Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Halo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Big topic

Halo media

20 articles

Halo: The Fall of Reach

Halo: The Flood

Halo: First Strike

Halo: Ghosts of Onyx

Halo: Contact Harvest

Halo: The Cole Protocol

I Love Bees

Halo Original Soundtrack

Halo 2 Original Soundtrack

Halo 3 Original Soundtrack

Halo Graphic Novel

Halo: Uprising

Halo: Combat Evolved

Halo 2

Halo 3

Marketing for Halo 3

Halo 3: ODST

Halo Wars

Halo: Chronicles

That takes all the articles linked on List of Halo media and puts them in a topic. We would only need to get 6 articles to GA (and one of them, Halo 2 OST, is a current nom). 3 of the articles haven't been released so would need the tick. It doesn't actually seem that far away with more than enough featured articles already. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye. I actually think this is a better idea, to lump them together rather than creating small, separate topics... What are the qualifications for not-yet-released material? That would excuse us from Halo Wars, Uprising, Cole Protocol, and Chronicles, leaving us only four articles to get to GA or better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah 4 (I didn't realise the last of Uprising isn't out yet); but each non-GA article needs to be the best it can be and have gone through a peer review so there's still quite some work to go. Hopefully I'll get enough time in the next few days to push Halo: The Flood and Halo: First Strike up to GA. Another thing to consider is: should we also include Halo (series) because the Halo trilogy topic would be removed. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, just because the Halo media is, IMO, a better "lead" article. I'd rather put Halo (series) with the rest of the video games in a super vg topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant to include it in the group of articles with List of Halo media still as the lead article. I suppose it wouldn't fall under the topic title of "Halo publications" though so perhaps not. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, either way we have to get the books up to GA first! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) - Also, if we are including the games, wouldn't it make sense to just call the thing the Halo series or Halo media? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

←Yeah that's fine, "publications" was just the word I came up with during a mental blank. Media sounds better because ilovebees was hardly published. I've changed the title on the box above. James086^{Talk | Email} 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe they have changed the Featured Topic criteria, so that we will need to have all three check marked articles peer reviewed before we nominate the topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A question has arisen as to whether Marketing for Halo 3 should be included in this topic. I would say yes, since this is a list of all Halo media, so advertisements, tv commercials, and viral marketing are definitely media, so it would be included, just as I love bees is already included. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't include it originally was because it isn't all about a Halo release, but because it contains Iris I can understand inclusion. I don't mind either way. James086^{Talk | Email}

I haven't gone through to check and see if Iris could meet notability requirements on its own; if it does, then we could spin it off, list that, and then do away with the Marketing article for this topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But isn't the marketing article notable? I mean, it has a lot of references, doesn't it? That would be a lot of content to just dissapear...I mean, it's ok if one of our articles is about the advertisement of the game, isn't it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References make it verifiable not notable. It might be notable, it was obviously a large ordeal but I couldn't say for sure. I don't know of any other games or movies that have a "marketing" article, but obviously H3 was bigger than most games, movies, and even Harry Potter's books don't have that long of marketing info. And Harry Potter is really the only thing I can think of that is as big. Black ngold29 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Grand Theft Auto 4 has a marketing article, so there is a precedent for it...Perhaps, and this is just another option to throw out there, make one featured article about the marketing of halo, covering 3, 2, and everything else. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I like that idea, but it might be difficult to find info about Halo one marketing. Black ngold29 01:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So what's are decision, keep both? Rewrite both? Merge into one marketing article? Exclude both? Best to determine this now so it doesn't trip up the Featured Topic when someone asks why we did whatever we decide to do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

← I think one marketing article for all 3 main games (or even the series as a whole) would be unnecessary as Halo 2 and 1 had trivial marketing compared to number 3. The marketing article by itself is definitely notable, Marketing for Halo 3#Impact is filled with secondary sources (independent of Bungie and Microsoft thus meeting the notability requirements). James086^{Talk | Email} 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

SO, can I add the marketing article to the topic? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any opposition. Black ngold29 00:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess whenever I get around to it, I'll try and cleanup Marketing, but I keep on getting distracted by crap articles on video games I really enjoyed so my quality work has been suffering... prolly a more realistic goal is that I'll get Halo: Uprising up to a quality where all it needs is a peer review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have initiated peer reviews for all four of our unreleased games/books, so anyone who wants to recruit someone to peer review them. This is in preparation for the media featured topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now that peer reviews are done, all we have are the above articles... I've nominated I Love Bees at GAN. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts of Onyx passed, great job guys! Next, we have to renominate I love bees for GA, and get Halo Uprising and Marketing of Halo 3, and the megatopic will be ready. Amazing! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 marketing is now at GAN, so hopefully that just leaves Halo Uprising (which should by done by the end of November). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Cole Protocol is about to come out, so still 2. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA all remaining Halo fiction articles

Resolved

There are only four remaining articles on the fiction of Halo, and here are my thoughts on them;

Factions of Halo - Going to be GA soon, can help make a factions of halo featured topic
Halo (megastructure) - Still really sparsely referenced, so either needs a lot of additions, or if there aren't any, merge to Factions of Halo.
~~Rampancy~~ - This is a concept developed by Bungie for their games, and I doubt it will be referencable, so perhaps we can merge it to the article on Bungie as its their concept.
SPARTAN project - Like the megastructure, we should see if this has enough info to sustain a whole GA article, otherwise trim and add to Factions of Halo.

Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

UNSC Trooper from HBO says he will be adding to the UNSC article; I'm going to continue looking for out of universe info, then hopefully we can organize everything coherently and go for GA (there's still lots I can look for for the reception, in addition to summarizing the stuff from the spinoff articles.) Halo I believe has enough out there to get us to GA, I just need to add what I've got. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As to Rampancy and SPARTAN project: I dunno. Rampancy should prolly go in Marathon series article, I think, if anywhere; while it's touched upon in Contact harvest and hinted at in the games, it originated with the other series, and I can't see how we can really integrate it into our content. The SPARTANs, I would hope we can keep on its own, but yes, we have to get more sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Come give your opinion on the Rampancy merger into the Marathon Trilogy article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Factions of Halo considered a list or an article? It's probably closer to an article, but it could almost go either way. Black ngold29 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an article because it's got lots of info on each faction. A list would be very brief (one or 2 lines about each faction). There was a similar discussion about Characters of Halo (see exhibit a and exhibit b). James086^{Talk | Email} 08:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess only the Military section looks like that. That article is in pretty good shape, it just needs some additional sourcing and a GA should definately be within reach. Black ngold29 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure about how the Factions of Halo article is shaping up, but I'll leave any concerns for the talk page of the article in question. I've removed the rampancy project cat as I agree with Judge that it's best merged to an article outside our scope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus to merge Rampancy, anyone wishing to tackle that is now free to do so... not being that familiar, I am hesitant to trim it down. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, though I am also unfamiliar with it. I would like to remind anyone who does it to keep only cited material, there isn't much. I don't know if "trim it down" is as fitting as "take a chainsaw to it". ;) Black ngold29 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Music proj

Resolved

Anyone want to work with me on getting Halo Original Soundtrack and Halo 2 Original Soundtrack up to GAs? Both have a decent amount of info, but there is also some Original reaseach as to the contents of the music (I understand that there are songs/themes on the soundtracks from other games, etc., but unless it is sourced it should be removed). If two or three of us go at them together it shouldn't take more than a few weeks. Plus, if both get GA then we could probably get the "Halo Music" up to a featured catagory. I've got all the soundtracks, so referencing booklets, etc. won't be a problem. Thanks! Black ngold29 04:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-wrote most of Halo Original Soundtrack. There was some very good info there, most of which I kept, it just needed some more structure. I did take out most of the stuff written after the Track listing, as none of it was sourced and most of it had info about the game and the article should remain concentrated on the soundtrack (It could almost have been a "Trivia" section in disguise). I did leave one statement about the Myst "Bonus track", but that would be good to get a source for. One thing that concerns me about getting a GA is the length, but I think it will be understood that a video game soundtrack doesn't really have a ton of sources out there talking about it. If anyone wants to give me some feedback on it, that would be awesome, or even just change it yourself. I have helped a few GA albums, so I'm pretty familiar with most of the stuff they like; but this is my first soundtrack so there's probably some differences, I guess we'll find out. Thanks! Black ngold29 04:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? I usually like to have some feedback before a GA nom. Also, if anyone has more references, the list is kind of thin. Black ngold29 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Halo OST isn't too bad, but I think could pass GA. The Halo 2 OST needs info on the background of the score. That article may be able to get to FA one day, but I'm pretty sure Halo won't there just isn't enough info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Halo OST just passed its GA. Thanks to everyone who worked on it before me, because you provided all the sources I needed. I'll get to H2 in a little bit, gotta finish a few other projects first. Black ngold29 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

Resolved

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementing it

If we choose to use C-class (and I don't see why not), I think the following articles would become C-class:

Halo (megastructure) - I don't think it's quite B yet
Halo 2 Original Soundtrack - doesn't have a background section or description of the production
SPARTAN Project - not enough 3rd party sources
Halo.Bungie.Org - maybe not B-class but better than start I think

Any thoughts? James086^{Talk | Email} 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Black ngold29 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, so I went ahead and made the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo (2009 film)

Resolved

Just bringing this article up here for wider review. It was recently made, primarily edited by one user, and cites no sources other than a YouTube video of dubious legitimacy. I haven't found anything new on the movie, but I can't be sure one way or the other yet. If I had to make a conclusion, I'd say the article will have nothing new and needs to be either deleted or redirected (the less practical option if the movie is completely dead), but I'll wait a bit before acting. Maybe someone more familiar with the whole thing can be more decisive. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has no sources, except the YouTube video you mentioned and for some reason I can't even view it. I would support deletion of it. Black ngold29 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I could, and the Halo vid was obviously faked. Although, by all admissions, it wasn't a shabby fan-made clip. I would support deletion at this time, since its production has basically stalled. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and took care of the AfD. The YouTube link has been replaced by a link to the IMD page, but it doesn't make any difference I can see to the validity. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Next FA?

Resolved

Flood (Halo) has been bothering me for some time. Good news is, thanks to access to ProQuest and some other random sources I found, with a revamp it might meet the criteria. I'm going to add in the sources I've found (I got an awesome quote from Rolling Stone magazine comparing the twist of the Flood in Halo: CE to the dots attacking Pac-Man) and then all we need to do is check the reliable sources, copyediting and make sure it's out-of-universe (comprehensible to the non-Halo player.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to my Watchlist and keep an eye on it. I'd be happy to participate in the peer review, but will wait until someone else responds to it, because it's usually helpful to have someone unfamilliar with the topic (preferebly video games, as well) review it first. And for some reason I have a brain-block that makes it difficult for me to not write in-universe articles, but since most of it is pretty well done already I don't anticipate to be too much of a problem. Black ngold29 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good candidate to me. Gary King (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo Music FT?

Resolved

I believe Music of Halo now meets the Featured topic criteria. I've never nominated one before so I just wanted to confirm it here. It's been previously discussed that Martin O'Donnell and Michael Salvatori could be added to the topic as well. It makes the most sense to me to go ahead with getting the FT now and then adding O'Donnell and Salvatori after they are improved. Thoughts? Black ngold29 02:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need at least two FA's for a featured topic, so we need one more GA to be boosted to FA first. Halo (series) article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was taking 3.a.i and 3.a.ii as one or the other. Glad I checked first. I think Halo (series) would be the one to do, I don't think we've got enough info for Halo OST, and it would be a stretch for H2 OST. Black ngold29 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuchs needs to lay off the Halo for a bit. That man is addicted :) Gary King (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, with that crazy guy and you Gary, we will soon have a barnstar shortage! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to invent the Legendary B star to go with the Heroic one. I think we could definately work on getting the Halo (series) up to FA, although we should probably finish the Flood (Halo) first (see above discussion). It became evident pretty quickly during the last FAC that the article has problems, but obviously they are fixable. Plus it would be cool as it basically is the "core" article of the project. We could get it peer reviewed or copy-edited while Flood makes its final push for the Star. Thoughts? Black ngold29 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan, let's get the rest of our featured topics! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we make the Halo series a featured topic by eliminating the two unreleased games? I mean, it's really through no fault of us that the games aren't FA because they are unreleased and we can't help that. Just a thought. Nevermind, just saw the Halo trilogy. Black ngold29 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, Gary, for your information I've digressed and have been working on all Myst, Riven, and Exile, so I'm just a busy boy in general :P As for the Music of Halo FT, I suggest that we go through and improve the 'lead' section, i.e., Halo (series)#Music, because right now it doesn't quite encapsulate the entire body of soundtracks that well. That said, I kinda think that it would make sense for the composers to be added- O'Donnell, definitely, but I'm still not sure about Salvatori (mostly because exactly what he does, besides "additional composition", is not clear at all.) Let's not rush in headlong :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, on the Flood front, I'm going to copyedit it a few times, close the peer review and put it up for FAC, prolly within the next week. After that, I've got some non-Halo games I want to focus on, but I'll try sprucing up the music section as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we get the peer review for Halo (series) going now? I think that would probably be the easiest way to fix the most problems, unless someone wants to run through it now. Black ngold29 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Might as well open the PR and get as much info and feedback as we can, I'm not going to be able to sit down and give it the copyediting it deserves for a while, but that's no reason to sit on our hands. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to take care of whatever the peer review comes up with, although if anyone else wants to help please do! After that we could all work on it for a while and then go for the star. Black ngold29 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can help and copyedit whatever needs copyediting. I should note that I don't own an Xbox and only played Halo a small number of times :p Is it really that good a game series? :D Gary King (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Flood (Halo) could use a red pen... as for not owning Halo... heresy :p Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that one looks good overall, but I will see what I can do. Also, are you going to transclude it to WP:FAC? Gary King (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never owned a Halo product, and I played Halo 3 for 5 minutes :) But I love good work when it's happening, so how could I not work with you guys? But I will most likely play the hell out of Halo Wars since I love those kinds of games. Sorry to interrupt :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

@Gary: No, I cleaned up the FAC, but I'm not going to transclude it until I copyedit it, at the very least. I'm gonna do that today, maybe. By the way, according to Bungie.net we've got about one day until the rumored next Halo is announced :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex Seropian

Resolved

We should add him to our project officially, so that with him and Jason Jones, who are the co-founders of Bungie, and with the Bungie article added in, we could eventually have a Bungie featured topic :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at that, and was thinking if we were to make a FT, it would also include Martin O'Donnell and Joseph Staten (basically all the notable Bungie staffers.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Flood at FAC

Resolved

I went ahead and nom'd it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flood (Halo). Third time's the charm, they say... if you guys can lend a hand when concerns come up, it'd be greatly appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And it's now FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Third time's the charm! Good job. Black ngold29 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo (series) FA push

I think we all recognize that this is essentially the core article of the project, and we have reached somewhat of a consensus that it is close to an FA, but not there yet. I recently put the article up for peer review. I had prose and wording in mind more than references, as it seemed to be one of the biggest problems in the article's latest FA review. Unfortunately, the two people that responded concentrated on the references. I don't have a very long history with the article, and while I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Halo, I'm not so up on the newest specifics. Especially when it comes to sourcing minor info. I think we should go through the whole article section by section and find its core and exactly what should be concentrated on; this should clear up the repeated info problem as well. By doing this will probably increase the time before its FAC, but I believe it will create the best possible article, which is exactly what we're trying to achieve, right? Black ngold29 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My advice is don't mind the references, focus on the prose and making in sound good. While the peer review has brought up some points about sourcing, and I might swap some out (in addition to checking/fixing the deadlinks), some of the concerns are not valid (for example, the Microsoft ref for cultural impact is not COI because it's not Microsoft employee, etc., quoted, but a celebrity.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've actually fixed all the dead links, archived the questionables to the Wayback machine, swapped the refs from work to publishers, removed the refs which were "questionable" to Ealdgyth (they were actually quite redundant, so I don't feel that bothering to write defenses of them.) As for the Joystiq and Kotaku refs, I will write up rationales for their meeting WP:RS and put it on the FAC page when we're ready to go ahead. I've also added another paragraph to the lead touching on development and release dates, and removed some of the overlinking. All the article really needs know is a couple good, stiff copyedits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would help to re-structure the article before writing it, hopefully this will help the concentration of each subject. There are certain things that didn't make sense to me, for instance "Movie adapation" being under "Merchendise"; I don't see how the two are connected. Black ngold29 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

blackngold29 proposal

Development
- History
- Literary influences
- Story
Games
- Original trilogy (Merge "Main trilogy" and "Common elements")
- Additional games (Merge "Spin-offs" and "Alternate reality games")
- Music
Books
Film
Canceled projects
Reception and critical response
Cultural impact

Looks good except for the merger of the trilogy and the common elements section; and if you do do it, don't cut any content, as we need to see what the games have in common with each other, as well as discussion of the games themselves. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll keep everything, but it repeats itself more than once if they're seperate. Black ngold29 02:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, what content do you say is repeating? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Common elements" talks about gameplay of only the main trilogy. Then things like XBL and "new vehicles and weapons" are repeated in the Main trilogy section. It seems that really the "Common elements" means "Common elements of the main trilogy". Black ngold29 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true. On one hand, most game series articles feature information on the gameplay; then again, Halo is much more of a media genre-buster. Probably, we should incorporate some of the gameplay into the games section, and then for the common elements and synopsis, merge them together and talk more about story elements and universe rather than the gameplay. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we even need a "common elements"? The games articles cover the topic nicely, and this article is just a general overview of the whole series. Obviously the main trilogy plays a large part in the series, so some info can be included; but do we need two sections ("Main trilogy" and "Common elements") devoted only to the games? Also, what if we merged "Alt-reality games" and "Spinoffs"? I don't think the alt-reality games are really that big of a part in the series that they warrant their own section; just have "Main trilogy" and "Other games". Black ngold29 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep common elements because it is the general overview article, as long as the information listed there is not repeated again in the games section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is being repeated, that's why I want to merge the two. We'd leave the info, just not in it's own section. Black ngold29 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, then that's fine, sectioning varies even between similar types of articles, like series articles. Most of them have that section, but as long as the content is still there, it should be fine. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been busy as hell during this summer, literally reading 1000+ pages to promote several articles, although about 600 remain, this is one of the (if not the) most important articles within this project's scope, I should be able to see you guys at FAC, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-ordered the page and contacted a few people who reviewed the page on it's last FAC. Hopefully that'll give us some more feedback. I'm gonna keep cleaning up when I can. Black ngold29 03:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just closed the peer review, as I think we've got the comments we need... rather draw attention to more needy articles. I've reordered some items (Music shouldn't go under games, and literary influences goes after story arc so people understand the parallels better) but I think copyediting is all it needs now: images have proper rationales, lead is comprehensive, all sources check out, that just leaves "brilliant prose". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image ideas?

Resolved

I'm trying to do a decent featured topic image for 'Halo media' to replace the somewhat-crappy placeholder I made; anyone have any ideas about what such a descriptive image for "halo media" should be? I've tried a combination of books, discs, etc, but the issue is that it should be around 60px horizontal at spec size, and simpler gives us more detail. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Howabout Master Chief reading a book? Perhaps with big Bose headphones on? That's all I can think of at the moment, sorry I'm not much help. It would be cool though... I'll keep thinking. Black ngold29 02:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New better image added, good job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone willing to help?

Hi, I've scoured the internet for more info on development/background for Halo: First Strike but I just can't find anything. I want to get it to GA but I don't think there's enough info already there for it to be counted as comprehensive. There's only one source at the moment and it's rather weedy. Also any copy-editing would be much appreciated but it's the development info that's needed most. Thanks, James086^{Talk | Email} 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think I found anything on ProQuest for it when I did a search, and at any rate don't have access to the database any longer. When I get around to it, I might be able to go check out my library's offering, but that will take a while. Why don't you take a stab at Ghosts of Onyx in the meantime? :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have been rather busy recently so I'm taking a day off. I'll see what I can do. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually have Ghosts of Onyx so I can't add page numbers for the plot section. I suppose I could find websites that summarise the story but I prefer to use the primary source for the plot section. Does anyone have a copy? James086^{Talk | Email} 15:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't either ATM, unless I got one that fell off the internet cart *cough cough* but I could prolly borrow someone's copy, I'll try and get on that today (I actually only had the audiobook for Contact Harvest, but hey, that didn't stop me.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I own both Halo: First Strike & Ghosts of Onyx. Dont know how much help I can be but let me know and Ill see what I can do. Dark Destroyer of Worlds (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Article merge

Resolved

Shouldn't List of Halo 3 Weapons be deleted or merged into Halo 3? Seems pretty pointless to me. Thoughts? Black ngold29 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

redirected without merge, unless the article has cool information we didn't already know about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. It belongs in a stragtegy guide, or maybe Halopedia. Black ngold29 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Factions of Halo featured topic

Perhaps instead of launching this one, we could add in both the halo superstructure article and the SPARTAN project article, and call it "Universe of Halo", or "Fictional Universe of Halo". We could even do a "Fictional world of Halo" topic merged with the character featured topic to cover all the fiction articles in one topic. I just had this thought, others? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it. We could have the "Halo publications" topic above and this one. So it's simple: One out-of-universe topic, one in-universe topic. I think the more articles per Featured topic the better. Black ngold29 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The only question, if we liked that idea, is which article to be the lead.... the Halo (series) one? A new article? Probably the series article would be our best option. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been wondering too... if it's the universe, then yes, the series article can link off... we just need to make sure that the universe aspect is well covered in the series article (which it should be...) I agree wholeheartedly... condensing everything into two super-topics fits my fancy (of course, we still need to clean up that stuff, but first, the Halo media!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. These 2 wouldn't include all of our articles though, we would still need to make another topic encompassing Bungie, the people and HBO to have all articles. But the "Halo universe" topic sounds like a great idea. We are surprisingly close to having the Halo media FT now. Only a few articles to go. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But realistically, there's just not enough info out there on Jason Jones and such to get a FT (at least not for now) and that still leaves poor Salvatori out in the cold... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, I agree we should work on the Media first, but once we get all the in-universe stuff up too, wouldn't it make sense to just have an ultimate "Halo topic" with every article in the project? Of course, it'll be a while, but once we get that approved we'll all have to find something else to do.... Black ngold29 23:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... I think if we started going too high up the ladder, we'd be asked, "why doesn't this include machinima, et al". The larger the topic, the larger the scope and less chance it is comprehensive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Jones and salvatori will be difficult to boost to GA, but if they could be, we could have three halo topics containing every article in the project...wow! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could talk about this all day, but we should probably work on the articles instead, heh. I started doing a few other things, but should have time this week to go through Halo (series) for a few c/e runs. Anyone want to help or work on I Love Bees, Halo: Uprising, or Marketing for Halo 3? Black ngold29 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

i've been working on Halo: Uprising; the third issue is (hopefully) coming out in a few weeks, so hopefully there should be more information for reception (the background isn't too bad right now.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fictional World of Halo (3 points remaining)

So we just have to get Halo megastructure, SPARTAN Project, and Factions of Halo to GA, and this one will be done too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the megastructure and SPARTAN are going to need a boatload of work... but Factions just needs some cleanup and expansion of its critical reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Factions scope

Bungie has, in case you didn't know, a trove of info at Bungie Publications (if not for the presentation, I never would have had enough info to boost Flood to FA.) A few of them (three to four, actually) deal with AI behaviors in Halo and its sequels, e.g.[1] and such. My question is, should/could this go in Factions of Halo and its child pages? On one hand, it's somewhat tangental to the design, and its more technical. Then again, we can and are talking about AI in the reception (so far, and there is much more to be mined) so it makes sense talking about how they came to be. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents, but I don't think it's tangential. I wouldn't include nearly all of it, but 1-3 sentences on how they designed the character to operate in the game environment would be an interesting and totally new area to address in the character, world of, or video games articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I was thinking just a "Behavior design" subsection to cover general principles and their progression through Halo -> Halo 3. Nothing too long, just a preface before reception and impact. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The motherlode for more info?

Resolved

Bringing me new hope to possibly expand or up some of our middling or seemingly-stuck-at-GA articles, announced at Comic-Con there will be Prima's Halo 3 Art Book- it's essentially the Art of Halo, updated (and hopefully since it's by Prima, will have more content than pretty pictures.) I'm going to try and grab a copy when it comes out in September(?) so this should be a huge help to bolstering articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome, and may give us some insurance if Featured Topics ever go all FA :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Factions Of Halo

Resolved

Has Nothing To Do With List of Halo vehicles, Therefore Should Not Redirect There. I Worked On That Article For Several Hours. KP317

Unless you show us that enough secondary, reliable sources exist about the vehicles in the Halo universe, don't recreate the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

LOOK AT ANY STRATEGY GUIDE OR HALO's WEBSITE. it doesn't matter of that, LIST OF HALO VEHICLES SHOULDN'T REDIRECT THERE. this is a different discussion. what we need to be discussing is NOT whether or not it is a realiable article, we need to be discussing why it shouldnt be linked to factions of halo. KP317 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where else would you redirect the article then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] But seriously, instead of complaining about the current situation, why not suggest a better alternative? It can remain a redirect, get redirected to something else, be deleted, put through an articles for deletion discussion where more people will see it and discuss the merits of the article. The thing is though, there just aren't enough secondary sources for the list to remain as its own article. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we have anything else that is more like the article, but typing in that is just misleading. I don't know, it seems like redirecting it to Factions of Halo is just a cheap way to give Factions of Halo more views (i know it sounds stupid, but think about it). Like I could see "Brute" redirecting there, or something like that, but are there any other articles discussing items and things like that in halo? KP317 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There's stuff discussing Brutes at Covenant (Halo)#Brutes. List of Halo vehicles and the like direct here because it's the most logical place. There's content about vehicles in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Xbox

Dear WikiProject Halo participants....WikiProject Xbox is currently looking for more help editing Xbox and Xbox 360 related articles, and considering the fact that you are a WikiProject Halo member, we ask for your help. You can sign up here. Thanks. BW21.--Black Watch 21 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Halo

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooh, look at all those FAs! :P I'm going to go through and do minor tweaks and copyedits, anyone who has any time join in! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

With an October 20th deadline does anyone think we could make a push to get the final 2 up to FA? I haven't contributed much lately, perhaps this'll be a good oppurtunity. Black ngold29 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, not likely. Halo (series) is close (just needing copyediting, really) but I've got my own FACs up. When 0.7 goes out it won't really matter what class they are, its the actual quality, so we shouldn't feel a rush to promote for that reason. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you're saying. I'll try to look over them at some point. Black ngold29 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? If we all team up, we can get Bungie into proper condition, and Halo series is basically there, so lets do it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Hao series first, then. It just needs some stiff copyediting, I think everything else from the FAC was taken care of (sources and such.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the 0.7 stuff, what we need to do is fill out the proper information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. When a good oldid is found (I suggest holding off on Halo 3 until we figure out how to address the DLC/updates) add it at User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3. And then we're done. Just make sure the oldid's are the best possible :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"List of Halo Vehicles"

Resolved

Isn't this article (List of Halo Vehicles) and the several articles it has links to (should be 4 or 5 right now, looks like more are planned) against the notablility poilicy or something? I thought I'd point this out here, since I don't really know how to deal with articles like this (I mainly edit every now and then, never tried a deletion thing). Sorry for kind of pushing this on you, but I knew I had to bring it up somewhere for more expereienced users to look at. Thanks, Rigamarole's Needle (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigamarole's Needle (talk • contribs)

Yes, List of Halo vehicles has been deleted in the past due to not meeting notability guidelines of significant reliable sources. While we might be able to make one with sources we have, it was decided to merge the content in instead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Marketing for Halo 3 rename?

Resolved

I (think) I'm going to actually sit down, cleanup, expand, and promote this article to GA. But I was thinking: wouldn't a less clunky title be Halo 3 marketing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be a good plan. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, I doubt there are many similar articles so naming it probably pretty wide open. Black ngold29 04:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok done. Now the cleanup begins :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and rehabilitation of Halo 2

I started thinking about this when I had to decruftify the plot and gameplay of Halo 3, but it looks like Halo 2 could use some revamping as well. It was promoted back in April 2007, back when I was a relative newbie and standards at FAC were a bit more lax, and looking at it now it has numerous issues; while I've begun updating the sales info and other pertinent numbers:

Plot may be overly long, links need to be checked to avoid redirections.
Whole sections are almost entirely unreferenced.
Development is scanty.
There's much less in critical reception than there could be, given all the reviews out there.

Over the next few weeks (hopefully it won't take longer than that), I'm going to start reorganizing, cleaning, and adding to the article. Any help would be great. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible merges

I've been thinking... dangerous I know, but I've got my eye on revamping Covenant (Halo), slimming the appearances, expanding development and building reception, and I was wondering if we could merge Elite (Halo) back. I know it's a GA, but I think it could be easily handled in the space of the subheading; not to mention the content would go a long way towards building up the reception and marketing sections of the parent article.

Secondly, SPARTAN project; while there's info out there, I just haven't been able to find much in the way of development information. My thought is to bring back the Spartan subheading in Characters of Halo and cram in some of the relevant bits there.

Thoughts on the above? --03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the above merging part of FAC pushes? Just curious. And as long as the articles don't get too big or lose and reliable sources, then a merger would be fine, especially as part of an FA push. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally I would be getting Covenant to FA, yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Halo: The Cole Protocol plotline

Is anyone willing to add the complete plotline in Halo: The Cole Protocol? I haven't read it, so I can't help with that yet, but has anyone else here read it? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, unfortunately (although the preview on bungie.net didn't make me want to go find it anyhow.) And the halo.wikia.com page doesn't have a full plot either... I think we're just going to have to wait for it... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)