Jump to content

Talk:Factions of Halo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pillar of Autumn)

Elites

[edit]

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have a section relating to the Elites here? I'm thinking a sub-section of Covenant but others may not because they are no-longer allied. Whatever happens I think they would be worth including in some form. James086Talk | Email

For most of the series (3/4 games, 4/5 books, et al) they are in the Covenant, so it seems like a bad idea to split them up more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say we break down the Covenant section into two groups, the Loyalists and the Separatists. Since this is about the factions of Halo, it makes sense to talk about the distinction between the two, as the difference between the Separatists and the Loyalists is significant, both in terms of membership and ideology. If there seems to be some sort of consensus for this, I'll try to add it later this week, I'm just busy for the next couple days.--Bstbll (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC

[edit]

Why does the United Nations Space Command article redirect here? It's got a separate article! --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. Both the UNSC and Forererunner articles were merged here. The further information tag is for Halopedia, although that should be under external links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The UNSC is a big part of the Halo games, and it deserves a separate article just like other governments in other games (e.g. Terran Federation from Starship Troopers). There is a lot to say about the UNSC, and this little chunk of text is just the superficial side of the UNSC. Is there any way it could be brought back to having its own article? --UNSC Trooper (talk)
It's a work in progress. I've responded more on your talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, notability must be established for the UNSC to warrant its own page. Peptuck (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

come on the UNSC deserves it's own page. if the covenant has one the unsc should to have it's own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.145.190 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "notability has to be established" is so difficult to understand? Peptuck (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Covvies have their own page, while games give a significant amount of information on UNSC, rather that the Covenant - it's the player faction. Significant amount of time was invested into the faction. And, hell, look at the sales! It appears that Starship Troopers are loosing to Halo, and, as a result, Terran Federation to UNSC. If that's not notability, than what is.--95.165.199.49 (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Halo vehicles

[edit]

NEEDS TO BE OFF THE REDIRECT LIST NOW!!! I WORKED ON THAT ARTICLE FOR FIVE HOURS, I WANT TO SEE IT. Hollywoodd 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Halo vehicles needs to be established if it warrants its own article. Peptuck (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'M NOT SAYING IT WASN'T NOTABLE, I SAID I WANT THAT PAGE NOT TO REDIRECT SO I CAN VIEW IT! Hollywoodd 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kperfekt722 (talk • contribs)
Click in the redirect link on the top of the page when you navigate to Halo vehicles, and it will take you to the redirect. There you can view the page history. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thx man KP317 23:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why?

[edit]

Why is the cultural impact of the Halo games detailed on a page relating to the different factions within the games? Furthermore, why is there a section on AI, not the AI characters in the games, but the AI used by Bungie in making the games? --24.141.144.157 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm questioning the writing of this article. I'll point out that in the first paragraph on the UNSC, it says that the UNSC is the government of Earth, then in the second paragraph it states the UNSC is the military arm of the government. Which is it? I don't know enough about the Halo backstory to change anything, but I'm still pretty sure that they can't both be true. --24.141.144.157 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reception deals with the impact of the characters and factions in the game, thus why it is on this page. As for the artificial intelligence section, as it is the driving force behind the actual gameplay of the factions, it deserves to be mentioned and has been the subject of multiple secondary sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about fictional subjects must discuss how they relate to the real world. In this case, the article requires discussion not simply about the factions themselves, but about the impact and response they've had in the real world. Otherwise, the article won't meet notability. Peptuck (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN stands for United Nations both in Halo and real life. UNSC stands for United Nation Space Corps so its part of the military branch of the UN. 92.4.164.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

improvements

[edit]

i just told the aftermath of halo the covenant did not have enough forces to occupy all of the sol system or even earth they killed this much occurring to estimates the unsc military population is 200 million because of says it on bastilm 2 pages and it democratic. emergency military and government says emergency military so my conclusion it democratic on civilian side emergency military on the military side and the 200 million must be the military census on how much troops they have after reach the millitry side even throw they have know power don't batter to do civilian census them selves they do just the military. the prophet of truth did not have enough ships to bombard the earth he only had enough to do part of africa he had 30 ships for the record not enough and alot of the super mac station were still up and running and the force at reach had like 200 ships before it begin glassing and effective job at exterminating there is alot of Bestiarum interruptions to the Bestiarum but im right because they did not look at the story thoroughly ok covenant loyalists did not have enough ships to bombard earth properly to kill alot of civilians reach had like 200 before the effectively and quickly usually if have 30 it take along time to do it and do it effectively. span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.145.190 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to write properly, then defend your unsourced additions here. Otherwise your changes will continue to be removed on site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....I'm looking for something coherent in there, but its just not coming. Peptuck (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has a history of disruptive editing; I blocked him. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Species"?

[edit]

The intro to this page says that the player encounters or controls four "Species", but this is not correct. The listed "species" are Humans, Flood, Forerunner, and Covenant, but the Covenant are not a single species - they are an alliance of many. Someone should change the word "Species" to "Factions", which is also much more in keeping with the title of this page. I'd do it myself, but for the lock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.77 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precursors?

[edit]

Yeah, I won't be saying much, just suggesting that maybe, they merit a mention, despite the lack of information. (By that, I mean aside from the mention in the Forerunner section) 24.83.121.25 (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Full stop. Why? Because of "the lack of information" about them. If you have something to say about them, go ahead and say it. The internet is not yet psychic (aside: and a good thing too. My brain is messed up. You don't want to know what I'm thinking). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could add a separate subsection for less important (minor) factions like the Precursors, human and Covenant rebels, etc. Provided we can gather enough information about them to merit such an inclusion. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: We should really add an image to the Covenant section as well. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I get my scanner working, I can try to photocopy the Halo 3 beastiary and edit out the humans on the size chart (not sure if I'm allowed to do that though). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to all of the above: since Wikipedia is a general reference work, we don't cover minor elements like the Precursors or Insurrectionists because A) there's no reliable sourcing for this info (if you can only find info about it in primary sources, that's a sign it might not belong) and B) it's trivial and unnecessary for our fictional coverage—we only mention the Insurrections and rebellions in passing in the background of Halo (series) for example, and when discussing the SPARTAN project (WP:WAF).
Secondly, in regards to images. We are bound by WP:NFCC, which restricts us to only the best-chosen, most representative and defensible non-free images we can find. The Covenant and Flood sections follow summary style since they have their own articles and as such, don't have the kind of information needed to justify a non-free image. Discussion about a sizing chart should head to the Covenant page (although given that sizes are easily explained via prose, I think you'd have a hard time defending such an image choice). Finally, in regards to actually modifying the Beastiary art; we can do common sense alterations to non-free content, but the inportant thing is to not misrepresent the work (so for example, cutting the background out of a Cortana image isn't really changing the character, so it's common practice to allow such minor changes. Adding crazy eyes to Cortana, not so much. Cropping can alternatively maximize the amount of usable pixels for an important part of a non-free image, or else misrepresent the work (changing the appearance of a game interface, for example.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The size chart wasn't actually for the sizes (heck, it doesn't even say the sizes on the chart, it's just a comparative glance between the races). I mentioned it because it was the only think I could think of with all the species of Covenant on. However, I just looked at it and it's missing the Prophets and the (as then unseen) Engineers. So never mind, I guess... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

[edit]

"After rebels of the Koslovic movement gained control on Mars in 2163, the United Nations Security Council drafted a resolution, recommending that members of the United Nations provide assistance to colonies in space to repel the armed attacks and to restore colonial peace and security to the area. The resolution, adopted later that year, recommended that members providing military forces and other assistance to the colonies make such forces and other assistance available to a unified command under the United States of America."

Is there a source for this fragment? -UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only details I'm aware of for pre 26th century stuff is the Xbox timeline, and I don't think anything that detailed was covered. I've removed it for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the fragment was taken from Korean War and modified for Halo's storyline. Not very "ethical." Oh, and nice to see you again, Fuchs! :D --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean

[edit]

Hey. I was reading Halo: Spartan Strike and I saw it is mentioning something called "Promethean". Is that a faction name? This article doesn't have it. 37.27.92.205 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit dated and could do with some more information about stuff from the recent Halo games. If you have any reliable sources covering Prometheans in Halo then feel free to add that information to the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that they'd be under the forerunner faction considering that they are forerunner constructs Gearzein (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Gearzein[reply]

This is not the creator but the forerunner created the promethians, dubbed “Guardians” by humans. After the Human-Forerunner war, they split from their creators under the rule of Ur’didact.

Also, the if the forerunners’ Mantle of Responsibility was respected, there would be no factions as all species are supposed to tend to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.21.153.65 (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Factions of Halo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Factions of Halo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Factions of Halo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"UNSC Marine Corps Troops" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect UNSC Marine Corps Troops and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#UNSC Marine Corps Troops until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 21:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Covenant (Halo) into Factions of Halo#Covenant

[edit]
NOT MERGED
After running for 3 months, this discussion has clearly gone stale and going nowhere. The few editors that did participate, including myself, have made it clear that the nominator's proposal and assessment of the cited sources were in error, and the topic itself is fine as a standalone article. Haleth (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Covenant article's sourcing only has depth on in-universe context and does not cover the independent, external notability of the topic. Even considering Zxcvbnm's sources in the Covenant GA reassessment, I don't see the depth to support a dedicated article witout resorting to in-universe trivia, which is the state of the current article. I'd suggest taking a stab at merging this content where it already belongs (existing section in Factions of Halo#Covenant) in summary style and only then evaluating what a dedicated article provides that isn't already covered in this merged section. Honestly, from what I've seen thus far, all of the recurring factions should be upmerged to Halo (series) and then split out to something like the dedicated Factions article when warranted by summary style overgrowth. We should be looking to give general readers an overview of our topics and not amalgamate in-universe trivia. czar 09:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The article as it currently exists does not support Czar's assessment, with the "Game development" and "Analysis" sections presenting much more than just in-universe trivia. There is actually very little "trivia" in the article with the only in-universe parts being essential explanation. While the Reception could be bigger, that is an issue for improvement, not merging. As a primary alien race in one of the largest video game franchises to ever exist, which is now also a major TV series as well with plenty of analysis there, the importance of the Covenant are on par with the Vulcans in Star Trek or the Wookiees in Star Wars in terms of their impact on mass media and should not be merged into a small section because of personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT standpoints. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to the sourcing that indicates significant and independent coverage of the subject? I'm neutral at the moment, but nothing you said above is something that would actually prevent a merge from happening. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the WP:THREE sources I mentioned in the Good Article Reassessment, the Polygon source in particular has not even been integrated with the article yet and is from a secondary source unrelated to Microsoft themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73, alright I'll bite. Since Zxcvbnm is invoking WP:Three, let's see:
    1) A large portion of this peer reviewed essay discuss the Covenant and the allusions to the War on Terror.
    2) Godwired: Religion, Ritual and Virtual Reality has three pages which discuss the Covenant, at least one page is an analysis within the context of Gnosticism.
    3) Halo and Philosophy: Intellect Evolved has over 40 pages which discuss the Covenant. At least 5 pages that I can access from the Google preview thoroughly discuss the real world religious allusions to the Covenant.
    4) This page contains a full pdf extract from The Sacred & the Digital: Critical Depictions of Religions in Video Games brought up by Zxcvbnm, and is more or less about the ideology the Covenant faction represents. Other book sources I could identify from a Google Books search which do discuss the Covenant to various degrees include: Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular Culture and the “War on Terror”, Player and Avatar: The Affective Potential of Videogames, The Play Versus Story Divide in Game Studies: Critical Essays. Collider goes into a detailed summary about the Covenant like the Polygon article. I also see several sources that discuss a human Covenant spy named Makee, something that is exclusive to the ongoing live action TV show, but I don't know how relevant that would be to this discussion.
    By the way, oppose. "Independent, external notability" of the topic is not part of the GNG guideline or the threshold requirement of SIGCOV. "Independent" as defined by SIGCOV simply means that the sources cited must be independent from the subject or the entities connected to the subject in order to qualify as a determinant of notability, not the allusion of "notable in its own right". Also, WP:42 doesn't really say anything of substance that we don't already know about GNG, besides the fact that it is an essay or that its prose does not actually assert the "independent, external notability" advocated by the OP in his proposal. (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I oppose as well. I don't follow this article nor was I aware of what was proposed in the GAR, I just stumbled upon this discussion after seeing the AFD close so quickly, and wasn't impressed with the initial comments. Looks like there's plenty here to warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not hold up to scrutiny. The question isn't whether sources discuss the Covenant (it's a recurring plot point of a major franchise) but whether sources discuss and analyze the Covenant with any depth outside its in-universe context.
    1. The "peer reviewed essay" is a great example of this. It is not "discussion" of the Covenant but a rehash of the plot. Anything that can be extracted from this source would be sufficiently covered in a section of an existing article on series plot.
    2. "Godwired: Religion, Ritual and Virtual Reality has three pages": Where and do you have a scan to share? Because if you mean it has three snippet hit mentions in Google Books, there appears to be no real discussion/analysis here nevertheless three pages.
    3. "Halo and Philosophy: Intellect Evolved has over 40 pages": I have a copy in front of me and I see no "40 pages"—the Covenant is almost exclusively mentioned in rehashing plot—there is no wider analysis.
    4. There are two parts (section 4.2, 4.8, and possibly 6.1) of the Paulissen open access PDF that analyze the Covenant ("Perhaps a less obvious reference...", "The Covenant wrongfully believes ...") and could be paraphrased. This is the sort of coverage you'd need to demonstrate that sources treat the fictional element independent from its context (i.e., as a plot point of a game).
    But as it stands, nearly all the coverage mentioned here and in the prior talk page threads does not cover the Covenant in any more depth than any other recurring plot point of a major franchise. czar 03:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: #1, the plot summary is not just "there" but linked to claims about what the plot represents. The essay makes the claim that the Covenant in many ways represent Islamic fundamentalists while Master Chief and the humans are like America. There is exceptionalism in the form of humans being descended from the Forerunners and the firing of the Halo rings are a metaphor for the "mushroom cloud" of WMDs in Iraq. It is not just a direct summary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That this author connected Halo's plot to that of the War on Terror does not mean the Covenant was subject to extended analysis. The Halo mushroom cloud metaphor and exceptionalism claims are about the game, not one aspect of the fictional setting. The comparison between the Covenant and Islamic fundamentalism barely registers in the overall paper because the section is about the overall Halo universe, not this one aspect of it. czar 20:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of what the paper is about, it gets a significant mention in it. SIGCOV does not require the source to be about the subject and at this point it seems like splitting hairs to make you the correct one in this argument. Your standards are far beyond what Wikipedia actually requires to prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Factions_of_Halo&oldid=1219239043"