Talk:List of REQ cards

Quick Guide to Formatting

• Descriptions should be italicized. Any important info that needs to be added such as "(grammar mistake is present on card)" should remain un-italicized to keep it separate from the description.
• This goes without saying, but double check spelling and grammar so the card description matches the in-game one perfectly.
• Sale price category has been added, so it no longer bunks with the rarity.
• Sorting/organization should be based on the order the cards appear in the collection. You can find the entirely list in order, here, courtesy of Ready Up Live. Keep in mind the order of cards appear in this format in the catalog:

1	4	7
2	5	8
3	6	9

etc, etc.

A list already exists

http://www.halopedia.org/Requisition_system

I am already been working on one here. Was thinking of making a image version of it. But due to the variables of the stuff I see so far(example is to see Foehammer armor having two raritys and that is weird). Its best to leave it for Halo 5's release and then get to work on that version. - CIA391 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2015 (GMT)

I feel like a chart might be easy to navigate... maybe a list and chart could coexist on separate pages?--Crisperstorm (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Well depends on what the Admins here think, I dont mind regardless. I just want a easy to use list for the community.

If this is okied. Might be tidier to do it a similar way I had it. Separating them into sections regarding the rarity, and also the type of REQ card it is, like Helmets, and Loadout weapons. - CIA391 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2015 (GMT)

I hope maybe 343 has an official chart/list thing with pictures, just cause either way organizing 1,000 REQs is going to be a pain in the ass!--Crisperstorm (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

I say go for your way CIA, but we're gonna' need this page if there really are hundreds of cards so the Requisition system page doesn't get too cluttered. We'll of course have a link on the Req page to this page though.Sith Venator (Dank Memes) 17:42, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Any way you can have a sortable chart, similar to Google Drive or Excel, or should I just try to split this into multiple charts, such as one chart for weapons, etc.?--Crisperstorm (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

We could have it similar to List of Halo 4 Commendations, but with pictures, so kind of similar to Visor color.Sith Venator (Dank Memes) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Ahhh thats a great idea I am all for that idea that was just suggested(my idea hides all the info and while good atm. Wouldnt of been good for every day use.)- CIA391 (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2015 (GMT)

Worked up a template, but I have NO CLUE how to work those tab boxes. Pictures can be included but haven't set that up yet either.--Crisperstorm (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Its probably best to sort them out by Rarity. Means we have 5/6 tabs. And 13 subsections for all the Card types in that tabs. Seems easy to go though and is easy to understand - CIA391 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2015 (GMT)

We can base the 13 subsections like this http://www.halopedia.org/List_of_Halo_4_Commendations/Enemies

That way we only need 6 pages to update and add stuff too. - CIA391 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2015 (GMT)

But then that means you need all 14 categories under each rarity, as oppossed to sorting them by usage/gametype where it is less crowded per category

Also, I think the most important info would be where you can use the cards, and how you use them, before going into types, followed by rarity.--Crisperstorm (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Think of it this way; The gamemode/usage is the album, and under it are the contributing artists or the types of weapons. Rarity is like genre, it's important, but is trumped by the artists.

Not sure if that makes sense but throwing that out there.--Crisperstorm (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Text bug?

Why is "certifications" lit up blue like it is a link?--Crisperstorm (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

I'm not seeing it.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 10:01, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

Right now (before launch)

Should we include the E3 cards that currently dont have an up to date place. Or leave them till a more accurate source comes along? - CIA391 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2015 (GMT)

I think we should put them in for now as placeholders, but maybe in the description put like "E3 build stats"--Crisperstorm (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

Rarity or Name

I also think it might be smart to keep similar cards near eachother, such as the sniper rifles be next to eachother, but still could be rarity of them so uncommon is before legendary.--Crisperstorm (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

We can keep similar stuff like skins and so on in the said weapon/vehicle articles. I actually keep that updated quite well actually. So there really isnt any punishment to keep pages in Rarity order. --CIA391 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2015 (GMT)

I mean not like that broad but like keep similar weapon cards or vehicle cards near eachother might be good.--Crisperstorm (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

So for anyone outside reading this, this effects the

• Loadout Weapons(potentially)
• Weapon Skins
• Armor/Helmets
• And all the Single use warzone cards

Well I vote Rarity mainly cause I feel its more organised that way(and that majority of the other way can be done on the main pages the weapons are on). But if the majority think the other way that's fine.-CIA391 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (GMT)

Well armor and helmets wouldn't be affected, just vehicles, power weapons, loadout weapons, and weapon skins. Personally if I was browsing this I would be looking for a specific type of weapon and would look for that and all the variations would be near it, so you can easily find a card and it's variants without having to control-F. --Crisperstorm (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

Well Armor and Helmet skins. Their rarity's can be different. So they would be effected by this. :) And go ahead then. -CIA391 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (GMT)