Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo/Archive 3

message: Hey all, I'm just putting this down here so someone can stop me if I'm crazy, otherwise I'm just going to do it. Basically, we've got a sh!tload of listed participants, but obviously upwards of 75%, most likely more, are not active. So I created this, which I figure we'll put on every single listed participant's page. It'll be painstaking, but we'll clean out any who aren't active anymore and make targeted editing/collaboration much easier. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea--$UIT 18:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit late to the party, but I think a category works quite well. Asking people to add themselves to the category and then deleting the list. I realise that now is not a good time since there was just a rolecall, but next time the list becomes too big keep it in mind. I already did this for Wikiproject Automomobiles with a template (User:James086/autonote) similar to the one employed by David. The advantage of a category is that it never becomes unmanagable like the list, the disadvantage is that it doesn't indicate who's active or not like the list does. James086Talk | Email 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're exactly right about the disadvantage, which is not insubstantial. Since it's generally frowned upon to edit another editor's user page without their consent, a category makes removing inactive users from the rolls problematic.  I prefer the current list method, which can be pruned without controversy from time to time. -- Satori Son 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:WPHALO Muster Call? 

message: To keep things short; Flood (Halo) is up for FA here. Also, I started the Halo portal here. It's far from complete, but you can see what I'm doing. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied much of it from WP:FOOD, a featured portal, and then I'm just reversing it to haloish stuff. David Fuchs 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Developments 

message: theres is a new page for halo 2 vista I think it should be added to project halo--Link287 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add halo 2 vista page

message: I went through all the Halo articles listed on the main project page and updated the revevant ones with E3 happenings, mostly character pages like the Arbiter and Cortana, Marketing for Halo 3, Halo 3 and Halo Wars. I'm sure I've missed stuff and made mistakes, but I just thought it'd be good to give all the pages an update (some characters hadn't had any updates even though they were confirmed for Halo 3). As well, some guy deleted all the confirmed elements for Halo Wars as per "Wikipedia is not" (a game/unit guide). 
Also, I merged the Cole Protocol into the UNSC article as per the notice, the CP article was tiny and basically just an exact copy of the novels. It now exists as a subsection in the UNSC article.
Bronzey 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea- I'm going to take a look at the UNSC page soon, because some of the material between it, the Covenant article, and Halo universe is redundant (in terms of history and such). As for E3, good job staying on top- I didn't even know it had started! :P David Fuchs 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: E3 2007 - Bronzey goes rampant

message: Just wondering (because Wikipedia is too complicated for me :D), does the project page update itself with all articles in the "Halo" category, or do they need to be manually found and added? If they do, it might be a bit hard because some are stubs or are recreated/deleted every few months (like the lists of weapons and vehicles which always have a lot of debate). Bronzey 02:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of weapons and/or vehicles should be deleted or redirected, since without any real-world info (for example, how Bungie designed them) and lots ot sources they won't make it very far. Plus, many stubs can be redirected as well. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't know HOW the project page would be able to find articles by itself, do you? ;)--Zxcvbnm 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so they don't find articles by themselves :P Bronzey 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: AAAAAH! I just did a quick search for some articles - found around 30. I've added them to the main list, most of them are fancruft about Longswords and the MA5C, stuff like that. Bronzey 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Halo article hunting

message: Hi. I've just been looking around some of the articles that are managed by the project and the styles seem hugely different from one to the other. For example, instead of having one article for "UNSC Vehicles in Halo" and another for "Covenant Vehicles in Halo" (even assuming we'd have them as they'd probably get AFD'd), the UNSC vehicles are inside the UNSC main article. Yet, there's no article for Covenant weapons and a separate article for the MAC. Just wondering: can some kind of consensus be reached about the crufty articles and just how (if all) we're going to include weapons, factions, etc. We have a Halo universe article for the general thing, as well as a whole lot of articles that basically say the exact same thing (i.e. the Covenant and UNSC articles, ODST, etc).
Basically, there's no communication about what's important enough to get its own article. Main characters and locations, for example, yes, but does Elite (Halo) need an article when it could just be merged into Covenant (Halo)? Do we need lists of every vehicle and weapon? Bronzey 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:HALO article organisation

message: Thought you guys might be interested that I proposed renaming  / :Category:Rareware stubs to Template:Microsoft-videogame-stub and :Category:Microsoft video game stubs. This would mean it would include Rare, Bungee, and XBOX (and minesweeper). See it here.
I also made some proposals for new stub-types here. If you're interested. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 07:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub proposals and stub renaming proposals 

message: I just removed a pile of unsourceable original research in the form of custom game types from this article. As it turns out, that constituted close to 60% of the article. Is there any compelling reason why we shouldn't just redirect this to Halo 2#Multiplayer, given the lack of reliable third-party sources? — TKD::Talk 11:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it. — TKD::Talk 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, so it did turn into a dumping ground for random gametypes. To give some background, I created this article in response to an AfD on Team Slayer (or somesuch) as a preventative measure against gametype-cruft. I haven't checked on the article in close to a year, so I understand how it appeared to be in disrepair. For what it's worth, I think there's room for a general gametype article for all three Halo games, or perhaps for multiplayer shooters in general. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't doubt the possibility that reliable sources might be possible for Halo multiplayer, especially in light of MLG and such; if not, definitely for FPS games in general. In fact, I remember holding that sort of position somewhat strongly in some older AfD debates. As I've come to learn since then, the reality is unfortunately that, unless you actually have concrete, sourced material to add to the article, someone will eventually AfD it anyway (I'm surprised it wasn't renominated earlier), and you'll be spending time meanwhile doing reverts to tread water against the tide of inanity, so just letting the article sit standalone in as minimal of a cruftacular state as possible while waiting for sources isn't really an optimal use of people's efforts. — TKD::Talk 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there's enough coverage in the gaming media to source a general article in the future. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of multiplayer gametypes in Halo 2]] 

message: I'm going to PROD MA5C Assault Rifle and Spartan laser. If you have objections remove the template from the article now and then discuss it here. I don't think individual weapons should have articles, even if the Assault Rifle is a significant one, I don't think it needs an encyclopedia article. James086Talk | Email 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how either of these articles can meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR, so I agree with the Prod and have noted so on the articles. -- Satori Son 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected both to Halo 3#Weapons; if we just delete the articles, sooner or later someone will misguidedly re-create them, since they are reasonable search terms. This way, they'll find some relevant information, and the redirects discourage standalone articles. — TKD::Talk 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea for now, but I doubt that the Halo 3 article will have a "Weapons" section in the long term. See Halo 2, which had the "Vehicles", "Powerups", and "Weapons" sections removed by the time it achieved Featured Article status. -- Satori Son 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could have sections on the weapons, but usually there is not too much to say. But you have to levy those sections with out of universe info anyhow- and the only way I've found to do that is use The Art of Halo. David Fuchs (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The presence of these weapons has been documented as changes from Halo 2 to Halo 3, so theoretically, when the article is fleshed out, we could point the redirects to the development section, perhaps. — TKD::Talk 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would work. We'll just have to wait and see. -- Satori Son 15:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Just noting some stuff... unfortunately we can't promote or finish any articles off until Halo 3 comes out. But Covenant (Halo) is almost decruftified, still needs some more sourcing and oou info. The Flood failed FAC last time because it didn't have enough out of universe info, hopefully once Halo 3 rolls around we'll be able to finish it off... United Nations Space Command needs a lot of work, I cleaned up the plot and added sections for the notable ships, like In Amber Clad and whatnot, much like in the Covenant section. I also merged MAC guns into that article as well. What else.. oh yeah, since so much of the articles have lots of plot, specifically the Covenant and UNSC, I cut down their histories to about 1/3 of what was originally there, and I think all that plot should be handled on the Halo universe page, along with notable locations and planets. The Master Chief is also ready for GA, possible FA once '3 comes out. That just leaves fixing up/adding to Characters in the Halo series, Cortana and the other spinoff character pages, the novels (which I guess I will start on, seeing as we have a month before Halo)... and prolly other stuff that I can't think of now. David Fuchs (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I created a sort of project-wide Projects board here, so people can add articles they want attention drawn to or whatnot. It's easier than sorting through several todos on multiple pages. David Fuchs (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the legendary edition pre-ordered, so there will probably be a hefty volume of info on the various extras that come with it. As for the project board, it asks for the current status of the article in question, how about we set up an assessment structure like many other wikiprojects (leveling articles on importance and quality)? James086Talk | Email 23:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be overseas until Sep. 29th, so it'll be a little while before I can get on. I'm sure there'll be heaps of stuff added in the first few days, but it's going to be hard to find all the articles that need updating :P Bronzey 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure the WP:HALO project template we put on the talk pages has a low/mid/high importance tag- let me check... nope. Although the CVG wikiproject has a good implementation, with the todo.... I'll see about modifying our template to match that. David Fuchs (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The week before and first few days after Halo 3 is released will probably see a lot of new articles about the game (like MA5C Assault Rifle) which will need to be turned into redirects/deleted. James086Talk | Email 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Prolly we will want to turn them into redirects, as people will continue trying to create them if they are deleted. The worst that happens with redirects is that the cruft ends up on the main page. David Fuchs (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, then we can concentrate on one page instead of 50. Oh yeah and I just came across  Perhaps we should add it to the main page in the articles section? It's odd though, I can't seem to get it to align to the right. James086Talk | Email 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find. David Fuchs (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of the template, I found  has what we want in terms of top priority, as well as the global todo. But my attempts at appropriating the code failed miserably. I guess if one of you guys knows how to do it, you can, otherwise I might ask one of the editors of the CVG template if he or she can lend a hand with ours. David Fuchs (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status, Worf 

message: Given that all of the articles in this category have been merged, and it is unlikely that standalone articles for any single weapon in Halo would be warranted, I nominated the category for deletion. — TKD::Talk 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I'm still trying to track down random Halo articles that need to be deleted or redirected, it's a little hard with 10+ pages of results :P Bronzey 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck :) I've already gotten all the ones on our article list, so its tracking down the ones under our radar now.. David Fuchs (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Halo space weapons]] 

message: I saw that you guys put a bunch of articles relating to Halo machinima on the main project page. If you're willing to include those articles in the project scope (which would be fine by me), someone should tag the relevant talk pages. If no one does it by the time I get home, I'll do it with AWB. Also, do you want to include articles in :Category:Red vs. Blue characters (which, unfortunately, turned out cruftier than I wanted, although a couple are GAs)? — TKD::Talk 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could, wether we should is up in the air. We are sort of a half-parent to RvB, although we might want to just leave it to machinima. All those articles were on the project page to begin with, I just organized them a little more clearly. David Fuchs (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machinima articles 

message: This message is posted here to inform that that 35 links (likely on the low side) of a suspected 102 were detected to be dead links.  External links are primarily used in references and should be treated as if the references were missing.  Cross posted from WP:CVG —Dispenser 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Bronzey 06:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically articles covered under the wikiproject halo umbrella have dead links (9 on  Halo 2) and that this may lead to (if other things deteriorate) the downgrading of those articles.  —Dispenser 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed half of them, and  think I can replace the other two or three with content from HBO. David Fuchs (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh. Dead links being the red ones? Shows what I know :P Bronzey 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is that the external links don't go red. I've removed all of them in Halo 2, however it will still show two dne's because I have archived urls for refs, which has the original link in it as well. David Fuchs (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Right now, we theoretically only have ~48 articles, however as seen by our article list we have quite a few more, including the machinima articles. If someone could help by adding the Halo category to these pages, as well as the  on the talk pages, I would find it very helpful (right now I'm categorixing Halo screenshots in the imagespace.) David Fuchs (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Energy shield and Slipstream (science fiction) aren't tagged as WP:HALO articles but seeing as they aren't completely Halo related should we still tag them? I have tagged every other article on the list. I have not categorised the articles, I may not have time until the weekend so I'll do it on Saturday if no-one has by then. James086Talk | Email 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They definitely should as well, but thanks for your work so far! :) David Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the articles in the list on the main WP:HALO page are in :Category:Halo or one of its subcategories, also I think every article in :Category:Halo and all of its subcategories has the  template on its respective talk. James086Talk | Email 10:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope i'm not being too forward about this, but maybe we could get some people to work on the This Spartan Life wiki, This Spartan Life is being featured on the Halo 3 Legendary Edition, so there is a good likely hood of increase traffic to it, and right now its only a B-class, i have tons of information about TSL, i just don't know how to make a good wiki, if there is someone willing to improve it they're more than welcome to, and i am willing to get what ever information they require. --Downskated 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff we should do 

message: After a bit of work, I think that the Master Chief article is the next closest to becoming FA-class. It's Impact section needs expansion, and we need to finish up and cite the Halo3/Uprising appearances, but other than that it's gone through peer review and has loads of out of universe info. David Fuchs (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking pretty good. Some time in the next week, I might try to run through the prose and copyedit. — TKD::Talk 05:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Master Chief (Halo)]] 

message: Does any live nearby or is travelling to Las Vegas? If so could you please visit Madame Tussauds and take a photo of the wax Master Chief? Not only will it help illustrate the Halo 3 article, but it would be a free image, so if/when Master Chief (Halo) becomes featured, it can have an image on the main page. Entry costs US$24 for an adult (online). Ask friends/family if they're travelling there too, but remember to tell them that the image has to be released under a free license. James086Talk | Email 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the few times I actually wish I could go to Vegas... :) David Fuchs (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a request like this one on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Las Vegas aswell because I think it would be more successful there. James086Talk | Email 09:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one is able to get this by January, I'll be at the Consumer Electronics Show and will swing by. -- Satori Son 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! David Fuchs (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. A picture primarily of a copyrighted sculpture is probably not going to be free use. See commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?: "you will not be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so." The confusion comes from the fact that pictures of 3-D art works generate a new copyright (whereas ones of 2-D art do not); however, the copyright of the depicted work doesn't go away. — TKD::Talk 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, TKD is right. With a bit of inspection it seems that photos of artwork are also copyrighted, so it means that we can't use photos of the statue at Madame Tussauds or the toys or anything similar. James086Talk | Email 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor extremely well-made fan costumes that go for US$21K on eBay. :-p — TKD::Talk 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In all seriousness, I remember that there were some issues with Star Wars and anime stuff being uploaded to Commons a while back and the subsequent deletions and mass of redlinks once the matter was straightened out, which is how I realized that there was a problem with this situation in the first place. — TKD::Talk 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madame Tussauds 

message: Think we should take it over to WP:FAC, now that the info from Halo 3 has been added? David Fuchs (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done everyone who helped write it. I didn't have much to do with it so I can't take any credit. This means that 3/7 of our top priority articles are featured. That's an impressive ratio. James086Talk | Email 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to David for finding and sourcing most of the out-of-universe information. On a side note, it would've been interesting if the article  had been promoted when I had exactly 117 edits to it, after this edit. :) — TKD::Talk 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA for [[Master Chief (Halo)]]? 

message: With Master Chief as a FAC and I'm sure many of us are planning on making Halo 3 a featured article too, how about aiming a little higher? I'm thinking of a featured topic. Take a look at my sandbox for 2 possibilities. Feel free to edit it and change which articles we could use. Of course it doesn't yet meet the criteria but if we select a group of articles to concentrate on I think that we could have a featured topic by the end of the year. James086Talk | Email 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could have Halo (series), Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2 provided we improve the first one... so we certainly have options, no? I'd be against using the Cov/Flood ones just because they still need more out of universe stuff, Covenant much more so than Flood. David Fuchs (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would be fine, but we would have to include Halo 3 so it isn't cherry-picking, which is not allowed. I'm sure we can get Halo 3 to featured standard within a few months. James086Talk | Email 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Topic? 

message: Should we class all the Covenant pages in one section, UNSC pages in another section, a section for Forerunner articles(IF we have any?) and all the flood articles in their own section too?
McCarrot 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the list on the project page itself, or to the actual articles categories? For the former, I don't think that there's enough articles to warrant a futrher breakdown, and there are already separate categories for the various Halo factions. — TKD::Talk 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorize Pages?? 

message: Someone has once again recreated an article for Halo 4. Although it has been previously deleted four times, this time Neutrality simply redirected it to Halo (series).
I tend to agree with this solution, and have stated so on the talk page.  Any thoughts on this? Has this issue been discussed before? -- Satori Son 20:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:CRYSTAL basically covers this. David Fuchs (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll leave it as a redirect for now (as opposed to deleting it for a fifth time). -- Satori Son 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alientraveller has retargeted the redirect to Halo Wars. I'm not sure that's accurate or helpful. — TKD::Talk 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted. -- Satori Son 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Halo 4]] 

message: What is the status of Portal:Halo? It looks mostly complete in terms of structure, but most subpages, such as news, haven't been updated since June. I did take the liberty of eliminating the to-do redlink by templatizing the to-do list from the main project page. — TKD::Talk 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that perhaps the light-green color being used inside the text boxes could be used as background and the text space of the boxes themselves be left white, just to allow easier reading by avoiding the contrast between black and green. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the black on the lighter green, but, I agree that black on dark green is too hard to read. As a bit of an experiment, I've made the box heading text white, and made the shade of light green background somewhat lighter to better contrast with the text. I think an all-green background might look a bit jarring with the blue main portal links at the top. — TKD::Talk 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't really done anything with Portal:Halo (although I came up with a cool image trick which could give us a faux background-image ability) because I think that we should work on getting the articles up to snuff first. Way I see it, our priority should be Halo 3, then a Featured Topic, and then a Portal. After all, you need good quality articles to showcase. David Fuchs (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I was just wondering whether there was ever any real effort (after the initial creation) to update it at all. — TKD::Talk 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I never added it to the Portal page; it's still listed as under construction. David Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With Halo 3 Featured we should have little trouble getting a Featured Topic, maybe "Games in the Halo series". - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once I can grab quotes for citing Halo 3, I should be able to get Flood (Halo) up to FA in the coming months as well, but it still needs a lot of work... as for the UNSC and Covenant articles, they still need more out of universe info. I would say our next best bet outside of the games/series is a character, perhaps Cortana? David Fuchs (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the Arbiter. There should be enough information about reception, given the controversy surrounding the player character dichotomy of Halo 2. — TKD::Talk 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The only missing piece would be to promote Halo (series) to at least GA status. Although that article has had a previous failed GA nomination, my thought is that, once Halo 3 is up to snuff, we should be able to use various references from the game articles and Master Chief (Halo) to figure out how to improve the prose overview of the series as a whole. — TKD::Talk 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can work with the In-game sources to begin, but Cortana seems like a great choice. On a related note some references have been added to Hierarchs (Halo)‎ and Forerunner (Halo) but the pages need some out out of universe info and some cleanup if we are to take them to GAC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, if it's sourced, they'll give you GA- unfortunately, not many reviewers know too much about WP:WAF, which burned me since it was so easy to get Flood (Halo) and Covenant (Halo) to GA. David Fuchs (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Exams? Where do you go to school? I'm busy too, but that's because I've got a docket of two articles at FAC and another two I want to promote within this month. But after that... David Fuchs (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAF should be taken under consideration depending the topic, because we can write Forerunners  from a somewhat Real World perspective but when we get to the "Character desing" part we would be screwed considering they don't actually pocess a desing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, The Art of Halo has a boatload of stuff on architectural design for the Forerunners (as well as the Covenant, that's where I got the whole first section from.) David Fuchs (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it have a desing for the Forerunners themselves? the architectural art can be used to reference the "Art and architecture" section. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, lots of stuff on the "visual language". Of course, it was released before Halo 2 so we would want some more recent info too, but when I get around to it I'll start adding the refs. David Fuchs (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, I will start working with Cortana as soon as WWE RAW is over. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, your school year's off by half the year from ours... good luck, then! David Fuchs (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I think you'll find that your school year is half a year off from ours ;P James086Talk | Email 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: Somewhat recently, WP:TFA/R was revamped such that only five simultaneous requests (over the next 30 days) may be outstanding at any given time. Halo 2 was released on November 9, and Halo: Combat Evolved on November 15, so the window for requesting a relevant main page feature date for those two FAs is soon approaching. Should we try to get one of those scheduled for the main page? Anyone have a preference for either? (Speaking personally, I copyedited Halo: Combat Evolved during its FA push, so I have more interest in that article.) — TKD::Talk 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the original Halo on the 15th because November 9 already has a request. James086Talk | Email 10:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that happened soon after I posted the note here. — TKD::Talk 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and nominated Combat Evolved for November 15 since the Montreal Screwjob is taking up November 9 (and to be honest I have been supporting this date for the Screwjob for some time now), this was the last space available for this month so I nominated before somebody took it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, although I wouldn't be surprised if it gets removed until next week, since that page is supposed to be a 30-day window. — TKD::Talk 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? is that a new feature? from what I recall there was no time frame for nomination. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was revamped into its current form by Raul654 somewhat recently; the idea was that too many nominations with dates too far out were swamping the page. (See the bold instructions at the top.) — TKD::Talk 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a pain... I should have read that before, well if they remove it we only need to wait five days and paste it back. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this diff, which eliminated everything except the 5-article, 30-day queue. — TKD::Talk 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that (see who's on the other side of the diff) but what Raul removed there were articles that lacked a request date, no mention of the 30-day limit back then. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ←Ah, right you are. Hmm, not sure when exactly the 30-day limit was put into place, then, but I would imagine that it'd have been shortly afterward. — TKD::Talk 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests]] 

message: A request that if anyone can, try and dredge up sources. Specifically, we need stuff on her creation and reception. The in-game citation and novels won't be a problem, it's the out of universe stuff. James, does the Legendary have anything meaninful about her? David Fuchs (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Online sources are scarce, I only managed to find this interview with Lorraine McLees , where she speaks a little of Cortana. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I guess we can somehow use the fact that McFarlane has produced a figure of her as part of their "Halo 3: Series 1" lineup  to add a little material for reception, this combined with what some reviewers may have stated in Halo reviews can produce a good section. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much about Cortana that I've seen so far. I'll keep a look out though. James086Talk | Email 05:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cortana]] 

message: I was just on the Halo portal page and it needs to be updated.  For instance it has not been updated to the release of Halo 3.  I would do so myself but I'm not really sure what all the policys are for a portal page and what all information should be covered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rearete (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this previous discussion to know why, this project has some prioriorities before the portal. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal Page 

message: An IP editor has raised NPOV and sourcing concerns at Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved#Halo's influence. I did find a couple of legitimate issues, which I've addressed. However, since, as we discussed, we'd like to see this article hit the Main Page on November 15 (when it would receive even more scrutiny), we probably want to make sure that we're all happy with the state of the article sooner rather than later. It's been a long while since the article passed FAC, so it might be worth having more pairs of eyes give a second comb-through just to make sure nothing unexpected has crept in over time. Also, if anyone is aware of any new sources that should be incorporated, now might be a good time to do that. — TKD::Talk 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more opinions at [[Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved#Halo's influence]] 

message: While looking through Google Scholar, I found this book. Does anyone have it? It seems as if it'd be a good source for Halo (series), as well as a few other key articles. I'm probably going to pick it up as soon as I can find a couple other good things from Amazon to ship with it. — TKD::Talk 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Halo Effect'' 

message: Because of the growing "knowledge" that earning Halo 3 achievements while disconnected from Xbox Live makes the achievement date appear to be January 1, 1753, a lot of anonymous users have over the past couple weeks been adding this "event" to the article on the year 1753. I've semi-protected the page for 117 hours to quell the problem for a bit, but you might want to keep an eye out for similar nonsense elsewhere (as well as add 1753 to your watchlists for a bit, once the protection expires). — TKD::Talk 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up; I've watchlisted the article. "This too, shall pass." David Fuchs (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1753]] 

message: While I guess this takes the back seat to getting Halo 3 improved and making a featured topic, I just wanted to solicit help at the under-construction portal for the 'Featured Articles' section. I've begun a skeleton, copied (I believe correctly) to have rotating featured articles, but these have to be filled in with short summaries, so if anyone has time, it would be helpful. David Fuchs (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Halo]] 

message: This article has gone back and forth a bit between a stub and redirect to the section in Halo (series). I don't think that it should be a separate article, given the few sources available, since it won't be anything more than a stub. Apparently another editor and an anonymous user disagree. Other thoughts? — TKD::Talk 01:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is virtually impossible for this article to go beyond stub class, just taking under consideration the ammount of references out there and the fact that virtually nothing has been published about it, not even the developer. This should definitely remain as a redirect to a related section on the series article until more information is made public, if this ever happens. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Halo DS is a hotly debated and talked about topic within the gaming community. There are plenty of sources outside of IGN to constitute a full article. Plus, putting this as a footnote in the Halo (series) detracts from the impact of this hot topic. Even though it's a short topic it is still of note, there are plenty vaporware games that have Wikipedia articles GoldenEye 007 (Virtual Boy), Killing Day, and Project H.A.M.M.E.R.. Smile Lee 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that, in this case, we have an obvious merge target, and there are really only a couple of independent sources here: Matt Casamassina and Bungie employee Brian Jarrad. It may be a point of interest worth a paragraph or two, but, if everyone (who is a reliable source) is simply summarizing what those two said, that limits how far we can go. If more independent reporting on the subject is found, then the article can be reinstated and fleshed out, but I don't see why we need to have a separate article at this time. It may be a hot topic in the minds of some fans, but reader comments and such aren't reliable sources and thus don't help us in writing an encyclopedia article. — TKD::Talk 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Halo DS]] 

message: Do we need  ? There's never been a collaboration like WP:COTW for Halo as far as I'm aware and the current project page has been deleted. Is there a reason to keep it? James086Talk | Email 07:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not really, as far as I can see. We really aren't large enough for a COTW, and I haven't seen any real reason we need collabs- we've been increasing article quality across the board anyhow. David Fuchs (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted. I doubt it will ever be big enough for a COTW anyway. We don't have a lot of articles. James086Talk | Email 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with deletion. There was only one real "collaboration", way back in mid-2006-ish, on Halo: Combat Evolved. Nothing since then. — TKD::Talk 11:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete template?