Editing Talk:Second Ark Conflict

==Name==
I feel like this could use a better name.{{Unsigned|JJAB91}}

:I do too, but until 343i officially name this conflict though, we're stuck with this poopy name [[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 01:49, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Skirmish on Installation 04C should be a separate battle ==

During Halo 3:

We have Battle of Installation 00 has one article,

And Raid on Installation 04B as another one. 

Should we do the same[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 14:08, 22 February 2017 (EST)

:Eh. The battle on the Halo flows nicely with this article, and it's nowhere near as significant an event on its own as the raid on Installation 04B (which saw the defeat of the Flood, the disappearance of the Master Chief, etc). Especially if and when the battle on Installation 00 continues after the events of the game, in which case an article about the battle on the Halo would just be an odd detour for the sake of a relative technicality (ie the setting being a few thousand kilometers in a slightly different direction than the preceding ones). --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|talk]]) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (EST)

::Makes sense, alright[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 14:26, 22 February 2017 (EST)

==Battle Status==
In order to prevent a edit war about the status of the battle I have brought this to the talk page. My argument for why the Battle of Installation 00 (2559) is still ongoing is because Atriox wants power, the Ark has that power and he knows it, Cutter bruised his ego, and he has no other way in leaving the Ark so they can't leave. I personally can not see a single argument as to how that is in doubt and that is why I think it should stay as '''Ongoing''' rather than '''Possibly ongoing'''. [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. <small>([[User talk:AlertFiend|Converse]]) </small> 04:35, 24 February 2017 (EST)
:Though I agree it's ongoing, speculation isn't a valid argument. The "[[Phoenix Logs#Beyond the Edge|Beyond the Edge]]" Phoenix Log is the most recent piece of information we have, and based on what it says, the battle is clearly ongoing. -- [[User:Topal the Pilot|'''Topal the Pilot''']] [[File:Blueteam.png|20px]] <small>([[User talk:Topal the Pilot|<span style="color:green">'''Talk'''</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Topal the Pilot|<span style="color:green">'''Contribs'''</span>]])</small> 04:44, 24 February 2017 (EST)
::Upon reading the Beyond the Edge Phoenix log, I agree that there is enough evidence to state that it's ongoing. However prior to that, and only assessing the story presented in campaign, there would not have been enough evidence for that statement. [[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 04:48, 24 February 2017 (EST)

==Name usage==
Just to be clear, I think when referring to this event, we should avoid using "Battle of Installation 00". It isn't an official name for the conflict and would create confusion with the Battle of Installation 00 of 2552 (which is an official name). When linking to this battle, we should use terms like "conflict on the Ark", "battle on the Ark", etc. I have only really noticed this issue a handful of times, but just thought I'd point it out to avoid future confusion. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 11:23, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
:I agree with this, however even terms like "battle on the Ark" could be interchanged with the 2552 conflict,as they both occurred on the Ark. We need a more distinct name for this conflict, one that ''cant'' be in any way confused with the earlier battle. [[User:ArcticGhostXCV|ArcticGhostXCV]] ([[User talk:ArcticGhostXCV|talk]]) 11:38, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
::The context of each mention should make it fairly clear which event an article is talking about, e.g. saying "battle of the Ark in 2559" or otherwise having the time frame and/or participants near at hand. --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|talk]]) 12:39, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

==Level artwork==
I was thinking of using the level artworks (for example: this but cropped) on this article and other applicable HW2 articles, but I'm unsure of their canon status. Do we know whether or not these are merely concept artworks? And if it hasn't been disclosed, should we just assume they're canon? -- [[User:Topal the Pilot|'''Topal the Pilot''']] [[File:Blueteam.png|20px]] <small>([[User talk:Topal the Pilot|<span style="color:green">'''Talk'''</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Topal the Pilot|<span style="color:green">'''Contribs'''</span>]])</small> 03:42, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any reason to assume they're not canon. There's probably bits that conflict with in-game depictions, but that's the norm in Halo visuals at this point. --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|talk]]) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
::Fair enough, thanks Jugus. -- [[User:Topal the Pilot|'''Topal the Pilot''']] [[File:Blueteam.png|20px]] <small>([[User talk:Topal the Pilot|<span style="color:green">'''Talk'''</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Topal the Pilot|<span style="color:green">'''Contribs'''</span>]])</small> 18:05, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

==Accurate Date==
So, i was wondering which date was correct, is it March or May? Isabel's statement put this story in end of March while on Phoenix Log it was May. 
[[User:Ramero|Ramero]] ([[User talk:Ramero|talk]]) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (EDT)!
:Logs got fixed yo.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] [[File:Mega Blastoise.gif|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 22:45, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
So what precise date is anyway? End of March to early April? We know that Subjugation of Earth takes on 28th October while the battle on Installation 00 2559 happens around 28th March Night to 1st April maybe? [[User:Ramero|Ramero]] ([[User talk:Ramero|talk]]) 02:04, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

:For all we know the battle is still ongoing. We really only have its start date in terms to the Banished arriving. And the Spirit joining it.-[[User:CIA391|CIA391]] ([[User talk:CIA391|talk]]) 03:11, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

== Rename ==

I know it's not a great name, but ''Warfleet'' gives us the "Second Ark Conflict", which is probably a clearer name for this article. Anyone opposed? --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 14:08, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

== Separate battle page for the Flood outbreak ==

If we made a separate battle page for a conflict as small as [[Operation: SPEARBREAKER]];

Should we not make a separate battle page for the Flood outbreak in Awaken The Nightmare? Seeing as Awaken The Nightmare is longer and more significant than [[Operation: SPEARBREAKER]]? [[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 17:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
:Eh idk. I think the main reason Operation: Spearbreaker has its own page is because it's a named Operation. At the same time we have things like [[Raid on High Charity]] and [[Raid on Installation 08]] being separate from [[Battle of Installation 00]]. But one was already suggested to be merged back into the main article 6 years ago.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] [[File:Mega Blastoise.gif|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 01:58, 11 November 2017 (EST)