Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo/Archive Cruft

This page 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.

Skulls

We need a page on the Halo 2 skulls. The only (brief) mention of them is in the campaign section of the Halo 2 article. Even here, the skulls are mentioned improperly, citing Mythic as a fifth difficulty level. Given my intimate familiarity with the skulls, I nominate my handsome self to start the page. Cryptic C62 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, though. Wikipedia is not a game guide, so I'm not sure that a separate page on them is really warranted. — TKD::Talk 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2 Skulls is up, and I feel it is worthy of being an article. It doesn't act as a guide, it acts as a reference.Cryptic C62 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think something like that would fit in better at Strategywiki, where they are recommending we merge all the game-guide-ish articles.--Zxcvbnm 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe this is not a game guide page. If it were a game guide, it would include the exact locations of the skulls, tips on how to get them, tips on how to play with various skulls activated. That's not what it's for. It just lists the level and effects of each skull. --Cryptic C62 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Cryptic C62 here. -007bond 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the page was deleted. I'll eventually get around to putting the information on the Halo 2 page. --Cryptic C62 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too much in detail; it's not an important part of the single-player game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Canon/fancruft

Hola, WikiProject Halo folks. I just want to let you guys know that all of us wanting to keep the Halo articles neat and accurate should keep an eye out for fancruft and non-canonical information. Some users have been lately adding a lot of bullshit and inaccurate information to the articles, especially the Covenant and UNSC ones. Be vigilant; there's plenty of Halo fans who want to add their bits of fanon to these articles. Peptuck 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary on the The Covenant tickeled me quite a bit. [1] -Randall Brackett 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, who says you can't have fun while keeping everything neat and accurate? :P Though I will admit, I've been getting awfully protective of the UNSC/Covenant articles.... Peptuck 08:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Then adopt them on the project page. seriously. -007bond 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Vehicles

Just a heads up that List of vehicles in the Halo universe is up for deletion... I think many of his arguments about being uncited and unsourced are valid, however if we apply their rationale to all of this project, that means basically all lists (weapons, characters, etc) are useless because "we already know it". I suggest we try and save it, and fix what needs fixing. David Fuchs 17:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to keep it. Or all my work on the List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 is useless as well. -007bond 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that we lost the vote and the page is gone? -007bond 21:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good if someone could answer me? -007bond 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we lost... David Fuchs 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Halo 2 Weapons

This is currently on AFD if anyone wants to put their opinions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2. --208.40.58.179 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This thing doesn't stand a chance now that the vehicles page is gone. But I voted to keep it. -007bond 21:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Did this page make it? -007bond 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A thought on the multiplayer articles

Since "gamecruft" lists have been deleted lately, my thought on saving the List of multiplayer gametypes in Halo 2 and List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 articles is to merge them together into Multiplayer in Halo 2 and treat each individual component in less detail (since that minutiae is what makes the lists encyclopedic). I think that the broader article would be easier to get to WP:FA than trying to get the lists to WP:FL, especially since some would just as soon have the lists fdeleted. One thing to bear in mind is that the merged article needs to have some prose as well: Information on reception, development, etc. — TKD::Talk 15:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here. Our articles are under attack and we need to do something to ensure their survival. But like I've said above, I just don't have the time. Someone else needs to take care of this. -007bond 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Deletion?

Hi, I'm a long time wikipedian but just got an account recently. Anyways, I've noticed all the pages on Weapons and Vehicles have been deleted. A week ago I found a rough rebirth of the Vehicles article, but it was up for deletion too! There was no talk page to discuss the matter (honestly, it was redlinked), and the notice had been up for about a month, so i decided to save the article since there was pretty much no given reason for its deletion. A couple hours later i get a note (this was before i got my own account) saying that i shouldn't have done that and that it was back up for deletion, and if i wanted to dispute it i could go to the talk page...which was still nonexistant. That just annoyed me so I decided to forget about it.

Basically, what I'd like to know is why it seems somebody has it out for all the Halo-related articles. I just think it's a little suspicious that the two list articles were deleted, and other similar articles are up for deletion (like this and this). Also, I think that both List of Weapons and List of Vehicles were excellently written, very clean looking, well structured, and most of all, informative. Therefore I'm simply dumbfounded as to why they were deleted. Sure, maybe they didn't cite all their sources or something, but deletion should be a last resort, should it not?

Anyways, I just thought this was something of concern, and also, I'd like to know if it's alright if I can join your project. Mk623SC20K 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is 1) there are people who see everything they aren't interested in as cruft, 2) people would rather delete the articles (some years old) than revise them to fit WP's standards, and 3) They are killing most of WP:H. For instance, on the talk page of the deletion of Changes from Halo to Halo 2, or whatever, they said it could be diseminated into other articles. However, seeing as they removed all the lists where that info could have been put (List of Weapons, which was well written, or List of Vehicles, which was not), they make the point moot. This has been happening I think as a result of the Artile Grading for Videogames. A lot of info has been deleted. David Fuchs 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for every time I saw the word 'cruft' on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2 page...well, we wouldn't be in this problem.

The most annoying thing is that despite what is said there, you can not find the same information on gamefaqs or anywhere else (and even if you can, that's not the point). Whoever wrote those articles would have had to dig pretty deep to find out that the M90 uses 8-gauge shells, or that the 12.7 mm ammo in the pistol was High Explosive in the first game and dummy slugs in the second. That kind of information is not 'cruft', it's based on real-world stuff. I could go to a gunsmith and pay a whole lot of money to have working replicas of (most of) the human guns. And as for the Covenant weapons, plasma exists in the real world and could be used that way some day.

I'm going to try and rebuild the Weapons article over the next couple of weeks, and I'll definitely make sure nobody finds reason for its deletion. Any help would be appreciated because I'm not great with formatting in WP.

Mk623SC20K 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, was there one single sentence sourced to something other than the games, game guides, or fansites in any of the deleted articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a *game*, Man In Black. Do you think there is going to be some government report about Halo? No. All the info comes from Bungie or Bungie-authorized sources, who else can you trust besides the creators? David Fuchs 15:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time, Atlas Shrugged was described in detail. (If you're not familiar with it, it's a rather famous novel by a controversial author, and one of the foundations of a philosphical movement.) We had chapter by chapter analysis, commentary on every character major or minor, and similar lavish detail.

Then, everyone realized that this is an encyclopedia, and that highly-specialized detailed analysis can be left to more-specialized sites, while Wikipedia can offer an overview sourced to those other resources offering highly-specialized detailed analysis.

If we didn't need detailed analysis of a controversial, well-known novel that forms the basis of a philosophical movement, why do we need detailed analysis of a video game? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I ask you, at what point is knowledge ever useless? David Fuchs 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not, and cannot, include every single fact, and we have a long-standing policy outlining what Wikipedia doesn't do. These articles often include advice, trivia of limited potential interest, and original research, and what little is left can often just go into the game articles themselves.

This isn't some grudge against Halo. (I love Halo, and I've been a Bungie fan since Marathon.) I've just realized that you can't have two-dozen encyclopedic articles about two games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on the approach to how the article is written. I'm guessing that a lot of the Atlas articles were in-universe lists? For one, I would not be opposed to a well-written article on any fictional character/vehicle/object/location, provided that the article is of a decent length and devotes the majority of its time to out-of-universe, sourced analysis — design rationales from the creators, critical reception, influence on other fiction, etc. — whether it's Atlas Shrugged, Halo 2, or The Simpsons. If there's enough of that non-plot information available, then an article could potentially be justified. — TKD::Talk 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

David, look at AMIB's contributions; he does a lot of work with video game articles. With some digging, I bet that you could find some reputable reviews. Another idea that I suggested in one AfD was to explore how these assets are used in machinima; the Warthog itself was the catalyst for at least Warthog Jump and Red vs Blue. (Yes, I know that WJ was AfD'ed and merged as a result. I intend to research and re-create a better article explaining its impact in terms of machinima, if no one else gets to it first.) There's even a peer-reviewed paper that touches on the role of usability testing in designing Halo's weapons and in particular the targeting reticule.[2] — TKD::Talk 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you all. Some one or some group of people has it out for video games on this site, and it has to stop. That information was unique. We need to save what we can to our hard disks quickly before we lose it all. I know I'll be doing it for my adopted articles. -007bond 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A note for anyone wishing to re-create any of the deleted articles: There's probably some potental for encyclopedic content, given that Halo is one of the more popular franchises out there, but you need to ensure that there's more than just in-game information there. Look for reviews dealing with the specific objects that you want to discuss. Look for Bungie interviews to provide production details. I think Halo.Bungie.Org has a very old Halo trailer where the designers look back at the early stages of the game's development. I think it's certainly possible to have these articles and to have them stick, but they have to be done right. And, please, make sure that you have enough out-of-universe information before you create the article, or it might be grounds for speedy deletion as re-created material. — TKD::Talk 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is so much time being spent on sub-articles when these articles need your love so badly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Halo/Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved

Well, the multiplayer-in-Halo article went to AFD, and not a single user offered more than a "weak keep" to keep it as a standalone article. Not a stirring endorsement to keep it, especially since there were no sources and it had so many different things crammed into one article.

As such, I've moved it to project space here. If someone wants to totally rewrite this, including sources, that would be fine; better would be to take what can be sourced, source it, and merge it into Halo: Combat Evolved.

Whatever you do, I will just delete it as a repost of deleted material (WP:CSD G4) if it shows up in article space in this kind of shape again.

Look at this as a reprieve; if this article can be made into an actual encyclopedia article, it will go a long way to defending similar articles from AFDs in the future. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)