Talk:Main Page

Dates
Should dates on articles have the rd, th, nd, and st, or should we not do that on articles? Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 21:47, 3 June 2016 (EDT)


 * I don't think so, I don't do it at least. Wikipedia doesn't do it either. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 21:51, 3 June 2016 (EDT)


 * I have noticed a few pages with it, but I do not know if there is a certain occasion one would use it. Oops forgot to sign my comment. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 23:52, 3 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Here's a guide. So basically, we don't use it at all. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Per NightHammer, dates don't need those suffixes. Please remove them anytime you see them in an article.-- 14:19, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

Navigation section
Hey everyone, I feel like it may be time to update the Main Page navigation, as it's been the same now for a few years. I have two working draft ideas here. Do note the images on layout # 2 are merely placeholders for now. Any feedback would be most appreciated, thanks.-- 18:44, 27 February 2017 (EST)


 * Definitely number one Japeth555 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2017 (EST)Japeth555


 * Deffo number 1.-CIA391 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (EST)


 * #1 Lord Susto  21:11, 27 February 2017 (EST)


 * Per above. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 23:18, 27 February 2017 (EST)


 * (reset indent) Agree with everyone else; the icons in the second version just take up space on the page for no real reason. The quotes under each section in #1 (e.g. "Explore the enigmatic universe!") are a bit cheesy, though that's just a minor thing. --Jugus (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2017 (EST)
 * I left those quotes on there by mistake and just forgot to remove them. Just like everyone else, my preference is for the first format, more because it's less images to manage.-- 23:49, 27 February 2017 (EST)

Menu page suggestions
I have a few notes that I thought of that should be relatively easy to make or change. All thanks to Spartacus's idea to change the navi bar.

1. Could we perhaps move the "Did You Know?" to the bottom moving up the "Article Improvement Drive". Makes the improvement area more clear so they ye know get done.

2. Small idea, borrowing it off Halo Nation of all places, a Monthly poll. Seems harmless enough.

3. Another idea, a featured image? Might be cool to start that. I mean we have featured everything else, might be cool to have that.

4. Could we perhaps lower the "Welcome back, Reclaimer!" user count from 16 to 12?

5. We need more Featured stuff to be nominated, that is something we can all work on fairly easy enough.-CIA391 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (EST)
 * 1) I'd like to do that because of it's importance. 2) I don't know whether or not we have the code to do that. 3) A featured image is something I've wanted to for quite a while but have never gotten around to it. It would certainly be a nice addition. 4) That's fine with me. 5) Yeah, it just needs more promotion which is more or less up to the administration team. Thank you for the suggestions!-- Spartacus  Talk •  Contribs   22:38, 27 February 2017 (EST)


 * As for your fifth point, I think we shouldn't just nominate articles because we need more featured articles. It should be based on articles that are legitimately worthy of it. I've been kinda pedantic with that lately and there is a handful of articles currently "featured" that I think could still use some work (including several I've nominated).


 * I've considered the idea of having a featured content system similar to Wookieepedia, with "comprehensive" (for smaller articles under 250 words) and "good" articles (articles with a word count between comprehensive and featured articles, as opposed to Wikipedia's "good" articles which are simply lower in quality than featured articles). However, I feel like it would be difficult to maintain. And where do we draw the line for articles that can be considered "comprehensive" and articles that contain everything about a subject but are literally just one sentence and hard to consider "featured" worthy (in my opinion, Minister is a good example of a comprehensive article here). -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 23:18, 27 February 2017 (EST)


 * The "comprehensive" articles are definitely an idea worth considering. In general, different kinds of projects like this are great as long as they keep getting updated - it's good to keep in mind that Halopedia used to have all sorts of community activities in its heyday (like Halopedian of the Month, etc.) which have since gotten discontinued due to a lack of activity. Then again, our user base seems to have rebuilt itself somewhat after the dip that followed the domain change, so it may be worth a shot to try these kinds of things again. --Jugus (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2017 (EST)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to any of that. In hindsight, killing Halopedian of the Month was an idea I now regret, as it was a way to reward users making outstanding contributions. I wouldn't mind trying to bring that back as long as it gets activity and is updated.--Spartacus  Talk •  Contribs   11:32, 28 February 2017 (EST)


 * I wouldn't mind bringing it back. I think the main issue is that there is probably only 12ish active users here, so it may end up just cycling between regulars. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 12:08, 28 February 2017 (EST)

(indent reset) *Now drum roll* I propose we bring back Halopedia Twitter and Facebook(alongside making Discord our main chat area), get more people to start to come here with the power of !!SOCIAL MEDIA!!. I mean the bigger presence we have, the more of a chance we get more people to come here.

But(and this is a huge BUT), we have to start getting content that is "featured" so said Twitter, and Facebook has some base content to mention. Gets us something to drag people in and hopefully gets us a few new editors. And after awhile, we can start doing more with the Twitter and facebook, like "TodayinHalo", and competitions(with maybe prizes if we are able).-CIA391 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2017 (EST)


 * Absolutely, as long as there's someone willing to handle those social media accounts and keep them up to date. --Jugus (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)
 * In order for it to work we'd need multiple users with access to these social media pages. I was given control of Halopedia's Facebook page about a year ago by Nicmavr. I try my best to update it regularly but it's too big of a task for just me to handle, so if anyone is interested in helping out, drop me a message here or on Discord and we can discuss it.--Spartacus  Talk •  Contribs   11:52, 1 March 2017 (EST)

In no particular relation to the above, except for the OP, I'm not sure the "Meet other Halo fans" widget is all that necessary or useful; I like that we have something to welcome users back, but how many people actually ever use the randomized user links? We could maybe keep, IDK, one or two rows of those if need be and maybe add something more generally useful to the template like info on ongoing projects, etc. --Jugus (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (EST)
 * Agreed, I'd rather just remove it completely given we already have a page better suited for that.--Spartacus  Talk •  Contribs   12:39, 1 March 2017 (EST)


 * While waiting for a decision from the administration, I've linked the Halopedian project page to the Meet other Halo fans widget as a temporary solution.
 * As for the above suggestions, please be informed that #1 and #4 has been taken care of. As for #2, we can bring back the montly poll. I believe this is still accessible in the wiki tools. For #3, we can do a featured image if we can do it along the lines of how Wikipedia does theirs (e.g. with good descriptions and proper attributions/credits/sourcing). I share the same opinion as Nighthammer in relation to #5. — subtank   13:10, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Book Chapter vs Page numbers
I have a huge thing I wanna suggest. But its one of those things that really does need to be discussed cause its started to become a problem of recent years. That problem is the rising popularity in Digital media. That even some Halo Books start off as Digital media.

Now why is this a problem you ask. Well it causes hell on the whole system we have where we say the Book name, then say the page it is on. As numerous formats might have some chapters being on radically different pages.

Now I propose this possible method to change how we source a book. Throwing out the old method of page numbers on their own. We say the Book/Novella name as normal, but now we say the chapter instead. This ensures no matter what users can still find content if they wish. And in brackets we put the format used and the page in that format the item was found on.

For example if I was wanting to source a SMAC in Halo the fall of reach 2001 paperback edition. I would put the following down.

Halo: The Fall of Reach -Chapter 33 (Physical paperback - Page 256)

Like I did start to notice some folks were going though our sources and going, "I cant find it". Meaning something needs to be done.-CIA391 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2017 (EST)


 * I see what you mean, and I think the idea is splendid. Except I think we should tweak it just a little bit; After noting the chapter, a small excerpt where the relevant information is should be quoted as to save those who do not have the book - or those who would rather not read an entire chapter to read the sentence they are looking for - the time of trying to find a small part in a sometimes very large chapter. Eld-Alternate.png Arcmind  Execute long hold for reactivation. Hand of God.png  AI-COM/ACMD SIGNOFF  11:00, 2 March 2017 (EST)


 * I believe there was some discussion about this a while back and I agree. The chapter thing would definitely be useful for more reasons than one, and we've already been identifying the early novel reissues and Google Play editions in sources for some time. Labeling every edition is just the logical next step from that. To avoid radically changing to our existing format, however, I'd make the new one something like the following:


 * Halo: The Fall of Reach, Chapter 15, page 77 (2001 paperback); page 113 (2010 paperback); page 4 (Google Play)


 * Basically, letting people add different formats based on their ability and interest. In practice, most sources would probably include just one. As for Arcmind's suggestion, quotes could be added after the page numbers like we've already been doing in some cases (see Banished for an example). --Jugus (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2017 (EST)


 * That's another great idea, but then you have some people who might not have access to all of the various versions of the book. I mean some might and I am sure there are man fans who will, but then the wiki would have some sourced completely and other would not, thereby causing a ripple in our consistency. It might work for most stuff since we all probably have it, but would it prove reliable in all situations? Eld-Alternate.png Arcmind  Execute long hold for reactivation. Hand of God.png  AI-COM/ACMD SIGNOFF  11:08, 2 March 2017 (EST)


 * I'm afraid it's just a reality we won't be able to consistently list every edition in our sources, but I'd say listing one or two is still better than having no page numbers at all, especially with specific information like measurements. Adding the chapter number (and ideally a quote) will at least point people in the right direction, while the pages (while not useful to everyone) are a definite plus. --Jugus (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2017 (EST)


 * I understand. However in that case we should at least the pick the two most common versions that we should always use for our sources; a hard back - if possible - and a paperback version. That way we get the two most common types and the more exclusive editions will be left for folks to looks through. That should at least preserve a level of consistency in our sourcing an make things easier on us. Eld-Alternate.png Arcmind  Execute long hold for reactivation. Hand of God.png  AI-COM/ACMD SIGNOFF  12:39, 2 March 2017 (EST)


 * That should be preferred, but at the same time, not everyone can be expected to have access to even those two types of editions. I, for example, have only been buying the Google Play ebook versions since New Blood as they're more handy in most ways. So in practice most of our sources will still likely end up having only one source for page numbers, though listing the chapter number (and preferably quote in the case of specific information) will still improve things a lot compared to the current situation. --Jugus (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2017 (EST)