Talk:Halo (franchise)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 16 June 2008 (GimmeBot updating {{ArticleHistory}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleHalo (franchise) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHalo (franchise) is the main article in the Halo trilogy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 5, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 30, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
April 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Lego Halo

Real or fake? It's currently contested. It looks like it might have been an April fools day joke, but it would get Bungie alot of money. Hard to call this one. - 72.141.197.83 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i love bees.com not concluded

i have looked around the internet and found that there is no definite answer to the ilovebees.com. I think that someone shound try to obtain an official statement from bungie/microsoft to finalize the whole ilovebees things, especiall because its hurting my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.231.189 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noahs Ark Reference

This page forgets to mention the fact that the game refers to Noahs Ark in that the Covenant are trying to find The Ark to escape The Flood and how the refer to an age of rebirth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.254.229 (talk) 20:26, April 22, 2008

Machinima Additions

I added some information to the Machinima section concerning the development of machinima after the release of Halo 3. If you have anything to discuss, stick it in here. Racooon (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the Jonathan Quail info? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to bring up Halopedia as an external link. It's on a wikia premise and is very informative to those looking for Halo-based information.Lovemuffin333 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally other wiki's are frowned upon. Though if the content is reliable and it can provide additional information outside of the content in the article if it were FA, then it can be an exception. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There are some links to Halopedia on Halo pages, but as Halopedia does not have a good page on the series as a whole, it makes little sense to link to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halopedia has too much information on the Halo series to make it into one page. It gives pages with extensive detail and information on each of the games. It has legitimate information and does not make jokes about. Manticore is an administrator to the site and he and other administrators keep the site in check for these pages on the Halo games. Lovemuffin333 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do link to Halopedia, just not on this page because there is no directly corresponding page which is good. The games Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2 and Halo 3 all have links to Halopedia and it is a really good site, but if it has too much info to add to one page about the Halo series then we shouldn't link to it on this particular article. James086Talk | Email 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmondo?

There were plans to put Halo on the Gizmondo, before they went bankrupt.[1][2][3]. Should this be mentioend the article? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like at least a mention should be included in the article. We'll look into putting something in from the sources you provided. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Any thoughts on which section would be the best place to include it? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Probably under the "Main trilogy", in the paragraph concerning the original game. Unless we were to add an "Origins" section, but that seems like an unnecesarry adition at this point. Blackngold29 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy vs (Original) series

I think we need to pick one term and stick to it, in reference to Halo, H2, and H3. It is sometimes called the "trilogy" and other times the video game series. We should probably establish this in the intro paragraph as well. Suggestions? Blackngold29 15:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go with trilogy, then, to distinguish it from the other games (which may turn into series themselves.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie section

What should we do about the hidden content in the "Film adaptation" section? Should it be removed altogether? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would think it should be removed, upon a revival of the project (which may or may not happen) we can easily put it back in. Blackngold29 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the April 1st content for the sake of keeping the wikicode uncluttered. Here's the edit difference in case it needs to be added back in. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Three soundtracks...

As there were two for H2 it seems kind of misleading to start the paragraph off "Three soundtracks...have been released based on the Halo game series". I guess technically there are three soundtracks, however there have been four releases. This is probably a pretty small detial, but any thoughts? Blackngold29 15:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I've changed it to four (we just have three articles, but there were four releases.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS necessary?

Is the inclusion of the Halo DS section necessary? If we're going to exclude the movie because it has been all but canceled, shouldn't this get the same treatment? Or perhaps move it to another section (Spinoffs perhaps)? Blackngold29 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bouncing the DS thing around in my head since I read up on the Gizmondo links above. How about this—shoot it down if it may not work—what if we moved the Halo DS content to the "Development" section, combine it with some of the content about the Gizmondo version, and rename it as "Unreleased games" or something? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
That's fine with me, Guy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we add that should be throw a line about the movie in there too? I kind of see the two (movie and DS) on the same level. Blackngold29 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably ok where it is. There's enough content for it to stand on its own and I think it fits better with the "Printed adaptations" in the "Merchandise" section. Take a look at the update and see if everything flows ok. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Alternate reality games" section seems mis-labled

The Alternate reality games section seems mislabled. The small paragraph goes on to discuss The Cortana Letters, I Love Bees and Iris. The opening sentence claims "Alternate reality games were used to promote the release of the games in the main trilogy." however the only alternative reality game mentioned is I Love Bees. Perhaps the section should be expanded and changed to "Marketing", in which case it could/should be expanded. Blackngold29 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this too, but since I Love Bees and Iris (it just isn't explicitly stated as such) are alternate reality games, it still seem somewhat suitable where it is. I wouldn't be opposed to a move, but you're right, it would need a lot more content to be a well-balanced marketing section. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Another handheld rumor

There was a rumor that Microsoft was creating a handheld Xbox and that Halo would be a game for it. A leaked video showed a handheld playing Halo. This device actually turned out to be theUltra-Mobile PC.[4] [5] [6]

Maybe a short mention in the article? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks for the heads up. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Main trilogy section

What aspect of the games is supposed to be addressed in this section? It seems like it gives the release dates and then goes on to repeat the Common elements section. Should we give the release dates and editions and eliminate the actual gameplay content? Thoughts? Blackngold29 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a "Games" section, we should give an overview of the game, kinda like a trimmed down lead, and mention what makes the game unique. Because the games share so many themes, it's probably ok to keep each paragraph short. However, I think the "Common elements" section should focus less on the progression of the elements and more on what is common in the entire series. That to me explains how each one is different rather than common. This will allow for more info to into the games section. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]