kusanagis age being 17+ despite her being a Smart AI. I'd rather make sure we have all the facts down before we start adding the info to pages like this.-CIA391 (talk) 12:51, April 15, 2019 (EDT)

I'll get rid of the GEN3 stuff but surely you saw that I moved all the Strategy Game stuff into a note, right? You also just deleted, surely by accident, information from TFOR's prologue. :) The section now doesn't mention the HAVOK nuke being planted at the staging area. TheEld (talk) 13:26, April 15, 2019 (EDT)TheEld
Ok I added that back in from the prologue, yep it was an accident cause I thought I moved stuff around in a second edit (It didnt save my second edit wah).-CIA391 (talk) 13:36, April 15, 2019 (EDT)
And you don't think the other relevant information can be included in a note which describes its technically unknown canon status?TheEld (talk) 13:40, April 15, 2019 (EDT)TheEld
The Strategy Game has Blue Team plant the bomb and then retreat. You can read that here. Which does really put stuff into question.
Right now however I am going though all the Strategy game stuff. And I mean all of it (sans Website stuff that died) so the info is recorded on the wiki in pages that deal with this sorta thing.-CIA391 (talk) 13:59, April 15, 2019 (EDT)
It doesn't say that. :)TheEld (talk) 14:30, April 15, 2019 (EDT)TheEld

(Indent reset) ...The only chance for UNSC victory is to plant a tactical nuke in the heart of the Covenant staging area. All surviving UNSC personnel must return to their protected point of origin before detonating the warhead. The Master Chief, Sierra-117, will lead Blue Team on this mission... - Kusanagi

Essentially according to Kusanagi, the narrator, and the mission itself Blue team plants the nuke, which we know doesnt happen as it was Red Team.-CIA391 (talk) 14:40, April 15, 2019 (EDT)

That doesn't say Blue Team planted the nuke. It just says S-117 led Blue Team on this mission.TheEld (talk) 14:59, April 15, 2019 (EDT)TheEld