Talk:Halo 3/Archive 11

message: I archived last one, easier now. Please remember new discussions on the bottom.
The Walkin Dude 15:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: It seems we have a Halo Hating vandal in here. Somebody put back the 'records' section please. He took out the records section. Littlenickle 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Records" section was never removed. It was renamed Sales. --Silver Edge 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It seems we have a Halo Hating vandal in here. Somebody put back the 'records' section please

message: Way I see it, here's what we're missing right now:
* All the langauge needs to be updated to make sure it's post-release.
* Development needs to be expanded.
* All references need to be properly formatted.
* Get rid of weasel words, anything of that sort. 
Anyone else see something we need? David Fuchs (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been protected since September 5, maybe we should lift the protection now, it has been over a month since the release of the game and while we can expect some vandalism its not going to be as numerous as it was back there, I'm just saying this because semi-protection can be wrongly interpreted as unstability when reviewing this article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I unprotected. Hopefully it will have dropped off, but I guess we'll see... David Fuchs (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea ThebestkianoT|C 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reapplied semi-protection, since anonymous and new user edits after unprotection didn't look so hot. We can try again in two weeks or so, but given that currently all of the Halo trilogy articles are semi-protected, this may be a case of more or less indefinite semi-protection, unfortunately. In terms of evaluating the stability requirement for GA/FA, vandalism should always be discounted when judging that criterion, so semi-protection should not be a factor. Full protection is usually indicative of a genuine content dispute, and thus is taken into account. — TKD::Talk 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is kind of weird... I think it's that vandals are going after Halo 3, and then the closest articles available... you'd think a month after release the vandalism would've dropped down a bit... hopefully it won't be an issue for too much longer. David Fuchs (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff to do 

message: I think it would be a good idea to identify the planet in the legendary ending as a Mechanized planet, because it did seem to be covered with lights. Chamboozer 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nontrivial interpretation of primary-source material, and thus original research, which isn't allowed. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless we get into trivial portions of the additions, like individual weapons, there is no need or reason for a seperate article. David Fuchs (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creation of such a secondary page would probably not be advisable. There is precedent for deleting such sub-pages, and unless anything major has changed (other than Halo 3, that is) I see no reason to reverse the situation. Ourai тʃс 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we shouldn't create a separate page for such trivial material, as a matter of fact we should merge the Covenant vehicles page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Source? — TKD::Talk 17:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet at the End

message: Should we add an article about the easter eggs in Halo 3 like the secret grunt and mongoose on the Halo level and all the other ones?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See WP:GAMEGUIDE. -- Kesh 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, that falls under WP:TRIVIA. There was already an easter egg/errors section in this article that has been removed. SpigotMap 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Easter Eggs

message: Honestly every othe major wikipedia article does it, I've seen this been done in hundreds of landmark albums by musicians, movies, books, you name it. Why not in Halo 3? We'll put the reception and the impact Halo had in the same article
Glencoe999 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like the current layout, as the 'Release' section doesn't go into critques, just the facts. But it's up to consensus. David Fuchs (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey guys, why don't we put the Sales section in the critical reception article? Named "Reception and impact"?

message: Debra Wilson, an actress, is not credited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.182.52 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: Looks great, I don't see anything particularly wrong. Good friend100 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I suggest you continue to improve this article to FA status. I see room for improvement in the characters section. Also, remember to update anything such as awards. Good friend100 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: I'm gonna have plenty of time this week to address concerns. Should I just nominate it for FAC? David Fuchs (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I will have a lot of time this week and next week might be a bit busy, I know we are still on hot waters but it seems that now its a good time to create Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I didn't contribute much to the article other than fixing refs and reverting some cruft I think I'll be able to help now. I'm much better at implementing direct suggestions such as those from a FAC and I finish my exams on Friday so next week I'll have plenty of time to spare. Well done on the article so far, I didn't look at it much since before the GA-push and it's really improved. James086Talk | Email 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I wanted to apologize for not finishing my review on the article, unfortunately I was busy with RL stuff. Since the discussion there is closed, I'm willing to put in a few cents here.  Comment on my talk page should any issues arise.
Prose is better than before, much better. A few minor grammar tweaks are needed (like ambiguity such as using the word "this" and not following it with a noun), but its getting very close.  I noticed there are a couple of citation tags that need to be filled in with references.  Also, I feel that two images aren't necessary for the different editions; one, definately, but not two, stick with the legendary.  Maybe a comment from the composer in the audio section?  Seems more about sound effects than music to me... same goes for cast: try and get a comment or something. That's a short note for now, I must be off.  I apologize again for the late (embarrassingly so) reply. Zemalia (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC?

message: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 13 says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Is Halopedia reliable enough? Obviously we can't use it as a source but this is the External links section. Bungie thinks its pretty good . I don't mind either way. James086Talk | Email 08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: Somebody's gone and moved the sales out of its own paragraph and into reception, however I feel that it was better served by having a seperate section before the actual crtical commentary. In other words, which is better, A:
Marketing and release
Versions
Sales
Reception
Or B:
Marketing and release
Versions
Reception
Sales
Thoughts, then? David Fuchs (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sales stuff should be under "Marketing and release" and leave the awards and reviews to "Reception and impact". Release is more closely related to sales while reception is sort of related to sales but it's more about reviews and what people thought of it. James086Talk | Email 12:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of Sales 

message: Does having a site listed in the 'awards section' that is stating "the game is nominated eleven times for the GameStooge Awards, scheduled for January 1, 2008." come across as site advertisement? I mean, I see no problem after the awards are given that this is a fact of the game and its popularity and achievements, but this comes across and soliciting site hits. Any opinions?
Tom  —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards Section