Talk:Main Page/Archive 14

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

S-III tags[edit]

Main|Talk:SPARTAN-III Program#Noble Team's company tags: Non-conjectural speculation}} -- Forerunner 16:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Domain change?[edit]

Could the administration team ask the Wikia Staff for a domain change, seeing that Halopedia was founded outside of Wikia and as such should be given its own unique domain just like Memory-Alpha and WoWWiki? It's been too long Halopedia to be under the armpits umbrella of Wikia domain.Sketchist 02:15, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Lets do it. - S.B.44 [Talk] 06:36, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
We weren't bought by Wikia. Halopedia.org was closed down due to lack of funding. Halo.wikia.com was an unrelated halo wiki that existed at the same time.-- Forerunner 17:43, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
But the two other wikis mentioned were? O_O - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

hacker[edit]

Hey some hacker had just obliterated the Halo 3: ODST page, Halo Combat Evolved, and Sergeant Johnson pages. I managed to save the Johnson page, but ODST and Halo CE are destroyed completely.T-rex-king 11:28, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal, not hacker. Fixed.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 11:32, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Colonial Military Administration[edit]

So Sgt.johnson and I have reached a bit of an impasse regarding the roles of the Colonial Military Administration and ONI in the creation of the ORION Project as you can see at Talk:Colonial Military Administration. The problem is that the Halo Encyclopedia gives conflicting information on the subject. If someone with access to a copy could weigh in, it'd really help out.--File:Emblem 1.jpg|20 Rusty - UserWiki:Rusty-112| 112 ]] 17:58, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I looked it up, and the Encyclopedia does indeed contradict itself once again. First it says that the CMA launched ORION, and ONI revived it, but goes on to say the opposite in later pages. Thinking logically, I would say that the former is the correct piece of information. - File:Black Mesa.jpg|28 Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 20:38, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

About Slipspace Velocities[edit]

The slipspace speeds of both human and Covenant ships mentioned in Halopedia are all just based off calculations from the novels - and the only evidence is one instance, for Covenant ships, it's the Bloodied Spirit in GoO, and human ships, not really sure but it's just one instance anyways. Yet, in most articles, the speed 2.1 ly/day is stated to be the slipspace velocity of basically every human ship. How are we supposed to know if that speed is default? What if the efficiency of slipspace drives varies? It's been mentioned multiple times that Prowlers, for example, are faster than normal ships.

This applies to Covenant ships too. We don't know if their slipspace velocities actually vary or not, so claims shouldn't be made unless we have proof. And I don't think just one instance counts as proof; the Bloodied Spirit might've been exceptionally fast for all we know. This means that the same speed - 912LY/day - shouldn't be applied to every Covenant ship either. The travel times in the novels differ, so it's safe to say that not every Covenant ship is that fast. --Jugus 22:13, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Again why I said they work "at the speed of plot". They're as fast or as slow as needed to make the plot work. All we really know is that human drives are slower on average and not as accurate. Though variation in travel time between apparently identical ships are mentioned in the novels IIRC, but they're sort of implied to be noticeable, but small probably a few hours or such for long trips. --TK3997 22:46, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
It is quite possible that the "Light years per day" measurement is an average for that type of ship, 'cause, if slipspace is as confused as it supposedly is, wouldn't that mean there is a huge possibility of varying speeds throughout a jump. Certain points speed it up, while other points slow it down. ~Enlightment~ ~Fighting Vandalism and Watching Unregistereds~ 05:08, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to include the fact that the Pillar of Autumn took 18/9 days to get to Installation 04 from Reach. This would put 04 at a mere 40ly away from Reach. That would put it at between 10 and 50ly from Earth (depending on the direction).-- Forerunner 22:10, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
How did this discussion get on this page? Anyways, the Soell system was said to actually be the star Iota Horologii, if the article is to be trusted (though I remember seeing it elsewhere as well). That would make sense, since it's about 56 LY away from Earth. As said before, Slipspace speeds are mostly based on estimates and isolated cases so that makes perfect sense. Also it seems that the Slipspace speed parameter was removed from Template:Ship. A good call, considering how little we know about them. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:38, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember seeing the entire Milky Way in the ending cutscene of the first game, meaning is is outside of the galaxy. Sol is 25,000 ly from the core, while the galaxy is 100,000 ly in diameter. That puts Soell at a minimum of 25,000 light years from Earth, depending on the direction. Also, Jugus: I moved it here because I felt that we could finally get someone's opinion on the velocities issue.-- Forerunner 18:44, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think it is the galactic core - but not necessarily seen from outside the Milky Way. I never thought Alpha Halo would actually be outside the galaxy - a human ship would never be able to make that trip in a couple of weeks. The image in the end might just be there for show, and it's possible the core could be seen like that even when viewed from the Orion Arm.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:53, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
That was the galaxy? I thought that was the light shining from debris from the destroyed Halo. You can even see the gas giant it orbited off to left the screen.Tuckerscreator 05:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but the bright thing that looks like the galactic core can be seen on the first level of the game as well. So, that can't be light from the ring's debris. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 13:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
You can see the same thing can be seen from Earth but some of the galactic core is obscured from view by the atmosphere but without the atmosphere we would see it the same as it is at Installation 04. Signature/Cally99117}}
I see now. So we were talking about the same thing. Nice to know it's the galactic core, it sounds better that way. Thanks guys.Tuckerscreator 00:11, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Action Figure Articles[edit]

Seeing as how most of the Action Figure pages have been merged into series-based list pages, most of the articles for individual figures have been deleted. There are still some action figure pages laying around, and I meant to ask, can those pages be deleted? Or are there still some left to be added to the lists? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:57, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to always refer and see whether it has been included in the list. If not, simply follow the format used and then delete the article. Great job by the way. :D - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 12:00, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Bungie Weekly Update Pages[edit]

So, up until recently, I didn't have any idea we had an archive of BWUs here. I was meaning to ask, why exactly do we have this archive? And if it's so important, why is it incomplete, only containing a few updates from some years, and no recent ones at all? HBO has a comprehensive Weekly Update archive and they're viewable on B.net as well. I'm not necessarily saying we should remove the pages, just asking what's up with them?--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 06:53, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we had a lot more than those. I added one after seeing Dragonclaws editing one. I'm sure we used to have templates for them, too.-- Forerunner 07:22, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that Bungie.net isn't entirely stable. Whenever they makeover their site, all the URLs we have fail to work. If something here is cited based on a BWU, it makes sense to have a stable archive. HBO's is good, but it doesn't have all of them. I scrounged up all the old ones I could, and then it seemed like it made more sense to have them all onsite for easy access. I was (for a while) the only one adding them, so when I started college and my free time went down, the BWUs stopped getting added. I think it's a good idea to record Bungie's online activity, and then we can note where all these graphics come from, and it just makes our coverage of Halo that much better. --Dragonclaws(talk) 01:31, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people... WTF?[edit]

Can we change the name of the weapons and vehicles back to their simpler forms because when I look at the list it's so confusing I don't know which weapon is which? I'm sure new-comers would agree with me. We could put the official weapon/vehicle designations on their articles. Keep it simple for the article titles to make it easier for people when browsing. Joshua 029 18:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Its easier to find a weapon under the designation of "needler" rather than "type-x kinetic munitions launcher/ homing" or whatever the title is for it! - Echo 1 17:17, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Hence why we've redirected them to their appropriate articles. No changes needed. A wiki is not simply a guide of a particular topic/franchise; a wiki serves as an encyclopaedia which requires you, the readers, to read and learn. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:27, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Species names in unofficial article titles[edit]

I've been meaning to address this for some time now, and I was reminded to do it by Talk:Brute Landmine. Note that I'm not going to argue against using the species' Covenant names in in-universe articles such as Sangheili or Jump Pack Jiralhanae, because that's all okay and it should be that way. What I find somewhat out of place is using the Covenant name in Easter Egg or otherwise random, non-in-universe articles. I'm talking about pages like Hugging Sangheili, Sangheili Helmet Glitch or Final Unggoy. Can you honestly say those don't sound a bit awkward, especially for someone who just wants to find out information about an easter egg? It's okay in in-universe articles since in those, people are going to be looking for fictional information, not a guide or random trivia. Of course, it doesn't really hurt or anything but all I'm saying is, the original "human" names simply sound better in unofficial titles while the Covenant name just seems out of place most of the time. "Final Unggoy"? Really? They're not part of the canon and as such, are not bound by the rules of in-universe content.

It's no big deal and I'm not saying we should go and change them back right away, but I just wanted to see what others might think about it. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 19:34, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

This might be my fault for the lack of clarity when I asked several users to search and change the titles. Indeed, it sounds awkward... >.< - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:47, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Partialy-off-topic - Did you discuss that on the Irk?
On-topic - I am Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral to the names being changed back to the way they were but I still Support.svg Support my other discussion as long as they still have those titles. --File:Captain Grade One.png|25 Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 19:55, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Almost every change made in Halopedia is discussed through the Irk before carried out. So, that would be a yes.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:57, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Smoke. closed the discussion so rename those pages already. --File:Captain Grade One.png|20 Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 07:35, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Names and Numbers[edit]

Alright I personal know a lot about Halo but one thing that has always puzzled me. Does John and the other Spartans have last name or just their numbers? Also what do the numbers come from? —This unsigned comment was made by 24.107.99.144 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Whatever last names they used to have are forgotten now, redacted in official military sources. I don't think most of the Spartans care anymore. As for the numbers...we used to think it was just which candidates out of the original 150 they were, but now we have no idea. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 04:47, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Page title capitalization guidelines[edit]

I thought about making a blog about this, but then again, it's small enough a matter to be discussed here. Username1|Dragonclaws}} already addressed this in a blog, as well as some comments but barely anyone has taken any note of it.

So my question is, why is it common practice that we capitalize every word in page titles? For a recent example, Unnamed Sabre Launch Facility and countless more. "Launch", or "facility", aren't proper nouns and shouldn't be capitalized. I've done it myself in the past, yes, but just because it's common practice here. Wikipedia doesn't do it, and for a reason. It makes titles look out of place and complicates linking. If one wants to make a link for such a page, and they don't want to make the text to look awkward, it needs a redirect or a piped link.

So it's like we have this capitalization rule as a relic from the old times, but no one has bothered to do anything about it. I say we change it so that only proper nouns are capitalized, and with normal ones, lowercase letters will be used. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:14, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I started writing a blog with a formal proposal, but this is as good a place as any to discuss it. As is expected, I'm for the grammatical capitalization. --Dragonclaws(talk) 02:20, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this has been on my mind for a while now. Halopedia has serious capitalization problems, and we really need to introduce a new policy regarding it. I've seen proper use of capitalization on another wiki I am common on, and things look much tidier and efficient. - File:Black Mesa.jpg|28 Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:11, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
See Dragonclaws' Forum:Proposal to Capitalize Titles Canonically|proposal to Capitalize Titles Canonically.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 14:13, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Wiki[edit]

Most of the Wiki's basic features are down for me. Whenever I try to upload or delete an image, move or delete a page, rollback an edit or block someone, I get the following message: "The database is currently locked. Our main datacenter is down, you are accessing our backup datacenter. We are working to fix the problem". In addition, features like comments or avatars are down as well. It's been doing this for about three days already so it seems to take a bit long to be routine maintenance. Needless to say, it is extremely frustrating. Is this happening for anyone else or is it region-specific or just me? Because I've seen some others upload and delete images or pages with no problem, and if the database is really locked, how is that possible? It doesn't do this on other wikia sites though, just Halopedia. Haven't really seen anyone else report the problem so I guess it has to be regional. Just asking if it can be fixed, or if I just have to wait patiently. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:42, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

That happens often to me, mostly when I tried deleting an article. Simply refresh and repeat the procedure will sometime bypass this error. However, the error might not afterall be an error; Wikia could have taken down the features for temporary maintanence without notifying the administration team because it could simply be a minor bug that they wished to fix. So, just be patient is all I can say. :) - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 18:55, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm also having problems with pictures. it wont show the pictures for me. when i right click and click show picture it still does not work anyone else have pic problems?SPARTAN-III leader 16:40, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar[edit]

Ok, so what the hell is wrong with the sidebar? Where did the Halo stuff go and what the f**k is up with all those picture links? - JEA13 [iTalk] 22:44, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Blame Wikia :P BTW, it wasn't like that 10 minutes ago...--File:Brigadier Grade One.png|25   General5 7    talk    contribs    email   22:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know, it suddenly appeared. At last it's back now... - JEA13 [iTalk] 07:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
This happened to me once but it is back now. ;-) --File:Major Grade One.png|20 Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 15:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Usage of bracketed addendums in article titles[edit]

I've begun to notice the unneeded usage of bracketed addendums in a sizable amount of articles lately, usually those that have a level of the same name. Examples of this include 343 Guilty Spark, Armory (Room), High Charity (Structure), Cairo Station (Platform), Gravemind (Form), Kizingo Boulevard (Location) and countless others. If several articles share the same name, the bracketed distinction should only follow the titles of those named after the primary subject.

For example, there are two instances in the Halo series titled "343 Guilty Spark"; the monitor and the level. The level is named after the monitor, thus should be the only article using bracketed information in its title to distinguish it from the primary subject, with a small note at the top of the page to cover any confusion ("Were you looking for ____?"). If there is more than two instances, Gravemind for instance, the same rule should apply, but with a disambiguation page made to organize the other secondarily named pages, again with a note linking to it ("For other uses of "Gravemind", see Gravemind (disambiguation)"). This is what I, and indeed many other wikis, think should apply when it comes to this scenario, and I think Halopedia should implement it also. While I believe this should be incorporated into the Manual of Style, I'd like to address it here, and see what people think. - File:Black Mesa.jpg|28 Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 20:33, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have brought this up in a blog or on the forum, but whatever. Well, your points are valid; problem is, we need some sort of list in order to locate all articles about subjects named after something else and have a parenthesis indicating that, if we are to start correcting them. It's crazy to start looking for such articles all around the site. Another problem is that there are already articles like 343 Guilty Spark and Gravemind, without brackets, but they are disambiguation pages, so we need to carefully copy-paste everything on them and SOMEHOW keep the disambiguation page as well because it's needed. And as per an old proposal by Manticore, we may not create pages with the word "disambiguation" in brackets (it would also not make sense since we are trying to get rid of them). So yeah, its not that easy.- JEA13 [iTalk] 20:50, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
About the list of pages about that subject, you misunderstand, I stated that there of course should be disambiguation pages, but that the name of the page detailing the primary subject should go unchanged. And as for this proposal of Manticore's, I have never heard of it before, but think it to be quite ridiculous. We need disambiguation pages, as what I'm proposing is to retain consistency, the term "disambiguation" is inevitable to retain that, its elimination is nothing more than preference over order and consistency. - File:Black Mesa.jpg|28 Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 20:57, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more; I was just thinking about this a while ago. Pages with the name of the original subject (like Gravemind or Covenant) should obviously not be disambiguation pages, since the original subject is what people are looking for - or linking to - most of the time. Like you said, the primary subject article should have a link to the disambiguation page which would have the addendum (disambiguation). It's a good idea, and common practice in most wikis anyways. Also, the bracketed addendums shouldn't be capitalized like they have been before, for example, Cairo Station (Platform) or High Charity (Structure). That makes it easier to link to them, not to mention more grammatically correct. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 21:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say I disagree; I was referring to the old proposal which I'm sure the older admins will remember of. But the idea is good. - JEA13 [iTalk] 21:23, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support.svg Support - The sentence should be as so: "SUBJECT redirects here. For more uses of SUBJECT, see SUBJECT (disambiguation)". Oh, it was me who began making disambiguation pages which were later deleted by Manticore back in 2007/08 if you're wondering....- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 07:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fanon Titles[edit]

I have had it with fan-titles as the main title because this is an encyclopedia not some forum in which fan-titles are allowed in (with the exceptions such as Final Grunt or Hugging Elite) and we should do something about this, so I have made a project on moving: Covenant Rope, Brute Landmine, Covenant Supercruiser, Crow's Nest Bomb, (there are more but I am too lazy to make a draft for all of them). This is one of the many problems with halopedia. --File:Major Grade One.png|20 Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 06:59, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Make a proper proposal or don't propose anything at all... >.< - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 07:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
How about make a proper reply or don't reply at all... >.< --File:Major Grade One.png|20 Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 07:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Cally, one more proper smartass comment from you and you'll get an all-expenses paid [suspension] vacation. User:CommanderTony/Sig
Oh, the irony.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 09:08, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
What would you propose they be moved to? Is not "Covenant Rope" (or "rope") an accurate description if not an official name? If anything, I would think those Easter eggs are the least appropriate, and I could see them being moved to something like "Comical Grunt (Halo 3)" and "Elite (Easter Egg)". --Dragonclaws(talk) 09:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Titles like those may be more appropriate, but the current ones are easier to find and link to. Plus, there are tons of Elite-related easter eggs, for example. The use of fan-made names should not be encouraged, but in the case of easter eggs, I think it's simply more convenient unless the title is something utterly ridiculous. Besides, a title like "Hugging Elite" pretty much describes what it does. As for titles like "Covenant Rope", I think that's descriptive enough to make it clear that it's not the official name of the item and adding "Unnamed" to it won't really change it at all. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:10, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that easter egg titles are not included but some articles are not like that and do not really fit halopedia mainly because of their fan-titles in which I have made several drafts and currently two more pages to fix, and if you want to see them look at the list:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
--File:Major Grade One.png|20 Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 17:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
But those names aren't "fan-names" like dubbing Rtas 'Vadum "Half-Jaw" because of his jaw injury when we had no idea what his name was. Each of those is an accurate description of something whose name we don't know. I don't see why your names are necessarily better than the things we have now. How is "Brute Landmine" a fan-name and "Hugging Elite" is just fine? --Dragonclaws(talk) 18:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I have only chosen a few like Brute Landmine because it has absolutely no sources or evidence to prove that is a near canon title and Covenant Supercruiser which has never been confirmed to be a cruiser. RE: Hugging Elite: We as i said easter eggs are not included becausethey are for fan speculation. --File:Major Grade One.png|20px|link=UserProfile:Cally99117]] Cally991UserWiki:Cally99117|1]]7 18:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I might start thinking about including stuff like Hugging Elite and other easter eggs and glitches. So should I make this into a forum now? --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117
I think you can go ahead. I do agree with some stuff, like the "Crow's Nest Bomb" and "Legendary Planet". I do disagree with stuff like the land mine. "Brute Landmine" and "Covenant Rope" are descriptions, just as your "Unidentified Air Burst Mine" and "Unidentified Covenant Tether" are descriptions. Of course, I can offer no official sources showing that their current titles are canon, but neither can you with your descriptive titles. It is clear that the mine is of Brute-origin and that the rope is of Covenant origin, so the titles are accurate even if they are not canon. --Dragonclaws(talk) 17:58, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
And about easter eggs and glitches; they are mostly non-canon so they might stay (as non-canon and unconfirmed titles work in a bit of a similar way). --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117
Forum:Proposal to Replace fan-made Titles|Here is the new proposal. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

(Level)[edit]

Okay, this has been annoying me. On Wikipedia, parentheses are used in links to disambiguate. For instance, on Wikipedia, Halo takes you straight to the disambiguation page of all things that are called Halo, and you have to use Halo (series) to get to our beloved franchise. Likewise, on Halopedia, Halo is a disambiguation page, and you can choose Halo (Halo 3 Level) or Halo (Halo: Combat Evolved Level), etc. to get whatever article you want. However, the parentheses have been extended past simple disambiguation and into a rather pointless classification method. When we've got two or more things with the same name, such as Cortana, then it makes sense to have Cortana and Cortana (Level). Because Cortana the AI is the most obvious use of "Cortana", the Cortana page is specifically our favorite AI's page, which makes sense. The problem is that "(Level)" has been adopted as something automatically put in a level's title, which is excessive and doesn't make sense. The fact that "Assault on the Control Room" is a level should be obvious from the context of the link or from the content of the page, depending on how one is arriving at the page, and placing "(Level)" in the title for no reason but classification is just superfluous. --Dragonclaws(talk) 10:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no idea how a practice like this came to be; having the (Level) addendum is pointless when the only article with that name is of the level. It stands to reason it should only be used when there's another subject with the same name. Also, now that we're adopting the new capitalization standard, shouldn't the parentheses be in lowercase most of the time? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
The practise became official back in 2007/08, as with the capitalisation though I can't seem to find archives of it. I believe one of the argument for the practise was to maintain consistency, but don't take my word for it.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 11:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)