Talk:SPARTAN Project/MJOLNIR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Condensation + renaming

Since there's a move to delete the MJOLNIR MARK VI page, and this page could use some padding, I'd like to put up a suggestion to condense the Mark 5 and Mark 6 page into a single page and rename it MJOLNIR battle armor. --YoungFreud 21:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The merge seems to have happened already, but I supprot the renaming - it would make much better article title than the current "MJOLNIR MARK". --Malyctenar 13:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be kept here. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:50, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Uh, why? The current title is just weird. I gather that MJOLNIR is all-capitals because the game uses it so, and I could see even MJOLNIR MARK V/VI though the common capitalization is "Mk"; but if the number is gone then the "MARK" is pointless: after the merge, this is now an entry about the MJOLNIR series of battle armor which has models Mk/MARK V and VI. --Malyctenar 12:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MJOLNIR perhaps with the article beginning somewhat like this: The MJOLNIR series of battle armors... ? –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:53, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Well, MJOLNIR battle armor seems a more suitably descriptive title to me, and helps prevent confusion with plain lower-case Mjolnir (which seems to lack the backlink from its Games sction; you might want to add one - I both don't have the time right now and got to this entry just by a chance, after one Halo midnight marathon :-) --Malyctenar 13:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well as far as I'm aware that's against naming conventions, a battle armor is *what* it is, while MJOLNIR MARK (I|II|III|IV|V|VI) is its name (e.g. we don't put Jupiter (planet) on The planet Jupiter). –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:59, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
Good point, but... I'm not fully aware of the naming conventions (and I suppose this is too minor a point to waste much time on learning their details and trying to find out how exactly they would apply in this case), but I don't think it is as strict: just a brief look at the complete list of articles around "Mj" gives titles like Mizarai crater, Mizithra cheese, Mjølnir crater, Mk-48 torpedo, Mk 19 grenade launcher etc. Of course, even these may be wrong titles.
Or what about MJOLNIR series? As I was saying, "Mk" without a number is pointless. Oh, and can you verify whether the canonical materials really use all-uppercase "MK"? (Ideally in the novels, the games may just have all-caps font). I think that I've seen just "Mk" on some articles in Category:Halo. --Malyctenar 10:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, i agree that having just Mk without a number is pointless, the page should be moved, I'm just in favor of moving it to MJOLNIR rather than MJOLNIR battle armor to avoid the needless disambiguation.
However I have not read the novels and it could very well be that the name is not fully capitalised in its proper form, would anyone who has care to comment? –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:42, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Capitalization and other notes

Some notes regarding how various terms are used in the novels:

  • SPARTAN II is the name of the augmentation project
  • Spartan is a soldier produced by the project, except in the back cover, where it's written SPARTAN
  • Master Chief is referred to as Number 117, Trainee 117 (before augmentation), Spartan-117 and Spartan 117
  • MJOLNIR project is the name of the armor project
  • MJOLNIR is the name of the armor, sometimes further qualified as combat armor, assault armor, suit etc.
  • Many military terms are all-caps, for example: HAVOK, FLEETCOM, SATCOM
  • Others are not, might be nicknames, for example: Longsword (interceptor space fighter), Archer (space missile), Pelican
  • Then there are some strange ones, for example NavSpecWep

Aapo Laitinen 21:32, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce MJOLNIR? and can you back it up so its not just a guess? i prefer to say "jol-nir" just because it sounds good, but i know thats not coorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.249.44 (talk • contribs) .

It's named after Thor's hammer. [1] suggests "myol-nir" (not sure how to write that in IPA). — TKD::Talk 23:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pronounced Mi-yol-nir (Can't type it out very accurately)Delta Elite 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The J in Mjolnir is silent. It is pronounced just like it sounds, without the J. Like it is spelled Molnir. The word Mjolnir is Norse, after Thor's Hammer. It is meant to add to the Spartan, to be symbolic of adding an extra hammer to his/her arsenal. The Spartan's do not need their armor, but it adds to and enhances them, just like a pistol or baton adds to a Policeman. The armor is not the weapon, the person inside is the weapon, the armor is an extenstion of that weapon. Quite obviously, the armor can do NOTHING without someone in it.

MJOLNIR Mark VII?

Is the Master Chief wearing a Mark VII (or a newer Mark VI)? Because there are differences between the Mark VI and his armour in Halo 3. His hand armour, helmet and feet armour are different to that of the Mark VI. Not sure if this has been discussed. Sorry if it has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ras29 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Cleanup

I just stomped through the whole article with a chainsaw and cleare dout a whole mes sof inaccurate and completely made up information. let me know if I missed anything or deleted legitimite information. Peptuck 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you, or someone else, got rid of the Mark VII. Is it because it's not cited? Could we just stick 'citation needed' on it? --Ras29 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is neither citation nor canonical backing for the "Mark VII" armor. I've never seen it called that by any reputable source, so we're better off just sticking a note within the Mark VI section. Peptuck 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Mark VII and anything else that hasnt been written or happened yet is up to the public untill otherwise stated for instance im working on some ideas that the mark VII is a batlle armour similer to the previous mark I in size just so it can hold a substantually larger battery for the simple fact I'm thinking of a new weapon which expells energy similer to the force field but backwords from contact creating a sort of Powerfist if located on the arm of the armour. Bulk is the new strenght.

unconvinced this article should exist

This is an example of an article that discusses a fictional piece of technology in the context of it's impact in the real world. This article as it currently stands is purely for fanboys and is entirely unsuitable for a wikipedia article.


Does material exist to turn this article into a suitable article for wikipedia or are we all off to AFD? --Fredrick day 12:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


OK - working on the assumption that it's possible to clean up the article - the armour featured in the game should be under a section "Armour featured in the game", armour mentioned else where should be in a section called "Armour mentioned in other media.

Do we have any information that would populate a real-world impact section? --Fredrick day 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


How the fuck is it unsuitable? Why delete the information from the novels? It's freaking canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.234.166 (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and shouldn't be just re-telling fiction in painstaking detail. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). — TKD::Talk 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Still not convinced. Oh, if there are problems with articles like MJOLNIR armor, why not delete these:[[2]], [[3]], [[4]] if TKD just plugs the "Not an indiscriminate collection of information" card on me.


Thanks for pointing those out to me - I'll get started on slashing them down when I have a chance, the first one certainly looks dodgy. --Fredrick day 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I said it rhetorically. Why is it suddenly a big deal to someone like Fred when those articles aren't considered a problem for the other admins in the past?

That's a problematical argument to make for a number of reasons - the main reason that's it not been a problem in the past is that, due to the size of wikipedia, nobody got around to it. That's not a convinicing reason not to bring the article upto wikipedia standards. --Fredrick day 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As far MJOLNIR is concerned, I can see the article istelf getting rolled into the general UNSC article. The Halo articles in general could use a little bit of condensation, I think. Peptuck 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Was the list of variations on the Mjolnir armor plagerized, or was there some other reason for it being removed entirely? Forar 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely certain. I'm thinking mjolnirarmor.com took Wikipedia's content,a nd not the other way around, but I have no way to verify that at this point. Peptuck 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: Delete this article, and on the disambiguation for Mjolnir, link to the relevant Wikia [sic] article. Ong elvin 04:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Replica Armor Mentioned Twice

For some reason it appears the Replica Armor section has been copied at the bottom of the article, so I'm removing it. It seems to be a copy-paste of the one above, but without the code included. - Forar (note to self; register with Wikipedia)

Marathon?

The MJOLNIR in Marathon was something entirely different. 86.153.73.48 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And? they are both MJOLNIR armor suits used in Bungie games. Peptuck 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing info?

Is it just me, or has someone deleted Mark I - Mark III and also deleted a lot of info from Mark V and Mark VI?

There used to be heaps of info, now there's not much...--60.228.167.87 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone cleared it out, citing Wikipedia's fictional materials policies or some such. Its been moved to the United Nations Space Command article instead. If you want to challenge it you can revert it to the earlier, more expanded versions. Peptuck 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And then have a revert war? em no.. if you want to expand it, you need to indicate the real-world impact of those fictional devices, just reverting it is not the way to go. By slashing the article, it was saved from AFD - if people just add all that old fan-cruft, it's likely it will head off to AFD. --Fredrick day 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not even fan-crafted, as it was written from official sources. The novels are considered canon, and there's no way around that. All I'm getting under this impression is just censoring the information and making the article look lesser than it is right now. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.85.234.166 (talk • contribs).

Not fan-craft, fancruft. Look up the difference and Wikipedia's general policy relating to it. (note, however, that I take "fancruft" in general with a grain of salt, and am on the more liberal side of interpreting the Wikipedia fictional material policy.) Peptuck 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just by that logic, we'd be talking about deleting at least a hundred articles for the sake of removing what is considered "fancruft," which is pretty much every existing fictional article.

more than that - there are literally thousands of articles that shouldn't be here and need to nuked from space. --Fredrick day 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The question here is: is this article even needed now? Because seriously, this is stub-quality right now, with barely any useful information at all. I would propose we simply delete this article and move relevant, useful in-universe information to the UNSC page Peptuck 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The UNSC article needs some seriously clean-up, I'd suggest attempting that before adding any more content. --Fredrick day 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest redirecting this article to Halo, and add a link to the dedicated Halo article? Specifically, move this article to halo.wikia.com (I think that's the site) and delete the copy here, or redirect to Halo if you really must. Then on the Halo articles, under the External Links section, add a link to halo.wikia.com. If you do that, you have more freedom to add information, and less baggage. And one could do the same with those thousand-odd other mentioned articles, really. Ong elvin 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Na, this article actually has a lot of potential, just the fact that a "Development and desing" section can easily be constructed rewritting some of the information about Master Chief's desing offers us a lot of room for improvement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Even so, you need to meet notability and verifiability requirements for an article. And there also needs to be real-world context. Sure people have made replicas of it, but really, how has that significantly affected society at large? Ong elvin 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)