Talk:Master Chief (Halo)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Master Chief's size

If any of you people have the halo 3 beastiery it says Master Chief weighs 179kg and is 2.08m tall but i don't see any of those figures . Someone please answer why?

In the "Outward appearance" section, there are figures currently cited to a different source. We should add the bestiary information as an alternative description. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe the figure I cited are from Halo:CE manual; i suggest just making an approximation using the two figures, small things like that are going to change. David Fuchs (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps just say that source 1 says X and source 2 says Y, if that doesn't turn out too unwieldy. — TKD::Talk 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
we should use the most recent figures from the Halo 3 beatiary, as it SHOULD retcon the rest of the old information as the newest published information from Bungie. It's just like how it was thought that the Elites made first contact with Harvest, but it was the Jackals at some random point in space ReshenKusaga (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconded that. Bungie's own "canon priority" policy puts newer material over older ones. If the Bestiary says how tall the Chief is, that's how tall he is, unless osmething else comes out that overrides it. Peptuck (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Master Chief's Face

The introduction says that the Master Chief is never seen without his helmet. This is true to some extent, but there is a little inequity just somewheres. Indeed, the Chief has never exactly smiled for the camera as far as we're concerned, but in the Beta version of Halo 3, we find a mysterious easter egg in the gameplay commonly featured on Youtube. It requires for one player to enter a vehicle or to somehow change the camera angle to third-person. Then, if there is another player intercepting that camera at the right location, facing the camera directly, there is a crack in the visor with obvious, shadowy, face-like forms within. If that player is wielding a light source, such as a charged plasma pistol, the face is then fully lit and its being is undeniable. A certain comment for one of such videos on Youtube said that the face was actually that of one of the workers at Bungie, the game developer. Whatever it may be, I think it's presence should not be ignored because it is very revealing for all it's worth, and also a marring abasement to the series for some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisjiewenliu (talkcontribs) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

YouTube videos and comments aren't reliable sources, so that isn't admissible to the article. No reliable source (with editorial oversight) has ever proven or even asserted that the result is anything more than a coincidental lighting artifact. Besides, what occurs in multiplayer mode is even less worthy of mention here, because what happens in multiplayer games has absolutely zero bearing on the characters in campaign. — TKD::Talk 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is note of this at gaming websites such as IGN and it is sourced, then it still only warrant a sentence or two. Noobiemacnoss1 (talk)
The face in the beta version is a default one present in all of the Spartans probably used to keep a simetry in the measures of the character's body and head, that doesn't mean its intended to be Marster Chief's "real" face. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

K. Youtube is not a reliable source (as previously stated) and when in multiplayer mode, master chief is not present. You either choose to be a regular Spartan or an Elite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You should realise that this is a game, not life. If you understand the tiniest bit about how games are made, you'd think it makes perfect sense to assume that that is the Master Chief.
In the Beta, the character model had the damage on the chest plate that the Chief has in campaign mode, meaning that the character mesh used for multiplayer was the same for campaign, making the character mesh used in multiplayer just a differently coloured Master Chief. So the face was created for campaign, meaning that it probably was intended to be the Master Chief. It doesn't make sense to assume that face wasn't created for campaign, because then they would have gotten rid of the damage on the chestplate, like they have in the final version of the game. In fact, the face has also been removed in multiplayer for the final version of the game (I'm not sure about campaign), so it makes a lot more sense to assume that the face is intended to be the Chief than to not. Also... the face matches the description of the Chief in books. --121.216.109.93 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot of assumption and "probable" in that line of reasoning, making it WP:Original research. Unless one can provide a proper source for this that shows it really is the Chief's face - not simply a conclusion drawn by editors themselves - I don't think it can be included. Peptuck (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The part about the free controlling camera is true, I saw it in a Youtube video. However, at the end of Halo:CE, the camera was pointed at the Chief when he took his helmet off, revealing another helmet. Pretty anti-climatic, isn't it? Iner22 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In Halo: Fall of Reach, John is described to have freckles and brown hair at the age of six. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikail511 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bungie have stated that the Beta face was an easter egg as it was a photoshopped picture of an employee.

"A model was never made for John's face in the game. Although Bungie has consistently stated that John's face would never be revealed to help players imagine themselves as Master Chief, numerous claims have been made that John's face was visible at some point (while playing on Multi-player). During the Halo 3 Beta several players posted videos of a possible version of the Master Chief's face. This face was an Easter egg left by Bungie, and is a model of one of their employees. Bungie's refusal to show John's face has been parodied many times in popular culture."

Straight from Halopedia. 92.4.164.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC).

Halopedia is not a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Metric measurements

The metric measurements are there as a courtesy to non-Imperial readers (i.e, the rest of the world besides the US). It's helpful to those readers to actually know what we're talking about, that's why they're there. David Fuchs (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To Dibol

He is already given the name of John in the lead. Stop adding it in again. David Fuchs (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the name Master Chief exclusively sounded somewhat ignorant, hence why I kept re-adding it considering that both names have been alternatively used between the games and the novels. Dibol (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the lead is to summarize. We refer to him as ...John 117 in the lead, but the fact is a good deal of video game players would never know his real name- the Master Chief is the most common form. David Fuchs (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence sounded ignorant, considering that Cortana already called Master Chief John at the end of Halo 3. Dibol (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One in game reference does not a 'commonly called' moniker make. David Fuchs (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Master Chief's Age

Nowhere in the article does it mention Master Chief's age. According to Halo: The Fall of Reach, he's 6 years old in the year 2517, meaning that when the events of Halo: Combat Evolved break out, he's 41 years old. I think that's significant.

BubbaYoshi (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should follow the example set by the age section of the Master Chief article on the halo wikia (halopedia?)58.107.209.187 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Navy Or Marines

Curious... his job description is that of a Marine, yet the Spartan program was run by the Navy. Any insight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.11.77 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the future, they don't have to follow the USA goverment and military type, because it's the UNSC, United Nations Space Command. --Jakezing (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Its pretty clear from the fact that he's got a Naval rank and that he's attached to a program run by the Office of Naval Intelligence, and NavSpecWeap, that he's Navy. Peptuck (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You all must not be familiar with the US military. The Marines are basically soldiers, but the extra training that they have always recieved, both due to their combat-oriented role and they're history of working for/with the Navy, make them elite/quasi-SpecOps. In the games, the Space Marines are the UNSC's grunts (kind of like back in World War II). They even have their own SpecOps group, Orbital Drop Ship Troopers, or ODST, which are like Marine Recon. The Master Chief, as a part of the UNSC, is more like a Navy SEAL, except that the gap between the two groups' training and skill is greatly exagerated, due to the SPARTAN-II program's extreme nature. Oh, the Marines started out as the soldiers/sailors that were sent to take over enemy ships when the ships got tied together and boarding parties were sent to take the enemy ship, if that helps y'all understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btmims (talkcontribs) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

Should it be mentioned that in Halo 3, some of the covenant call Master Chief, "demon"? RC-0722 247.5/1 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • They do in Halo 2 as well. It's not unique to just 3. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Master Chief in Unreal Tournament

Yeah, that pic is of a mod, not something that's an innate part of the game. Displaying it as such is misleading - either explain that it is, in fact, a mod, or replace that picture with something else. (There's plenty of other relevant media he's been a part of, like DoA. We don't need to have pics of mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.55.63 (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

bull, this is just xbox fanboyism in action. the UT3 mod is huge. i've sourced this with official references so you can't remove this info for whatever biased reason. Cliché Online (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no indication provided by sources that prove the UT mode is "huge." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
"Many people are talking about the Master Chief mod for Unreal Tournament 3" Don McGowan Microsoft attorney. Cliché Online (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The only source provided thus far is a blog, and blogs are generally unreliable sources. Official gaming news outlets would be a much more acceptable source. Also keep in mind, following standing Wikipedia policy is neither "vandalism" (as you've accused in the edit summaries) nor is it "fanboyism." Peptuck (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
you are fanboys. this is not the average unanimous blog and i've given officials sources (Microsoft TechNet and Microsoft Live stuff) now you are just searching lame excuses to uncover this PS3 stuff. this is an official blog, the writer's identity is known and the guy is not a kid but an attorney from microsoft. this is a reliable source. i'll let this fact in the article until you can prove it's not a huge mod, until then i'll get stuck to Don McGowan's "Many people are talking about the Master Chief mod for Unreal Tournament 3". it's all over the web just make a google search. Cliché Online (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AFG. What kind of an argument is "fanboy"? Alientraveller (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
since when "fanboy" is considered uncivil? what kind of argument is "follow the WP policies"? Cliché Online (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL: "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress." And "follow the WP policies" should be pretty damn self-evident. Peptuck (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being called a "fanboy" because I follow Wikipedia policy. I don't give a damn about this console war stupidity you seem to be accusing me and Fuchs of - I only care about maintaining a featured article by making sure any content included is reliably sourced. Find a reliable source outside of blogs. Burden of providing the source falls on the contributor. Peptuck (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
the info i have provided was removed before by an editor asking for the blog's original URL to prove the quote was real, so i've provided him with the real URL. the info i have added is relevant and reliable. Cliché Online (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: After checking the current sources, I have no issue with the inclusion of this content. Others whose interpretation of reliable sourcing might, but I don't care. I'm still not happy about being called a "fanboy" for enforcing policy, but if you want to keep being a console-war fixated idiot who makes up accusations, that's your business. Peptuck (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
of course the info i've given is reliable, i don't like to put efforts to prove something and the others keeping asking for more ("unless you can get a reliable source for that quote, not a blog"). what's wrong with the info? the guy is a microsoft attorney we know his identity, the quote is taken from his official site and everyone knows about the ut3 mod even microsoft people were asked to comment on it. voilà. Cliché Online (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask you to please stop referring to edits you don't agree with as vandalism. See WP:Vandalism for definitions of vandalism; good faith edits are not considered vandalism and accusing them of being such is both wrong and can be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. Also, your last statement in the page edit summary was fallacious, as it demanded that one prove the mod was not notable; you're asking for someone to provide proof of a negative, which is impossible. Peptuck (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

how do you call when an editor remove again and again an entire, sourced, info if not vandalism? an editor asked me to prove it was "huge" in the summary "ee talk- unless you can prove this is a notable mod, it should not be here" while i've given sources... i have the right to ask the opposite. surprisingly you don't call it "fallacious" when it's someone else than me (namely David Fuchs). Cliché Online (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we get back to the point? Someone put something there that it's a mod, or remove teh picture entirelly--CrazyOmega (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is, borderline reliable sources that a Microsoft guy said the MC mod was fine by content usage rules does not a notable appearance make. Find me a reliable video game or news publication commenting on the mod, and we can add it in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I point to WP:Vandalism, and ask you to look at the definitions of vandalism. The repeated removal of content by multiple editors who disagree with your assessment that the source you're using is reliable does not constitute vandalism. It is simply an editing conflict, and calling it vandalism is innaccurate and infammatory - a violation of WP:CIVIL. Secondly, you can't ask for someone to provide proof of a negative, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Burden of proof is on you to prove that it is notable. Peptuck (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the four sources used, three are primary sources, two of which are used for synthesis. The only third-party source is a blog and is therefore unreliable. Notability must be attested to multiple, reliable, secondary sources, a definition that does not incorporate any of the sources used. Cliche, the burden of proving notability is on you, not on other people to disprove your theory. If notability cannot be established with reliable sources (IGN and GameSpot are good places to start), it has no place here. Unless you can provide proper sources, do not re-add the information. Before you accuse me of being a fanboy, know that I don't own an Xbox and really don't think highly of the Halo series at all. -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most everything that needs to be said looks to have already been said. But here's my two cents anyway.
I have to agree with David and Sabre, the sources don't really support the claim being made. Because this article is Featured status, it must follow certain guidelines and policies to keep that status. The blog sources for the identity of DonkeyXote don't really establish who the person behind the blog is (I have a feeling anybody can make such blogs and input whatever identity they want), that is why the source does not satisfy Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. And even if they did, I think it would only warrant one or two sentences in the section; otherwise it attributes more weight to it than the sources really provide.
I don't think anyone doubts that a Master Chief mod for UT exists, or that such a mod would not be popular. However, per WP:IINFO, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (Guyinblack25 talk 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
the mod has been removed by editor david fuchs again. the paragraph uses reliable source and therefore should be included, that's why i've added it back. Cliché Online (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
he did it again. he must believe the article belongs to him (see Fanboy). Cliché Online (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"If notability cannot be established with reliable sources (IGN and GameSpot are good places to start)" bullshit! why these sites would be reliable? and a Windows Profile of a known Microsoft attorney would be unreliable? what makes these sites most reliable? is it just because YOU said it? did you decide "Businessweek" was reliable? my! seems it is, the businessweek source was provided by me a while ago but david fuchs removed the paragraph anyway. how can it be? there is obvious fanboys trickery here. ho and is Joystiq a reliable source? seems it is. seems the mod is huge as well. Cliché Online (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. There you go, you have provided some reliable sources for the information. But you have not used the reliable information for the text you've inserted continuously, which goes against our verifiability policy; you must rewrite it using the businessweek and joystiq sources. Also, do not add in the picture, as it violates non-free content criteria; we have many pictures of the Master Chief, and adding another does not significantly increase our understanding of the work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
the text is basically a quote of a Microsoft attorney, he says the mod is huge, yes as i said since a while everyone talks about the mod on the internet, you wanted sources you know have them. we know the microsoft attorney's identity which makes his quote relevant (he talks about content license and says bungie is okay). what do you want now? seems you've found something: now you don't want the ps3 picture because there is already another screen.... great! Cliché Online (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed David Fuchs has removed the UT3 mod section again, without reason, he must thnk the article belongs to himself. I've reverted his vandalism. Cliché Online (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop refferring to good faith revisions you disagree with as vandalism. They are not considered vandalism, and accussing someone of vandalism is a breach of the civility policy. Peptuck (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Importance?

I refer to the importance of this article towards WP:XBOX. This article is hardly 'top importance', and possibly not even high. This isn't about the console, nor a game playable on the console, but actually towards a main character in Halo, a popular game for the console. I hardly see how this warrents top importance, and will change it to mid/high later on if no one can give me a (valid) reason. Metagraph comment 08:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the justification comes not from simply being a character, but the Master Chif's iconic status as the mascot of the console in particular and modern FPS games in general. As the article points out, the Master Chief is right up there with Mario in terms of recognizability. Though this is anecdotal, I've encountered sixty or seventy year-old professors on my campus who have never touched an XBOX in their life, but when they saw the Chief's image on Game Fuel vending machines on campus, they knew his name. The Chief isn't just a character, he's a symbol of XBOX and gaming in general, which is why I think the justification is warranted. Peptuck (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, those points seem valid enough. Sorry to have brought it up! I'll look into it more next time. Thanks all, Metagraph comment 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Character design history

Interesting to note that the brief section on character design doesn't mention the evolutionary resemblance to the character's Marathon predecessors; is this because no Wikipedian has noted it, or because Bungie has chosen to downplay the connection in the primary source material used to date? Beyond the clear resemblance and leaving aside the story elements, the description of the initial rejected models (too slim etc.) seems to hint that the Marathon cyborg player character was a heavy visual inspiration. - toh (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But no reliable sources make the connection, so we can't put it in the article. Besides, Shi Kai Wang wasn't a Bungie staffer; why would he design a character based off a game he had no hand in making? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
sorry you don't know this, but cheif IS the marathon guy, the ending of halo 3 legendary slaps it in our face, the armor type for multi, i think they said it somewhere--Jakezing (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Um. No. They. Didn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
How, exactly, does the Legendary ending "slap it in our face" again? All it shows is a piece of the Dawn drifting toward a ominiously glowing planet; there's no indication that is the Marathon, or that the Chief is the Security Officer.Peptuck (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Actually, if I remember correctly, the planet's "outline" glows briefly, and the glow/light is in the form of the Marathon symbol. However, despite this and many other instances of the symbol hidden in the game, Bungie insists that Halo is not a remake/prequal to Marathon, but a standalone project that contains many of the same basic elements. Because of their similarities, they hid Easter eggs for fans to find. This seems a lot like Steven King and all the books he wrote: they all may (or may not) exist in the same or intersecting worlds, and it becomes canon only when King himself connects them in a story (Read the Gunslinger Saga. In a Forward or Author's Note, he mentions always having wanted to wright his own epic, like Tolkien's LOTR. He mentions being scared to do it and putting it off, but he himself acknowledges leaking elements of his epic into other stories. Salems Lot, for example, comes up quite a bit since King drags the preacher into Roland's world, along with the vampires. It's like Bungie is having a similar crisis that King had: connect the worlds, or leave them seperate? With the number of Easter eggs, there are probably going to be a lot of pissed fans if they don't, but if they do, they could be boxing themselves in when it comes to ideas for the story-line. Now that they have created this cultural phenomenon, they don't want to screw it up by forcing it to mesh up with Marathon, so they'll probably just keep telling the "HALO" story, while keeping in the backs of their minds to try not to do anything UNNECASSARY that would prevent it from tie-ing in later... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btmims (talkcontribs) 07:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unseen characters

Does this apply to him? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, considering Master Chief is very visible, no. Peptuck (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Actully, it does, he is, by all means, a unseen character for 2 reasons 1: first person limits him to cutscenes and box-art

3: hes under his armor therfor making him an unseen. --68.106.214.77 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikipedia's article states unseen characters as "...continuing characters — characters who are currently in frequent interaction with the other characters and who influence current story events — who are never directly observed by the audience but are only described by other characters", the Chief meets none of the above criteria. We never see his face, but we do see him in the flesh, as it were. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

His rank

I do believe that his rank is:

"Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy"

--Crazy Man217 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? Peptuck (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

yes he's navy---the marine ranks are similar to the army, not the navy; only the navy has petty officers. in the marines he would be a sergeant major i believe---but i could be wrong. anyway, in summary, the marines have sergeants, the navy has petty officers, an ancient british navy term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.139.245 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarify he's Navy

I think it would be useful to clarify for the Article that he's a member of the Navy, since the vast majority of people seem to think he's in the Marines.

I know for a fact that it is mentioned a few times that the Spartans are under the jurisdiction of the Office of Naval Intelligence, but does anyone have quotes from either the game or the books to directly back it up? I can't remember exactly were I first head the ONI being in charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.11.77 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannot Remove Vandalism

"based off michel jacksom" When I tried to remove it, it did not show up in the code.--Kamikaze14 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok hitting edit then save seems to have worked. Any idea why it didn't show up in the code?--Kamikaze14 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Mister Chief

Can we put in a reference of Mister chief in there? --FailureAtDeath (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really not that notable. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)