Talk:Halo 3

Edit pictures!

"Official logo for Halo 3" The first picture that is present, the halo 3 logo with the dark background, that is fan-created art of the halo 3 logo.

Go talk to Gamespot, they'll have some words with you about officially-released material. Peptuck

"The Master Chief's MA5C Assault Rifle, along with an overturned Warthog in the background." That is not a warthog, that is a the new Mongoose ATV

No, no, nononononononono. For heaven's sakes, do we have to discuss this every month? Look in the archives, we've thumped any question as to whether that is a Warthog. Look at the suspension, the shape, the wheels, the winch and cable on the front, the sheer size of the darn thing. (for reference, Master Chief is in front of the grass, and the vehicle is behind the grass. Its big.) Unless they are making special Mongoose models for a hence unseen minority of twelve-foot tall storm giants tromping around in the UNSC, that thing is not a Mongoose! It is a Warthog. Peptuck 06:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest Archive 4

I decided to archive the majority of the page as of 11th April 2007. It had over 40 topics at the time. What I've archived was mostly irrelevent, already fixed, or suggesting changes that were pointless and shot down already. I've left the most recent and relevent posts below. RC Master 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation for "Is Quisnam Protero Damno!"

Does anyone know what the title means? "Is Quisnam Protero Damno!" appears to be Latin, but I'm honestly not sure. Should there be something mentioned in that section of the article explaining this title? Brent Butler _contribs^talk 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The most i can get rom this is "He Who tremble dammed or condemed"Curtis _contribs

A google search revealed something like "who treads damned". There was no translation for "is" to latin. So it would be "Is [the one/he]? who treads the damned" or something like that. It seems like some inside joke or something, but whatever it is, I don't understand its significance so I don't think it should be put in the article. If someone figures out what it means then it should probably be added. Dan Guan 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a message to my latin teacher, who was educated at Penn University, he will translate it for me, and I will list his translation here, along with any other comments he had.

He said, "It is grammatically incorrect latin but probably is intended to mean, I condemn him whom I trample under my feet

Magister" lF0CUSl

The actual un-grammatically correct translation is "This Quidnam To tread under foot Condemn" The Walkin Dude 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Portable Grav Lift

There is a portable/deployable grav lift in the new vidoc around 23 seconds into the video. Look for a blue spartan on the left side of the screen when they're playing on high ground. this should be updated on the page.

Crankdawg47 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we can't really confirm that it's portable, or even can be held by the player. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

However, we know that that map does not have a grav lift placed there so we can deduce that someone put it there.

Crankdawg47 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true, I guess it's fine just as long as we it says it hasn't been officially confirmed, but just seen. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isnt this just another instance of the "Man Cannon" that bungie has been hyping so much? --MCRemix 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No. High Ground doesn't have a "Man Cannon". The only confirmed instance of a "Man Cannon" in on Valhalla. This is just a grav lift similar to the one found on Colossus in Halo 2. In essence, the "Man Cannon" is just a suped up grav lift with more "out" than "up". Crankdawg47 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Grav Lift is in the game as equipment. In a newly released video from Bungie the grav lift is dropped in front of the player.TroyDOMINATE 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Assault Rifle Information

The Assault Rifle, as shown in the Multiplayer Vidoc “Is Quisnam Protero Damno!”, has a 32 round clip and at least holds 260 rounds. It appears slimmer then the Halo 1 AR, the but(t) of the gun looks different, it has a blue clip number display on the gun, and the AR is more accurate than the one in Halo 1. Additionally the way the AR was designed is to encourage the player to use grenades and the melee attack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tnarg122 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Time to cull the article

With the upcoming release of the beta, and the marketing campaign expected to kick off some time soon as well, a lot of the information in this article is about to become irrelevant or outdated. I suggest the article be remorselessly culled. For starters, I reckon the "release info" and "media releases" bits can be completely axed - all the information is either duplicated elsewhere or really out of date. The ViDoc and trailer descriptions could also probably do with a bit more trimming, too. And the Beta section is presumably going to get much larger once the beta is opened; I suggest this section be trimmed to the beta release date and something about getting a copy of crackdown until then. Thoughts?--ABVS 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Release Info and Media releases are messy and unneeded. If any particlar information is needed from those sources they can be cited rather than talked about on their own. RC Master 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Beta section needs complete rewrite. Until the beta is released, all that is needed is a breif outline of the 'rule of 3,' what the beta contains and a link to Beta FAQ. RC Master 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Cortana idea (not theory!)

I'm banned from my gaming forum and I can't seem to be able to sign up to Bungie's forums, so I'll post my idea here. Please edit this page with your thoughts. Much thanks.

In the Halo series of novels, the Master Chief has access all sorts of knowledge through his most powerful, and possibly most underrated, weapon: Cortana. So why can’t she help you during multiplayer action? The most obvious reason is because there needs to be a way in the game for her to understand your words, interpret their meaning, and show the intel that you want.

What if the Halo developers were to incorporate the same idea into Halo? You’re on the battlefield and you say “Show headshots.” The Xbox 360 hears the word show and moves to the directory of things that can be shown to the player. It then hears the word headshots and ‘Cortana’ displays how many headshots you’ve gotten and how many times you’ve died from a headshot. She could even audibly speak this out to you through your headset.

Let’s expand this idea from just statistics. GRAW had a screen on your HUD that you could use to cycle through teammate’s screens and an overhead view. A similar thing could be adapted into Halo. You say “Display player 1.” And a similar process happens as before. Each player in the game would have to be assigned a temporary number next to their gamertag so ‘Cortana’ can understand the player speaking commands.

The only problem I see with this being implemented is you wouldn’t want to hear others players keep babbling useless things like “show shots fired.” A button needs to be pressed to access Cortana. Last I heard, there aren’t really any buttons left. All the directional pad buttons will probably be used for grenades and things. I thought about it, and the only action it would be successfully used in conjunction with is crouching. When you’re crouching, you really don’t want to be heard from anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eternalmatt (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Problem is, that IS a theory. Bungie haven't said anyhting about verbal commands in campaign, let alone multiplayer. Also, if you just speak normally while in MP (at least in Halo 2) your voice is only heard by those physically close to you in the game. You have to press a button to talk to your teammates over the in-game comm.

As for camera angles you mentioned. The Saved Films feature is going to allow you to do all that and more. Albiet, in a post-game situation. RC Master 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, that would be so cool. But it isn't really Master Chief in multiplayer, is it? And there's only one Cortana. --Ras29 12:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"A new map with many similarities to the bridges from Assault on the Control Room in Halo 1"

That's Gyrophobia, from Halo 1 PC.

Sai-kun 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While it does looks similar to gyrophobia, its not. Frankie said this somewhere i believe. It could be noted in the article (if its not already) that it shares visual cues with gyrophobia and the bride from AotCR. RC Master 11:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dual-Wieldable Sword

In the new ViDoc there is a section where you see a spartan carrying a sword at his hip. This indicates that the sword is dual-wieldable because one handed, DW weapons are carried at the hip while two-handed, single-wield weapons are carried on the back. Further proof can be found in the first ViDoc where we can see a elite model go at a brute model with two swords. granted this was not an in-game clip but it shows that Bungie was considering it. The only issues with duel wielding swords are 1) There usually is only 1 per map and 2) How would it work? Crankdawg47 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrying a weapon on the hip does not automatically qualify it for being dual-wieldable. It simply means its small enough to stow on the hip. Peptuck 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think dual-wielding swords will happen. I think it'll just be for an in-game cutscene, maybe. Aside from looking uber-badass, there would really be no point to being able to hold two swords at once, since one slice from one sword is [usually] enough to kill someone. Oh and that's the second ViDoc [Et Tu, Brute], not the first.Sai-kun 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I will concede until more information becomes available. Crankdawg47 12:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Um there would be a point. Just because you could dual-wield it doesn't mean you have to have two of the same thing, You could have a sword and a plasma rifle or something. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's possible. 67.121.239.123 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fauna, audio

In Halo 2 there were crane-like things with 4 wings. Animals in the Halo universe are not brand new to Halo 3. That's what it is sounding like right now.

Audio- Just a note, Half-Life 2 (Released earlier IIRC)has used distant gunfire audio exchange with the Combine so it is not new, just something they *most likely* didn't have time to squeeze into Halo 2.

Also physics can be concluded from watching multiplayer videos especially the something-something damno! video but yeah, no confirmation I don't think.

Other than that fine article.

Wieldable Turrets?

As a conformation, it is specified in the latest bungie.net update (http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12362) that the Warthog chaingun CANNOT be taken off the Warthog and used. However, in the most recent vidoc, it seems that the 'chain gun' that the player was carrying and operating was a type of human light turret similar to the one in Halo 2. This would make sense. In the Brute vidoc, we saw that the Brutes and the Elites can operate and carry light plasma turrets similar to those in Halo 2.

This needs to be clarified in the article.

71.198.200.94 07:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

Does anyone know the exact releae date? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Mawest11 16:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Giant Chicken

Why does Giant Chicken redirect here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.40.71.50 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Thats weird. Yazelflech 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bungie.net references broken

Most of the references to bungie.net are broken. These either have to be fixed using archive.org links or they should be replaced by {{cn}} tags. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-17 14:16

Yeah, We really need to go through those links, find which ones and broken, and if appropriate, find a new, working link. Preferably from Bungie's site itself. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak. I'll do a bit now. RC Master 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

The stuff about halo wars and the unamed project in the miscellaneous section has nothing to do with the features. It needs to be moved to its own section again.

Its not really important enough to warrant its own section. That bit of information is really just a comment on the 'Is this the last Halo game' question. Which, it isn't. Perhaps it could be moved around however. RC Master 09:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Confirmed (?)

O I heard from a buddy who works at Hastings that their computers state the Halo 3 street date as November 1st, 2007. Anyone else who works at a game store chain such as this, can you confirm this? I've seen it with my eyes, but don't believe it. o.o Quadrius 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Stores typically come up with release dates based solely on speculation, and having that date on the first of the month usually signals that all they know is that they think it'll come out in that month (ie. November 1st means "we think November, though we have no legitimate proof"). Gaming websites do similar things like slating a game as January 1st, 2008 if all they know is that it'll come out in 2008. -- Viewdrix 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but if you think about it, the date makes sense, since Master Cheif's callsign is SPARTAN-117, and the date is 1/11/07. The other prevaling theory is November 25th, for anyone wondering. Quadrius 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New Game

In last months Game Informer of EGM (I cant remember)in the rumor section, they said another Halo game is in delevopment. It also said that its not Halo Wars or the game thats being over seen by Peter Jackson. Thats all that the article said. As soon as I get home from work Ill get for sure what magazine its in.Gundam9469.129.67.253 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Announcement Trailer Cortana Content

In the announcement trailer several other fragments apart from "THIS is the way the world ends" can be heard, specifically "I HAVE WON!" And possibly bits and pieces were used for the random "chatter" Thus verifying that the Cortana letters are indeed at play here. That's pretty obvious anyways....

Final installment

Should it be meniton that this the very kast installmentSonicrules2 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Sonicrules2

Nine Inch Nails

Please stop reverting the {{for}} link at the top. This has been discussed before in the archives at least once this month alone. Please see Halo numbers, Halo 4 (since Sept '06), Halo 9, Halo 16, and Halo 23. I think one small line at the top of Halo 2 and 3 is better than needing to redirect them all to the Halo disambiguation... also see WP:DAB#Top links. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3? Ask anyone in the world what that means and they will assume the third instalment of the most popular videogame of all time. Head Like a Hole? A fan looking for that song is near-certain to search for the song's actual title and not some obscure alternative name. How many fans does anyone really think are going to wind up at the Halo 3 page wondering who the hell this master chief character is? Also, if a NIN fan could shed some light on why some songs are called "Halo Whatever", that might go a long way to determining the legitimacy or otherwise of this debate. --ABVS 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They are called that because Trent says they are. Example: Official NIN site. The actual CD booklets/cases say "halo_03" or whatever on every CD he's ever put out. Template:Nine_Inch_Nails lists them, and it is a commonly known terminology among NIN fans - clicking the "purchase" link from the official site goes to Amazon, where a reviewer says "this is a worthy halo" and two of the three user lists at the bottom have "halo" in the title (ex. Nine Inch Nails: The Complete Halo Guide (1989-1997)). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the outcome of that archived 2-post discussion seemed to indicate that it was an inappropriate use of {{for}}--ABVS 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't really a discussion there, and definitely no consensus or "outcome." — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick indicator: search google for 'halo 2'. All results: the video game. Quick search: 'halo 3'. Guess what? Nothing about Nine inch nails! Just cause "Trent calls them that" doesn't mean that we have to have random slang names for everything. I call monkeys 'pokemon' sometime, does that mean I need a note at the top of the Pokémon page? Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can play the Google game too. "halo 3" "bungie" 822K results. "halo" "nine inch nails" 374K. That seems like a non-trivial number to me. The first Google hit shows the non-Halo 3 specific usage on the official website. It's not "slang." Halo 4 has been a NIN link since it was created. I suppose as soon as verifiable information about the next game comes out, you'd want to take over that article (which would be acceptable) but then say "no need for this {{for}} link." As I originally noted, a single line with a {{for}} surely isn't the end of the world. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for consistency. Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo 6, Halo 7, Halo 8, Halo 9, Halo 10, Halo 11, Halo 12, Halo 13, Halo 14, Halo 15... Halo 24 — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see those pages exist, but I'd argue none of them need to either. I did a "what links here" test of a few various "halo" pages. Halo 2: many hundreds of links, none that I could find relating to NIN. Halo 3, ditto. Halo 4: four links, two of which were user pages, one NIN discography, and one being this talk page. Halos 5 and up mostly had only one link, being this talk page. The practice of referring to these songs by their "halo number" seems to be non-existent. Hence the opposition to cluttering up this article for the benefit of, it seems, no-one at all.--ABVS 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course what links here won't find anything - they're redirect pages, and it's bad style to link to redirect pages. And I didn't write those articles. I'm not the only one reverting the removals. Yet another example: I just got Year Zero today from Amazon: the only text on the CD besides random binary is "nine inch nails", "year zero", and "halo 24". — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I couldn't care less about NIN, to be honest. Outside of "The Perfect Drug" I tend to dislike most of their music. But guess what... its a legitimate link, as legitimate as The White Album or Led Zepplin IV, neither of which are actually the names of albums. The White Album actually redirects over other albums which are legitimately named The White Album! So leave it alone already. WookMuff 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of the "What Links Here" test was to demonstrate that almost no-one refers to the songs by their "halo numbers". However, everyone refers to The Beatles (album) as The White Album, and that is the reason it redirects over others - it is widely, almost universally used. It's not a legitimate comparison. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and hence I believe it inappropriate to include these apparently extremely rarely used alternative names.--ABVS 10:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very empty argument. There are no links with 'what links here' because experienced editors don't link to redirects. And as for WP:NOT, it's also not a video game guide, so by your standards I could delete the "List of confirmed elements" section of this article at a minimum. BTW, it is not songs; it is releases. The third release happened to be a CD single. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go, an official citation. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, therefore your argument fails. Nine Inch Nails refers to these by their halo numbers, and unless you happen to believe that Nine Inch Nails is not a good enough source, then that should be good enough. Also, to further point to my argument, even though White Album automatically goes to the beatles, there is still a link at the top for the white album disambig. WookMuff 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NIN is not a source that demonstrates widespread use of the name. ABVS 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So a band has no say in their album names? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is from the opening paragraph of WP:NAMING, the official policy on page names: "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." This is interpreted (not by me) to mean that a disambiguation page is only necessary if the actual name of the song or release is not the widely known name (such as is case with The White Album). This is patenly NOT the case with NIN releases - the Halo numbers are only known to fans of their material, who would certainly know the actual name as well. Hence, the disambiguation link is unwarranted. Also, please go ahead and delete the Included Elements section, I don't support its inclusion either for your same reasons.--ABVS 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that WP:NAMING doesn't apply. Of course it does. 99% of the people who go to "Halo 3" are looking for the video game. Which is why this page is about the video game, and there is a disambiguation line at the top saying "oh, btw, if you are not looking for the game but something else go here." Follow the link, you will see the same thing. Probably 80-90% of the people going to Head Like a Hole want to read about the popular NIN song. The remaining percentage might be looking for the band, so it simply says "This article is about the Nine Inch Nails single. For the band, see HLAH" So, yet again, you are quoting things that just don't apply in this case. If it were more than just the NIN release, there would then be Halo 3 (disambiguation) link there, where the Halo 3 name would stay with the game, as per WP:NAMING. I've never argued against that. And some day, Halo 4 will be the same way - since it is a minor way of referring to the NIN release, it will become a little {{for}} link as the rest of the article is about the video game. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty blatant misuse of {{for}} so I deleted it. If its added back, I'll delete it again, and we need some kind of arbitration. The percentage of people who would search for Halo 3 and be wanting to see Head Like a Hole by searching for its esoteric nickname is probably less than .01%. Let's be realistic here instead of silly and prideful about a band that you like. I am hoping the Halo 3 article will reach Featured Article status and the line at the top is distracting, misleading, and ugly. The argument is completely ridiculous. ZG 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno why you think it is misuse, it's exactly what the template is for as I have discussed above ad nauseam. Since there's a discussion here and you just blatantly change things anyway, it's hard to not see your removal as vandalism. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we need requests for comment. We have one rogue user with a point to make ruining a perfectly good page on an important topic by attempting to confuse users about the meaning of the term. I'm reverting your change per wikipedia policy on WP:NAMING and proper use of tl|for. I'd venture to say that over 99.9999% of users searching for Halo 3 are searching for this article, not your pet naming scheme for NIN albums. Oh, and the band is terrible, to boot. ZG 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Way to keep it civil. Should I respond that I think the game is terrible? As noted, it's not my naming scheme, there are sources. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of this. I'm going to start an RfC so we can clear this up once and for all. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll see if any of the other editors who have put it back will comment unlike above. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaked footage as reliable souce

What's the policy (if any) on using the new leaked footage as a reliable source for this article? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm well I assume it isn't the final version of the game so i would assume that some elements of gameplay seen in the footage might not possibly be confirmed. If we are to state any facts from it i would suggest that we let it be known that these elements although seen in footage havent been officially confirmed or released by bungie themselves. FuzionZero 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, true. But I wasn't sure if there was a specific policy for using things like leaked footage. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its angainst policy to state things from the footage just link to it(like 1 annoying user seems to be doing). I think we will be fine if we dont link to it and state that that is where the info came from and that it isnt confirmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuzionZero (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd personally say that without viable links, the leaked info is really just conjecture. And since we can't actually link to those videos, the info should be removed until sourcable evidence is found. Like video of the public Halo 3 beta. We can mention that there were leaked videos, but stating information from it that is a: just a test version anyway B: in no way officially confirmed. RC Master 10:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should post information about the leaked footage since if the user can prove source is reliable then the information could be used. Also if you can't posted leaked information then why is there information about the french leak on Halo 2? Any ways if you want to see where I found the leak this is the source. !LINK REMOVED!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saad64 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Is there even any policy that actually restricts using leaked information in the article? Or even stating we shouldn't link leaked footage? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy on wikipedia specifically about using leaked information, but its certainly dishonest. And any leaked information cannot be used as a viable source because it is completely unofficial. Plus, Wikipedia certainly doesn't want to be accused of breach of copyright or breaking of NDAs. Or aiding in such. So I vote that all links to leaked videos be removed, and any unsupported information therein, be removed until official confirmation can be found.

Besides, the beta is only 11 days away. By that time, we'll have official videos and plenty of stuff that from news posts around that can be used to substantiate anything seen in the leaks. RC Master 12:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphs

Seraphs are confimed as being in the game. Excerpt of script for a voice acting cameo. http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/23/scan0002.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.121.239.123 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

So uh, feel free to add that under Confirmed Elements, Covenant Vehicles. 67.121.239.123 18:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

I dont remember where i read, possibly xbox mag, but isn't the graphics in multiplayer downgraded to allow better performance?

That's a false rumor started by the Halo 3 beta leak. The graphics are shoddy because it was a beta video, nothing more. Peptuck 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

actually, id say the graphics are shoddy because its a low quality 2 inch by 3 inch video on youtube. if you saw it on a real TV, i think it would look a lot better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.194.153 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Well actually there is a larger video for download that is HD and the graphics are quite 'shoddy', but it is only a Beta and the full version should be better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.163.149 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually based on a video interview posted at ign.com it appears that its true. It's not saying the game will be ugly, but given the choice of a prettier game or a smoother one Bungie is going smoother. Gameplay over graphics...but the game still looks good for sure. (Rekija 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

"Last resort"?

There's a map on the List of Confirmed Elements called "Last Resort", a re-make of Zanzibar (apparently), but it gives no reference. Should it be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.167.87 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Since A: There is no viable source B: It is far from confirmed. RC Master 10:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

this isnt B.net, so i think we can discuss it and even post a link to it. i cant edit though. and yes, it is real. see -LINK REMOVED | DONT LINK TO LEAKED INFO -

Also there is another map called Epitaph that has been played in the internal beta.TroyDOMINATE 00:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Nine Inch Nails release known as Halo 3, see Head Like a Hole.

i dont think that this is real. i think someone vandalized. im not a member, but could someone look into it? i went to the other article, and there was no reference to it being called Halo 3 other than one line that was probably added by the possible vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.194.153 (talk • contribs)

Scroll up three inches. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? cos you are a filthy vandal, apparently. Muhahahahahahahahahaha *sarcasm* :) WookMuff 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive our anonymous user friend's opinion represents that of nearly all users. This is not what people are looking for when they search wikipedia for Halo 3, anymore than they are looking for monkeys when they search for Pokemon, as succinctly noted above. ZG 23:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

?

are they going to make halo 3 for the origanl xbox?

No. 81.109.94.62 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No. they are not.

As of now isnt but still with a signifigant chunck of people that pay halo 2 on the original xbox that can not afford a 360 they could surprise us.

No, it won't. I can bet money on that one. The reason is it would cost a lot of money for such a small target audience thus making it a waste of time. 211.28.163.149 08:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sgt Johnson

On game trailers i herd the voice of sgt johnson and it was not the same as in the other games, should this be clarified in the article or should we wait for confirmation?

Cleaned up references

I went though and cleaned up all the ref tags. Some linked to dead Bungie pages (since they changed their website, many of the links were dead), so some previously citations are now uncited. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

jump pad

does anyone really know if the jump pad is covenent, even though it is obvious, i think we should wait for confirmation.

Ranking Sysetm

Halo 3 will use a true-skill rating, ranging from 1-50 as in Halo 2. Altough, now you will have a rank based on experience.The ranks will be similar to todays U.S. military ranks. These ranks will be similar to the ranking system found in Rainbow Six: Vegas and Battlefield 2: MC. You will start at an enlisted private and climb to the top as an officer and become a General.Kane R M 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New Image?

As far as I know, the box art for Halo 3 has not officially been released. The image currently in place as the Halo 3 box art is usually used as a place holder on most retail sites (in fact, the image came from GameSpot.com). I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, but could this be changed with something both attractive and official, such as the most recent official artwork found here? This place holder image might be the most appropriate, but I thought I'd bring its possible change to discussion. Brent Butler _contribs^talk 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the sourcing on the image. That is official box art. Peptuck 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't question GameSpot's accuracy, but it's worth noting that Microsoft does not have the same box art in place on their Halo 3 page. Microsoft put out a press release at one point that showcased the box art for the Legendary and Limited editions, but not the standard. I'm guessing that the image used in the article and on GameSpot.com is indeed the correct box art, but I just can't find any concrete, "from the horse's" mouth source like Xbox.com or Bungie.net. I also don't believe promotional artwork as I previously mentioned would be an appropriate replacement. Brent Butler _contribs^talk 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Call Signs"?

The multiplayer section states that players will no longer be identified by call signs instead of HUD emblems. It is not clear what that means. The wiki article for "call sign" (to which this article links) defines a call sign as a unique designation for a radio station. So, what exactly is meant by call sign? Will I be identifed as:

• My Xbox Live gamertag?
• An abbreviation of my gamertag, my initials, or some short sequence of alphanumerics that can be chosen by the player?
• WNBC, WXRK, or some other radio station call sign?
• Something else?

Snottywong 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarified it a bit. Its just one letter and two numbers, such as B45 or L13. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a dispute requiring other opinions on whether or not Nine Inch Nails with the "unofficial" names Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3 and the like should be referred by on the video game articles. The previous discussion about this was up here.23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Keep As I noted in previous discussion, WP:NAMING and WP:D would both apply to this case, with the {{for}} as a disambiguation, vs. having a full disambiguation page (which nobody is advocating). The band and its fans refer to each release by a "Halo" number, and the numbers from 1 to 25 are already present. This is not WP:OR or anything else that would be inappropriate. It's simply one line that seems to get many people bent out of shape for no apparent reason. As noted in the previous discussion, I am not the only editor who has reverted the removal; and I'm not the originator either. Halo 3 is a valid name for the NIN and release, and I haven't seen any reasonable argument against it ("distracting, misleading, and ugly" is not a valid reason in my opinion). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some references:

• nin.com - official website
• NIN Wiki (obviously not a WP:RS)
• OnlineSeats.com: Each Nine Inch Nails release is given a matrix number using the form: Halo x, where x is a positive integer. Many independent and new wave records follow similar numbering schemes.
• The Harvard Crimson: Nine Inch Nails’ 24th “halo” (or, in non-NIN speak, their fifth full-length release).
• Unrated Magazine: This body of NIN work is organized by “Halo” numbers 01 through 22.

— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• It may be valid but the real point is is it notable? The answer has to be no. The overwhelmingly vast majority of users searching for "Halo 3" will be seeking the upcoming videogame. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Nine Inch Nails fans will search for the actual title of the song, not the nickname of the release used only by the band and its fans. You say there are reliable sources. I have searched for an independant source that confirms the notability and widespread, even limited, use of "Halo Numbers" by anyone other than the band and its hardcore fans - and found NOTHING. --ABVS 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• There are a lot of topics of limited notability on Wikipedia, for reasons such as race, religion, region, language, but they are still included. Just because a minority of people recognize something's notability, doesn't make it not notable, and doesn't mean it isn't worthy of a link when two things use the same name. If there were more products named Halo 3, would it be ok to link to a disambiguation page? An example. John Howard is the prime minister of australia, hence John Howard links to him. At the top of his page, there is a disambiguation link. Now if, instead of ten guys named John Howard, there was only oe notable personality named John Howard, John Howard the pioneer of Adventure Racing, would that make him unworthy of a link on the main John Howard page? Keep in mind that a quick google search for nine inch nails finds about 3.22 million results whereas adventure racing only finds around 0.88 million. WookMuff 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• The vast majority, nearly everyone, searching for Halo 3 will be searching for the video game site. Wikipedia is optimized for readers. The naming convention for NIN albums is an insignificant, confusing fact that clutters the page. On wikipedia, names of articles are not based on "NIN-speak" or any naming convention used by an unsizable minority of fans. The fact that Trent Reznor refers to his albums by another name by saying "Halo x" does not mean we should include a link for that on the Halo 3 page. At all. Adding this information to any page on Halo is akin to me changing the page on "The Bible" to wikilink to The Fountainhead because that is my personal favorite book. It lacks notability entirely. Per WP:NAME I see no argument here that the link should be included, besides blind fanatacism and pride.ZG 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree with Yeti Hunter above about this. A search for products with 'halo/1/2/3/et al' never turned up anything remotely related to NIN. See WP:NAME, it says Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. So in other words- just 'cause fans call it something, does not make it accessible. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, were we talking about changing the name of the article? Silly me, I thought we were talking about adding a wikilink to a related topic. Does this have even the slightest relevance to the discussion... nope WookMuff 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies... WP:NAME is relevant... look at this quote A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). WookMuff 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasonably found. The reason that a wikilink to my user page isn't found on top of God is because no one besides maybe me, and perhaps my minions, would search for me in that manner. It is simply not reasonable that someone would come to wikipedia searching for Halo 3 and want to find Head Like a Hole. They are looking for information on the game Halo 3, the only legitimate and widespread use of the term outside of the band itself. If we took every insignificant nickname for something and linked to it from another page as a redirect, I can guarantee almost every page on Wikipedia has a name that can possibly, under some circumstance, refer to something else.

Wow, what an incredibly relevant and sensible example... WookMuff 04:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Its equally, and in my opinion perhaps more, sensible than having that ridiculous link at the top of the pages for the Halo games.04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"halo 3" "bungie" 822K results. "halo" "bungie", 1.37M results. "halo" "game" 3.4M results. "halo" "xbox" 5.2M. "halo 3" "xbox" 1.77M. Compare to "halo 3 nine inch nails" 28K results. "halo" "nine inch nails" 374K results. If you just search for "Halo", there is no mention of Halo in the NIN sense in the first 300 results on google (found on page 32). Search for Halo 3? No mention of the NIN thing in the first 765 results, which is all google will show you before showing you repeats. If that's not evidence that the use of that naming scheme is not widespread, and is applicable to only a very small number of hardcore fans and has no place on any wikipedia page other than ones specifically dealing with NIN, I don't know what is. WP is not a place to make a WP:POINT -ZG 14:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight addition, if you search for "halo 03" you get a result on the second page (the first page, still, is all about the game) of Google. I'd be fine with linking the search for expression "halo 03" instead of "Halo 3" as a compromise. Oddly enough, halo 03 is nothing. nin.com refers to it, in one instance, as "HALO_03". It is never called, specifically, "Halo 3" as the game is called. This leads me to believe that the halo pages are simply being used to generate more interest in Nine Inch Nails, piggybacking on the immense popularity of the games, and it makes me very angry. If this were about clarity, the redirect would reflect the appropriate syntax. But its about promotion, and is a clear violation of wikipedia guidelines. -ZG 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - per my statements above. The chances of someone looking for "halo 3" and meaning "head like a hole" are virtually nill. This should be expanded to the entire halo series.ZG 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok, so it seems to me that we have on the one side, wikipedia guidelines, and on the other, a range of bizarre ideas. ZG claims vandalism, joe pesci and himself are god, that we are trying to make a point, that the link in some way defys WP:NAME which doesn't really address the topic, and that Trent Reznor went back in time to try to piggyback off of Halo 3's thunder. Yeti Hunter, (with a pseudo pseudonym?) makes a sensible point about notability. However, by notability standards Trent Reznor is noteable, Head like a hole is noteable (by the proposed notability guidelines for songs, anyhoo), and Trent Reznor calls Head like a hole Halo 3. I started the second topic to try to understand the vehemence of zg, basically, so sorry if that annoyed anyone. WookMuff 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC) - I moved this comment to the appropriate section, as WoofMuff was originally involved in the argument. The "comments" section is for the comments left by editors not previously involved in the dispute. 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin is one of the greatest comedian of all time and claims to worship Joe Pesci. George Carlin is notable, Joe Pesci is notable, George Carlin calls Joe Pesci God (at least claims to in his act), this does not mean it is notable enough to include a link to it on the God disambiguation page. I'm a Carlin fan and if I call Joe Pesci god it doesn't change things. Only if a reasonable person would think to find "Joe Pesci" by searching for "God" would it merit such an inclusion. The far-fetched, ridiculous idea here is that just because an insignificant number of people refer to "Head Like a Hole" as "halo 03", there should be a link at the top of the Halo 3 article letting people know that a couple of people really mean the album "Head Like a Hole" when they say "Halo 3." I have made my point in every possible way and yet the pro-NIN editors still cannot grasp it. Therefore we leave the link OFF, as should be the default for an article about Halo 3, until some third parties can come in here and comment. Then we can finally move on and create a great article, without a distracting, inappropriate link at the top of the page to some unrelated band. -ZG 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the pro-NIN editors are completely confused about when {{for}} is appropriate. It is not a way to make a point or advertise a band you like. Its meant to disambiguate when there are 2 options: but in this case there is only 1. Halo 3 is not the name of the album. "This article is about the game Halo 3. For the album by the same name, see Halo 3 (album)" . If it was that, then I would agree with the link. In the case of the Black Album, most people call it that, not "Metallica". But do most people call "Head Like a Hole" halo 3? Does anyone besides the enthusiast, specialist crowd call it/know it as that. No. I hope you are seeing the point, but I find it hard to assume good faith. I see a lot of stubbornness and denseness here, and wikipedia is not a place for your ad. -ZG 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. The for link stands. WookMuff 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - One thing I'd like to ask, what are the chances that someone would know the song only as "Halo 3" instead of the actual title? If the chances aren't that great, then I agree remove the template. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a NIN fan, so bear with me if you'd like to.

Chances that someone would search for "Halo 3" without knowing the name of the single? Low, but not exactly virtually nil. Say you pick up some NIN double album and it says "HALO FOURTEEN" on the back, on the side, and on both CDs. You browse other NIN stuff at the local record store and they all have "halo" labels. Some of the discs don't even say the name of the release, but they say the halo number. You look up one of the album's names, The Fragile, and see (also known as Halo 14) smack at the top. At the bottom of the article, you see a bunch of numbers in a box and they each link to a release. You search Halo 14, and voila, it leads to the album's article! Now, you think these "Halo ##" links conveniently lead you to NIN releases, so you can get to them even if you aren't acquainted with the NIN discography. Of course you can find the listing on fan sites, but Wikipedia is among the top hits when you google for "Halo #" for certain values of # not including 3, and people expect Wikipedia to be a comprehensive resource for disambiguating phrases with multiple meanings.

Reference: The song is called "Head Like a Hole". The single is also called "Head Like a Hole". If someone asks, "do you own Head Like a Hole?" that's an ambiguous question; most people own "Head Like a Hole" through Halo 2, the album the song appears on. To be clear, they'd ask, "do you own Halo 3?"

Policy/guideline: WP:DAB and WP:HAT etc. don't clearly address this issue that I've read, so it should probably be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Obscurity: Halo numbers not arbitrary or obscure like catalog numbers (B0004553-01); they have been used as easy-to-remember aliases since 1989. Someone searching for "Halo 3" has to know something about NIN, sure. But someone searching for "Halo 3" has to know about something about video games, they're not that general of an audience.

Regarding the assertion that "Halo 03" is more official than "Halo 3": There are more hits for -wikipedia "halo 3" "head like a hole than there are for -wikipedia "halo 03" "head like a hole; more hits for -wikipedia "halo 3" "nine inch nails than -wikipedia "halo 03" "nine inch nails. Before halo numbers reached double digits, they were obviously not written out with a zero. Now that they are, nin.com may have chosen to represent them differently. Actually, the packaging and CD say "halo three", but the fact is the number three is more often written out as 3 than not. Either way, they're redirects from alternative names.

Nickname: It isn't a nickname as much as Dubya or The Green Album is a nickname. Unlike the Green Album, "halo three" is actually printed on the cover and on the disc. The God analogy doesn't work, unless he adopts "God" as his middle name, or a bunch of articles refer to him as God in a serious manner.

Spam claim: I really don't think these guys are trying to spam an article on a 1989 single that few people are going to click on. I don't think a lot of {{for}} links get clicked on; they're there in the legitimate case that someone looks for them, or when an editor mistakenly links the transcluding page. How many people going to Aachen do you think clicks on Meteorite falls to read about a meteorite in one row? Or go to Gelatin due to a misspelling of Gelitin? They serve as helpful guides to finding the right article, even if it is for a minute minority.

With that said, I don't really care whether the dablink stays; I don't know why anyone would get seriously worked up if this thing that takes 3 seconds to gloss over gets kept or removed. I'll just make a note to search for "Head Like a Hole" instead. –Pomte 08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong about one important thing - the general audience, as in over 1 in every 100,000 users I would venture, searching for "Halo 3" is searching for the game. The game is actually named Halo 3. The album is not, the halo_03 terminology is limited to an incredibly small number of experts. It doesn't improve wikipedia, it only places NIN spam on the Halo 3 page. The God analogy for Joe Pesci is essentially a perfect one - a term used by individuals, while notable, but not notable enough that a reader would say, "I'd like to know about Joe Pesci, I'll search for God." If someone wants to know about "Alexander the Great" the movie, they might search for that term, come to the person, and want the movie. If someone wants "Head Like a Hole," they can search for it, not its esoteric nickname. I've spouted the google statistics numerous times, and the simple fact is that no one is going to be looking for Head Like a Hole in that manner outside of a small garden of enthusiasts, who already know the name of the album. So what's the point in keeping it? It would seem, at this point, that its just to piss off Halo 3 fans. ZG 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming that the general audience isn't searching for the game. Anyway, a disambiguation link shouldn't care about the ratio, only whether the link is accurate, because we can't even find an approximate ratio. What we do know is that most if not all people are coming here to find out about the game, so while the number looking for the song are unknown, it can still be seen as a legitimate search by the evidence above.

The whole point of my example was that non-experts can search Halo 3 to look for the NIN release without knowing the name of "Head Like a Hole". Using common sense, this is much likelier than someone searching God to find Joe Pesci.

As a better analogy, see the dablink at the top of Capital G. The main article is an international single heard by millions, whereas Capital G, British Columbia is an electoral area relevant to some 4500 people, and it's doubtful that most of them are even aware of this designation for their area of residence.

Again, no one's trying to spam or piss off Halo 3 fans, and you can see this by interpreting the reasonable counterarguments while assuming good faith. It's not personal. –Pomte 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've thought of myself as a NIN fan, I own most of the releases, but I can't say that me or any of my friends ever used "halo" to refer to one of the albums, and I have to agree that the template is misleading/inappropriate and that we should remove the template. Now that its been mentioned, it does say "halo three" on the hlah album, but I doubt I'd ever think to search for an album in that manner. I came to this page looking for information about the game (never played the others, as a note, but did just get a 360). I agree that these need to be on a case by case basis because the guidelines aren't entirely clear, at least ot me. I really don't understand why there's so much vehemence on each side, but I guess that's how fans get. This is a page about Halo 3 and I would think basically everyone, including NIN fans, searching for Halo 3 are indeed looking for this game. The NIN naming seems like slang, so "redirects from alternative names" doesn't apply, particularly because there is a major established franchised game called Halo 3 that decreases the chance of ambiguity. We should put an end to this edit war. Its very hard for me and others to navigate through the history with the reverts. There seems to be a lot of pride here, on both sides, but I just think the inclusion of the link is wrong in this case. Tyrannicide 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Head like a Hole

I have a question... why does having the link there cause people to react negatively? People are saying "oh it isn't relevant enough" or "it isn't noteable". Does it make the article look worse? No. Is there a place for it per Wikipedia Guidelines? Yes. Does it really affect peoples day to day life if they have to look one line further down? I shouldn't think so. I am not a Nine Inch Nails fan, but I think that it has both relevance and notability, so I will fight for it. Now why are all the people who are complaining about it arguing? Be honest now... why is it such a terrible thing? WookMuff 04:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Does it make the article look worse? Yes. Is there a place for it in the wikipedia guidelines? No. Does it effect people's day to day life? Probably not, but if there was a link to the singer George Michael at the top, or a really big picture of an apple pie, it wouldn't effect people's day to day life that much either. We're talking guidelines and how we can make this article, and wikipedia, the most effective resource for readers. However there are at least two users trying to make a Point. We're trying to make a good article here and confusing, misleading information is not contributing to that. It also hurts the Halo 2 article. Be honest with yourself - is the fact that some NIN fans call the Head Like a Hole album "halo 03" enough to merit a link to it at the top of the Halo 3 page? I'll think after some thought you'll realize, "definitely not." And in fact that is quite ridiculous. However, until RevRagnarok stops reverting the changes, we need third party arbitration, hence the RfC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zac Gochenour (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Will you please sign ALL your edits, not just the occasional one. and how does it make the article ugly? It is noteable, it is citeable, it is accurate. I am not trying to make a point. I am trying to make wikipedia the most effective resource for readers. Their is a Metallica album called Metallica. Should it be not be linked to because most people out there call it "the black album"? WookMuff 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ZG, when you put a reasonable example I will respond appropriately. There are no ridiculous pictures or any other far-fetched end-of-the-world things that you have claimed. As I've noted before, it's not just a fan thing, the spine of the CD case says it, the CD itself says it, the official websites say it, etc. Please explain why WP:DAB#Top links doesn't apply or why the 9,106 other articles that use {{for}} are so "ugly" and shouldn't also be removed (according to WP:AWB, that's the real number). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I was thinking... if it makes the article look "worse" then does that mean s/he has a problem with NIN links or the template itself? perhaps it is just a wikipedia beautification issue! WookMuff 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WookMuff, RevRagnarok give it a bloody rest already. The issue is up for RfC. What the hell is the point of continuing to voice your own (already well-voiced) opinions?--ABVS 13:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I see this issue as extremely clear-cut, just as much as any other comletely unrelated and unnecessary link on any page. I consider this link extremely far-fetched and irrational. As I've said many times, just because an insignificant number of people call something by a certain name other than its actual name does not merit a link on the name of the actual page. A small number of people worship Joe Pesci, but that doesn't mean there should be a {{for}} link on top of God for him. The link is non-notable and misleading, and that is precisely what makes it ugly, not the template itself. ZG 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The validity of your examples continues to elude me. If a notable band where to create an album named God, then it would be reasonable to list it on God (disambiguation). If a movie came out starring Joe Pesci were named God, it would also go on God (disambiguation). If he was in a a gaming-oriented movie called God mode, then there would be a {{for}} link at the top of that page because God mode (disambiguation) does not yet exist. That's what {{for}} templates are for - when there's only one alternate with no full disambiguation page. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this is not a viable alternate. It has to be in use by enough people, in that form, so that a reader might come searching for "Halo 3" and really want "Head Like a Hole" and not the game. I strongly doubt this has happened to any reader, much less a sizable enough number that not having the link generates more confusion than having it. This is a blatant attempt to advertise NIN on a page that has nothing to do with it, and I'm confident a neutral third-party would agree. The simple fact is that there is no viable alternative meaning to the term "Halo 3", or "Halo 2" for that matter, ergo, no need for the {{for}} template. ZG 15:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the issue here? Dont NIN themselves call it HALO_03, not Halo 3? Uh-oh, big flaw in the argument to keep it on the Halo 3 page.... well pointed out, ZG. Can this lame edit war rest now?--121.45.34.88 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the link keeps getting put back on. We just need more comments now to show how ridiculous it is to keep the NIN link. The pro-NIN editors need to keep the link OFF until they get some actual neutral support for their asinine opinion. It appears we're going to have to keep reverting WookMuff and RevRagnarok's edits, though, until we get them to give up. We may need arbitration, because their inappropriate ads are bordering on vandalism, if not outright. I have already made the concession that they can link the "halo 03" or "HALO_03" or some variation of that syntax, but not "Halo 3." Its inappropriate, violates wikipedia guidelines, and is just outright dumb. There's no other way to describe it. It can only be explained by rabid fanaticism and outright obtuseness/stubbornness.. Ah, welcome to wikipedia. ZG 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my last comment, I promise. A disambiguation link is intended to prevent (gosh!) ambiguity. There is ZERO ambiguity here, on this page for what will be one of the most popular videogames of all time. I don't think anyone missed the saturation media advertising for Halo 1 and 2. Halo 3 is going to be just the same. Everybody knows what halo 3 is, including hardcore Nine Inch Nails fans. And those hardcore fans also know the real name of their album, too. But almost nobody knows "HALO_03". There is no confusion, therefore the link is unneccessary. And in my opinion, it's just an attempt to advertise NIN on a page that is near-certainly going to go FA within the next 12 months. There, I'm out.--Yeti Hunter 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See that is absolutely ridiculous. How is it advertising? Why would Nine Inch Nails need advertising on Halo 3's wikipage? Have you heard of a little game called Quake, which is also "one of the most popular video games of all time", the soundtrack of which was completely created by either Trent Reznor OR NIN, I forget which. I am sorry but your reasoning is absolutely flawed. You really think this is a conspiracy by Nine Inch Nails fans to glom publicity off of an upcoming video game? Maybe if it was a link to say some NEW NIN song, something in stores now so people would go out and buy it, but it isn't. It is about a song that is like 17 years old. As the user User:Pomte summarized brilliantly above, it is a valid and accurate link and belongs on the page, in the place where wikiguidlines say it belongs. Assuming the user below isn't a joke, that is also an example that it isn't without merit. Someone who knows of nine inch nails, knows of the halo numbering system, but doesn't know their old work might use halo 3 to find out, lo and behold, what nine inch nails third release was. Glad you finished commenting. WookMuff 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please join me.--Yeti Hunter 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

question, i was looking for that NIN song, and i looked in the talk page and decided to go to THIS discussion mainly due to what its titled, anyway, i guess i got lost and couldnt find thesong page, can someone help cuz i looked up halo 3, oblivious to the fact halo 3 was a game (i knew, just forgot) so i read the discussion and i believe i am a perfect example of y there should be a disambig at the top of the article, thank you

Har Har.

Unsigned comments with no context, I suspect sockpuppet due to the ridiculousness of the post. Furthermore I'm done posting here on this topic; I will continue to revert the NIN advertisements, with respect to the 3RR, until someone judges on a consensus. Oddly enough, unlike the NIN folks, I'm interested in this being a good article first and foremost, not making a point. I hope this is all resolved by May 16, because I doubt any fans will be here to stick up for the game after that.. ZG 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I was the one who inserted the link in the first place. Why? Because it is a valid alternative name, and it is the only other notable subject with this name. I wouldn't add in the {{for}} if I didn't think it'd improve the encyclopedia. Of course the games are more notable, but the releases are notable also in their own right. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 14:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

screenshot

File:Battlezwned.jpg

The current screenshot at the top of the page is very unrepresentative of the game itself, and I think is quite misleading. There are plenty of normally rendered screenshots available, can't we use one of those instead? guiltyspark 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed - NJ Rock

New Gametypes, but I can't put them in...

There are a few new confirmed gametypes - Team Slayer, Big Team Slayer, VIP, and Team Crazy King, seen in the latest gameplay video by Bungie. However for some stupid reason it won't let me put the reference in, so here's the page you can download the gameplay video: [1]. Watch it and look in the corner to see the game types. I think Team Crazy King and Big Team Slayer is only shown after the credits... --Ras29 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl Ad

The one that was with the two kids was shown once on TV, but a month after it aired, I saw it in a movie theater as part of the previews beforce a film. Edit article to reflect that even though it was on TV only once, it was showing in movie theaters?

No, I don't think so - the main purpose of the ad was for it to be shown during the Superbowl. --Ras29 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of halo 3 video

you think someone could put this article up to snuff with these vids?

http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/11443 http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/11415 http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/11436 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.114.219.84 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I already have done a little but, adding some extra video links as well. but teh article still needs some updating in regards to new Beta information. RC Master 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Spectre

Why isn't the Spectre included on the Coverant vehicles list? Wikifan21century 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Spectre hasn't been confirmed yet, and while its likely to be in the game, its a list of confirmed elements. --Ras29 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I received a Friends and Family invite from Bungie and have played a few games. I have yet to see a Spectre. It should be noted that the Spectre was not a default vehicle on any map in Halo 2. I would miss it if it was removed. Brent Butler _contribs^talk 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)