Talk:Helmet Upgrades

Deletion
Simply unneeded.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 16:14, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * Really Subtank? Can you let me finish first at least? Alex T Snow 16:44, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * I can already foresee the final version of this article. I have the power of foresight! This article will list all the helmet upgrades in Halo: Reach and all the requirements needed to unlock it. If this is the case, then this article is redundant. If not, I would love to see the final version.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * We have articles for the rest of the upgrades, it's not like I made individual articles for them, that would be unneeded. With the amount of inconsistencies and errors in the armory discriptions it needs somewhere that clears it up. Are you saying that helmet attachments are somehow less canon? I've never made a page before so if it needs improving, renaming, or just combining this info into an existing acticle if it fits there better that would be fine. Oh, and I didn't even think to add the requirements and Cr, I was writing this from a canon and in-universe persepective, not a game one. Alex T Snow 16:56, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * There, other than overall cleanup, and pictures of each and a few for the Gallery, and some more Trivia, it's finished. Alex T Snow 16:59, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * Never have I said these attachments were not canon or less canon. These information can be added to their respected articles, which would be the Helmet articles. For example, the attachments of the Mark V(B) could be added to the Helmet Characteristics section of the Mark V(B) article. I don't see why we need to separate them if they're basically part of the armour. It's better because it's more concise.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * Okay, I wasn't serious about the non-canon comment, but the problem is the huge amount of errors in the armory's names and descriptions. The CNM that looks like PEQ-2 and the one that looks like a webcam have BOTH been called CNM and CNM-I, the EVA [C] Helmet has a HUL attachment that's named HUL[3], but is a standard HUL, the Air Assault helmet's third upgrade is called FC-I which is CNM-I and HUL, but the actual ones on the helmet are a CNM-I and UA. There's quite a lot more, and I feel people will have pointless arguments over what's correct if they're all split up like that. It's good to have a parent page, like the parent MJOLNIR page. Sure we could not have it and have all the MJOLNIR information on each Mark's page, but there's some info that if really best served on a parent page. Sure there's not a whole lot right now, but let people edit and add, for example, I didn't know what CBRN meant before, or how to say it. My point is, with all the errors and mistakes we would have horribly mismatched articles with regardes to the uprgrades. Alex T Snow 17:12, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
 * And we would have horribly misinformed the readers that none of these belongs to any other armour components, if we keep this article. Again, keeping information concise is better than having them not mentioned at all in their individual article. What's wrong with having those looking like other attachments? For example, I keep getting frustrated for confusing the Scout helmet for the Security helmet, but I always refer to the articles to show the actual information. Similarly, why waste all the information on a parent article if you already have their respective articles? If you already know they belong to a specific armour, then add the information there. Don't simply generalise all the information you know. Be more specific and place the relevant information in their respective articles.
 * The reason why MJOLNIR serves as the parent article and all others are simply sub-pages is because of the evolution of information we had in the past. Other than that, this article has no value of providing good information.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (EDT)


 * Okay, that sounds fair, I just really wanted to get this info on the site somewhere, I'll get on putting this into each helmet article as soon as I get off work, which is where I'm going now. I'm telling you that because It would be appreiciated if you didn't delete this until I get a chance to do that, I'll let you know here when I've done that. Sound good? Also, the reason I made it its own article was so that people wouldn't complain every time I put on the helmet article in question that the name/attachment was wrong. Alex T Snow 17:37, 20 October 2010 (EDT)


 * Oh, complaints would be less in this domain. :)
 * Thanks for understanding. - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (EDT)


 * Thanks for listening, this info really does need to go up, wherever it should go :) Alex T Snow 17:44, 20 October 2010 (EDT)