Talk:Main Page

S-III tags
--  Fore  run  ner  16:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Domain change?
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. Sketch ist 02:15, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets do it. - S.B.44   [Talk] |undefined 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.--  Fore  run  ner  17:43, May 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * But the two other wikis mentioned were? O_O -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 17:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

hacker
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.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 11:32, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Colonial Military Administration
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.--  Rusty   -    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. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:38, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

About Slipspace Velocities
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).--  Fore  run  ner  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.--  Fore  run  ner  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  | <font color="Gray">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.


 * 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
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? --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">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 - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 12:00, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Bungie Weekly Update Pages
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?--<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">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.--  Fore  run  ner  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. --<font color="#4D56B1">Dragon<font color="#F28500">c laws (<font color="#4D56B1">talk ) 01:31, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people... WTF?
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. - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 17:27, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Species names in unofficial article titles
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. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">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... >.< - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 19:47, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Partialy-off-topic - Did you discuss that on the Irk?
 * On-topic - I am to the names being changed back to the way they were but I still  my other discussion as long as they still have those titles. --Captain Grade One.png <font face="Century Gothic"> C  a  l  l  y  9  9  1  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.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 19:57, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Smoke. closed the discussion so rename those pages already. --Captain Grade One.png <font face="Century Gothic"> C a  l  l  y  9  9  1  1  7   07:35, June 3, 2010 (UTC)