Talk:Skywalker Sound

Closing the floodgate
I think I see a flood of entities getting their own article in Halopedia soon. While all these companies and studios are worthy of having their own article, I think that if they have their own Wikipedia article, then let Wikipedia handle it (and a link to that article provided). However, there is an exception to this personal rule of mine; only official parties that have contribute significantly and frequently to the Halo development should be awarded their own article. Of course, 343 Industries and Bungie would fall in this category. This is simply to avoid dead articles, such as Production I.G and Studio 4°C. A list of companies can be found here. — subtank  14:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Okay, I understand your reasoning. So will this article be deleted?-- Brute Honour Guard File:HGBrute.jpg|20px]] ( "Talk" ) 14:55, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Well, I think it should. Don't know if anyone else disagrees.— subtank  14:59, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I agree, unless the article has the potential to expand, or has information that can't be covered on its Wikipedia page. Some kind of restriction would be good, there's been plenty of wikis where people go overboard with articles like these. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 19:35, 19 September 2011 (EDT)


 * @Vegerot: We don't need a Support/Oppose format for every merge proposal... it eliminates the usefulness of discussion/arguments. >.>
 * @CommanderTony: This is actually more of a general proposal rather than one that focuses simply on this article. I've already addressed the issue of significance (quoted, " parties that have contribute significantly and frequently to the Halo development "). I am more concerned with the very low notability threshold we've set since the inception of this wiki. Like Tuckerscreator said, I have no qualms if the articles have potential growth in them; I am only against those with the likelihood of staying as stubbed articles such as Production I.G and Studio 4°C. While you may be right that this article might contributed more to the franchise than just the Anniversary, I find it unlikely. Main focus should always be quality, not quantity. As a wiki matures, the nature of the site transforms from being an inclusionist (whereby quantity matters, with a lower notability threshold) to a deletionist/mergist (whereby quality takes precedence, with a high notability threshold). To put it simply, Halopedia is not a general base of knowledge.— subtank  13:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 * What you see as unlikely is of no consequence to the issue at hand, neither you or me has any knowledge of what their doing outside of the few tidbits we've heard of outside of Anniversary panels. Trust me, I understand and respect your views completely, but we should at least hold this discussion off until after November 15th or until more information is released, even if that means deleting it later and then reviving her. I don't think we have any need to worry about the inclusionist doctrine of this wiki considering the quality of content (even if little) any particular article has. CommanderTony
 * Oh, this does not concern just this article. It concerns all other articles related to this matter. A general matter instead of an exclusive one. Think of it as setting a higher threshold. With that said, if the article is stubbed and no longer considered as new content, it will be subjected to this higher threshold test. :) — subtank  14:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I understood that the first time, however, this is far from the proper setting to be suggesting a change in article policy. CommanderTony
 * Well, it appears it has become a proper venue for such since the discussion has attracted quite an attention. :P — subtank  15:06, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 * That attention of which disagrees with your proposal. Anyways, please continue any content referring to articles in general on my talk page. This isn't the venue for it. CommanderTony
 * Quite the contrary actually; they simply didn't vote (or haven't got the chance of seeing this updated discussion) but their comments support my opinion of this matter.— subtank  15:15, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 * If this page's inclusion might be justified with future information, what kind of further information would that be? The most I can think of is a few trivia bits about what they used for some object's sound, which can easily be put on the weapon's page. Something more in depth, like a discussion of article about their collaboration might fit better, but that can also go on the page of the game itself. The question to answer is: what information could go here that is uniquely suited to its own page? Without something like that, it shouldn't deserve it. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Support

 * 1) . ^^What he said^^Vegerot goes RAWR!   Vegerot  ( talk )  22:53, 19 September 2011 (EDT)!!!


 * 1) . - As per Tuckerscreator.--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 22:56, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see anything particularly wrong with this page, especially considering the significance it holds for Halo: Anniversary and possibly future works by 343i. I also don't see a reason why we're nit picking articles out of the lot now, as long as there's good content on the page that allows us to warrant it not to just link it to Wikipedia in the first place, why should we? This seems like a well put article, relatively speaking, in my opinion; and to be quite honest, its quite obvious that a bunch of you forgot that this article was just created. We don't know what content we'll see between now, November 15th, and beyond concerning them. Its simply too early to tell. CommanderTony
 * 2) . - As per CT.--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (EDT)