Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo

Archives Archive 1 (6/2006-7/2006)—startup, template questions, banner creation, AMiB says hello Archive of cruft/AfD stuff (6/2006-7/2006)—Halo 2 skulls, fancruft, and arguing about fiction Archive 2 (8/2006-5/2007)—post-AfD spree, reorganization proposals, condensing and compiling Archive 3 (5/2007-11/2007)—WPHALO roll call, Master Chief FAC, article organization and Portal:Halo Archive 4 (11/2007-2/2008)—More FACs, merge and redirects, and Characters of Halo renamed once again Archive 5 (2/2008-5/2008)—Featured topics galore, RvB and machinima excise, et al Archive 6 (7/2008-12/2008)—More featured topics, renames, more merges and such

Halo: The Cole Protocol

Resolved

What to do... all that can be said about the book is that it's a bestseller. But there's no information on it. None. Not so much as a single reliable review. Zilch. No interviews with the author, nothing. It's pitiful. The upshot is that currently I'm seeing no way this could attain even GA. So what are our options? Merge? If so, to where? Do we simply mention it in Halo (series)? I'm at a loss. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That there is little information is surprising and unfortunate. The best option may be just to do as you suggested and mention it in a couple sentences in Halo (series)#Books for now. Maybe more information will show up eventually, but, aside from sourcing concerns, experience tells me that if you keep a full article with just plot and a couple of real-world sentences, there will be maintenance overhead related to minimizing cruft and original research that will be misguidedly added. We have the edit history, so the redirect can be undone when/if appropriate. — TKD::Talk 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is as notable as any of the other books, so I don't think I would go for a merge just yet. That being said, it stinks that there's so little info and I hope that it won't remain one of those articles that's notable and yet lacks sufficient info for a GA. blackngold29 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The flip side is that a merge would be no big deal, at least mechanically: quick to do now, and quick to undo when/if sources appear. There's probably not too much of a good, logical reason for the lack of attention compared to the other novels, but here on Wikipedia the yardstick for notability is the amount of non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. (It's actually unfortunate that the term notability has come to be used this way, because that's necessarily not the intuitive definition to most people.) My thought is that trying to maintain an article that is essentially 90+% plot summary (in contravention of WP:NOT#PLOT) isn't a productive endeavor for us in the meantime. I know that merging doesn't seem to be an equitable action on the basis of the coverage of the other Halo novels, but at the same time we don't have much a sustainable article here. — TKD::Talk 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TKD on this point. It's really strange that no one has so much as reviewed it (even checking my university's databases for print sources), including the borderline sites we've used in reception sections previously... it's unfortunate, but I think a merge is at present the best solution (especially since that lets our featured topic move forward with only one article needing a peer review underway.) Let's see if anyone else chimes in in the next week or so. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Helljumper and Spartan Black

Shouldn't we create articles for the upcoming comic series Halo: Helljumpers and Halo: Spartan Black? We don't know much about them, yet, but we have enough to work with, at least with Spartan Black. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest holding off for right now; the content is in Halo (series) and I would rather add more there until enough content is around for a real article and not a stub (besides, that affects our featured topic.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional World of Halo, redux

Halo (series) ()

10 articles

File:Halo-hunter-graphic.png

Characters of Halo

Master Chief

Cortana

Arbiter

Gravemind

() Factions of Halo

Covenant (Halo)

Flood (Halo)

() Halo (megastructure)

Copying this over from the old archive since (aside from the Bungie one) it looks like the next possible FTC. I'm eyeing merging SPARTAN Project to Characters of Halo; Elite (Halo) to Covenant (Halo), and then promoting both those articles to FA; that would just leave Factions of Halo and Halo (megastructure) to get to GA. Alternatively, don't worry about characters and just get Halo (series) to FA.--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:13, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good source to incorporate

A whole chapter on the Halo universe and its development. — TKD::{talk} 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice find! Looks like some nice info to add to Cortana, ILB and the like. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good job finding! Agreed: it is some nice information to add.--Rollersox (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Halo book?

I just found Wikipedia:Books and immidiately thought of this project. I know very little about it, but it basically seems that you can take any collection of articles (obviously the high the quality the better) and have them in one collection. From there you can view PDFs or actually order a real book containing those articles. With the number of high quality articles this project has I think it would be awesome to have a Halo book. Thoughts? blackngold29 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you like. I recently noticed that the featured topics now have links to books; we have one of the Characters, in fact, but are missing one for the Halo media topic. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

<==Proposed rest of 2009 plan== I know I haven't been around much recently, but I have been closely observing the fantastic work being done on this project, and I just wanted to congratulate David in partiular for the Halo Wars Featured Article. Also, I thought of a goal for the rest of 2009; get all remaining articles to GA, and push Halo series to FA.

• Factions of Halo
• Halo (megastructure)
• Jason Jones
• Michael Salvatori

*Alex Seropian

• Halo.Bungie.Org

And finally get Halo (series) to Featured Status. That would allow basically every article to be in a featured or Good topic, which would be a phenominal achievement, and I would be willing to get very involved to make it happen. It would show to everyone that this is the best small wikiproject that has been made :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Amen, my brother :) Now that I'm near the book, I can start beefing up Halo (megastructure). Factions of Halo needs some more info on AI, some reception, and some minor sourcing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All the ringworld article really needs now is some sourcing and a copyedit, and it's good for GA. I'll probably list it sometime this weekend. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

...Done, and I've put up Halo.Bungie.Org for GAN as I've pretty much exhausted secondary sources. The others will require more work. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work! I'll start on Factions soon, and the others will probably work out for GA, though Mr. Salvatori...sigh, what do we do with that one? I never believed in permanent stubs, but my faith is being shaken by that article, too much to delete I think, too little to GA... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to do a flippin' interview with the man... while it won't affect our featured topics, it is annoying if we have one article we can never promote... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just wanted to pop by and say what a good job you guys are doing with the various Halo articles. Keep up the good work and have a pint on me, whomever gets here first can drink it.

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

If only we had this kind of effort over at WP:CNC but for some reason lots of Command & Conquer fans seem to love to add screeds of in universe stuff >_< -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair Command and Conquer doesn't have the impact and thus good sources that Halo does... but thanks for the kind words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cole Protocol

I know there was already a discussion about but just to say can we maybe now have an article about it? Surely now there are enough references to find about it. And if there isn't enough, we can simply put it under a book stub and the article wouldn't come under violation of notability since it's part of a popular franchise which it links with the rest of the series. --Victory93 (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

{{Halo chronology}}

I have gone and deleted {{Halo chronology}}. It seems that people want to keep adding all the other media into the template. This a) makes the template much less useful, the more items populate it, and b) are tantamount to lying to the reader. Most of the books don't have such an easy time frame to pin down or say what comes "before" and after. The Flood takes place before the events of Halo: Combat Evolved. Where do you put the decade-spanning Fall of Reach in relation to everything? Finally, if we start listing the books we've essentially got to list every piece of Halo narrative fiction. This template serves no useful purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was people, I think it was just one user. Same user kept trying to expand other chronology templates into informational boxes rather than just navigational. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help..

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Koei Warriors Games#Requested move for reasons (this was one of eight related requests). - GTBacchus^(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Halo → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Halo

• Most game-, franchise-, genre- and platform-specific video game projects have already merged into WP:WikiProject Video games as task forces/working groups, and there's no reason for this one not to do likewise. It's inconsistent to have it separate, and few editors are only interested in focusing entirely on one game or set of games, so forking this out into its own project actually impedes and splinters collaboration. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#More proposed moves of insular mini-projects into task forces for centralized tracking of remaining VG task force move/merge proposals.) After the move, various cleanup will need to be done, including adding this task force to the main project's page, banner and other resources; changing calls to the former project's banner to task-force-specific calls to the main project banner, updating WP:WikiProject Games/related projects, merging categories, etc. PS: The existence of any spin-off, non-videogame merchandise relating to this franchise isn't of any concern (this happens with almost all popular video games, even going back to the "Mario Bros." franchise which spawned a live-action movie; they are still best shepherded by the VG project). User:SMcCandlish 08:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello

I was wondering if about their should be a separate page about Halo Evolutions? Which is a 400 page book consisting of short stories that take place in the Halo Universe. And also what about a separate page on the Spartan Project. Right now we only have a paragraph about it in the Characters of Halo article. Tell me what you think... CJISBEAST (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, CJISBEAST. The reason the Spartan Project doesn't have its own article (it used to) is because there's not enough real world information and reception to justify it. Fictional articles need evidence of notability through unrelated, reliable sources; Master Chief has his own article because he's won accolades and been the subject of academic research. The Spartans themselves, however, have virtually nothing written about them. As for Evolutions, I was unable to find the reviews that we would need to have a complete article on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean to say that their is no 'real world' info about about the Spartan Project. What about bungie.com? How did Halopedia.com make a long article on the Spartan Project? Don't they need references to back up what they write? Can't we use halopedia.com as a reference? CJISBEAST (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By "real world" I mean sources not involved with the game's production, et al (so not Microsoft or Bungie or the like) discussing aspects of the game beyond the fictional (for example, "The Arbiter was originally named Dervish" instead of "The Arbiter and Master Chief work together" details.) Halopedia is a wiki and thus not an allowable source. You might want to read WP:WAF to explain some of the differences in how we approach fiction instead of a fan wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Drat.......... CJISBEAST (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Preventing Linkrot on Halo articles

Hey all, I've been noticing recently that a great number of reliable references have been falling silent recently--including ones from Microsoft, who have revamped Waypoint (again) leading to a whole bunch of dark links. As such, I'm going to begin WebCiting every reference in our FAs (save those that already have Archive.org links.) If interested parties can help, please do, as this is going to take a very long time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Progress

Ideally, every link should be archived where possible. Unfortunately the old Xbox.com ones seem unrecoverable... Here's the list, I'm going to check them off when they all have archives where possible for URLS, starting with the older sources and FAs where links are more likely to have gone dark.

Games

• Halo (series)
• Halo: Combat Evolved
• Halo 2
• Halo 3
• Halo Wars
• Halo 3: ODST
• Halo: Reach

Books

• Halo: Contact Harvest
• Halo: First Strike
• Halo: Ghosts of Onyx
• Halo Graphic Novel
• Halo: The Fall of Reach
• Halo: The Flood
• Halo: Uprising

Music

• Halo Original Soundtrack
• Halo 2 Original Soundtrack
• Halo 3 Original Soundtrack

Characters

• Characters of Halo
• Gravemind
• Arbiter (Halo)
• Cortana
• Master Chief (Halo)

Factions/Universe

• Factions of Halo
• Covenant (Halo)
• Elite (Halo)
• Flood (Halo)
• Halo (megastructure)

People

• Martin O'Donnell
• Jason Jones (programmer)
• Luke Smith (writer)
• Joseph Staten
• Michael Salvatori
• Alex Seropian

Misc.

• Bungie
• Halo.Bungie.Org
• Halo Legends
• List of Halo media
• I Love Bees
• Halo 3 marketing

Halo articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Halo articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3 Featured Article Review

Hey, Halo 3 was nom'd for a featured article review. There's a pre-evaluation process going on at Talk:Halo 3 where some legitimate concerns have been raised. If anyone can help address these, that'd be great. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Halopedia on Wikipedia

Hi all,

As many of you probably know, Halopedia is a wiki dedicated to the Halo franchise and series. This wiki had an article here on Wikipedia, but has been deleted after repeated recreations in the past due to the lack of sources/citations. After a while most of that took place, I would like to bring to your attention this list consisting of Halopedia's media & news mentions and have a possible discussion to gather your opinions on whether we could bring the Halopedia article back onto Wikipedia.

Regards,

Nicmavr (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any of those mentions reach the threshold required for notability. If you'd like to convince me otherwise I'm open to being swayed, but none of those are about Halopedia period. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't Halopedia meet the criteria of WP:WEB, since it's been mentioned in various sites, more specifically the developers of Halo franchise themselves? There's at least 135,000 Google hits, to add on. -5ub7ank^(7alk) 04:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

To add on to what Subtank said, Halopedia has been repeatedly cited as a source for information for the Halo community, which isn't just limited to websites. Books citing Halopedia are listed on the Halopedia article on Halopedia, citations 2-7. Other than that, I've read WP:WEB but I don't think I quite understand why this wouldn't satisfy the threshold for notability. The citings all appear valid to me. Nicmavr (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't meet WP:WEB. There have been no cited sources where Halopedia is the sole subject of an article, and they have not been awarded a major award, web or otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the following fulfil web?

1. Bungie.net (2006) - Informing of its existence.
2. Halo Effect (book) - cited Halopedia in its sources.
3. Interview - An interview with a former administrator of Halopedia.
4. Bungie.net (2009) - Bungie employee endorsing Halopedia as a reliable site for Halo knowledge, though as mere mention.
5. On Halo: Evolutions - Authors admittedly used Halopedia as reference during the development of Halo: Evolutions. It is also implied that the Halo Encyclopaedia (oddly enough, there's no Wikipedia article on that) referenced Halopedia, but that's another story.
6. Mobilizing Generations - Documented Halopedia as an example of successful wikis that garnered attention of the mass (youths, specifically).
7. Halo in PopCulture and Philosophy - Author cited Halopedia for his analyses.
8. Halo Waypoint - 343 Industries interviewed an administrator of Halopedia.

If being cited in numerous published works does not satisfy web, what does? — subtank ^(7alk) 19:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you'll need direct mentions in reports/books about Halopedia. A mention on the equivalent of "there is also a fansite called Halopedia..." at the end of a news story on Bungie, for a hypothetical example, would not be considered deserving enough here to warrent an article. If, for instance, you had a news story actually centred around Halopedia, then we would appreciate it. I'm sure there are a few lying around, somewhere. :) -- OsirisV (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The only news story that would satisfy the above would be #3 and #8; #3 is an iffy interview due to the nature of the reporting site, while #8 is an interview by 343 Industries but very, very brief. Also, wouldn't the fact that the developers/writers themselves used the site as reference make it notable? Mind you, these are not mere mentions; officials themselves actually used the wiki to produce the products for the franchise (#5).

Such content is very rare for a subject so common in such franchise unfortunately. Every press site that covered the Halo franchise is aware of the site's existence for the past six years (evident by mere mentioning, even jokingly referred HBO and Halopedians as Halo fanatics), but none, to the best of my knowledge, ever want to actually cover about the site itself. It's such a common knowledge that it's just redundant. Guess that would always be the issue for such common knowledge. :P — subtank ^(7alk) 20:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeon (emulator)

Xeon (emulator) has been prodded for deletion. Since this is a custom emulator for XBox Halo 1 to run on the PC, it might be merged somewhere into a Halo article. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Halo 4 leaked

http://i.imgur.com/RHND3.png tell me what you think of this?Awsometilthegrave (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still a rumor... if indeed it is going to be announced, then we don't have to wait for long. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Forerunners (Halo)

Hi, I have started article on Forerunners and need your help in expanding it. I'm merging the content present in fraction with other available on the net. Thanx for your help in advance. ASHU^IND 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Making Halo Universe Alive

The Forerunner (Halo) article was merged into Factions of Halo originally because there was not enough out-of-universe content about them--critical reception that confirmed their importance outside of the games. At this point, the article you've started falls short in similar respects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just begun writing it. Will expand it in few days. I need help regarding how I can add notes within wiki articles like quotes in Halo and all. ASHU^IND 07:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Now since Halo: Cryptum is released we have more detailed knowledge of the Forerunners in coordination with the data already available in Halo series. Hoping to write a complete article on them. ASHU^IND 13:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there's not enough in-universe information, I'm saying there isn't enough critical commentary from parties not affiliated with the games to justify it per the general notability guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Halo: Cryptum

I've reopened the Halo: Cryptum article and started to expand it. Will appreciate help for referencing and reception. ASHU^IND 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

Have started with Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary article. Would appreciate help and efforts from others. And please don't delete or redirect till article is complete. Thanks. ASHU^IND 09:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue FAR

I have nominated Red vs. Blue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Halo Encyclopedia

Just wondering why there doesn't seem to be an article here for this? Does it not meet Wikipedia's notability policy?--Spartacanus ^Talk 00:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Master Chief in Halo 3.png

There's something weird going on at File:Master Chief in Halo 3.png. The original version is nominated for deletion as unused non-free. But the current version is about HALO 4 and not Halo 3. So the new upload should be removed as it is misleading. (Indeed, one wonders why a Halo 4 representation was uploaded at the Halo 3 filename). The file has undergone reversion twice. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

03:26, 27 September 2012‎ Juhachi (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,494 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Juhachi moved page File:Master Chief in Halo 3.png to File:Master Chief in Halo 4.png: As the image is now from Halo 4) (undo) -- file was moved after I made that comment -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. —Darkwind (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Halo → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Halo – Since this project has been almost inactive along with WikiProject Xbox, with no discussion and no activity for the past few months. WP:VG has several task forces like WP:NINTENDO. I think the task force is suitable. Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC) JJ98 (Talk) 05:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to / Tasforce in the company wikiproject. We have a WP:WikiProject Microsoft, and HALO is a Microsoft property (having bought it along with Bungee), 343 is a wholly owned Microsoft Game Studio. Clearly this piece of software is Microsoft software. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is the best idea since that appears to go against an emerging consensus that WP:XOBX should a taskforce of WP:VG not WP:MICROSOFT--174.93.171.10 (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The two are not comparable. Xbox is hardware that many software creators write for. This is software owned by and written by one company, Microsoft. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Halo is a videogame series, with articles about videogames, about videogame characters, etc. The articles follow the naming conventions and style conventions of videogame articles. I think it's more useful to group them with the other videogames projects, where editors are familiar with videogame guidelines. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, see above. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see what benefit merging the project into a task force does. I still use this page to keep track of progress, as do a few other members, whether or not long discussions are happening on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Meh - I don't see the point, it seems to me like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. The page is quiet because many of the articles are already of a high standard. I wouldn't strongly oppose it but I don't see the need to move it as the existing format does the job. James086^Talk 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikiwork

I read this article on the Signpost today so I decided to figure out the WikiWork for this project. I assumed it would be pretty good (lower numbers = less WikiWork) because we have a high number of good quality articles compared to our total scope. After dealing with the unassessed articles I came up with these figures using the tool.

Article quality	Number of Articles	Percentage of total
FA	13	24.07 %
A	0	0
GA	24	44.44 %
B	3	5.56 %
C	6	11.11 %
Start	6	11.11 %
Stub	2	3.70 %
Total	54	Example

• The total WikiWork ω = 123
• The relative WikiWork Ω = 2.278 (ω/number of articles)

This is exceptionally low, but of course there's always room for improvement. It's more of a curiosity for us because our scope is quite narrow and we can easily keep track of the articles. The larger WikiProjects can gain more meaningful statistics from it but I think it's still interesting nonetheless. James086^Talk 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In this same vein, I have updated the projects article list. I think it should be examined to see if we want all of those articles in our scope, and then start killed off the non-GA's one by one . :) I'm game! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Sotaro Tojima warrants an article. I don't think there is "significant coverage" as there is only one interview that is about him (Game Informer) rather than about the game he's working on at the time. I tried to expand the article but there's not too much available. Would someone mind taking a look for more sources so that we can demonstrate notability? The machinima articles are generally of poor quality, but I don't know if it's fair to remove them from our scope. They aren't covered by

To craft well-written and properly organized profiles for all relevant characters, races, technology, devices and other notable items in the Halo universe.

but then, neither is Bungie, 343 Industries, the people etc. because they don't fall within the Halo universe. I think that we should include them since they are Halo related. James086^Talk 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I was going to run this too as soon as I read the article. You guys beat me to it! As for Tojima, I'd say he doesn't merit an article, though I'll do another check for sources--I'm working on Halo 4 OST, so something might turn up there. If not I'll merge to the 343 Industries article. As for the machinima, I see them as sort of tangental since they need to stand as independent products to be notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Looking at the list there's a few articles that I'm unsure of their actual suitability as articles. I'll try and bring up some merge discussions when I've got the time/looked at them further. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have Forward Unto Dawn up to GA shortly, also I agree that some articles don't appear notable. The Heretic (machinima) and Fire Team Charlie for example doesn't appear to have any secondary sources. I'll take a more in depth look for sources before I nominate for deletion. I'm also shocked that List of Halo multiplayer maps survived AFD. James086^Talk 20:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we make a Machinima inspired by Halo article? That way we could fold a lot of those stubs into one GA article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Halo multiplayer maps should be deleted. I recommend nominating for deletion again. Also I feel number of the current GA Halo articles could do with some updating. The1337gamer (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sotaro Tojima. I doubt there's any need for an article including the machinima that isn't notable on its own. I think it would be better just to have this section, perhaps expanded a little. James086^Talk 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above, and with renom'ing List of Halo maps for deletion. I... just don't see how that merits an article, and we're the fans. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Halo multiplayer maps (2nd nomination). James086^Talk 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Another AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Team Charlie if anyone would like to comment. James086^Talk 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn DVD?

Does anyone have the Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn DVD or Blu-ray? Apparently there are 3 commentaries over the film that provide info about filming which would be very useful for the article. I have neither a DVD nor Blu-ray player (physical media is so 2005). If anyone does have the film would they mind adding some info when they have time? James086^Talk 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, do you know if that stuff is exclusive to the physical media, or comes with the digital version that comes with the LE? I have the latter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This doesn't mention it, but there is a lot of overlap of bonus content. I could always buy a DVD drive I suppose. :P James086^Talk 09:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, if you've got XBL I'd be happy to just give you the code for it so you can check (it's on a little card that came with the LE.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I'm living abroad temporarily (I normally reside in Australia) so I only have an ultrabook which has no DVD drive, let alone an Xbox or even a tv! I think I found enough info for GA at least, and have nominated it. I'll find a way to access the commentaries before a FAC. James086^Talk 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll stick it in this weekend and see if there's anything we can use (it's an expanded cut at least so it should be interesting regardless :) Enjoy your time abroad. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary is by my estimation nearly ready for FAC--the only spot I think needs a bit more expansion is the audio section, some ref cleanup and archival, and some odds n' ends. If anyone has a chance to give it a look over in the next week or so to spot any other issues I might have missed or double-check the prose, that would be awesome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Which date format do you prefer? I made all of the dates consistent with this script (see diff), but I'm not sure if you want to keep it that way. Feel free to revert. James086^Talk 09:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've archived all of the refs save the 1up review [1] because it appears to be dead and the Wayback Machine doesn't already have copy. Also, something strange seems to be going on with the citation templates. For example ref 10 by Casey Lynch has an error saying that I haven't specified |archiveurl= when I have, I even copy/pasted it in case I had a typo but the error still appears. Also the archives aren't showing up linked in some refs like 59 by Matt Miller. If you check the wikicode, the archive is there. Strange. James086^Talk 11:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I figured out the solution, I had added |archiveurl=www.foo.com|archivedate=today without removing the empty |archiveurl=|archivedate= which meant that it just didn't display any archive information when formatted. James086^Talk 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I usually like the raw 2013-03-14 format myself, but if they're all consistent I don't much care :P Thanks for hitting up the rest of the refs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Scope

We need to decide whether our scope includes these articles that have been categorized under Halo; Corporeal (band), Matt Leto, Slipstream (science fiction), and the 16 sub articles of Red vs. Blue. Are they ours? Or should we cut them loose? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a table to simplify it a little, I think slipstream should definitely be within our scope. I don't see a problem with accepting the others as Halo articles, they do relate to Halo, despite not being official. However, all of the "RvB other articles" have minimal, if any, out-of-universe content, there's lots of work needed on them (if there are indeed reviews available). I think Matt Leto is notable [2][3][4], but I have my doubts about Corporeal; Kotaku isn't a reliable source and they appear to be notable only for a single event. James086^Talk 17:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The benefit of taking them would be that once Fire Team and some of the others, including most of the Red vs Blue articles are checked, most will have to be deleted or merged, so we would probably only be on boarding about 7-9 articles total.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't accept them because they need work, that would be lazy in my opinion. However, I do agree that much of the RvB stuff will be either deleted or merged because I don't see many sources for the miniseries articles. I suggest we tag everything with the talkpage banner and then clean it up to WP:HALO standards which may involve deletion or merging. I won't just do this unilaterally though, I'd like to hear others' thoughts too. James086^Talk 13:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no lazy people here! :) Judt gotta clean them to our standard. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

IF we do take on these articles, Slipstream will need a page one rewrite, the red vs blue character list should be changed to an article, and all the rest of the Red vs. Blue articles (except the main one) should be merged to one List of Red vs. Blue media article, because they all have basically no notability as individual seasons. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a List of Red vs. Blue media article (treating each season as an individual media item) is an excellent idea. It'll keep the plot stuff in check by de-emphasizing the repetition of plot across different articles: the big problem with maintaining Red vs. Blue is that Rooster Teeth guys just keep churning out stuff, and it's real mess to keep an article for each season. I think the thought back in 2005-06 was that the first few seasons were getting a few reviews comparing/contrasting the individual seasons among each other, so it might have been tenable to keep separate articles, but I think the trend for the past few years (especially in serious academic treatment of machinima) is to treat Red vs. Blue as a single body of work, so we should probably do the same. It's somewhat a unique situation in that it's essentially a long-running episodic work grouped into "seasons" that end up released on DVDs pretty much as a standard full-length movie, and then supplemented by miniseries. I don't think anyone had ever really considered a single media list/article, but it's probably the best way to handle this situation and keep it in check going forward. —TKD [talk][c] 20:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)