Talk:Spartan Operations

Stormtrooper Corps
Regardless of the structural parallels, I'm not really comfortable comparing the Spartans, hugely successful but scarce supersoldiers, to the group that named the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy trope and personify Conservation of Ninjutsu. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   05:29, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
 * If anything, the Stormtroopers (a semi-autonomous force that fights alongside the other branches of the armed forces, responsible for strategic assaults and boarding actions) are more comparable to Marines. Wookieepedia even makes the comparison.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 08:18, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I agree with Specops. Making comparisons to the real-world is one thing, but fictional ones are more dubious, because the criteria is more iffy and if one comparison is made, the no. of other comparisons to other medias stretches ad infinitum.--Hawki 08:41, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I agree as well. I think the closest thing to Spartans in Star Wars are the Jedi, and, well... Alex T Snow 21:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
 * You should tell that to Emile and the Headhunters.

Numbers
The information regarding the branch's numbers seems highly speculative to me - for one, we have no idea about the status of Gamma Company, nor the Headhunters. We don't even know when the Headhunters were active or whether they were even still around as a unit by the end of the war. We also have no idea when this branch was established (somewhere between 2553 and 2557), so there's plenty of time for the roster to change - that is, for Spartans to die on missions. What I'm saying is, it's counterproductive to give such a precise figure when there are so many unknowns.

Also, I don't think the UNSC insignia is quite synonymous with the symbol of the Spartan branch. Might give some people the wrong idea that we're trying to pass that off as the Spartan branch insignia. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I agree. That kind of speculation has no place on this wiki. There seems to be this idea that the more that goes into speculation, the more truth there is to it. Speculation is speculation and should not be presented as fact. As for the image, to me it feels as though it was placed their for the sake of the page having an image. If there's no image that represents the branch then we shouldn't try to make another one fit.--Soul reaper 05:01, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
 * This is far from the first unit article that features old wartime personnel counts for current, active units. The 105th Shock Division has been noted as having 15,000 to 20,000 Marines, yet we know that they served at least in both the Reach and Earth fronts and it could be speculated that they lost anywhere from a couple battalions to a whole regiment from hard fighting; a company alone by attempting to board and capture Regret's flagship in ODST. As for this page's own personnel figures, there's a reason why I put lengthy notes instead of a couple direct sources to Ghosts of Onyx and Headhunters. Yes, it is all speculative information as you so aptly put, but suggesting its just filler and a half-assed attempt at making the page look better isn't the way to go. It is noted at the top of the page that these figures were taken for Gamma during their last (and only) known battle at Onyx and Majestic and Crimson on Requiem. If anything, the only number that is anything to concern ourselves over is the Headhunter count at 15, knowing full well that more than that number perished during the war. So in essence, like many things in the franchise, we can only use what we've been given (generally very little). If sourced/noted properly and stated to be speculation/conjecture (as it is), there's no issue.


 * We know the approximate sizes of real-world organizational units like divisions and there is fairly solid evidence that UNSC units are, for the most part, similarly sized. We don't, however, know anything about the size of an exotic future military branch like Spartan. Second, to return to my former points, we have no idea if Gamma Company ever was part of the Spartan branch, since their status following October 2552 is completely unknown. We don't know what happened to the Headhunter program or when it was active to begin with. In addition, why are the specifically identified Spartan-IVs from Spartan Ops listed apart of the Infinity's total count of "300 to 500" Spartans? They serve aboard the Infinity, so they don't exist outside that figure.


 * I suppose my main issue here is that I don't see why it's necessary to try and guess their numbers with such accuracy. To me, a painstakingly precise (658 as opposed to a rough approximate like 600) "at least" figure doesn't improve the article in any significant manner, not only because it relies on complete unknowns but also because it does not tell anything beyond the absolute bare minimum of their numbers. We still don't know the total number of personnel in the branch, which could be anything from 500 (provided Gamma Company didn't survive to join the branch) to any number of thousands.


 * Guesses like these, however educated they may be, are something I'd rather see in a dedicated trivia or conjecture section rather than having them sprinkled throughout the article, with notes or not. I'm well aware we've had pure guesswork in our articles in the past, but I believe we should rather keep the article shorter before we get more information than supplement hard facts with inference based on highly limited information. To me, the last known numbers of units whose status we're completely unaware of are not enough to be accepted as basis for deduction. If we knew the status of Gamma Company or Headhunters by whenever the branch was formally established, then making such guesses would be much more substantiated. But we don't, so as it stands, the speculation is on rather shaky ground to me.


 * However, I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I wouldn't have a problem with seeing the numbers guesses in a separate section, though firmly within the confines of "Conjecture" templates. After all, that's what the template is for. --Jugus  (Talk  | Contribs ) 10:50, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Branch?
343 Industries has made the Spartans a separate branch? Yeah, this is something we over at Halo Fanon like to call "non-canon friendly". In other words, what the hell? This is so implausible, I don't even have the words to describe it. In this case, why not make the ODSTs into their own branch? Or ONI? Or even HighCom? 21:16, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

It should be very much noted that JSOC is simply a command structure and not an official military branch. I would also question the canonicity of Spartans being their own branch, even if that one blurb on the website says so. They are, in the end, just special forces soldiers originally trained by the Navy and in the Navy. There's no real reason to make them their own branch, as they would have to be attached to one anyway for transportation or logistical purposes, much like how ODSTs are Marines, but attached to NavSpecWep. As far as I can tell, NavSpecWep is the UNSC's equivalent of JSOC. --Maslab 21:33, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
 * It wasn't really a blurb, as you can see below:
 * "While these assets are now allocated to the UNSC military branch simply dubbed “Spartan,” these super-soldiers were handpicked from the field as military veterans who were capable of physical augmentation in order to wear Mjolnir armor, and had also met the litany of prerequisites required to receive title of Spartan."

- Halo 4 Official Site


 * That seems pretty legit to me as a canon thing. Also it's hard to make assumptions about what this branch is when the game is still months from release. Perhaps this will be fleshed out more as we get closer to Halo 4 ' s release.-- Spartacus  ('''Talk 21:44, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
 * That seems to me to pretty much define what a "blurb" is. I have a feeling someone at 343 mucked up their military terminology, or they are just not being very smart.  There is no logical reason to make a project of supersoldiers its own branch.  I, honestly, would wait and see more about this before considering it anything close to "canon.--Maslab 19:50, 20 June 2012 (EDT)"  --Maslab 22:03, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Good point.-- Spartacus  ('''Talk 22:13, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Well, by being their own branch, it would seem to me that instead of being part of the Navy, but constantly using various Navy, Marine, Army, and Air Force assets, being their own branch means they get their own assets, like vehicles for example. Did it ever make much sense for Spartans to be Navy anyway? Alex T Snow 23:06, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

The Spartans having their own independent branch, while a sudden change for the military aspect in the Haloverse, actually makes plenty of sense. If you recall the opening cinematic of Reach, Naval Intelligence and Army Special Warfare were having inter-service squabbles on how to deploy and implement Noble Team to fight suspected Innies. As well, Holland in some background information on Bungie.net kept on blabbing on about "we're the Army not the Navy," "blablablah," etc. Furthermore, discussions between the Army and Navy over Spartan assets are almost nonexistent during the Invasion of Reach, ultimately ending in the destruction of the Covenant supercarrier Long Night of Solace that would have been used by the SPARTAN-II's in Operation RED FLAG. Finally at the end of Glasslands, Parangosky and whoever planned the Voi memorial ceremony on March 3rd, 2553 purposefully left out the Army. If you ask me, there's plenty of reason to have the colonies' most feared and skilled warriors not have to deal with service rivalry and jurisdiction. Even though Admiral Parangosky spearheaded the efforts to create the branch, consolidating all Spartans into the branch, and would essentially become a "puppet-state" under her command, it would still end stupid egotistical arguments.

As a side note Sona and Maslab, please do not use your "Halo Fanon logic" here on Halopedia. The fact that you insist on "waiting to see if its canon" shows that you have little respect towards the developer and this wiki's contributors. I know your both of your stances on 343 Industries and while I don't mind you talking about it in an informal discussion, please do not bring it on here.


 * I want to wait to see if it's canon because it still makes no sense. If what you say is true, why doesn't the US military make, say DEVGRU or Delta Force its own branch?  I do have little respect for the developer at this point because I see no real reason to give them my respect.  That said, I don't actually dislike them.  I'm simply apathetic.  If they are their own branch, they'll still have to coordinate with Army and Naval assets to get from point A to point B and to make sure their operations don't overlap, just like they normally would.  And if they still, as likely they will, stay in NavSpecWep, then it makes even less sense to suddenly make them a separate branch because nothing will change.  It's making a large change to a military structure that, in the end, won't actually change how they function.  Even assuming they do get their own vehicle and ship assets, who is going to man the ships?  --Maslab 19:50, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Everything you said can be summed up almost perfectly by this little bit on Wikipedia.
 * So Spartans are now their own branch with their own centralized command structure and wartime assets instead of just being a Special Forces group? --Maslab 21:18, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
 * You could always read the page and answer that for yourself.


 * Whether it makes sense or not, Grizzlei is right. There's no need to wait and see if it is canon if there's a source for it on the official 343i site; it's already been established as canon at this point and should stay that way until 343 says otherwise.--Kamikaz 13:45, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Spartan III
Why do we have a MINIMUM of 348 members for the Spartan branch? Since S-IIIs are sent on suicide missions and Earth about to be invaded, I have a feeling that Gamma was sent to Earth and suffered heavy casualties. Shouldn't there be an estimated number of members instead of "minimum?" --ADinoSupremacist 00:21, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Headhunters were sent on more dangerous suicide missions than their comrades. So why should we put Headhunters apart of this article when they're all most likely dead? --ADinoSupremacist 01:51, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Note 4
On note 4, it subtracts only Jonah and Roland from the 17 headhunters, but there was a second team of headhunters who were also presumed dead on that mission. 68.99.131.91 21:09, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Spartan Branch?
Hey Grizz, where in the schematic are you looking? Because the only place on the schematic I could see the words "Spartan branch" was at the bottom left, and it was written "the Spartan branch," not "Spartan Branch". Only if it were capitalized should we consider it an alternate title. Otherwise it's like someone saying "the Naval branch" to describe how the Navy is a branch of the UNSCDF.--  Rusty  -  112  01:09, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Spartan-exclusive ranks
So it appears that Sarah Palmer, the Spartan CO aboard Infinity, was formerly a Marine and currently holds the rank of Commander (which does not exist in the Marine Corps), does anyone else agree that the ranking scheme of the new Spartans home branches don't carry over into Spartan Branch? Rather, they have an independent, original, and potentially simplified structure for themselves? Most, if not all, of the Fours mentioned so far do not have any rank, just a title of "Spartan" prefixed to their full name.
 * I agree that the Spartan branch must use its own hierarchy, with a recruit's former rank being discarded à la the SAS. It makes sense for the branch to use Navy ranks, considering its ONI roots. This wouldn't be the first time Jennifer Hale has voiced a commander in a military with a streamlined ranking system. --Courage never dies. 14:05, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
 * Exactly what I was thinking actually. :P Either that, or Lieutenant Colonel has been replaced by the Commander rank in the post-war Marine Corps.

What about the SPARTAN-IIs?
As per above, what about the SPARTAN-II Program? The article mentions the third and fourth generations of Spartan supersoldiers, but not the Spartan-IIs. I know that some Spartan-IIs actually survived, like for example, obviously, John-117, Fred-104, and Kelly-087, all three of whom I might add that I think of as the core members of Blue Team, not that it matters. But the point remains: what about the Spartan-IIs? Does the Spartan Branch manage the military operations of the Spartan-IIs? --Xamikaze330 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 14 January 2013 (EST)Xamikaze330


 * To remind you of your own question, did Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide say anything else about the SPARTAN-IIs besides hinting Blue Team was still in active service? Sith-venator Wavingstrider Fett helmet.jpg ( Commlink ) 00:17, 19 September 2013 (EDT)


 * I guess it's fair game to assume that the answer to my own question is yes. And I don't know anything about Blue Team still being in active service in 2557 or inthe years ahead. -- Xamikaze330  [Transmission |Commencing ] 05:16, 19 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Musa-096
Should he not be credited as the creator of the Spartan-IV branch? Based on the Initiation comics. There were likely more high ranking officers involved, but crediting him with the creation seems valid, imo. --Thijsbos (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

Engagements
We may need a section or even a page to list all Spartan engagements (Spartan Ops program/Spartan Operations). Originally I started listing them here (basically as a dump for engagements that didn't deserve their own pages), but the list keeps getting longer, lacks information on individual events, and hasn't been updated with Halo 5-era operations (e.g.: Mission to Basis, mission to the surface of Installation 05, assault on Created-controlled Auriga Station, suppression of Andesian insurrectionists...).

The list could be a table with various columns (Year, name of engagement, short description, location) that would be visually similar to the list of Spartan-IV personnel. Battles that already have their own pages would also be listed (with proper linking to full articles), since descriptions would be no longer than three or four sentences. Finally, the corresponding section in the "Post-Covenant War conflicts" article would link to this new section/page, and not to the "Spartan branch" page anymore. Imrane-117 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2016 (EST)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Sith Venator Mega Blastoise.gif ( Dank Memes ) 02:18, 21 February 2016 (EST)


 * Just to be clear, I'm still kind of preparing that, though the layout will be different. A table is not practical for redirects, but subsections are. (e.g.: "Thales Expedition" can redirect to its subsection in the article) Imrane-117 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Spartan as a rank
Following this discussion, it's true the Spartan-IIs still report to the Navy and maintain their traditional ranks. However, the remaining active Spartan-IIIs do report to the branch. Ergo they all now hold the rank of Spartan. Carter is irrelevant as an example because he died months before the branch was formed. -- Our answer is at hand.  ( Talk to me. ) 16:26, 26 April 2016 (EDT)


 * As you see in that conversation on Locke's page, I understand how the ranks work now. I agree with what I've been told. My compromise is that we include this important information on how Spartan-IIs and IIIs are affected by the Spartan branch. All this factual information about the new spartan ranking system, should be part of the article as it's natural to assume that Spartan's would have their own formal ranks as they did for years (Halo 1-Reach).


 * Bottom line, sure I agree with your information and the information that others have provided in the past discussion. But let's include that information in the article alright? Sound fair? Like you said Spartan III's report to the Spartan Branch, so I'll change my sentences to be more accurate.Editorguy (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2016 (EDT)

Why should the page for the Spartan branch include information about people that have nothing to do with it. It should also be pointed out that while many Spartan-IIIs are part of the Spartan branch, not all of them are (Olivia, Mark, and Ash, for example). -Japeth555
 * It is relevant and important. It's common sense to think that Spartan branch would encompass Spartans, just as one might think that the Covenant in Halo 4-5 are the same Covenant in Halo 1-3 because they have the same name. It's important to make the distinction that the Spartan branch is a different branch than the Spartan-IIs and Spartan-IIs, and provide information that the Spartan branch's ranking systems apply to Spartan-IVs and not Spartan-IIs.


 * People might wonder "Why does Carter, a Spartan's page show his Rank as Commander, while Locke's page just shows his rank as Spartan?" Both are Spartans it is confusing. Is it really so problematic to have more information on the page so things are clear?Editorguy (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2016 (EDT)


 * I believe it is adequately explained in both the "History" and "Personnel" sections that the Spartan branch is distinct from the programs and members from the programs are enlisted in the branch. It would be redundant to continue to mention it every subsection. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 17:18, 26 April 2016 (EDT)


 * Personnell didn't mention anything about Spartan-IIs or IIIs which is why I added that. One harmless sentence would clear a lot of confusion about spartan being a rank, and why it only applies to IVs and not IIIs and IIs. How is this, I'll just add a sentence at the top (so it won't be in every section like you wish) and the sentence will mention that Spartan-IIs have a different rule-set.Editorguy (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2016 (EDT)


 * I'm getting frustrated because I am making efforts to compromise with each of you, yet no one is willing to come to a compromise with me. I've been through 3 layers of listening and compromising so far. At this point the best I'll get is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.
 * I thought that Spartan wasn't a rank, people said I was wrong, I listened to them and agreed to them and felt that THEIR information (agreeing with them) should be put into the article for clarity. And even AGREEING still isn't enough for people.
 * Braidenv1 felt that my info about S-IIIs was incorrect, so I listened to him, agreed with him and fixed my sentence to match what he wanted. And then it get's undone again.
 * Now you (NightHammer) feel that you don't want to see it in every section, and guess what? I listened to you, respect your opinion, and am only putting it at the top. One section rather than in the Personnel section.


 * I am compromising with everyone and listening to everyone's opinions. Yet no one is willing to compromise with me. If the information is factual, I shouldn't be shut down like this.Editorguy (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2016 (EDT)


 * If factual yes, repetitive and not useful, no. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 04:15, 27 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Usefulness is a matter of opinionEditorguy (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2016 (EDT)
 * By majority, yes. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 06:09, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Spartan Operations
Lootcrate seems to almost exclusively use "Spartan Operations" in reference to the Spartan branch, while Halo Waypoint uses Spartan (branch) or Spartan branch. We have also seen Spartan Operations in the Halo 5 limited edition files and in Escalation. Perhaps Spartan Operations is the branch's official name? When "official" UNSC documents included in the lootcrate use Spartan Operations, it makes me think that it is the formal name. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 18:32, 23 August 2016 (EDT)


 * I like this. It makes sense as the proper name of the branch - much like "Marines" vs. "Marine Corps", and is stylistically preferable to the current title as it would allow us to dispense with the "(branch)" disambiguation. Not to mention it might help the official "Spartan Operations" catch on among fans over "Spartan Branch" over time. --Jugus (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2016 (EDT)