User talk:Subtank

Image categories
Just to inform you, I've started rearranging some of the image categories into a more coherent and specific system, largely based on that of the Star Wars wiki. Undoubtedly, this will take time and work, but I felt that our old system was cumbersome and obsolete. For example, the new standard is in line with our current capitalization policy and using the term "images" makes more sense than "screenshots" in the context of the ever-expanding Halo media. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:08, 3 February 2011 (EST)


 * Great. :) — subtank  06:13, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks!
Wanted to thank you for creating that handy template for the Firefight sub-types. Realized yesterday that only Rocketfight and Sniperfight had their own pages, so I set them up for the rest. That box will make navigating between them much easier than the sub-category page I threw together. Captain J 18:27, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

MA37 talk page
I don't know if it's just my luck or something, but that Archive button only worked until after you resurrected it. God damn I hate MediaWiki...haha.


 * Halopedian is glitching for me all of a sudden. First, it took an incredible amount of time to load up when i first opened it, then it gave me some kind of error message and a partial page. I tried again and it let me in, but it cut the whole top third of the screen off, preventing me from seeing the top banner and accessing the edit button. The only reason I'm able to edit now is because I've had to work around it by manually typing in the "edit" url. I have no idea why this is suddenly happening, as it's nothing like I've ever seen before, and this is a new computer, but it's doing that. On any other wiki I visit, however, it's normal, so I expect its a specific glitch. I don't know if anyone else has this, as obviously they can't edit unless they know to type in the URL. Is this a glitch on the wiki, or is there something on my computer I need checked? Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 15:08, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Here's what it looks like: File:Glitch_Screen_Pic.png. 15:13, 30 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Judging from the picture, I think it's a webkit issue. I suggest talking to Steve about this. :) — subtank  15:46, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Mgalekgolo
Can you add those theories back? Or at least the one comparing them to Praetorians?-- Shade  19:03, 25 May 2011 (EDT)


 * No. The first one regarding the spikes is incorrect; whoever added that in got fooled by the angle of the picture. The second and third trivia have been mentioned in the article. Fourth is irrelevant as it is just gameplay design. The one about Praetorians is irrelevant speculation. The last one about using human title is simply Halo 2 not able to use the updated terminologies established in Ghost of Onyx; the novel was released after the game.— subtank  19:07, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not irrelevant speculation. It was comparing how they are similar and how Hunters might have been based off them. I was playing some AvP games and I got the idea.-- Shade  19:08, 25 May 2011 (EDT)


 * It is because the Mgalekgolo, along with their overall design, was inspired by the Hunters from Marathon series and none other. That's a fact. — subtank  19:14, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

I noticed you deleted one of my images? You said something about an abbreviation called GOO... as far as I know, there was no abbreviation of that. The file was, and I see no reason to remove it.-- Shade  09:36, 28 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Ah, that deletion comment was for Forerunner, seen only through RecentChanges. Sorry for the confusion. :P
 * As for why I delete it; it was unused. — subtank  09:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)


 * We're covered in unused images - check Special:Unusedfiles to get a picture of what we're dealing with. If you have a place to put it, you could ask us to undelete it.-- Fore  run  ner '' 09:48, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I intended on using it. I was going to be putting it on my userpage.-- Shade  14:43, 31 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Want me to restore it and place it in your userpage? — subtank  15:14, 31 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah :)-- Shade  16:42, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

MO
Considering your work with stands, I felt that you would be best at this (Ok, 343, but I haven't seen him lately). To what extend should we count something as appearing if it is only mentioned in random combat dialogue. Does Yayap appear in the Halo 3 storyline? Do Sam and Jogn appear in Hali Wars? Further, does supplementary material count as an appearance - the HW timeline and HR journal?--  Fore  run  ner '' 20:20, 29 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Hali Wars? Never heard of it. Joke aside, if the subject is of some importance and relevance to the product, then list it. Here, everything in the Halo Universe can be of great importance to some extent, i.e. John. But to satisfy the relevancy, I guess it would not meet the mark. It is as simple as that.
 * This is basically a repeat but necessary as clarification. The ones regarding Halo 3 and Halo Wars are quite of some importance, but it is not as relevant as to the whole product; the mentioning of Yayap, Sam and John aren't that relevant to Halo 3 and Halo Wars, respectively, as whole, but they do hold some importance to an extent. As such, they should be excluded for failing to meet the relevance mark. It is, however, different when placing a product as an appearance for a subject, i.e. placing Halo Wars as an appearance in John's article; a simple mention is sufficient. The main reason for these distinct applications is simple; when readers read an article about a product, i.e. HW timeline or Halo Wars, they expect to just see those that is relevant to the game; listing those mentioned once or twice would be redundant. This is different when reading an article about a subject, i.e. characters or weapons.
 * Supplementary material, being supplementary to a product, should not be listed as an appearance; instead, they should be listed under the "See also" section. — subtank  07:49, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Halopedia Reach font
, Subbles. My Paint.NET skills are limited, so it's a bit rough. If you think it's usable, maybe you can touch it up a bit?

Images
Just wondering why were keeping those images they don't look right ? "A Penny saved is a Penny earned" 15:54, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Because they are related to the subject of the article.— subtank  15:58, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Ok thanks:) "A Penny saved is a Penny earned" 16:11, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Deletions
These four articles absolutely should exist. Why wait for further details to create the articles? It's better to funnel in editors onto something that has already been created. LobStoR (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Hang 'Em High (Anniversary remake)
 * Timberland (Anniversary remake)
 * Damnation (Anniversary remake)
 * Beaver Creek (Anniversary remake)


 * Little is known about them. Additionally, users will simply add their own conjectures and other trivial information, like they did in the past. Such activity would later promote speculations as facts. As such, it's best to keep the information in their current form, that is as trivia in the original multiplayer map articles, until more information is released.— subtank  21:01, 7 June 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree, these articles would just be short mentioning that would be constantly targeted by speculation. It is better to create a page for something after there is sufficient information. -- DKong Talk Cont 21:05, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
 * OK, well then I guess I'll go start adding confirmed screenshots and information about these maps into the trivia sections of their predecessors, since these maps don't (currently) warrant having their own article. LobStoR (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

This is stupid, they need their own pages, just make the pages, put the info we know and screen shots and then lock the pages.

Sorry to tell you this but only admins can lock pages;) "A Penny saved is a Penny earned" 00:20, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

Problems with Convert template
A user recently messaged me about a problem with Template:Convert and I was wondering if you knew something about it. I'm not sure if it's specific to certain users, but the whole template seems more or less messed up in infoboxes. For a particularly noticeable example, see Jun-A266. I'm not sure how it could cause this, but could it be linked to the fact I recently categorized some of the sub-templates of the Convert template? Would it be better to remove the categories? --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 03:40, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
 * If any of your s are placed on a different line to the template's ending, or if you merged some lines, you could brake the coding - it's ' 'extremely complex and one error can take out the whole thing.--  Fore  run  ner  06:17, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I didn't merge any of the lines, just put in the categories in noinclude tags. Reverting them seems to have fixed the problem though - I knew these things were fragile, but I had no idea something like this would be enough to break them. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 08:13, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Guess this is solved?— subtank  08:39, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it would seem so. --Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 08:57, 9 June 2011 (EDT)