Talk:Second Ark Conflict

Name
I feel like this could use a better name.

Skirmish on Installation 04C should be a separate battle
During Halo 3:

We have Battle of Installation 00 has one article,

And Raid on Installation 04B as another one.

Should we do the sameEditorguy (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2017 (EST)


 * Eh. The battle on the Halo flows nicely with this article, and it's nowhere near as significant an event on its own as the raid on Installation 04B (which saw the defeat of the Flood, the disappearance of the Master Chief, etc). Especially if and when the battle on Installation 00 continues after the events of the game, in which case an article about the battle on the Halo would just be an odd detour for the sake of a relative technicality (ie the setting being a few thousand kilometers in a slightly different direction than the preceding ones). --Jugus (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (EST)


 * Makes sense, alrightEditorguy (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Battle Status
In order to prevent a edit war about the status of the battle I have brought this to the talk page. My argument for why the Battle of Installation 00 (2559) is still ongoing is because Atriox wants power, the Ark has that power and he knows it, Cutter bruised his ego, and he has no other way in leaving the Ark so they can't leave. I personally can not see a single argument as to how that is in doubt and that is why I think it should stay as Ongoing rather than Possibly ongoing. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 04:35, 24 February 2017 (EST)
 * Though I agree it's ongoing, speculation isn't a valid argument. The "Beyond the Edge" Phoenix Log is the most recent piece of information we have, and based on what it says, the battle is clearly ongoing. -- Topal the Pilot Blueteam.png ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:44, 24 February 2017 (EST)
 * Upon reading the Beyond the Edge Phoenix log, I agree that there is enough evidence to state that it's ongoing. However prior to that, and only assessing the story presented in campaign, there would not have been enough evidence for that statement. Editorguy (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2017 (EST)

Name usage
Just to be clear, I think when referring to this event, we should avoid using "Battle of Installation 00". It isn't an official name for the conflict and would create confusion with the Battle of Installation 00 of 2552 (which is an official name). When linking to this battle, we should use terms like "conflict on the Ark", "battle on the Ark", etc. I have only really noticed this issue a handful of times, but just thought I'd point it out to avoid future confusion. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 11:23, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
 * I agree with this, however even terms like "battle on the Ark" could be interchanged with the 2552 conflict,as they both occurred on the Ark. We need a more distinct name for this conflict, one that cant be in any way confused with the earlier battle. ArcticGhostXCV (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
 * The context of each mention should make it fairly clear which event an article is talking about, e.g. saying "battle of the Ark in 2559" or otherwise having the time frame and/or participants near at hand. --Jugus (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2017 (EDT)