Editing Talk:Battle Canyon

==Edit-war==
Obviously, there is an on-going edit-war here between ArchedThunder, Halofan1234 and myself. While I do have the ability to lock down the page, I choose not to do so as it would seem as an abuse of power. As such, could a third party (preferably an administrator) try to solve this minuscule issue between us?

As of now, ArchedThunder seems to be of the idea that the Forge variant should have its own section whereas the others ('the Others') thinks that a simple link to the map which it is dedicated to would suffice. The Others would like to point out that there is not much information about Battle Canyon and that having a section about the Forge variant would simply ruin the article's layout/format. The Others would like to point out that the current format/layout made by ArchedThunder looks squished/improper for those using 1024/1280 pixels screen. The Others are aware that it looks normal for widescreen users (1440px+). — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 08:03, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:The point of a wiki is to tell everyone everything we can. If we simply say, oh it's the same as this map, that's just an excuse for not fulfilling our duties as a wiki. Nobody seems to have problems with inserted pictures on other articles. The way I see it, we either have the section or it gets its own page. If we do neither then we have failed. [[User:ArchedThunder]]

::The thing is, it's already in the article. The wiki has told everything it could; there is a link in the introduction; the information is displayed correctly; and the article presented all information in a standard, concise format like all other articles.
::Read the article and do tell how the information is not presented properly. If readers aren't bothered reading the articles, then what's the point of displaying paragraphs of information? If your view of how information should be presented were to be applied to this wiki, then it's better replace everything with bulletpoints, add in repeated information as section titles and ignore those with smaller screen-size (i.e. 1024px wide).— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 12:00, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The Gallery is the completely WRONG place to put said information. The gallery is for restating small bits of information with a visual example, not for trying to squash what should be a good portion of the page into a little box. You obviously don't understand what I am trying to do or what the section means, almost EVERY article on this wiki is like what I am trying to make here, you two on the other hand are trying to oddly squish information in a spot that it shouldn't be. There is a difference between repeated information and elaboration on something. If the screen size is such a big problem then move the picture around or make it smaller, it's not that big of a deal. It also didn't help that someone else was completely deleting the information instead of moving it. [[User:ArchedThunder]]
::::You seriously need to get over this, and Thank you for protecting the page Subtank.--[[User:Halofan1234|ハローファン]] ([[User talk:Halofan1234|H1234-NET]]) 20:38, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have no idea what your problem is. [[User:ArchedThunder]]
::::I think you forgot to read the introduction, which provides the following, ''" A forge variant with similar title to the Halo 2 version is also available for those who prefer the classic multiplayer map."''. The link in the above sentence leads readers to the Beaver Creek article. Further elaborating this information is the accompanied image and image-caption. This format essentially does what you tried to do, but in a more concise manner. No information has been deleted nor removed; they have been relocated to the Gallery section. Regarding your suggestion about moving/resizing the image, both would not work. Moving the image around would distort the layout while it would be better/more useful to put the image in the gallery rather than resizing it.— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 05:42, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 :::::I have no idea what your problem is. [[User:ArchedThunder]]
 ::::I think you forgot to read the introduction, which provides the following, ''" A forge variant with similar title to the Halo 2 version is also available for those who prefer the classic multiplayer map."''. The link in the above sentence leads readers to the Beaver Creek article. Further elaborating this information is the accompanied image and image-caption. This format essentially does what you tried to do, but in a more concise manner. No information has been deleted nor removed; they have been relocated to the Gallery section. Regarding your suggestion about moving/resizing the image, both would not work. Moving the image around would distort the layout while it would be better/more useful to put the image in the gallery rather than resizing it.— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 05:42, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
-==Location==
-It says it's Installation 04, then why is it missing Threshold and the moon and instead has Reach's moon...? I think this one should be chalked up to "Unknown Halo installation" just like Forge World and Tempest.[[User talk:ArchedThunder|ArchedThunder]] 03:00, 21 November 2011 (EST)