Talk:Halo: Escalation

Symbol

Did anyone notice that if you look into the chieftain's eyes, the symbol of the arbiter is there? 96.246.166.18 16:05, 25 October 2013 (EDT)

Add it to the trivia section.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 13:03, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Lasky's old friend

This is just a theory, but I believe Lasky's old friend might be Michael Sullivan. With computer hacking/slicing skills like that, he would probably be able to figure out who is the spy. Either that or it could be April Orenski, but it seems most likely. Anyway, hope we find out soon. It would be nice to know what happened to the other two survivors. But in the meantime, does anybody else have any ideas who Lasky's old friend might be? --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 15:46, 13 January 2014 (EST)Xamikaze330

Issue 5

So are we going to sit here and pretend that issue 5 is not talking about the UNSC Spirit of Fire, because the UNSC Spirit of Fire did lose contact with the rest of the UNSC In 2531 followering its disappearance to the Forerunner Shield World, which is 27 years prior to 2558 during the same time the events of Halo Escalation takes place, close to 30 years as mentioned in the summary. I mean like that's a pretty big coincidence to drop unless they pull some maneuver and have something to back it up.-Bronze98(not sure how to leave proper signatures)

It is SOF because Waypoint, when they realized how painful obvious the teaser blurb was, deleted all comments about the SOF from the Escalation thread on their forums and declared it a leak. Despite 343 giving Dark Horse the blurbs to tease the issue... SMH. ProphetofTruth (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2014 (EST)

Here's the main thread. --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 07:20, 19 January 2014 (EST)

This wiki is about the facts and canon of Halo. Saying it's definitely the Spirit of Fire is still supposition at this point, not a known fact. I would say caution is in order until it becomes a fact when amending wiki entries. I'm not in the loop so I honestly don't know and I too think (and hope) it is the Spirit of Fire, but recall before the Halo 4 Visual Guide came out, most people 'knew' that the Infinity-berthed frigates were Charon-class and how much editing needed to occur here when it was revealed it was the Strident-class...don't jump the gun. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2014 (EST)

I believe its more likely the former UNSC Belleraphon ,with Cole being alive, they hint at it in evolutions, the ship is lost for over 30 years, the Spirit of fire is not important enough ,Cutter is a regular officer, the scientist can't really contribute anything since the UNSC already has more knowledge and the covenant are no longer important, the spartans while a good asset are not that important, Infity is of course far more powerfull than the SoF. Now Cole is a game changer. --GabeScott (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2014 (EST)

The Bellerophon (or Bellicose, if you want) was last sighted in 2543, 15 years before Halo: Escalation. --They're coming. They're hungry. (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2014 (EST)

It wasn't a confirmed sighting, it disapeared much more early. Besides we have to look at it from real world perspective, there is no evidence spirit of fire would ever be recovered and there isn't much reason to it, except hey its you guys, but they hint at Coles survival and his ex-wife assiting him, her being the captain of that ship as well and it would give major story development a great admiral returning ,possibly with a new outlook on life, spirit of fire has no major characters the scientist is no Halsey, Cutter while a good commander wasn't really anything special, the ship is way outdated, few spartans, who never really had much character development. My first thought was SoF ,but I recenlty red evolutions and given that the Belerophon is mentioned as missing for 30 years, speculation on Cole defecting and being alive, perhaps they will encounter his teritory if he has a big enough force he could pose a threat to Infinity, besides Cutter would have no past with Hood, except an unmentioned one, they could have been at about the same career path, but its doubtfull, Cutter didn't seem to have that kind of personality ,where Cole often went againts authority and did not respect failures, Hood might have been either a senior or junior officer clashing with Cole --GabeScott (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Again, the SoF was missing for 30 years. Where was it mentioned that the Bellerophon was missing for 30 years?? And what do you mean by "..no evidence spirit of fire would ever be recovered..". The Sof was traveling back to UNSC territory even w/o its slipspace drive, so either way they were going to make it back, regardless of how long it took (of course within the hints of the final cutscene of Halo Wars and "Escalation" they encounter the covenant or something else first). Plus it would really benefit the Halo community if "343i" recovered Red Team (which IMO are major characters). I'm sure everyone would like that - I know I would. Plus with the direction 343i has been going, anything goes - 343i can make up a story about Hood having an issue with Cutter whether it was mentioned previously or not. Not to say I don't want to see the return of Cole, but with the hints from 343i, more than likely it'll be the SoF making a return IMO.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 13:03, 14 February 2014 (EST)

It was mentioned in evolutions, the one where events leading up to his (Coles) death are described ,they specifically said the ship was missing for 30 years when it reapered. I would like to have the SoF back as well ,for one I like the ship the most in Halo universe, I'm just saying they are not likely antagonists, what would be their problem with UNSC, unless they learn something ,but in the last issue that would be awkward, they discover them, then they debrief them and then they have a problem with soemething, how would they get back to SoF, ONI would detain them, or they steal a ship, but spartans wouldn't help, its far easier for it to be Cole, since evolutions heavily hints on his defection. I'm not saying it still couldn't be SoF ,just that it would be far easier for it to be Cole, as they already establish a path for him to return in the book, SoF is just left there, sure it could eventually get back, but there is very little extended universe connected to it (what one comic?) , Cole appears in multiple media (books,comics,short film), and they basically told his whole life story in evolutions. --GabeScott (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

While Cole does appear in multiple media there is very little incentive to bring him back compared to the Spirit of Fire. Cole didn't have an entire Halo game about him, though he at least got a mention in two. Based on Chris' current plot development with Escalation (bringing back Arby, Brutes, Skirmishers, Halo 3 Elite Armor variants) it's more logical to assume it is the Spirit of Fire as it is something more desired by the fanbase. And to add to that either way you're looking at the Bellicose was either spotted 15 years ago or 54 years ago. Even if you round them up or down neither are close to 30 like the Spirit of Fire's 27 year journey.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 14:21, 14 February 2014 (EST)

I'm not saying you are incorect, due to leaks its more than likely ,its just that for now I can't see how anyone on SoF would fit the summary, although I don't doubt they can pull of a good way to do it, I just hope its not hey why didn't you look for us. --GabeScott (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Like I said earlier, 343i can make up anything as they've been doing already. They just have to make sure whatever they make up makes logical sense and fits the bill rather than just doing it for the sake of doing it.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 12:18, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Confirmed to be the long-lost Spirit of Fire.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 17:45, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Kool. ;)--Killamint [Comm|Files] 19:30, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Official Summaries

Two questions in regards to the official summaries. First question: Will the summaries of each issue be posted here or will they be separated into separate articles in the likeliness of the Halo: Fall of Reach comic series? Second question: Does anyone have an official summary of the first two issues written up and ready to go? I'm asking these questions because I may write up a summary for issue 2 since I might be grabbing it today. I would grab both issues but my local comic shop sold out of issue 1 (well whataknow). Plus issue 3 comes out Wednesday and I'm looking to catch up on this interesting series.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 14:23, 23 February 2014 (EST)

We'll probably keep the summaries on this page. We used to have dedicated articles for individual comic book issues with the older comic series, but with the level of activity these days, no one would probably write them their own in-depth summaries—which would justify their inclusion—anymore. As for your second question, you can go right ahead whenever you're ready. I've been meaning to write them for some time but there's only so many things you can do. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Looks like I spoke too soon. Issue 1 has been posted already and I'm sure issue 2 will be posted soon as well ;). But yeah, I'll keep the summaries on this page as you said.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 16:17, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Palmer's Height

Palmer is regularly shown as the same height if not shorter than Lasky in the comic (something that annoys me to no end), should this be added to mistakes? BardicFire (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2014 (EDT)

I was thinking the same thing but, I wouldn't say it's significant enough to add. The artist have a lot of artistic freedom, can be inconsistent, and tend to draw the characters however they see fit. Sometimes the spartans appear as if they are normal human height. Also the spartans may be shorter w/o their armor. How short is unknown. Also you can use ~~~~ to leave your signature.--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 08:38, 10 April 2014 (EDT)

Vata 'Gajat's faction

Issue 5 has made it clear that 'Gajat is no longer associated with the Covenant remnant. As such I feel that 'Gajat and his mercenaries are their own faction. Thoughts? Col. Snipes450 11:58, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

I was wondering the same and was about to delete "covenant remnant" from the "battle of Ealen IV" page. Could they be called covenant mercinaries for now until we find out otherwise?--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 12:01, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

Considering they are made up of the Covenant species and not one in particular I think "Covenant mercenaries" is an appropriate title. Col. Snipes450 12:30, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

Kool. I went ahead and modified the "battle of Ealen IV" page.--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 12:40, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

"Mercenaries" implies warriors that fight for money. The covenant remnants that we have seen don't seem to have as much of an interest in money, as the do in Forerunners.—This unsigned comment was made by Weeping Angel (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Well as Zef 'Trahl said 'Gajat has discovered capitalism and prefers payment over religion. Col. Snipes450 14:57, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

Speaking of Zef, would you consider him an active collaborator to humanity, or merely an asset? My gut feeling is "asset" right now as he's not affiliated with the Arbiter (as far as we know), but he certainly seems to be more than willing to help us. One more thing, references to John Forge and the Shadow of Intent were made in Issue #5, should we include those as mentions? --Sangheili Ruler (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2014 (EDT)

Where does it mention Forge and the Shadow of Intent?96.246.166.18 19:07, 8 May 2014 (EDT)

Issue 6

It has now been 2 Days since Issue 6 was released, and the ((Halo: Escalation)) Article still doesn't have a Summary. Hello? 76.17.73.143 14:22, 30 May 2014 (EDT)

What? The Issue 6 summary was added at 10:18 UTC on May 28. --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 15:26, 30 May 2014 (EDT)

@Tentacletornado: I'm not so sure about there being multiple flood infection forms between those two panels. It doesn't appear to be multiple forms. Also a single form may have been placed there to give the reader a better sense of suspense and mystery imo (not sure how to word that). This is done in the movies, tv shows, etc. where the main characters will encounter "one" of something before the whole collective. It can also be safe to say that the panels should have been switched, with the one showing the flood form between the cryo pods shown first and the one in the middle of the floor shown second.--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 09:32, 31 May 2014 (EDT)

I wasn't sure either, but my point was that if there is a possible explanation it shouldn't be said to be erroneous. Stating that the infection form was moving backwards is only one interpretation of what was shown, and one which—although it would make some sense, as you say—doesn't seem to be the most likely possibility to me. Having it in the article made it seem like it's the only interpretation to be gained from the panels, which isn't exactly true. I was thinking about placing another bullet to attempt to explain it, but it seemed unnecessary and a little untidy. :P —TentacleTornado 10:18, 31 May 2014 (EDT)

True. You make a good point. Its hard to say or make of the situation. Could ask Braidenvl for his input since he made the edit (which I don't disagree with). However imo he did come up with a good (if not the best possible) explanation for what the mistake was. There was nothing in the comic to suggest otherwise. That's why when I looked at the panel, it looked like the infection form is moving backwards as was previously stated. If there were two forms rather than one in the 2nd panel than I'd be convinced it wasn't a mistake. So I do agree that if there could be another interpretation/possibility for the mistake than yes, but in this case for me, there was nothing more to gain from those two panels.--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 10:38, 31 May 2014 (EDT)

Eh, my point still stands. I, and others, have seen it differently; we don't know the speed at which the infection forms are moving or how much time passes between panels, and hence whether or not more than one would've been in the same panel at the same time if there were two. I personally would prefer the possibility that the error isn't present, or to simply remove it because a possible explanation exists. I don't really know what to do here, hah, apart from ask for a third opinion. >.< —TentacleTornado 11:50, 31 May 2014 (EDT)

Considering Jugus added a possible explanation for the SoF's mistaken "3" being a worn out "8", I would suggest you add your explanation as well. Won't hurt to try.--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 17:55, 1 June 2014 (EDT)

Consistency with the Appearances section

Just to point out that there is a minor layout inconsistency between comic books and the novels. This is mainly the Appearances section, per title. Essentially, I think it would be better for the Appearances section to focus solely on characters and omit other features. This is probably better as the list under the Appearances section is getting longer and longer with each new releases. Thoughts? — subtank 14:26, 18 June 2014 (EDT)

I suppose that's a good idea. Would this be applied to the other comics as well?Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 22:40, 18 June 2014 (EDT)

I agree, but I'm curious as to why we don't include an Appearances section that contains other features for novels. Anyway, I do agree that just featuring characters would be beneficial, since the Appearances list will, as you said, continue to grow and develop. - NightHammer (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2014 (EDT)

It's always good to be consistent, so I'm all for this.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:01, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Actually, I was wondering the same thing as NightHammer - why exactly don't we use full appearance lists for novels? It feels like one of those things that has just been around forever without anyone to ask why. I would, however, prefer if we implemented a more compact way to present the lists as they tend to take up a major portion of a page - maybe use a tabbox for each subsection? Other than that slight aesthetic gripe I would have no issue with using appearance lists for comic and novel pages, if just for informativeness' sake. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:20, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

It's good that you two brought it up. In fact, it was my plan all along! Mwahahaaha Consistency promotes... well, consistency. For now, a long list makes it look cluttered and unorganised. However, as Jugus correctly pointed out, we could implement a more compact way in terms of presentation. We do have a working template designed to deal with that, but so far it has not been utilised at all since its creation. A tabbox wouldn't work since anything more than 6 tabs will just reduce the quality of the presentation for mobile users (unless you, for whatever reason, purchased or make use of Samsung's new 2560x1440 LCD Galaxy 3 cellphone).— subtank 12:35, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Well, if it works then there's no problem. We might as well start replacing them (and making novel articles' lists actual complete appearance lists as opposed to just listing characters). One other thing: could we stop calling game articles' appearance lists "Features" and instead use the more consistent title "Appearances"? Things like saved films, vehicle boarding, armor abilities or dual wielding are features. A Grunt, plasma pistol or Jacob Keyes are not. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Yes, I agree. Should we begin applying the template? - NightHammer (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

I also agree. This will ultimately make the book pages more consistent with the game and comic, game, and movie/commercial articles.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 12:49, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Use them away then. :) — subtank 15:44, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

So having observed the template "in action", so to speak, what it does is basically generate a basic subsection heading with normal body text under that? No tabs or any other sort of code magic like that? If that's all it does (forgive me if I've missed something) wouldn't it be just as easy to make the subsections via normal means instead of this slightly more fancy way of doing it? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:03, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Could we steal and modify Wookieepedia's? Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 00:39, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

That would certainly save some space in the article, keeping length down. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 04:17, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

(reset indent) Importing the App template from Wikipedia is not as simple as copying the entire content of the template. The template also receives additional elements from the wiki's CSS page. Mind you, I did consider importing that template back when we had an issue with the feature list but given the amount of content to copy and to modify, it is a bit too much for me to handle. Hence why I decided to create the Featurelist template, a simpler design with greater customisation options. The template features a "hide/show" function (though Jugus' comment has made it clear to me that the feature is not as apparent as I thought it would be). Futures updates would essentially make the template look and function similar to Wookieepedia's App template without the dependency on the wiki's CSS page. I just require more feedback from other users than myself to improve the template. — subtank 06:24, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

So, there has been an update on the template. In the near future, there might be a menu just like the Wookieepedia's App template. Would it be better for the list to be open or collapsed?— subtank 12:26, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

I'd say collapsed. Much less clutter on the page in its default state and people get what they're looking for with one click.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

I've placed an option instead. But it is collapsed by default. :) — subtank 12:40, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

Now that it's in use, the template is looking great (exactly what we needed for these cumbersome appearance lists), except that the "edit" button only shows up for the first header (though you might already be aware of this). Could this be fixed so that either all or none of the headers have the edit button? Also, just as a minor visual gripe, could the "show/hide" button be made more clearly distinct from the "edit" one just so casual readers won't subconsciously mix the two up? Or, even better, have it replace the "edit" button right next to the header text so it's easier to associate the title and the button. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Fixed. As for the "show/hide", I'm not so sure how that's possible since the "hide/show" feature we're using is in mediawiki core by default. — subtank 15:45, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Fine. It's not really that big of a deal either way. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 15:53, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Individual Issues

Thanks to Monitor Chakas, we now have articles that summarise each individual issue. So I think it's safe to say that the synopsis section of this article and Halo: Initiation can be cut down significantly. Anyone agree?--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:57, 6 July 2014 (EDT)

Agreed. A few days ago I had actually suggested to Subtank that we delete the older comic issue pages and add the info to the main page like we did for the newer ones. However, thanks to Monitor Chakas making the newer comic issue pages that's no longer really needed.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 19:17, 6 July 2014 (EDT)

I totally agree. I could take a look if required, the comic/novel section is my main editing ground. Please let me know. PS. Apologies for using Wikipedia as a source Spartacus, I will keep that in mind in future. Monitor Chakas ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:26, 6 July 2014 (EDT)

To justify the existence of the separate pages, the issue-specific articles' summaries could now be expanded to be more detailed (as with the earlier comics), while the one in this article should be limited to the basic outline of the story. Otherwise we just have a set of extra articles with no additional information.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:31, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Need Citation for Issues 15 and 16, or remove

Someone added empty entries for supposed Issues 15 and 16. As far as I'm aware, only 14 issues have been announced. Is there a source that claims otherwise? If you search at Dark Horse, you will find that there are 16 product listings for Halo: Escalation. They are the 14 standard issues, a variant cover for Issue 1, and the Volume 1 compilation of Issues 1 - 6. There's no listing for an Issue 15 or 16. Olanmills (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2014 (EDT)

I believe the source for the two extra issues is the official summary for issue 14, which says; "The thrilling sequel to Halo 4's Spartan Ops continues in this four-part story by Duffy Boudreau (BlackAcre, Bloodshot), and Sergio Ariño (Ms. Marvel)!" Exposure is a two part story which concludes with issue twelve, as such the four part story can only start from Issue 13 and would therefore conclude in Issue 16.--Soul reaper (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2014 (EDT)