Talk:Halo (video game)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Update Article

The following is the last line in the article: "Furthermore, Marvel Comics is scheduled to produce a limited-run Halo monthly comic starting in July, 2007." It is September, so someone should confirm or deny this and update the article as such, shouldn't (s)he? Hydrokinetics12 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow (spoiler discussion continued)

haha Wow guys. Just: Wow. This argument is almost as long as the article itself! I can't believe I've missed so much of it. So, a few things. first:

"Allies and enemies", in probably 95% of first-person shooter articles, would not contain spoilers--major examples include games like the Half-Life series, the Doom series, GoldenEye 007 and the Quake series. -jimmyblackwing

I've looked at these articles, and the "allies and enemies" sections of them are typically within the plot summary, not in the gameplay section. It's not as if Halo's section on combatants is anything like that in [[1]]. In fact, in my opinion, this section we have currently is entirely spoilers, not only the flood but also the covenant, the humans, and the AI. the Humans and AI is a spoiler for the book, and the Covenant is a spoiler for halo 2.

The section details enemies, allies and AI; "Combatants" is not misleading. Also, the gameplay of most games is not connected to its plot in any relevant way. The same goes for enemies--the story of most games is disconnected from what enemies are faced. No reasonable reader can be expected to assume that the game's largest plot twist is revealed by the existence of a certain type of enemy. JimmyBlackwing 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you have never played (or heard of) a character-driven plot before. there are many games where knowing the characters means you know the plot; for instance: final fantasy seven. Learning that Cloud was not actually a SOLDIER but was in fact a wash out who was brainwashed is one of the major parts of the game, but that is merely character description, innit? And there are also games that have gameplay-driven plots, like Fable or GTA3?

Anyway, I feel that this whole section is spoilers and should be treated as such as depends on the WP:SPOILER guidelines, whatever they may be, if it stays in this article, which I advise it doesn't. I think it should be integrated into the plot section. The only thing that should be said in a "combatants" section is combat statistics.--Rebent 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I continue to have a major problem with this spoiler tag, simply because I do not believe the Flood to be a spoiler at this point - the first Halo paperback was named after them, and they're very prominantly mentioned in the marketing blurb for Halo 3, which is very high profile. Though this may have been a revelation six years ago, the cat has gotten out of the bag pretty thoroughly at this point such that one cannot reasonably expect to remain unspoiled. Phil Sandifer 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler guideline has no mention of "common knowledge" or "timed spoiler tags". The game is 6 years old, anyway--it's brand new compared to most topics covered on Wikipedia. Plus, the game's story is only known in the US, and even then, only among gamers. Using the "common knowledge" argument just doesn't work here; for example, you can't reasonably expect a foreign gamer, who has just recently moved to the US, to know about Halo's plot, or perhaps even Halo in general. It doesn't work, even if we assume that your argument is based on a guideline, which it isn't. JimmyBlackwing 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The exact text of the guideline does not trump the use of actual thought, which I encourage you to apply to this subject. It's idiotic to tag something that is common knowledge among those interested in the subject and widely disseminated through mainstream sources without a spoiler tag. No guideline should ever be read as demanding application without reference to basic sense and thoughtfulness. This spoiler tag is idiotic, and your defenses of it as "technically allowed" only make it seem more so. I am removing it. Please consider that, at this point, its reinsertion would be a disruptive attempt to make a point. Phil Sandifer 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a fansite. Your definition of 'common knowledge' is very far from a neutral worldview. Instead of insults and threats, you should accept the fact that the anti-spoiler brigade does not and should not have sole right to declare what is a 'permissable' spoiler tag.--Nydas(Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Per WP:SPOIL, talk page consensus dictates whether the inclusion of a spoiler is correct; in this case, talk page consensus is clearly for its inclusion. The threats and personal attacks of a single user aren't going to change a guideline, no matter how hard they may complain about it. JimmyBlackwing 22:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not a fansite. And if the information were the slightest bit obscure, I could see how there might be a case here. But we're talking about something that has been in the description of Halo 3, one of the most anticipated and promoted games in memory, and is in the title of a book that is findable in any bookstore. This is not something on the level of fansite - this is something that is unavoidable if you are doing even the slightest amount of looking into the series. While it is (obviously) true that no group of people have the "sole right" to declare anything on Wikipedia, it is also the case that no group of people have the right to be disruptively idiotic in the pursuit of their agendas, which is demonstrably what is going on here. The argument that this merits a spoiler warning is simply and plainly moronic and disruptive. Whether it is being made, at this point, out of malice or stupidity I do not know, but in either case, it is wholly rejectable no matter how many warm bodies are rallied to its support. Phil Sandifer 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making thinly veiled personal attacks while on Wikipedia, as they do not help you make a point, and only serve to poison the well of discussion.
You helped write WP:SPOIL, and just because it now says something you, personally, don't agree with, you claim to be right over the "ignorant, stupid and disruptive masses" who disagree with you. This is obviously not the case, per every guideline on Wikipedia. Further, you basically just threatened anyone who reverts you. Combined, we have blatant violation of several policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Civility. JimmyBlackwing 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I did help write WP:SPOIL. And like any guideline I support, my belief is that it provides guidance on how to use good reason, not a paint-by-numbers guide to writing an encyclopedia. I am not disrupting Wikiedia to prove a point, violating the nature of consensus, or making personal attacks. Your argument is stupid. I could avoid stating this, but it is very much applicable to the current discussion. Phil Sandifer 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines exist to give guidance, not to give paint-by-numbers instructions; yes. However, they also don't exist to be disregarded completely, as you have here. Besides that, it would be great if you stopped tossing insults around, as it only gives you the appearance of an angry mastodon, which--as your other discussions have shown--you clearly are not. JimmyBlackwing 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. And Phil, please remember to assume good faith, I don't think anyone here is trying to be disruptive, they just want the best for the article. Hargle 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith. But as one summary of the policy goes, never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Phil Sandifer 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And two more policies tell us not to personally attack other users, and to be civil at all times. Whether you assume stupidity or not, it isn't your place to state it. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to re-add the spoiler tags. They were removed with little more reason than "your arguments are all wrong" and "you'd better not re-add them". If you want them gone, that's perfectly fine, but you're going to have to argue it over on this talk page just like everyone else. I think they belong, as have the majority of commenters thus far. You may not, but that doesn't give you the right to fire off a few threats and insults, and then go remove the tags. JimmyBlackwing 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
NPA is not, and never has been a blanket license for stupidity to go unremarked on. The argument for adding these tags is thoughtless wikilawyering at its worst. And they are being added despite a lack of consensus, which the very guideline you're so religiously citing demands. As I said - adding these tags is, at this point, a naked violation of WP:POINT. I should note, also, I am in no way assuming that you are an idiot in general. You seem intelligent and sensible. Even sensible, intelligent people come up with stupid reasons for things. This is such a time. Phil Sandifer 00:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Attempting to get out of WP:NPA by stating that the person is not an idiot in general, just 'stupid' on this subject is very much against the spirit of the policy.--Nydas(Talk) 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-lawyering to get around the spirit of WP:NPA, and still sneak in some barbed comments? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. --MichaelLinnear 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
BOTH OF YOU need to stop, take a few deep breaths, and regain some composure. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for reinsertion

I don't see any consensus for the insertion of the spoiler tag. JimmyBlackwing has made an effort to justify it, but several people have pointed out that this plot detail is both common in games of this sort and expected where it is encountered in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By "consensus", we are referring to more people agreeing to one argument than another, correct? This is, after all, what a "consensus" entails. In this case, it is easily noted that you and Phil are the only ones left from the first (and only) wave of disapproval, while many users have come and supported my reasoning, while giving their own. JimmyBlackwing 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that's called "democracy." Consensus generally requires more than a 50% vote. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A consensus is a "majority of opinion", which is what we're seeing here. Assuming we're counting all the people who have given their opinions on the matter thus far, we have:
Clearly, there is a consensus here for the inclusion of a tag. If you want this to be reduced to a straw poll where we go and find as many supporters as possible to argue our respective sides, we can do that, too. JimmyBlackwing 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I must have misread WP:CONSENSUS. It taught me that counting the number of contributors won't show consensus, and neither will a straw poll. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does say that. However, the word "consensus"--and the Wikipedia guideline referring to it--mean that a majority holds an opinion, as is the case here. The Wikipedia guideline says "60%", and 60% exists for the inclusion of a spoiler tag. JimmyBlackwing 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that consensus on WP means majority, but it simply isn't correct. In the end, consensus for an edit on WP means that it isn't reverted. It has nothing to do with counting opinions on each side. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think you should read the guideline again. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority states: "the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." While it doesn't specifically state it, this appears to be relevant to all large debates, and not just "Requests for Adminship, Articles for Deletion or Requested Moves". After all, it applies to WP:FAC, but that isn't listed there. Considering this, it's perfectly fine to assume that this refers to things like what's happening now. On the other hand, nowhere in the policy's page can your reason be found. Even if we assume that my reasoning above is a bit iffy, you still cannot deny that the consensus is far more in favor of their inclusion. JimmyBlackwing 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We aren't looking for supermajority, though, we're looking for consensus, as described in the very first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS. The part about supremajority is just barely applicable to AFD, and not at all applicable for issues of content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy, you quoted out of context. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.

Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds.

– WP:CONSENSUS, (emphasis added)

There isn't consensus for adding the tag. If there were then we'd have added the tag and would no longer be arguing about it. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So we're back to the veto again.--Nydas(Talk) 08:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no tag, so there shouldn't be a tag. There shouldn't be a tag, so there is no tag. This is certainly consistent with what you said on Talk:Spoiler about removals being self-justifying. --Kizor 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Carl and Tony seems to be under some illusion that adding a tag requires consensus but removing it does not. You can't remove a tag and then say "there's no consensus for reinserting it" when the status quo had the tag remaining in place, especially since a clear majority of those participating in the discussion are in favour of the tag.
It's situations like this that highlight the inherent bias in the implementation of the spoiler tag guideline: If the anti-tag group's interpretation of the guideline and consensus policy is to be believed, there is simply no way to gain consensus for a tag in a situation like this, because they can always argue that this consensus isn't quite good enough. There are currently five articles with spoiler tags. Is that a reasonable situation given that the wider spoiler tag issue has no clear consensus either way? Philip Reuben 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is consensus that sections such as "plot" don't need spoiler tags; that issue hasn't been discussed or challenged at WP:SPOILER for a long time. The reason such sections don't need spoiler tags is that they must contain plot info in order to have content. This section is no different. Imagine a "character" listing for a soap opera. It would have a great deal of plot information - who is really the child of whom, etc. - but there would be no way to write such a section without that information, so a spoiler tag wouldn't be needed. The main arguments made about this article have been that a spoiler tag is needed because there are plot details, or that this game is somehow different than every other first person shooter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody reasonably expects the main plot twist of a video game's story to be revealed in the "enemies" section. That's the argument, and I think it's an entirely reasonable one. Philip Reuben 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If the "plot twist" is just the existence of the enemy, what better place to reveal it than in a list of enemies? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That's right. But it is a plot twist, yes? Hence, spoiler tag.--Yeti Hunter 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. The idea that every plot detail needs a spoiler tag has been soundly rejected. Now we only use spoiler tags in places where readers would not expect to encounter a particular plot detail. Since this plot detail is just the existence of an enemy, and the section title says it is a list of enemies, there's no need for a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"If the "plot twist" is just the existence of the enemy, what better place to reveal it than in a list of enemies?" There's no problem with including the information in the list of enemies. It just needs a spoiler tag because nobody reasonably expects to find the major plot twist of the game in the list of enemies. Why is this so hard to understand? Nobody who is unfamiliar with Halo would go into an article about it expecting to find the game's major plot twist revealed in the "Enemies" section, because it isn't at all a standard assumption that "details of an enemy = major plot twist". Philip Reuben 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I expect to find information about enemies in the list of enemies. I don't see that it is such an extreme "plot twist" as you are saying - it's just part of the game, nothing more. Remember that we write from an out-of-universe perspective, so we should view the existence of enemies dispassionately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You will find information about enemies in the list of enemies wether it contains a spoiler tag or not. These expectations are unrelated to the appropriateness of the spoilertag.
The two points are:
Do you expect the biggest plot twist in the entirety of a piece of fiction revealed when you browse a list of enemies without any warning what-so-ever ?
and
Is this in fact the biggest plot twist in the Halo universe?
Let me deal with the first for a bit. In general, would you argue that it is ok to explain that Darth vader is the father of Luke Skywalker in a list of star wars episode 4 characters article without a spoiler tag ? Do you not see how damaging such behaviour would be to a person who simply wants to see which actors are playing which characters before watching the movie ? It is, after all, also just part of the star wars fiction ?
And that we write from an out of universe perspective is one of your points, right? which you take to mean that the chronology of pressentation in the fiction should not matter when listing information at all - so let us go right ahead and list plot details from sequels in their predecessers article when they contain information on similar subjects ?
And surely the death of Johnny Darko is an important part of his character, let us include that in a list of characters from johnny darko as well ! Or let us write out which characters eventually die and how it happens in the list of harry potter characters ! Is that not what you're arguing by suggesting a dispassionate approach ?
I'm sorry, but it is mean and damaging, even if not intentional, to presume a reader will infer that there will be spoilers from article sections with such arbitrary names as "list of characters" or "list of enemies". And the spoiler tag is there; I will have you document a better use for it than this if you still refuse it's relevance, or I will be able to conclude that your oppinion is that the spoiler tag should never be used (which is irrational, considering it's very existence).
As for this being the biggest plot twist in the franchise; firstly, i am aware of no research documenting a bigger one, and secondly, it is written in the article that the game has been designed around this twist (going so far as removing fauna and engeneering chronology), so we can assume it is definately one of the biggest, and if the rest of the article is complete (which it seems to be), then it is definately the biggest within this specific game (if not the franchise as a whole). 192.38.4.58 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I myself have no strong opinion about spoiler warnings in cases like these. However, I should note that "out-of-universe" does not imply going off-topic (which would be the case if there were plot details about other related games here). The Darth Vader analogy doesn't fit, in my opinion. You do not need to state that Darth Vader is the father of Luke Skywalker in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope because it is largely unneeded for the comprehensive coverage of that film. On the other hand, the existence of the Flood is a key aspect of Halo: Combat Evolved itself. — TKD::Talk 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PW apostrophe

There are two instances of Publishers Weekly being spelled incorrectly here. There should not be an apostrophe. KConWiki 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. (Response to {{editprotected}} request.) ●DanMS • Talk 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Halo 1 Should redirect to Down in It, since it's more appropriate for that article.Jimmyupt 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that Halo 2 and Halo 3 are about the video games, it's probably less jarring for Halo 1 to redirect here. It also seems to be the more common usage, according to Google. I thought Halo 2 had, at one point, a disambiguation notice at the top, but that appears to have been removed. — TKD::Talk 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added dambigs to all three. While I agree that Halo 1 is best redirecting here, a redir tag is definitely needed. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Per Talk:Halo_3#Nine_Inch_Nails, The disambigs have been removed. Please do not continue to add them without first reading the RfC on that page and without inquiring here first regarding the addition of these links. Is Halo the official name of these songs? SpigotMap 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've read the RfC. Continuing discussion over at Talk:Halo 3 for now, I don't see that the RfC was clear-cut and I don't remember having to ask permission to make housekeeping edits to articles. Chris Cunningham 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have the article title as Halo (video game), there is no ambiguity in the title, and per WP:DAB, there is no need for any DAB.--Yeti Hunter 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the wording of template:redir. The issue is that if someone searches for "Halo 1" (which is definitely not the game's official title) they get redirected here. Halo 1 is, however, an accepted unofficial name for the first nin release.
Regardless, it's the weekend and I'm in a clear minority here. Heh, at least I tried. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe HALO_01 is the official title for it, but I could be mistaken. I ask that you only inquire about adding the links back in on the talk page because a consensus has already been drawn to leave them out. SpigotMap 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You seriously reckon more people who search for "Halo 1" will be looking for Nine Inch Nails than the first game in the wildly popular Halo series?--Yeti Hunter 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, but Halo 1 is not the name of this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyupt (talk • contribs) 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is "Combat Evolved" a subtitle or tagline?

It looks like a tagline to me. The manual (p.29) reads "Microsoft, Xbox, the Xbox logos, and Halo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries." Note how it does not say "Halo: Combat Evolved", which it most certainly would if it was the full title. Also, the main screen just says "Halo". Unless someone cite something official (in text form, not a logo) that shows that it's definately part of the title, then I think a move to Halo (video game) is in order.--SeizureDog 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I think that it's a legitimate subtitle. See [2] for an official Microsoft page that used the subtitle in text. Plenty more hits for the subtitle on Microsoft's official site can be found with Google: [3]. I'm not a lawyer, but I guess that they registered a trademark on simply Halo because it's the shortest possible variant of the title?
Another line of argument for using the subtitle on Wikipedia, regardless of whether Microsoft and Bungie do, is that it's in very common usage in the industry as the full title of the game. See IGN, GameSpot, GameRankings, GameSpy, EB Games, for example. — TKD::Talk 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, this needs to move. See Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Role-Playing Game (or lack thereof). Chris Cunningham 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm an idiot, so instead of just moving the damn thing to Halo (video game) (which would have worked, because it had no page history), I went and speedy-tagged it, thus giving it a page history and meaning I need to wait for a janitor. Still, yeah, this is moving. The subtitle definitely isn't normally used when referring to the game, so it shouldn't be part of the title unless it's official, and the lack of the full trademark would suggest that officially the game is just Halo. Chris Cunningham 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What about all of the examples that I provided that show that "Combat Evolved" is in wide use (much wider use than the subtitle of Fallout)? I'm not going to move war, although I do think that listing on WP:RM would have been a good idea. — TKD::Talk 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll also add that, although we don't have a specific set of naming conventions for video games, the naming convention for books suggests that we do use short subtitles for disambiguation purposes (one example in favor would be Orlando: A Biography, not Orlando (book)). I think this is an analogous situation, given the widespread usage of the subtitle, as I showed above. — TKD::Talk 11:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This should not have been moved so unilaterally. Its official name is Halo: Combat Evolved. It was referred to it that way in advertisements, by the game media, etc. No one except gamers for the sake of brevity refer to it as 'Halo' or 'Halo 1'. We should move this back to its rightful place. David Fuchs (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't buy this. As stated above, Microsoft only have a trademark on Halo, anecdotal evidence that "the game media" used the full title is no stronger than a claim that "the game media" used the tagline-enhanced title for Fallout (and I don't buy that there was a media consensus to refer to the game in general by the long title anyway - in the links given above, two are identical box-blurbs and Gamespot uses "Halo" everywhere else on the article and game guide exclusively), and naming conventions for books don't automatically apply here (though I'd be happy to accept this ruling if the CVG project in general decides to apply it for games).
This was hardly a tyrannical move; it was a speedy for a single-edit redirect and there's been little previous discussion of this to my knowledge. It was an attempt to be bold and avoid the kind of bitter arguments about a trivial sunject that got the article locked over spoiler tags.
As for the examples of "widespread use" above, any Google search can return a plausible handful of results. I get three million results for this search, but the intricacies of Internet searches make it pretty difficult for me to prove a negative anyway. Chris Cunningham 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was (reluctantly) on wikibreak during that spoiler discussion, but I'll do my part not to sound acrimonious. :) I agree that it's not really a big deal, but, at the same time, I just didn't see a compelling reason to change the way that the page title was disambiguated. If anything, the conflicting links establish that the game is referred to both with and without the "Combat Evolved" epithet, which I remain convinced is actually a subtitle, based on widespread usage by Microsoft and others. However, I'm not sure that using just "Halo" is a sign of anything; people aren't going to write out the full name of something repeatedly if enough context has been established. As for video gaming naming conventions in general, there is some ongoing discussion on WT:VG about naming conventions, especially with regard to the first game of a series, so I asked for some input on the use of a subtitle, if one exists, as disambiguation. — TKD::Talk 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just don't feel that there's a strong reason (other than a well-meaning attempt to avoid parentheses in article titles) for including the subtitle, as with Fallout. With, say, Planescape: Torment or Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat the subtitle is so important as to render it difficult to discuss the article without. With Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, not so much (though I'll cross that bridge when I come to it). But I suppose that's better put forward on the project discussion :) Chris Cunningham 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at it this way. We went from a straight-foward title to a page that is framed like a disambiguation. TKD is absolutely right in that where context is established, sure, it's fine to shorten it. But it is known as "Combat Evolved". The strong reason for including the subtitle is because that is the proper name. And might I suggest being bold and making a drastic change in hopes to avoid "bitter arguments" assumes that there will be vocal disapproval, and thus it's better to obtain consensus. David Fuchs (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really want to repeat myself here, but if you actually read those pages you'll see that the subtitle isn't included in the actual prose. And WP:NAME exists because this isn't a clear call.
In this case I realise it's difficult to AGF (I am, after all, making a fairly big change to an article that you got to FA status), but please bear with me. As with the NIN redirects, I seriously hadn't realised that people would see this as a big deal. So if the project as a whole decides that in the interests of disambiguity that CVG articles should include the subtitle as a matter of course I have no problem with a move back. But I don't see that an innocuous move followed up with honest discussion is anything less than should be expected from me here. Chris Cunningham 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at it this way: we went from a simple, one of a kind title to a XX (XX)-type page. That alone is reason enough to not have moved it. K-I-S-S, and all that. David Fuchs (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you just use an example against yourself? See Kiss (band). Also, keeping it as is just to avoid parentheses is not a valid reason.--SeizureDog 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's called "Keep it simple, stupid." Taking a page from easily navigable to once that requires a disambig is not simple or helpful. David Fuchs (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, avoiding parentheses is not the be-all and end-all of WP:NAME. The subtitle version is contrived (I've never heard anyone actually refer to the game like this and it's contentious whether this is the game's official title anyway) and still contains punctuation. Quite annoyed that this was moved back despite ongoing discussion. Chris Cunningham 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that "Halo: Combat Evolved" is a very good name for the article. It's written on the front cover of the box, it's what many reviewers call it and it prevents the need for "Halo (video game)". I don't see any reason to move it to "Halo (video game)". Did the name "Halo: Combat Evolved" serve its purpose effectively? I would argure yes (some may think otherwise), also the article name "Halo: Combat Evolved" sounds better to me than "Halo (video game)". As for "Quite annoyed that this was moved back despite ongoing discussion."; well it was a unilateral move, there was no consensus to move it (hence this large discussion). James086Talk | Email 10:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It was moved because I dislike contrived titles. The game is called Halo. That its tagline is frequently tacked on to make article titles more grandiose does not change that. We should attempt to title articles as they are referred to, per WP:NAME, and unnecessary punctuation is generally to be avoided, with the cited exception of articles about books. That it prevents the need for "Halo (video game)" is neither here nor there; we avoid having to have "Halo: Combat Evolved" if it gets moved, much like we avoid "Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Role-Playing Game". I can't see any arguments for the former which wouldn't apply to the latter, and vice-versa. I dislike Wikipedia's lack of consistency in things like this, and far too often things stay the same as they are because of a natural resistance to change rather than because things are better that way. Chris Cunningham 10:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as Microsoft, Bungie, and all the big game publications are concerned, it's "...Combat Evolved". Just because you refer to something once, then switch to another, easier version to say doesn't change that. Should we rename Populous: The Beginning because halfway down the reviews IGN just called it Populous? And moving the page in the first place was a stupid idea, frankly. Evidently you didn't see this line on the move page link: WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. I reverted because discussion should have been carried out first. David Fuchs (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but all of that could apply to Fallout as well, and is no more valid here than there. Populous is a completely different kettle of fish. As for my "evidently" not having seen the page move warning, I'm going to assume that was a joke. I don't consider causing some kerfuffle on a talk page to be "drastic and unexpected", though I would agree that in retrospect I shouldn't have bothered. Chris Cunningham 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
But Fallout:... is unreasonably long. We should use common sense, and so it is correct that Fallout should not have that long subtitle as the article title. However with Halo: Combat Evolved, the title is not ridiculously long so I don't see the problem. I see it as similar to TKD's example of the book Orlando: A Biography, not Orlando (book). James086Talk | Email 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
TKD's example is a project-specific override of WP:NAME for the books project. Once again, if the CVG project decides to adopt this then I'm cool, but to my knowledge it hasn't done so yet. Chris Cunningham 09:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The developer's official webpage makes no mention of "Combat Evolved": http://www.bungie.net/Projects/Halo/default.aspx The title is simply Halo. I will now patiently wait for someone to explain why the developer's official webpage for their own game should not be taken into account in this matter. Druff 01:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Lack of the "Combat Evolved" phrase in a particular page is a necessary but not sufficient condition for excluding it here, in light of the examples of its use by Microsoft (which owns Bungie) and others. See [4], [5], [6], [7] for its use in running text official Microsoft material. Bungie's revamped its wensite multiple times over the years, but it used to refer to the game as Halo: Combat Evolved (though not in running text). However, the press releases that I linked above show that Halo: Combat Evolved is in use as the full title by official first-party sources. — TKD::Talk 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time it is referred to Halo:CE for short. In fact that is what the computer title was. It is a way to distinguish it without saying Halo1.68.103.206.91 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Needler weapon

See Wikipedia's disambig article Needle re:
"The Needler", a weapon used by the Covenant in Bungie's Halo: Combat Evolved
Should there be a mention of The Needler in Halo: Combat Evolved?--User:Brenont 01:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We generally don't mention individual weapons in games, to avoid straying too close to game guide material. — TKD::Talk 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release Date

I know Halo was not released in 2003 because I first played it in 2002, and I'm quite sure it was out months before I played it. Hayden120 06:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah me too. I bought an xbox with Halo in September 2002. Halo was not a new game when I bought it. I played it much earlier (March maybe?). James086Talk | Email 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Research suggests that Halo was clearly a launch-day title in Australia on March 14, 2002. See, for example, [8]. — TKD::Talk 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Halo's influence

In the beggining of the article, it is commented that:

" Halo is widely considered to be one of the best, and most influential, first-person shooters of all time. " And two sources are given, neither which is anything that qualifies as a reliable source. Perhaps the EDGE article has done some better research, but boths sites, it appears, merely provide speculation and oppinion. Particularly jarring is the fact that no less than 3 first person shooters are, according to one of the articles, more influencial than halo, and according to the other article, which is a list of the 100 best games (and thusly focusing on another part of the claim; half life 2 is the first person shooter outranking it as a first person shooter, however, this article focuses on Halo as a series, not a single game)

I believe this sentence is weasel words and should be removed, or it should be documented using sources that either have done actual research (in regards to influence), and at least one link to a site describing it as among the best of all time first person shooters should be provided that focuses exclusively on Halo 1. Even then, a statement saying that "it is widely considered" this way is highly questionable; what good does it do the reader if this "wide consideration" cannot be backed up with sources, so it cannot be verified? I'm not making the change as I believe this discussion page would be a good place to list the additional sources and discuss their relevance, but at the moment, I am very displeased that Halo is described this way.

The Legacy part of the article suffers severely from this as well; One of the refferences is to a newspost speculating the influence of the entire franchise upon what it calls "a significant portion of the gaming public" - with halo 1 having sold only 4,5 million titles and halo 2 having sold 6 million, it is hardly reasonable to attribute this influence to Halo 1. What's more, the halo franchise uses massive viral marketing methods such as the iLoveBees game, so attributing the elaborate construction of a halo 3 hoax gamescript to the release of halo 1 is simply wrong.

The gamespot article naming Halo a classic of our time is published only 3 years after it's worldwide availability - and it completely fails to substantiate the claims that innovation first seen in halo made it's way into other games - I am not even aware of such innovation myself, and have never seen it documented.

With such skewed interpretation of sources, I doubt this part of the article is neutral and it therefore ought to undergo a complete overhaul. 192.38.4.58 19:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence that you have cited may have been a bit overstating the case, especially given the adverb "widely"; I have reworded it to avoid that word and to make it clear who is doing the "considering". I have also removed the Joystiq "movie script" source; that was stretching it (since it was focusing on that, really, rather than the games), and have made it clearer that GameSpot was the one stating that Halo's features have been borrowed.
However, Edge, Gamepro, and Gamespot are industry-specific standard fare for this subject matter, have editorial oversight, are normally considered reliable sources for contemporary criticism of video games. After my edits, I don't see a widespread issue with the sources themselves; there may be room for rewording, given that there is a lot of passive voice. — TKD::Talk 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've requested more pairs of eyes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo, in order to get more input. — TKD::Talk 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to some of your points: Halo definitely can be considered one of the most influential- see the "halo killer/clone" terminology, as well as the fact that it, by and large, made limited weapons capacity de facto. Also, Halo 3 has sold at least 4 million, and Halo 2 has sold more than 8 million, so those should probably be factored into your questioning. David Fuchs (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to modify the article myself because I have not played halo and have not at all followed it's development, release or legacy; I have no basis for gathering research, but I am raising points when I see something that doesn't fit. My point concerning sales...well I used wikipedia, excuse me if it is wrong, but in that case you might wish to head on over to the halo 2 article and update it with your numbers and include your source there.
But I'll try to respond to your enquiries as you have responded to mine - firstly, the Halo Killer terminology, is there any evidence that it does not refer to the series as a whole, or perhaps the latest game? Halo 2 is far more popular and featured the most popular console-based internet-multiplayer for years. If there is no evidence then attributing it to Halo it seems to be original research, and the reader instead deserves to be told of the popularity of the series. Considering it's successor has sold far more copies at a time where much broader and viable alternatives existed, Halo 1 was basically dropped into a void of missing competition, and often bundled with the xbox console, skewing the numbers usability for measuring popularity and part of the brand impact that can be attributed to this release.
As for making limited weapon capacity a de facto standard - I'm gonna need to see some evidence on that one, or atleast to hear an anecdote or two. Limited weapons have been common for a long time in first person shooters and other games alike. Counterstrike is earlier(1 weapon limit, but with 1 sidearm also and a quick-switch button), and was more popular than Halo at Halo's time of release, and has recieved many times more publicity and been available to a much wider audience. Starsiege tribes uses a model that closely resembles Halo's, and that was released in 1998 (recharging shields, grenades that can be thrown without selecting them as a seperate weapon, and at standard a 3 weapon limit). It may be true that halo was the first console based first person shooter (of which there were only a few successful ones prior to halos release), to utilize this feature (though I personally doubt it). But if we go beyond that, fairly limited, genre, Bungie themselves utilized it for Oni (for the playstation 2) prior to the release of Halo; and many earlier games have limited weapons in different ways (system shock 2, Deus Ex, Rainbow Six). Again I cannot speak for console first person shooters, but I know for a fact that it has varied a lot for PC shooters after the release of Halo, and that the most numerous ones to use limitations, the WW2 shooters, more closely resemble Counter Strikes model than Halos. Halo as a series is a tremendously important phenomenon, don't get me wrong, but claiming that a game has done something original requires at least circumstantial evidence that it wasn't influenced by anything to do it, and further, claiming that it made these things standard requires atleast circumstantial evidence that the results of the influence would be somehow altered had the games release not happened - unless both these criteria are met, the game cannot be the source of the influence. 192.38.4.58 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For the Halo Killer terminology, see Killzone#Reception. I picked Killzone because I think that's the game which the term was originally used for. Killzone was released about the same time as Halo 2, but it was hyped in 2003 as a "Halo killer" (ie a year before Halo 2 had been released). Here's 2 sources (from the Killzone article) that say it was hyped up to be a Halo killer: [9] and [10]. Really what I'm trying to say is that Killzone was hyped by Sony as a "Halo killer" before Halo 2 had been released, so it must have referred to the 1st game. If someone says "Halo killer" now, it probably refers to either the series or Halo 3 but this shows that the term was invented relating to Halo 1. I added the Gamespy review of Killzone as a source to the article to show that it must refer to Halo 1, diff. James086Talk | Email 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern, and, if you can find a reliable source that explicitly debunks the notions of Halo pioneering these features, please do add it. I've looked on Google and haven't found anything yet. The problem is that reliable sources cited in this article do indeed credit Halo for being innovative with respect to the weapon system, non-player-character AI, use of vehicles, and energy recharging system, etc. There is a significant body of opinion out there to this effect, so NPOV would probably be out of balance if we omitted these claims altogether; the presence of these assertions is probably indicative that Halo, at the very least, popularized and synthesized these gameplay aspects for the console FPS (but that is purely my interpretive reconciliation of these claims and fact). Unless we find something equally or more reliable that contradicts this, I think that the best that we can do is to reword the relevant sections to make it as clear as possible who is making these assertions, and to avoid stating them as unadorned fact. — TKD::Talk 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for pointing out the timing of the killzone reference James, that is excellent evidence. Thumbs up! It definately proves that Halo 1 has had a great deal of recognition, and that it has been a major influence within the game press, as well as influenced at least one other console FPS in a similar direction.
Finding reliable evidence...well I'm not sure explicitly limited weaponry was touted as a feature before Halo. I may be able to find a mention of it, but it is doubtful any part of the gaming press has reported on it; I doubt it was even considered a feature worth mentioning. Perhaps I can find a manual. This is frustrating, when you can download tribes (as it is now freeware) and cross refference it with it's release date and see the feature right there. Counterstrike should be easier to prove. I'll report back. 192.38.4.58 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, whatever games had limited weaponry before Halo, no one seemed to notice: "You quickly discover that you can carry only two weapons at a time in Halo--a realistic touch that many game players assumed for years would detract from first-person shooters but that lends a nice strategic element to this one." (Gamespot) I was thumbing throw a Gears of War EGM feature yesterday and they mention how limited weaponry, combined with recharging health, is now the standard. David Fuchs (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I encourage you to keep searching, but be aware that, if all we've got amounts to manuals of other games, using them to analyze the veracity of what appears in other reliable sources would be considered a novel synthesis. I think that, unless we do find new material, we can make the article as NPOV as possible with what we currently have by writing, "X attributes the feature Y in other games to its appearance in Halo: Combat Evolved" or similar language, instead of, "feature T is taken from Halo: Combat Evolved". — TKD::Talk 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you TDK, it is definately satisfying for a NPOV article, and I agree with your thoughts on the manual. I still somehow don't like the idea of leaving this alone. It seems to misrepressent the real course of events: The feature was actively used in several games, but it didn't have a successful and popular implementation in a doom-esque singleplayer first person shooter before Halo. At least that's my interpretation after digging through old reviews.
David Fuchs: It's not exactly that noone noticed as much as it is the fact that noone seemed to care at the time. With a myrriad of so called "doom clones" through the 90es, I can almost guarantee that somebody must've done it with a non-trendsetting product. In that respect, Halo, through marketing, gameplay, or whatever other means, seems to have definately put focus on this feature. But I'm confident, that there are much older games with weapon limits. I distinctly recall playing a first person perspective shooting-style game in the 80es that had highly limited inventory on my parents 80 2-86. Tribes in particular would be nice to use as an example, since it had the option of a shield generator that would slowly deplete and then recharge, as well. It would illustrate that Halo popularized several features through a great package deal, even if it didn't invent them.
At any rate, I haven't uncovered any further evidence, and I'm already on my 4th Starsiege Tribes review; online reviews in 1998 were definately awfull, so for now I'm giving up. But the quote from the gamespot article Jakob Fuchs mentions seems like a good inclusion for the page, not claiming it is an original feature but simply illustrating how Halo is the first true standalone blockbuster of this genre to do this in years. Thanks for the responses all 192.38.4.58 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping improve the article. James086Talk | Email 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure Change

Inside the upper part it contains "Game magazines have ranked Halo among the best[10] and most important[11] games of all time. For example, Edge gave Halo a full score of ten out of ten, only the fourth such designation in the magazine's 12-year history;[12] Nevertheless, Halo has its critics, and the game was tenth on GameSpy's "Top 25 Most Overrated Games of All Time"; one reviewer stated that the game "recycled the same areas over and over until you were bored to tears."[13]" I think that this should be moved down to it's own criticism section like other articles have? Businessman332211 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid point. The lead should be more general. I'll try to see what I can do tonight (UTC-4), if no one beats me to it. — TKD::Talk 10:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. The lead should be in general terms, although I left the citations in for "best" and "important", since those are claims that are like to be (and have been) challenged. — TKD::Talk 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)