Talk:Battle of Installation 04

Human Victory
Couldn't it be said that this is a Decisive Human Victory? One Halcyon Class, Or in particular, its crew, defeated superior Covenant forces?

NeoExelor 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we know the exact number of soldiers aboard the Pillar of Autumn ?

Just a note: I added Operation: FIRST STRIKE to the Concurrent but left it in next, because technically it is both next and concurrent.
 * --Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In this type of ships it have 1200 persones, at the end it have 6 survivors

1 april 2007User: Chief frank 001

this isn't a pyrrhic victory, they basically saved the galaxy and only lost ~1200 guys, not bad in comparision to covenant losses especially when taking into consideration that cortana took down 3 or 4 of their ships! Capt Jim 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

From Halo 2:

Prophet of Truth: "You are one of our most treasured instruments. Long have you lead your fleet with honor and distinction. But your inability to safeguard Halo ... was a colossal failure."

If the Convent didn't win I guess the UNSC won but it should just say UNSC victory.--Darth Scott 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There were no ODSTs during the battle. In the game, none were seen. - Yoshinibble123

There are actually many ODST's, read The Flood and you'll see, also you do see ODST's in gameplay in Assualt on the Control Room but Bungie had no particuler design for them. - Happy  hobo  -117  The Guy

In my oppinion it was a combination of a stalemate and a UNSC victory. both sides were annihalated but many thousands of Covenant personell and at least half a dozen ships compared to (at the most) 1200 UNSC personell and 1 outdated Halcyon class cruiser. In many respects a semi-pyrrhic victory for the UNSC. - Seargent Maiar/Minor Domo Asgl 'Motosee


 * I think people have lost the definition of a victory. A decisive victory, as defined by wikipedia is denoted as: A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict. It does not always coincide with the end of combat. The Battle of Midway was a decisive victory for the Americans, even though one of their carriers had been sunk. Look at the outcome of the Battle of Installation 04; it was the first major UNSC victory; it prevented the Covenant using the ring and it also cracked the Covenant leadership; something which played a decisive role in the war. This battle was a decisive victory, regardless of the losses. (82.28.237.200 21:34, October 22, 2009 (UTC))

Skirmishes Section
I think the section should be summarized and have links instead of jamming everything. It looks messy and also surpasses the Wiki Standards. Maybe recreate the articles again? Little _ Missy - File:Cortana Gif.gif|24px]] 20:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * -	:Agreed. However, Ajax, HaloDude, Simon rjh, and I had an argument and I was out-voted :( Therefore, I'm afraid it will have to stay as is, unless the other admins agree with us. Ri ck rol ler Gen eral ÌṂρεσάḹόґ MyVictories File:Cavalier_achievement.gif 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, They just need to be cleaned up, lazy editors are at fault for it look terrible. Besides, 'little skirmishes' don't get their own article. i've been told that for as long as i've been here. Ajax Sig


 * Huh...and where does it state that on the policy? So far, I haven't found it.

Well, if there is such policy (Weird, I've been here for so long, I didn't notice it...), I'm guessing we could at least get rid of the disorganized Battle Infobox.<font color="#0000FF">Little</tt> <font color="#0000FF">_</tt> <font color="#0090FF">Missy</tt> - File:Cortana Gif.gif|24px]] 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivors
Should there be a separate article listing the survivors of the Installation and how they escaped? We know that Master Chief, Johnson, Locklear, Poloski, Haverson, and Linda joined up. We also know that Pete Stacker, Chipps Dubbo, and Thomas Chang escaped by unknown means. I'll write it if enough people think it's a good idea. Flag-Waving American Patriot 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 06:11, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

HALO Timeline
Surely all the dates for the latter stages of the human covenant war are wrong. The battle of installation 04 page claims it started in september 2552, yet on the mission "343 Guilty Spark" in halo combat evolved when the chief views private Jenkins video, when it ends it comes up with possible reasons for ending such as "KIA" or "MIA" etc. And then gives the date 2552.5.27 - suggesting it ended on the 27th may 2552. Unless i've missed something here surely that means that the battle of installation 04 took place in May 2552, not september.


 * No, the battle took place when the article says it did. The books and everything else make this very clear. The date in the game is probably just a mistake, or the original intended date. In that case, it's been retconned a long ago.--Jugus 16:28, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that this article says the battle took place 19th September - 22nd September, but Operation: First Strike took place on 13th September but that's impossible since First Strike took place after the Battle of Installation 04. <BIG><font face="Jokewood"> 3vil D3m0n </BIG> <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 20:15, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The timeline is all messed up because of the Forerunner Crystal. The events of Installation 04 took place in a sort of time anomaly, and when John returned to Reach it was still September 7th, thus allowing for Op. First Strike to happen when it did. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 20:20, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Survivors
i think the marines you rescue from high charity were actually survivors captured from ejected cryo tubes


 * Possibly, but it's most likely marines from installation 05 or just ones they found. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 07:40, December 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that only the crew were in cryo-tubes, it seems that the Marines were active throughout the one month trip for security.--  Fore  run  ner  13:53, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Covenant Leadership cracked
Question: What exactly does "Covenant Leadership cracked" mean? -- MisterRandom2 17:28, 27 November 2010 (EST)

Info from CEA terminal.
We now know that 343 guilty spark sent A warning to the ship as it apporached halo that it would activate defenseive weapons, but it was recalled during broadcast due to him identifying it as bineg human made.

This should be added to the artcile. 69.132.69.87 22:06, 27 August 2011 (EDT)


 * ...It's almost a year later... 69.132.69.87
 * I think it's already there. August 2011-March 2012 =/= a year.-- 19:39 11 March 2012

Number of Covenant Vessels Present

 * Do we know how many ships attached to the Fleet of Particular Justice took part in the battle? We know the fleet probably sustained heavy losses at Reach and in the first level of the game Cortana mentions them facing off against a dozen enemy vessels, of which at least four were destroyed and both the Truth and Reconciliation and Infinite Succor being destroyed later, as well as Ascendant Justice. Any word on how many ships actually took part by the end of the battle or if there were more than 12 ships over the course of the fight? Anybody know?262VigilantGuardian (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (EST)

Image
The Halo ring exploding isn't a fitting image. It just shows the ring.

The battle was far more than that, an image showing the combat on the surface would be far more fitting.Editorguy (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2016 (EDT)


 * Not one with the weird split between modern and 2001 graphics, though. And not one that also doesn't actually show any event in the canon. That artwork isn't showing any scene that ever happened. -Japeth555


 * Articles show both old screenshots (2001) and new screneshots (2011) so I think this would be the same case. I'll ask an admin to see what their thoughts are, I don't wanna be bias so I welcome more thoughts from other users too. I strongly think however that we should another image than the exploding ring since it doesn't show the battles on the surface. Editorguy (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2016 (EDT)


 * I'm definitely not a fan of having the Anniversary comparison as the infobox image. As Japeth said, the graphics split looks weird in the extreme, and the scene pictured never actually happened. If the main image really needs to show a ground engagement, this one would be preferable IMO. --Jugus (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (EDT)


 * I think File:Annivesary,_conflict.jpg is a good choice too. If possible I think we should use that over the zoomed out Halo Ring, since it depicts a battle.Editorguy (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (EDT)


 * Agreed, though I was fine with the original one. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 09:29, 28 August 2016 (EDT)


 * Yeah, I have no problem with the original one. The destruction of the ring itself was a pretty important part of the battle and I don't see why showing a ground battle would be qualitatively better. --Jugus (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (EDT)

A ground image would be better for the same reasons as with articles about the Great Schism and Battle of High Charity. They originally had the Halo 2 Anniversary Image of High Charity, wich is good because it's high res and newer. Problem is that High Charity is so big it zooms out of the actual conflict that is happening. So it's been changed back to an image of the ground conflict showing the action of what's going on since it's more accurate. See discussion here: |"I guess this counts" |"The previous main picture is high-res, but it's too distant to show the battles apparently depicted. This image, IMO, depicts the civil war better."

I'm thinking that same decision making process. The Halo Ring is zoomed out to the point where the battle can't be seen. If for example we wanted to show World War II, we would show images from war zones either of soldiers fighting on the ground, ships fighting in the ocean, or planes fighting in the sky. Showing an image of Earth from outer space wouldn't reveal much.

Of course these are all opinions, so we'll go with majority. I think showing the actual battle of installation 04 on the ground or even ships in space fighting is better than a zoomed out image from space where nothing can be seen but the Halo Ring and the one explosion. I think there's a lot of images and art we can find that would better represent the conflict. As Jugas proposed, File:Annivesary,_conflict.jpg seems good too. Editorguy (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2016 (EDT)

I prefer the original image because it shows the final result of the battle, which fits really well.-- 11:01, 28 August 2016 (EDT)

Concurrent Battles - New Halopedians, Old Issues
Whilst I’m not advocating for deleting all of the articles on the concurrent battles, I’m not sure if all of them are notable enough to warrant their own articles. As discussed here nearly 9 years ago, we have to be careful with creating unnecessary articles that could simply be covered in the main article. Even with new information from Fireteam Raven, this could open a can of worms in the future. Just a point for your consideration. —  SPARTAN 331  20:45, December 31, 2019 (EST)
 * I'm not sure you're wrong about that either. Some might be notable enough to have their own sections, but not all. I'd say Mission to Destroy Installation 04 is unnecessary for one or at least should get a better title.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 23:04, December 31, 2019 (EST)
 * I'm definitely open to suggestions about the name of that article, its largely a "I couldn't think of anything better" thing. However, given the additional info from the last level of Fireteam Raven, I felt it was a large enough scale engagement to justify a dedicated page (though the page being created before I actually got round to being able to sit and write it did put a hamper on some of my plans).


 * I'll briefly talk through the thought process here because it was discussed a fair bit in Discord but not so much outside (as an aside - all page names are more than welcome for better name suggestions).


 * Battle Over felt necessary to properly cover the fleet actions and boarding above the ring in the opening stages in sufficient detail, given we have 5-6 different sources and perspectives on the matter.
 * Landings was another one created to manage what we have as a lotof information on many diffferent concurrent events, but to also give the First Battle/ UNSC capture of Alpha Base a home. As it stands, the way the articles like Truth and Rec., Alpha Base and Containment were structured felt extremely disjointed, but of course the first Alpha Base battle wasn't notable enough alone to deserve a full page.
 * Similarly, the T&R raid page was to split up the raid to rescue Capt. Keyes, and the large battle near the end of the conflict into distinct events because of the pages feeling disjointed.
 * The Raid on the Autumn was a pretty major engagement on the ring as far as they go, and that page was made because the wiki as it stood barely mentioned it.
 * Outbreak and Silent Cartographer were pages already existing. However, TSC, the Assault on the Control Room and the majority of pages left to cover on battles during the 04 campaign I do agree should be merged with the main page (having not touched cartographer and only created AOTCR by merging the Halo Nation page).
 * Let me know what you think of these plans. The way me(and CMDRRileySV for Reach/Earth) have been looking to structure the battles side of the site is to treat planets like Campaigns, and create "battle hubs" with a lot of detailed information on each one, taking influence from how wikipedia structures the Western Front of WW2 (and other similar theatres) and how Wookipedia looks at the Outer Rim Sieges in the Clone Wars. The hope then is to treat a page like Harvest Campaign/ Battle of Reach/Earth/04 as a general overview to the larger campaign on the planetary body, with detailed specific links to ground engagements where necessary. Information from lootcrate, Halo 5 and FTR means a lot of events have a lot more detailed information than can (or should) be reasonably included in the main Battle of 04 page, as I want to avoid John-117 syndrome. I'm definitely open to suggestions as after merging over the AOTCR page from Halo Nation and doing some touch ups, I agree some engagements I planned to include don't have quite as much page potential as I'd initially thought.BaconShelf (talk) 11:58, January 1, 2020 (EST)