Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Inclusion== | | ==Inclusion== |
| Why aren't the Marines and Navy included here? Or have they just not been gotten around to yet? -- '''CoH|<font color=purple>Councillor</font>]] [[User:Specops306|<font color=blue>Specops306</font>]]''' - '''''[[User Talk:Specops306|<font color=blue>Kora</font>]] [[Special:Editcount/Specops306|<font color=purple>'Morhek</font>]]''''' 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | | Why aren't the Marines and Navy included here? Or have they just not been gotten around to yet? -- '''[[CoH|<font color=purple>Councillor</font>]] [[User:Specops306|<font color=blue>Specops306</font>]]''' - '''''[[User Talk:Specops306|<font color=blue>Kora</font>]] [[Special:Editcount/Specops306|<font color=purple>'Morhek</font>]]''''' 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::Trooper is resilient in saying that the Navy and Marines aren't in the UNSCDF. I've shown and told him a lot of evidence about a Defense Force isn't purely *defensive* in nature. For example, the Israeli and Australian Defense Forces; they have an Army, Air Force....and a Navy. File:United Nations logo.png|35px]]UoH|<font color="silver"><b>General]]</b></font> [[User:CommanderTony|<b><font color="crimson">Tony</font>]]</b>, <b>[[Halopedia:Administrators|<font color=green>Administrator of Halopedia]]</font></b><sup>[[User Talk:CommanderTony|<b><font color="black">Talk]]</font></b></sup> 8/05/2008 | | ::Trooper is resilient in saying that the Navy and Marines aren't in the UNSCDF. I've shown and told him a lot of evidence about a Defense Force isn't purely *defensive* in nature. For example, the Israeli and Australian Defense Forces; they have an Army, Air Force....and a Navy. [[Image:United Nations logo.png|35px]][[Halopedia:UNSC of Halopedia|<font color="silver"><b>General]]</b></font> [[User:CommanderTony|<b><font color="crimson">Tony</font>]]</b>, <b>[[Halopedia:Administrators|<font color=green>Administrator of Halopedia]]</font></b><sup>[[User Talk:CommanderTony|<b><font color="black">Talk]]</font></b></sup> 8/05/2008 |
|
| |
|
| == Transfer? == | | == Transfer? == |
Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| ::Ah, makes a lot more sense now given how the UEG probably wouldn't tolerate civilians owning firearms as much as organized national forces. But why didn't any of the East African forces help out the UNSC?{{Unsigned|173.34.134.217}} | | ::Ah, makes a lot more sense now given how the UEG probably wouldn't tolerate civilians owning firearms as much as organized national forces. But why didn't any of the East African forces help out the UNSC?{{Unsigned|173.34.134.217}} |
| :::All dead, maybe? Considered not very good so were relegated to the sidelines? Or perhaps they just helped out in different theatres but didn't get involved around Voi because of the importance of the objective. Also, why do you presume that about the UEG's stance on firearms ownership? Judging by the Insurrectionists, fairly significant numbers of people do own firearms and are prepared to use them.--[[User:The All-knowing Sith'ari|The All-knowing Sith'ari]] ([[User talk:The All-knowing Sith'ari|talk]]) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (EDT) | | :::All dead, maybe? Considered not very good so were relegated to the sidelines? Or perhaps they just helped out in different theatres but didn't get involved around Voi because of the importance of the objective. Also, why do you presume that about the UEG's stance on firearms ownership? Judging by the Insurrectionists, fairly significant numbers of people do own firearms and are prepared to use them.--[[User:The All-knowing Sith'ari|The All-knowing Sith'ari]] ([[User talk:The All-knowing Sith'ari|talk]]) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (EDT) |
| ::::It would've been better if they at least mentioned that the local Kenya and Tanzanian troops were wiped up or otherwise occupied. Chief: What about the local military? Cortana: They're all either dead or on evac duty. Also the UNSC was willing to initiate the S-II program to fight the Insurrection-who's to say they banned assault weapons prior? Given how the Colonies had legitimate gripes about the UNSCs somewhat repressive nature, who's to say they didn't ban rifles and pistols? As for why the Innies acquired military-grade firearms, outlaws and insurgents like them tend to disobey weapons laws. Plus the FLP was able to acquire a NUKE-a commercial-grade nuke at that, but a nuke nonetheless that's definitely gotta be restricted and gotta cost quite a lot of cash or require a pretty well-thought plan that'll be high-cost anyway, plus that's only one instance where the Innies had nukes. Infantry weapons are nothing compared to nukes.{{Unsigned|69.193.53.138}} | | ::::It would've been better if they at least mentioned that the local Kenya and Tanzanian troops were wiped up or otherwise occupied. Chief: What about the local military? Cortana: They're all either dead or on evac duty. Also the UNSC was willing to initiate the S-II program to fight the Insurrection-who's to say they banned assault weapons prior? Given how the Colonies had legitimate gripes about the UNSCs somewhat repressive nature, who's to say they didn't ban rifles and pistols? As for why the Innies acquired military-grade firearms, outlaws and insurgents like them tend to disobey weapons laws. Plus the FLP was able to acquire a NUKE-a commercial-grade nuke at that, but a nuke nonetheless that's definitely gotta be restricted and gotta cost quite a lot of cash or require a pretty well-thought plan that'll be high-cost anyway, plus that's only one instance where the Innies had nukes. Infantry weapons are nothing compared to nukes.{{Unsigned|69.193.53.138}} |
| :::::The principle of "show, don't tell" applies. Cortana and the Chief saying that would have sounded ridiculous, and would have taken up memory for an entirely unnecessary point.--[[User:The All-knowing Sith'ari|The All-knowing Sith'ari]] ([[User talk:The All-knowing Sith'ari|talk]]) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (EDT) | | :::::The principle of "show, don't tell" applies. Cortana and the Chief saying that would have sounded ridiculous, and would have taken up memory for an entirely unnecessary point.--[[User:The All-knowing Sith'ari|The All-knowing Sith'ari]] ([[User talk:The All-knowing Sith'ari|talk]]) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (EDT) |
| ::::::Fair point.{{unsigned|76.31.228.133}} | | ::::::Fair point.{{unsigned|76.31.228.133}} |
Line 56: |
Line 56: |
| :::That's my interpretation of the "Navy" references as well; they're essentially referring to the spacefaring component of the Covenant's military forces and not an official service branch in the human sense. Think it's time we took steps to do something about this thing - it's been, what, two years (?) since this was first brought to light. As with the [[Forerunner fleet]] page, we could keep "[[Covenant fleet]]" as a general article for all things Covenant's spaceborne military (it might be more apt to call it "Covenant navy", but that has the risk of people confusing it for a proper organization). --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 00:06, 22 January 2014 (EST) | | :::That's my interpretation of the "Navy" references as well; they're essentially referring to the spacefaring component of the Covenant's military forces and not an official service branch in the human sense. Think it's time we took steps to do something about this thing - it's been, what, two years (?) since this was first brought to light. As with the [[Forerunner fleet]] page, we could keep "[[Covenant fleet]]" as a general article for all things Covenant's spaceborne military (it might be more apt to call it "Covenant navy", but that has the risk of people confusing it for a proper organization). --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 00:06, 22 January 2014 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| Anyway, back to the original question, the title of the article consolidating the UNSC ranks would be "UNSC rank structure". I presume they still retain the same rank structure as the ones used by the US military (like how they are now in these two templates). — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 10:30, 22 January 2014 (EST) | | Anyway, back to the original question, the title of the article consolidating the UNSC ranks would be "UNSC rank structure". I presume they still retain the same rank structure as the ones used by the US military (like how they are now in [[Template:UNSC Officer Ranks|these]] [[Template:UNSC Enlisted Ranks|two templates]]). — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 10:30, 22 January 2014 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| :And done. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 11:52, 24 July 2014 (EDT) | | :And done. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 11:52, 24 July 2014 (EDT) |
Line 64: |
Line 64: |
|
| |
|
| :I completely agree. We've had several references to the UNSC Armed Forces as well, though I don't remember any references to the UNSC Expeditionary Forces. I was thinking, in an article for the UNSC Armed Forces (can't wait for possible acronym issues with the UNSC Air Force), the "Organization" section can include subsections for the UNSCDF and UNSCEF maybe. --[[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>'' 00:28, 26 December 2015 (EST) | | :I completely agree. We've had several references to the UNSC Armed Forces as well, though I don't remember any references to the UNSC Expeditionary Forces. I was thinking, in an article for the UNSC Armed Forces (can't wait for possible acronym issues with the UNSC Air Force), the "Organization" section can include subsections for the UNSCDF and UNSCEF maybe. --[[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>'' 00:28, 26 December 2015 (EST) |
|
| |
| ::From what I can verify, "UNSCEF" can be found in at least the [[:File:M247 1.png|M247 GPMG's tripod]] and possibly other in-game decals. ScaleMaster117 might know more examples (according to him in the above thread it appears in the ''Reach'' texture files as well). --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 12:35, 26 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :::Ah, I see. Also, the Armed Forces name would make more sense given the name of the "Senate Armed Forces Committee". --[[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>'' 13:15, 26 December 2015 (EST)
| |
| ::::Despite my own organizational preferences (which I have discussed with 343i), they have not made a definitive stance on it. In addition to the M247 reference, there was also a UNSC logo in The Art of Halo book (pg. 159) that shows UNSCEF. How 343i will ultimately treat it, it's clear that when referring to the military as a whole UNSC is more correct than UNSCDF which is specifically for the defensive units. That's why it's almost exclusively on the MAC stations..they don't exactly travel anywhere...they defend. As with all this, don't conflate my own interpretations with 343i's intent. I'm hoping we'll get something definitive from them at some point. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 20:28, 27 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :::::UNSC Armed Forces still exists as an entity that has been mentioned in multiple sources now. In the meantime, we can rework this page to only reference the UNSCDF, but we still have the Armed Forces and the EF to deal with. Perhaps (at least until 343i says anything) we could create a UNSC Armed Forces article about the UNSC branches (which in turn would take most of the content from this article), or we could merge the little info we have about the UNSC Armed Forces into the UNSC's article. Not sure what to do with the EF though. --[[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>'' 20:32, 27 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ::::::I think renaming this page to UNSC Armed Forces is warranted given that we already have the basis for the page in the existing article and the fact "Armed Forces" leaves no ambiguity as to whether it covers the whole military (unlike "UNSCDF"). It's certainly more warranted than a page for the UNSCDF alone since we know basically nothing about it. We can list the -DF and -EF on the Armed Forces page and describe the little information we have on them (and possibly elaborate on the ambiguities in notes). Our articles claim "UNSCDF" stands for "UNSC Defense Force" but I don't think we know even that much - if Loftus's interpretation is correct, it's more likely to be "Defense Force'''s'''" or "Defensive Forces". Still, as with everything else we don't know for sure, we can leave this part vague. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 01:54, 28 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :::::::Agreed. That's probably the best way to do it for now. And ''Encyclopedia'' does refer to the "UNSC Defense Force", but we all know where the name was likely taken from. --[[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>'' 10:10, 28 December 2015 (EST)
| |
| ::::::::The DF is definitely Defense Force but it can also mean Defense Forces if referring to a plurality. I don't know if this or the EF is something that would necessarily show up on a an organizational chart as such. I think an EF would be cobbled together on an as-needed basis. A DF fleet or array of stations could be more permanently considered such, but that's not to say that a defense fleet couldn't be sent to the front should circumstances warrant it. before his assignment to Buck's unit, the Rookie was part of an Expeditionary Force. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| (''reset indent'') Man, I really want a Canon Fodder about UNSC organization now. I figured the UNSC is under the UEG's Department of Defense, with the UNSC Armed Forces making up a majority of the UNSC. The UNSC Armed Forces is then divided into its five branches, which fall under the authority of UNICOM or NAVCOM. Both of which are under the authority of HIGHCOM, which is then headed by the Security Council. That is my understanding of the UNSC's structure. So then we have the DF and EF, which seem to be somewhat loosely organized divisions of the UNSC Armed Forces based on whether they are defense or expeditionary forces (so system fleets would be DF, while the numbered expeditionary fleets would be EF). So if I'm not mistaken, our best option right now would probably be to rename this article to "UNSC Armed Forces", rewrite it slightly, and mention the DF under organization. We currently don't seem to have an official source on EF. --[[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>'' 14:16, 28 December 2015 (EST)
| |
| :As I understand it, UNSC is a blanket term for the Armed Forces. You're correct that the Armed Forces comprise the 5 branches (Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, and more recently Spartans), but it's equally valid to refer to all the Armed Forces as the UNSC. I think the UNSCDF can be relegated to a footnote on the UNSC page. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 15:14, 28 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ::Agreed. I will deal with this article momentarily (probably later tonight if no one beats me to it), after I just finish some other things here. --[[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>'' 17:37, 28 December 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| == Keyes and the 'soldier' error ==
| |
|
| |
| Every time I read through the section with the bit about how Marines are sometimes referenced as 'soldiers', it grinds my gears. it seems a little unnecessary, and its more than a little unfounded. For instance, how do we know that Keyes wasn't trying to snap the Marine out of his panic by using a term he'd recognize as wrong, with the implication that he was acting like one, before making him remember what branch he was really part of?
| |
|
| |
| Or maybe in the heat of a firefight in which a tall armored man was slaughtering dozens of Covenant soldiers, Keyes was too busy keeping his head down to really care that much, considering he's part of a different branch and all.
| |
|
| |
| I just think it'd make it neater if we didn't have that bit. Seeing if I can get some agreement, considering that this is fairly major page. --[[User:Grim Looters|Grim Looters]] ([[User talk:Grim Looters|talk]]) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. I don't think the writers put too much thought into that line, but from an in-universe standpoint, terminology and customs like that can change a lot in 500 years. In any event I doubt Keyes would intentionally use an incorrect term; most likely he's just using the word "soldier" in its most general meaning. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 14:13, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::Agreed. Besides, as mentioned in the article, "trooper" seems to be the term that refers to Army personnel now. Recently, it is used by Spartan Games for ''Ground Command'' whenever they refer to Army soldiers. --[[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>'' 14:17, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| There are other examples. Keyes and Johnson address Lovik and Mendoza (respectively) as soldiers during the helmet cam cutscene. Hood refers to Johnson as a "soldier of the United Earth Space Corps" during the awards ceremony in ''Halo 2''. The nameless officer at the end of "Prototype" calls Ghost a soldier twice. I'm sure there are several instances that aren't coming to mind right now. I agree with Jugus: real-world laziness, in-universe evolution of customs.--[[User:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">'''''Our answer is at hand.'''''</span>]] [[File:Gravemind.svg|14px]] ([[User talk:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">Talk to me.</span>]]) 18:48, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :And my personal favorite
| |
| :''Our duty, as soldiers, is to protect humanity. Whatever the cost.''
| |
| :''You say that like soldiers and humanity are two different things. Soldiers aren't machines. We're just people.''[[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>]]) 19:32, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Order of Precedence ==
| |
|
| |
| The U.S. Armed Forces order of precedence determines the seniority and order of the services, going Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. On the UNSC page on Halo Waypoint (https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/factions/unsc) the order is Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, and Spartan. Note that this order is not in alphabetical order, but is not random.
| |
|
| |
| Should we make it policy to list the services in this order to reflect the order of precedence rather than listing them in alphabetical order?[[User:Garuda28|Garuda28]] ([[User talk:Garuda28|talk]]) 21:43, 19 December 2017 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :I don't think one branch has a higher authority than the other. Although the Navy has been explicitly depicted in the lore to be the most powerful UNSC branch, especially with ONI being a part of it.[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 09:58, 20 December 2017 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ::Seniority isn’t power or authority. It’s like how the U.S. Army is the most senior since it was formed first, but is still equal with the Coast Guard, the least senior. It only applys to the order of the services and has no impact or insinuation on the power one has over another. [[User:Garuda28|Garuda28]] ([[User talk:Garuda28|talk]]) 14:16, 20 December 2017 (EST)
| |