Talk:Michael Stanforth

I don't think he would leave the battle of reach--Ryanngreenday 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Reach was in FLEETCOM sector one, Stanforth commanded sector three. He may have gone back to his command before the fight. -ED 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Details
According to The firefight map Alpha site, His name is actually Hieronymus Michael Stanforth 07/03/2486-08/30/2552 Molotovsniper 22:10, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

It also listed him as a Vice Admiral on the plaque.SPARTAN-177 23:03, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Harold Stanforth
So The Impossible Life and the Possible Death of Preston J. Cole features a character called Admiral Harold Stanforth who was a superior and friend to Preston Cole during the first years of the 25th century. He's first mentioned when he informed Cole of Lyrenne Castilla's Insurrectionist allegiances on June 13, 2503.

At first glance this appears to be a different person from Hieronymus Michael, who would have been only 16 at the time; it seems plausible that Harold was his father, or another relative. However a problem arises in that Harold's Service Number is exactly the same as Hieronymous Michael's, 00834-19223-HS. Both men also commanded ships called the UNSC Leviathan, though admittedly several decades apart.

So what's the answer? Is Harold a seperate person who deserves his own page? Or is this a case of contradictory information on the same person? I personally think the answer is the former. Their ages are simply too far apart to be the same person, and Micheal's Leviathan was a Marathon-class Cruiser, which was not around in 2503. The Service number is likely just an oversight. What does everyone else think?--  Rusty   -    112   20:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, at first site of his name in Evolutions, I thought it was his father. --Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, UNSC Marine Corps 03:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The two are likely related. they may have even been intended to be the same person. who knows? but for an in-universe perspective, the Service number is likely an error.--WhellerNG 21:24, August 3, 2010 (UTC)