Template talk:Halo series

Template size

Does anyone else think this template is way too huge? –Wlmaltby3 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much stuff. I still like the template how it was when I createad it, with an addition of Halo 3.

How about this? It's a more compressed format with the headers on the side. Based on Template:Firefly. --OGoncho 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Make the text smaller (and add a nowrap to the last row header). Not a big fan of the centering. Perhaps something like Template:Microsoft_products. --DevastatorIIC 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's awesome. I think we should implement it immediately.

All we have to do is remove the links to the specific minor characters on the minor characters page. Also we could make a page for all the non-game Halo media, (Halo books). -- Psi edit 17:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

possible new Template

Here it is. What do you think? Please edit all the errors that are in it (centering, italics, etc) -- Psi edit 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I sorta like OGoncho's better. The current one/yours is just too damn big, and wastes a lot of space. I made another version (based off OGoncho's Here. --DevastatorIIC 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to look over the posts to see if someone had made a new template. Youre right his is smaller, he has the same idea as mine (putting the multiplayer section). -- Psi edit 03:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like Psi's better than the current, however Devastator's is even better. Let's use it!

I am being bold and putting it up directly from my user page. Feel free to tear it a new one. I'd like to make the behind-the-scenes code a little more organized; I think I will work on that right now. --DevastatorIIC 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (Also, I moved Psy's template to his talk page) --DevastatorIIC 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue

Does Red vs. Blue belong on this template? I'd say no, given that it doesn't occur within the Halo universe, and that it's not the only notable fan-made machinima production out there. Both the games and Red vs. Blue link to each other already. I don't see the need to put a link to machinima in a template that also appears at the bottom of, say, 343 Guilty Spark. Am I alone in subscribing to this line of thought, though? — TKD::Talk 07:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we put a machinima section in the template for Halo Machin

Fansites

Should Halo fansites like Halo.Bungie.Org be added to the template? --OGoncho 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be no; this template is already very large. — TKD::Talk 04:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed

Pursuant to the discussion at WT:CVG#Navboxes yet again, I've given this template a good reworking. There really isn't a need to link to everything, and, actually, most people are looking for the main trilogy games, so putting those in an uncluttered location makes sense. I created a list article, list of official Halo series media, to contain all of the ancillary stuff. If you have any concern about this general reduction, which is being implemented across the CVG project, it's best to bring it up on the CVG talk page, as linked above. — TKD::Talk 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Halo Wars, from what I can see, looks to be more significant than "other". I added it back in. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these two revisions very much. This is all that needs to be here, with the possible addition of the movie. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that I'd prefer to leave the film out until its production isn't in jeopardy. — TKD::Talk 11:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't have anything to do with the article. Besides, Wikipedia is a work in progress, we can't be waiting for our articles, or the topics they cover, to always be stable. -- Ned Scott 11:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that you could make the case that, at this point, it's notable enough whether or not it's ultimately produced. My concern when I did the redesign was not to conflate other productions with the main trilogy, which is paramount. That said, I'm not strongly opposed to it going back in. — TKD::Talk 12:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Halo Project

Even though it hasn't been named, the release date is unknown, and there is little information, I think the Untitled Halo Project should be listed in the template after Halo Wars. It's certainly listed in Template:Bungie Studios under "Halo games." --theSpectator _talk 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm being bold and adding it to the template. Remember you can always remove it. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bungie template isn't very good. The untitled project was omitted as a far-off unreleased game, likely to be cancelled or completely changed before release. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AMIB. You know that a game is far off when it doesn't even have a public working title. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, it can stay off, I don't really mind either way. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: The working title has been Halo Wars for a while. Just to note. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Smaller template

I know the template is already small, but I'm not talking about the content, I think it should cover a suitable width, not 80%. Maybe more like 50%-60%. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Larger Template

The small template negotates and draws attention away from the full scale of the Halo series, and it betrays the reason we have the template: allowing people to reach articles that are connected by subject easily; with the smaller template, many Halo articals will be difficult to find. I suggest that we revert to the old template. Bonus X 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is: If you have too many links, they all become pretty muddled together. A navigation box that takes up half a screen on a 1280 by 1024 monitor really isn't helpful, it just clutters things. Do we really need to directly link to 30 different things at the bottom of every article? Keep in mind that this is in addition to any other navboxes that may be there. I'm certainly amenable to tweaking this template, but ten lines of links will just overwhelm the average reader.

To put it another way: If a reader is just coming across Halo: Combat Evolved for the first time,chances are that they're probably going to want to read a few other higher-level articles first, rather than more specialized ones. Chances are that they'll be more interested in, say, the overview article on the Halo universe (which took me a full 30 seconds to find in the old 10-line layout) rather than "Conversations from the Universe". And they probably won't even have heard of Fire Team Charlie. On second thought, they probably won't even have heard of "Conversations", either. So those links will just obscure what they're trying to find.

Yes, Wikipedia isn't paper, but we can still try to organize information well and to adhere to the principle of progressive disclosure. — TKD::Talk 08:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most people who want the see the Halo: Combat Evolved article, will most likely want other articles, which otherwise would be linked to once or twice on distant articles. My monitor has an 800x600 resolution and it looks fine. 81.77.10.229 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Even assuming that readers will want to find everything, it's actually better to unclutter things by reducing the sheer volume of links, especially since the ordering of the ten rows didn't follow a predictable pattern, and to give the "overview" articles more prominence. It's much easier for the reader to process four rows than ten. That's partially why I had created List of official Halo series media to serve as a repository of links with a little clearer structure, and more room to breathe, than a navbox. That, plus Halo universe, plus Characters in the Halo series should provide most of the links that were previously in the navbox with the exception of the machinima series, the inclusion of which I strongly disagree with anyway, since they're (mostly) unofficial endeavors. — TKD::Talk 10:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganized the template into what I believe to be better organized and easier to read. Look at it here before I replace the current one.CSLoomis 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that I can live with that general layout, though I did take the liberty of un-hardcoding the left column width (which seems to throw off IE7) and left-justifying the right column: my eyes, at least, found a bit more difficult to line up the rows when the left column was separated from the right, although I'm not going to be adamant about that. — TKD::Talk 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Thanx for the changes. I will go ahead change the template.CSLoomis 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Soundtracks?

Are soundtracks really necessary in the navbox? They're covered in List of official Halo series media and otherwise seem non-notable for the navbox. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I love the soundtracks, but they're a minor aspect of Halo. They don't carry the importance as everything else in the template. People who are interested in them may not even initially realize that they have individual articles, and would either visit List of official Halo series media or the relevant game article first. — TKD::Talk 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

every article related to halo must be covered in the navbox. otherwise there wouldn't be any use of it.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Olive color

This doesn't go with anything, is garish, and in no way is the "official" color of Halo. Just because an Xbox 360 was made in similar colors does not mean our infobox should be too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dislike the color, to me it looks like "puke" green, its really messing with the contrast of the articles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Forerunner Saga and Kilo-Five Trilogy

The Forerunner Saga and Kilo-Five Trilogy have some mix-ups. Glasslands is not the second book in the Forerunner Saga, it's the first book in the K-5 Trilogy. The Thursday War is the second book in the K-5 trilogy, not the first. Primordium is not the third book in the Forerunner saga, it's the second. Silentium is not the second book in the K-5 trilogy, it's the third and final book in the Forerunner saga. Also, the series Greg Bear wrote is called the Forerunner Saga, not Forerunner Trilogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cases3 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out. The1337gamer (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

True games

@Boarba Fett: I'm not sure what you mean by "true games" (especially since almost all of the added links are redirects and not independently notable games). Per BRD, we generally don't revert a revert. The existing template had consensus and your changes don't yet. So please revert your edit and discuss here. czar ♔ 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that all of these are confirmed games. I will create pages/subsections about these shortly, and yes these all are notable games. If you don't believe me, search them and then see how correct I am.Boarba Fett (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Boarba Fett: I know for a fact that 5 and 6 are not confirmed. I highly suggest taking some time to learn how due weight, notability, and reliable sources work on Wikipedia before possibly wasting your time with such an expansion. The notices already on your user page indicate that this process has already started. There's a lot of work to do around here, and I'd like to see you stick around, so I suggest working on the things that won't get reverted right away. czar ♔ 20:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Czar:Halo 5 and 6 have been confirmed. There is no need to get rude about it. I will sort this all out over the next few days. I'm sorry but have been very busy. Boarba Fett (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Boarba Fett: No rudeness intended. We've redirected several Halo 5 articles already for lack of reliable sources. I recommend taking a look at that precedent before going in guns blazing to a place where we've already tread. czar ♔ 23:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Boarba Fett: the navbox is a navigation template meant to help navigate through "articles" related to a specific topic. There is no need for topics that redirect to articles already implemented. I hope this helps.

What Czar is trying to say is that its best to get familiar with the rules and guidelines before making an edit that might end up getting fairly reverted. we don't want your efforts to be fruitless. Lucia Black (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Czar:@Lucia Black: I am working on getting new pages. Halo 5 and Halo 6 were confirmed during Microsoft's 2011 E3 presentation. When I am finished sorting this template out, there will not be any redirects. Just give me some time to finish please. I guarantee it will come out good in the end Boarba Fett (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Boarba Fett: If you look in the page histories, you'll see that we've removed articles with the E3 2011 sourcing in the past. If you'd like to work on the article, I suggest doing it in userspace because it would be against existing consensus to re-make an article where we agreed none should exist (until further sources appear). czar ♔ 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss major changes

Please discuss a major reorganization of the template here before unilaterally acting, especially when it adds a ton of redirects to articles already linked in the navbox. czar ♔ 00:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Halo 2 anniversary

If there are no halo 2 anniversary, then why are they advertising it at E3 and the Halo: The Master Chief Collection adds? --108.38.70.215 (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a navbox to help navigate through the articles that exist in wikipedia. it is not to mention.every game that exist in the series. Lucia Black (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)