Talk:Stunt

Revert?

I don't know exactly where you are at with this DJC... But I think a revert back to the articles state at the time before your edit might be nescessary. However, as I said before, I am not sure where you are at with the matter of Stunts/Glitches/Glitchology in halo 1. Please let me know where you're at. Thanks, Matortheeternal 18:21, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

That stunt wiki you're working on... I'm thinking it might be better to cover stunts in detail there. Once it has enough information, we can use interwiki links in {{Main}}s to link to it. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  20:40, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

That is to say, I am sufficiently convinced that the concept of Stunts in Halo 1 is too complex to be adequately covered here. It may need its own wiki. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  20:46, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

That is a great idea! Hopefully the Stunt Wiki will cover all discoverable stunts in all Halo series!- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 20:51, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

WOW! I love the enthusiasm! That is exactly what I am looking for! With that enthusiasm in mind, I would like to make a request to the public of halopedia. I am not yet extremely expierenced with the creation of wikis, and due to other projects I don't have very much available time to dedicate to stuntopedia. If possible, I would like to make a public announcement for help. Matortheeternal 01:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Gimme somethin' to do, and I'll see what I can do to get it done. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the first thing I/we should do is we should create a list of what needs to be done and what our/my goals are with the halo stunting wiki. Then we can individually embark on completing certain individual parts of said list, and we can assign other people to completing certain parts of said list as well. I will begin developing the list this week. We can talk via xfire and you can contribute as you wish. Everyone else is also welcome to contribute. When the list is completed we will officially begin work on the wiki and I will *hopefully* make an announcement here on halopedia asking for people to help contribute. Matortheeternal 02:29, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Top of my head:

• Iron out the categories to use
  • Recommend multiple categorization/taxonomic systems.
• Get screenshots, videos, instructions, YouTube sources for stunts.
• Document stunts. Can do this before categorization, and categorize them later.
• Work out standard terminology (e.x. clipping, etc.).

File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of developing a more detailed and more *intricate* list. One that literally states every single thing that I/we need to do. I can't give an example right now, but basically exactly what you are saying, but twice as detailed. Matortheeternal 02:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Got it. If any assistance is required, lemme know, especially with templates, HTML, and the like. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:39, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Well I will need your help on just about everything. As well as as many peoples help as I can get. Its the list that I am talking about right now. And in that I will need help too! But first, homework. Matortheeternal 02:42, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Ima go to sleep soon; lemme know if you have any specific things you need help with tomorrow. :D File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:45, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Get all your friends interested in halo 1 stunting, and then get them interested in stuntopedia. Find out *if you can* if it would be possible to make a public announcement about this on halopedia. Make sure that will be viewed by *many* users. (if there is a way to make it more publicly available, try to do so) Then create your own detailed to-do-list for stuntopedia. (include every single little task you can think of, but group as necessary. My guess is it should talk about 10 minutes to create a full to-do-list.) Matortheeternal 02:48, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this page will remain in its present state (not anticipating other user's edits) until stuntopedia is well established and we can better decide the course of this article. Correct? Matortheeternal 02:52, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:53, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe change the title of the wiki to something... better?- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 16:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Stuntopedia isn't good? :[ What else is there to have? I think stuntopedia is an awesome name! ...? What would you suggest? Matortheeternal 18:13, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's clear several things about the wiki: Is it mainly about stunts in Halo series or does it cover other games as well? If it's mainly concern with stunts in Halo series, then it should renamed to either Halo Stunts Wiki or something with that Halo feel. If not, then it should be called Stunt-o-pedia/Stuntopedia. The problem with the latter is that you'll be facing numerous visits from other games and it would be hard for you/the wiki to verify the stunts.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 18:25, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Restarting : list... The URL of the wiki is halostunting.wikia.com. That should clear up the problem. Matortheeternal 20:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

halostunting? Is halostunts reserved?- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 20:37, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both of Subtank's recommendations (name change, domain change). File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:21, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why halostunts is better then halostunting. Stunting = the act/art of performing stunts. Stunt=oddities in halo *blah blah blah.* The wiki would go by the nicknames of Stuntopedia and The Halo Stunting Wiki. I think that would prevent any major confusion. If problems still arise, a simple announcement should do the trick. I don't see why halostunts would be any better then halostunting in terms of domain, mind explaining why you would suggest such a change (which is still hard, even though I have a relatively small amount of material created.) Matortheeternal 14:35, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Several reason to why halostunts is better then halostunting. 1) It's shorter to type. 2) Most gamers/players would refer Stunts in Halo as 'stunts' rather than 'stunting'^{Examples: You always see Halo Stunts as a common server name in HCE Lobby, Conversation - "Hey, wanna do some stunts?" rather than "Hey, wanna go stunting?"}. That said, just conform to the society. 3) The pronunciation of Halo Stunts is better than Halo Stunting.^{Heh-lo Stuh-unt and Heh-lo Stuh-unt-ing}. Supporting this is the collection of opinions from Halo players I interviewed/encountered in HCE matches... which also resulted in many suicides and betrayals. That's the general reasons. Oh, one more thing; might I recommend changing from Stuntopedia to a simple "Halo Stunts Wiki"? It's all for the good of the Halo Community/Society- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:46, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

I will acknowledge your advice about stunts may be better then stunting, but is it really such a big deal that I have to change it? Honestly, if it appears on google searches, its good enough (which it does, on the first page). I will CONSIDER the domain name change. However, I still don't see why it shoudl be caslled the halo stunts wiki. I coudl say the same about halopedia! Why can't it be called the halo wiki? If I would change the domain, I'm thinking just stunts.wikia.com might be better. Matortheeternal 21:06, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Why "Halo Stunts Wiki"? Because "Stuntopedia" could be taken to refer to other games as well (or to real-life stunts), and the only other way to resolve that problem ("Halostuntopedia") sounds horrible. :P File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  22:23, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

I just explained how I would solve that issue... Matortheeternal 01:04, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

Rather then make this post ever more colorful (heh) I will reply at the bottom of this category in black. Matortheeternal 14:40, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

And I shall use the same convention, with green text. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  01:09, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Woah... Big Post. I will reply to it by adding text in red after what you are saying as a response...

I think that the article needs significant reorganization. To be specific, I feel that the same classifications should be used for each game -- same launch classes for H1, H2, and H3; same ledge classes for H1, H2, and H3; etc. Different classifications for each game results in duplicate content, disorganization, and extra categories and distinctions that often aren't necessary and may in some cases be misleading. File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the contribution, but I was somewhat crestfallen you didn't make a request beforehand. Most of the changes are positive, and I am happy to have seen such changes. However, a few are somewhat distortive. I haven't made any changes yet, but I would like to discuss making further modifications to make this article clearer and easier to follow. Matortheeternal 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The distortions likely resulted from unintentional misinterpretations on my part; my bad. As for further modifications, I shall elaborate on my previous suggestion.

Ok.

Stunts can be categorized by game (if "Halo: Combat Evolved Stunts", "Halo 2 Stunts", etc., are approved as categories), but things in a taxonomy are sorted by their traits. Stunts should thus be categorized by type, with game having little role or mention.

My general idea regarding categorization is based off of how plants and animals are organized/classified in biology. My original idea is as follows: GAME-TYPE OF PLAY/OTHER RELEVANT CATEGORY-MAP-STUNT TYPE-STUNT SUB-TYPE-STUNT CLASS-STUNT (NICKNAME AND ORGANIZATIONAL NAME) Game would be Halo 1, Halo2, or Halo 3. However, this system could apply to any game. Type of play would be campaign or multiplayer. I have this section because stunts in campaign and stunts in multiplayer tend to be very different. And, it just seems to be a logical category to have. What I mean by "other relevant category" is if there is another game which has stunts/glitches/tricks and doesn't have multiple types of play a different category could be created in place of the "type of play" category This organization is directly based off of plant and animal taxonomy. There are probably about 10,000 stunts in all 3 halo's, maybe more. Such a classifications system as I am suggesting would allow us to organize the stunts logically into categories. It can be discussed whether or not we need so many sub-categories. However, I want you to know that I chose my sub-categories based off of my expierence in stunting. I will explain why I made each sub-category as I continue this editorial.

What differences exist between stunts in campaign and stunts in multiplayer? If there are no differences that consistently show up, then the sub-classification is unneeded. If at least one difference can't be consistently demonstrated between Campaign and Multiplayer for most, if not all stunt types, then differentiating between the two game modes serves only to complicate the classification. The problem here is that there are too many sub-classifications and categories, which serves both to obfuscate the taxonomy and possibly even the stunt categories (the ones that matter, like Ledging) themselves.

In general, sub-classifications ("_____ Balances", "_____ Ledges", etc) should be kept to a minimum.

I understand this perspective. I have tried to keep my sub-categories as minimal as possible. I will explain each one as we go along.

Here's the categories -- no prose -- I would use, in list form. (Intended as a graphical display only, which is why the formatting is messy.)

• Stunts (Fun Fact: an article's title is a header -- an H1.)

I think that stunts shouldn't be a category. Stunts can be explained in an article, but there is no other category relevant to stunts other then stunts. So having a category called "Stunts" is redundant.

I was doing this in a kind of outline format -- listing each header, and the article title is coded as a header. I agree that we shouldn't have a section named "Stunts" in the article called "Stunt".

• • Balances
    (While the mechanics of balancing (and the available balance points) may indeed differ between object and floor balances, that doesn't necessarily make them notable in and of themselves... The difference (fewer usable balance points) can be mentioned in the prose for "Balances".)
    Fewer Balance points is not the actual relevancy. The major differences between floor and object balances is that floor balances can be performed on any flat surface. Object balances, on the other hand, are only possible on objects. I think this deviation is necessary.
    Define "object", then. If the difference between object and floor balances is notable and not self-evident, then the classification should certainly remain; otherwise, it should be omitted (or briefly mentioned, but not given its own section). But notability cannot be determined in this case until I know what you mean by "object".
    • Air balance
      This category was renamed. Originally I called these balances "Phantom Balances." I call them this because thus far, all balances that fall into this category phantom. (They do not appear on the client port due to lag/discrepancies.) Also, I think air balance is a misleading name, because the balance has nothing to do with air. This category is important because these balances are so different from other balances.
      Yes, I decided to rename it. "Phantom Balance" could be mistaken for a balance involving the vehicle of the same name. This kind of balance involves balancing a vehicle such that it looks like the air itself is holding the object up; when defined in that manner, "air balance" makes more sense and is less ambiguous.
  • Ledging
    • Climbing ledges (or "climb-ledges")
      I guess this name is appropriate. However, I do not understand the reasoning for having the nickname "climb-ledges."
      The "or" was intended to denote options, not nicknames. Like, pick the one you like best and we throw out the other one.
    • Walking ledges (or "walk-ledges")
      Same as Climbing ledges.
    • Half-ledges
      (recommended name change from "wall hacking ledges")
      Here is where I think the name change is most irrelevant. In almost all Climbing ledges, half of Masterchief (vertical cut) is outside of the ledge. Wall hacks (as stunters currently call them) are different because more then half of masterchief is outside of the ledge (this normally results in "popping" out of the ledge.) There are two kinds of wall hacks, ones where masterchief is hanging out of the ledge by his head/upper body, and another where only his legs/feet/lower body is in the ledge.
      Ah, I misinterpreted the definition. At the same time, though, "wall hacking ledge" is... well, it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Partial-ledges? No, the meaning of that isn't self-evident... Hmm...
  • Insides
    • Terrain insides (or with a dash, terrain-insides)
      (Scenery could refer to Forge Objects; terrain (when used to refer to terrain and actors) is unambiguous)
      This name is very misleading. Terrain usually refers to the ground. You cannot, and do not get inside of the ground. People get inside of objects, such as rocks and trees. And people get inside of vehicles. I do not see the meaning of the dash. They also get vehicles inside of things. So in reality, there are two major types of insides. One that involves getting oneself (Masterchief) inside of things. And another that involves getting vehicles inside of things. What do you mean by actors? Forge objects are specific to halo 3. Those words have no place in the definition of stunt.
      Ah, another misinterpretation on my part. Technically, however, non-terrain objects are actors, or "objects", as they are referred to in the next proposed category.
    • Object insides (or with a dash, object-insides)
      (moving one actor through another)
      See above. I do not understand the entire "Moving one actor through another." The only time when a player is actually inside of another player is inside of specific ledges that involve players phantoming.
      Moving one non-biped actor through another?
  • Launches
    (I should note that the definition needs to be made more specific. If I turn on 25% Gravity in a Custom Game and jump, I'm practically flying through the air, but I'm not being launched... 'Course, anyone too unfamiliar with the concept wouldn't be able to tell the difference, as the difference is not evident from the current definition. Perhaps a reference to the high velocities or abnormal distances typically found in launches could be made?)
    (Also, I'm not so sure that Overshield launches need a category. The point of a launch is being launched; whether or not you survive is a different matter, and survivability isn't necessarily an important aspect of a launch. I once used a bunch of Fusion Coils to send my newly-made corpse outside of Ghost Town's invisible walls; I'd class that as a launch even though it killed me.)
    I didn't think it was relevant to state that launches are only considered launches when they are performed without forge or modding (this includes modifying gravity.) However, if people truly do not understand this, I believe it would be a good idea to mention it somewhere within the article. Also, launches aren't really "legit" or "good" if you die. The idea behind launching is living through the initial explosion (dieing in the fall is OK.) Survival is extremely important in launching. If you do not survive, your launch is a failure.