User talk:NightHammer

Source
Hello, why did you remove the source that I added to the plasma repeater page? 88.120.49.44 18:37, 24 November 2014 (EST).
 * Likely because it wasn't done properly, from what I see in the diff. Please see this guide on how to reference sources.-- 18:43, 24 November 2014 (EST)
 * Yep, that's why I did it. In hindsight, I probably should have stated my reason in the edit summary. - NightHammer (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2014 (EST)
 * Ok, I understand. Thank you for the explanation. 88.120.49.44 19:05, 24 November 2014 (EST).

Book editions and page numbers
Which editions of the newer books (e.g. Broken Circle and Glasslands) are you using to cite sources? I've noticed your page numbers don't always match up with mine (I have the standard paperback editions for said books). I noticed this recently with the references you added to the Doisac page but this isn't the first time so I doubt it's a mistake on your part and assume you're simply referencing different editions.

I bring this up because I'm wondering if we should include notes to specify different editions in our sources whenever necessary (the page numbers in the classic books are fairly consistent but there appear to be inter-edition differences in the newer ones). ISBNs would be straightforward on a conceptual level, though looking them up every time when citing a source would get tedious very fast. Would the distinction between paperback, hardcover, and digital editions be enough or are there layout differences within those too? --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:21, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * I use Google Play's digital editions of the books (the only non-digital Halo book I own is The Flood). I just checked and Broken Circle ' s digital edition is only 306 pages, while Halopedia lists it at 352. I'm assuming this is a difference in versions. I'm not sure how many editions there is of each novel, but I believe it would also be tedious and potentially cluttering to add page numbers for every edition. I honestly have no idea how to solve this issue at the moment. We could have the user just cite what edition they are using, but that could be unhelpful to a user or reader with another edition that would like to look at the source. - NightHammer (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * I agree that listing page numbers for every version would be an unworkable solution—most people don't own more than one edition—but we could mention the edition after the page number much like we do with the reissued first three books and the Encyclopedia. For the sake of users with a different edition, mentioning the chapter number could be helpful in pointing them in the right direction. Like so:  or   (the latter is assuming all paperback editions of the book are consistent in their page numbers; if not we'll have to be more specific). It adds a little more work and could take some time to get used to (I still don't always remember to tag the Del Rey/Tor editions) but it would help with the confusion. And if a user who happens to own more than one edition is feeling helpful they may, of course, add more edition-specific info to the source (e.g.   --Jugus  (Talk  | Contribs ) 03:28, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * Sounds like a pretty reasonable solution to me. I would also suggest that we shorten "Chapter" to "Ch.", and "page" to "pg.". That would help prevent some clutter in the citations. - NightHammer (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * The chapter would be very helpful, sometimes it's very hard to find the page if I have a different edition. On a completely unrelated note, I also know that the old edition of Halo: The Fall of Reach (with old cover, old content, old mistakes, etc) is still published by Orbit Books, the one I saw had been printed in 2013 so it seems it's still around (though Orbit has been publishing some Halo novels for quite a while). I don't actually own any Orbit book, I already have The Fall of Reach in 2001 (Del Rey) and 2010 (Tor) editions so I don't really feel like buying more editions. More generally, I think that what Jugus said is alright, and there's no need to have something too long, but if needed two or three editions won't hurt, we're far from having Wikipedia's lengthy references. Of course that depends entirely on whether it's hard to find the reference depending on one's edition. Imrane-117 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2014 (EST)


 * It should also be noted that including the chapter should generally be enough of a reference for broader statements about events and such that happen over multiple pages. Meanwhile, it's better to cite more specific information (e.g. technical details or descriptions and the like) with precise page numbers so that info like that can be easily checked. But in general I don't believe that the difficulty of adding citations should stop one from adding information as long as it's valid. Unless we're talking about some extremely specific and contested bits of info or an upcoming product. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (EST)

Sources of some images you added
Would you mind sharing the sources of these files?


 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_In_Amber_Clad_render_3.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_In_Amber_Clad_render_2.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_In_Amber_Clad_render.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Battle_rifle_render.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Plasma_grenades_render.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Brute_Shot_concepts.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Brute_Shot_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_M6C_concepts.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_M6C_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Brute_Minor_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Brute_Minor_early_model_2.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Brute_Minor_early_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Tartarus_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Seraph_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Longsword_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_ODST_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Flood_infection_form_model.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_Temple.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_In_Amber_Clad_bridge_3.jpg
 * http://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_-_In_Amber_Clad_bridge_2.jpg

I don't happen to have those sets saved and i'd like to see where the originate. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2015 (EDT)


 * I get them from ArtStation. Employees at Blur occasionally upload their work from Halo 2 Anniversary to there. - NightHammer (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2015 (EDT)
 * You wouldn't happen to have the specific url for each person you got those from, would you? Jabberwock xeno (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2015 (EDT)


 * They come from a variety of people. Just search for "Halo 2" in the site's search engine and they will appear on the left. You can find the images in each person's portfolio. - NightHammer (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2015 (EDT)

Veer
hi nighthammer, sorry I didn't know that's Zhar, still trying to find one of him, will let you know when I do
 * It's fine. However, there is no canonical image of Veer. The only one characters that appear in the H2A terminals that also appear in The Cole Protocol are Thel, Zhar, and Jai (from off the top of my head, but Veer definitely doesn't appear). -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 19:09, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Thx. I'm gonna make a page about the Zealot in the level Uprising, Halo 2. I think he earns a page because of his comments in the level and the funny and sarcastic comments by other elites. Almost like the cowardly grunt, or the suicidal marine HALOArbiter117
 * I don't think the Zealot is notable enough to deserve his own page. The Cowardly Grunt or Suicidal Marine have pages because they are Easter eggs of sorts or have notable/interesting dialogue. The Zealot only has a handful of lines, is kind of a generic AI, and most of his lines are situation-based. If we made a page for him, we would have to make a page for a lot of rather unnotable NPCs, which is something we avoid doing. See Halopedia's Notability Policy for more. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Just wanted to say that you're a champ. Thanks so much for all the hard work you put into this.
 * Thanks! -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 15:00, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

On the UEG post-H5G
I apologize if I'm mistaken as I haven't actually been able to get onto Tumblr and haven't seen the finale for HTT, but I have seen a synopsis and from what I understand, there's no way the finale could occur after the ending of H5G. First of all, the Guardian was just activating, and second of all, everything on Earth - electricity, communications, transportation - would have been taken offline globally, and there is simply no way the UEG could restore complete control of Earth within hours, especially with the Guardian staging a demonstration in orbit. ONI has installations in locations other than Earth, you know, so the Sankar-AI doesn't really prove that the UEG still is in power, if it still exists at all. Honestly a situation like that would probably be enough to plunge the planet into anarchy.

--Infernal Keeper (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2015 (EST)


 * Ah, I see what you mean now. But I don't think it's safe to say that the UEG is dissolved or defunct after the Guardian attack. There is hundreds of other colonies and we don't know if every one suffered Guardian-induced black-outs. Even if Earth was destroyed, the UEG would still exist (though it would lose most of its politicians and would probably have to be renamed). Besides, parts of the UNSC is still active and plotting against the Guardians, and the UNSC is a part of the UEG. I'd also like to think that 26th century UEG has some plans for situations like that (especially after the Covenant War) that would allow the UEG to continue to govern the planet and operate to some degree. Honestly, we just don't know enough right now to say much about anything happening after Halo 5. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 17:27, 1 November 2015 (EST)

New Categories
Hey Nighthammer. I proposed some days ago the creation of new categories for the wiki and I wanted to ask if you agree with them? O also have the purpose in creating more categories to the wiki. The universe is so big and detailed and there are many status, allegiances, affiliations and things like that. I though about adding a category for deceased characters, and rename the categories we have for the alien characters, for example, Unggoy characters instead of Grunt (Characters) and also add the category Human characters. Not only it does translate the real name of the species (which we use here) but it also sounds more respectful to all the races. Also, for the Covenant ranks, add it as the following example: Minor (Unggoy) - Minor (Sangheili)- Minor (Jiralhanae).

It all become more pratical, not to tell how it's weird to have the species have their species name added before the rank. We don't have Human private or Human sergeant (even though I know it's because the Covenant has multiple ranks with the same name). Also, exclusive species ranks such as Chieftain or Field Marshall shouldn't be classified with the species name at the beggining too, because it is exclusive only to one species. It may look unecessary for you but I believe it would be mcuh more expansive to the whole wiki. What do you think? I have many other category ideas in mind. --Draft227 (talk} 12:03, 23 December 2015 (EST)


 * I agree with the Covenant categories we discussed on Sith Venator's talk page. I also agree that we need to rename the species categories. I was thinking that we should rename them "Unggoy individuals" or "Kig-Yar individuals" or something like that. As for renaming the Covenant ranks, it would have to be discussed with other users and admins. I can see why it would make sense to rename it, but it should be noted that several sources identify each rank as "Sangheili Minor" or "Jiralhanae Minor", etc. And as for the living/deceased categories, I'm not entirely sure if it would be that useful, especially when we have characters that we can't confirm (even in-universe) if they are alive or dead. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 11:59, 23 December 2015 (EST)
 * Cool. I agree on the "species" - individual caracterization. Forerunner individuals would be a good addition too, and I think Humans as well. Yeah, I though that too. We have sources with [species] Minor/Major, but I though categorizing that way would make more sense in-universe. I think it could be useful, as for the "unknown status" characters, like Henry, 2401 and Preston Cole, we could just leave the pages as they are, and don't add a status at all. -- Draft227 (talk} 16:03, 23 December 2015 (EST)