Talk:Terminal (Halo 3): Difference between revisions

Line 437:

: Weird. I've not kept up on the details here but to me the Terminals have always shown that Forerunners were just ancient humans and not a separate species. I thought that distinction was only introduced in the Forerunner saga novels... -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 07:32, December 19, 2022 (EST)

::I believe that my points ~~are being~~ are being left as they are, so I'm adding my proposed changes. [[User:TNS22|TNS22]] ([[User talk:TNS22|talk]]) 10:03, December 19, 2022 (EST)

::I believe that my points are being left as they are, so I'm adding my proposed changes. [[User:TNS22|TNS22]] ([[User talk:TNS22|talk]]) 10:03, December 19, 2022 (EST)

:::Us on the team are still discussing stuff regarding this on the Discord! 😀 We'll probably post here after/before we done some Tweeks!-[[User:CIA391|CIA391]] ([[User talk:CIA391|talk]]) 14:08, December 19, 2022 (EST)

::::Ok! So I've seen the new [https://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=Terminal_(Halo_3)&oldid=1565945 edit] from [[User:Tacitus|Tacitus]] and I have to say I'm thrilled with this! I really have to thank the staff for being able to take the criticism and keeping all my proposed changes! I was honestly thinking this would be a much more heated discussion, but I'm very glad it's been calm and simple.

::::And the decision to merge down the "In ''The Forerunner Saga''" into the "Production Notes" section is a really great one, it looks much nicer this way. I think having the main issue in it's own part in there is also the right move.

::::The lore clarifications and additions made are also appreciated, I think the article is super clear and accurate to current knowledge about all the little details and contentions. In particular the clarification on the exact differences between the original idea and the terminals/iris are really good. Also the point on The Forerunner Saga's point of view is great too, I struggled find a way to word that myself, good change.

::::As someone on the original side of the debate I do want to say that I don't agree with the part on where it says where Contact Harvest and lines Halo 3 may imply the original idea wouldn't be contradictions with the terminals, if they ''do'' mean to say Forerunners are ancient humans as originally thought than wouldn't that be a contradiction the terminals? And isn't that proven for Contact Harvest? I think a better way to say it is that they could be understood in another context regardless. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But of course given that we don't know what the actual intentions of any exact lines I'm not saying for certain, and I suppose this could be a way of being neutral showing "both sides" as I originally proposed so I'll just leave it at that. :P

::::The one and only thing I think should be changed is the edit from:

:::: * '''"However, it is not known exactly what stance he might have taken on the team." --> "However, how much he knew remains uncertain"''''

::::I don't understand the new phrasing here, It's not about knowledge, it's about what Joe's intention was right? Isn't it about if he was writing with the original forerunners idea or the new one? If the idea is to make it less combative I think it should be:

:::: * ''''"However, what his intentions might have been remains uncertain."''' or '''"However, what implications he may had remains uncertain."'''

::::Or something along those lines.

::::Again, thanks for listening and for all the great additions! I imagine it was a little tense but I think this has worked out just fine. [[User:TNS22|TNS22]] ([[User talk:TNS22|talk]]) 12:36, December 20, 2022 (EST)

@@ Line 437: / Line 437: @@
 : Weird. I've not kept up on the details here but to me the Terminals have always shown that Forerunners were just ancient humans and not a separate species. I thought that distinction was only introduced in the Forerunner saga novels... -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 07:32, December 19, 2022 (EST)
-::I believe that my points are being are being left as they are, so I'm adding my proposed changes. [[User:TNS22|TNS22]] ([[User talk:TNS22|talk]]) 10:03, December 19, 2022 (EST)
+::I believe that my points are being left as they are, so I'm adding my proposed changes. [[User:TNS22|TNS22]] ([[User talk:TNS22|talk]]) 10:03, December 19, 2022 (EST)
 :::Us on the team are still discussing stuff regarding this on the Discord! 😀 We'll probably post here after/before we done some Tweeks!-[[User:CIA391|CIA391]] ([[User talk:CIA391|talk]]) 14:08, December 19, 2022 (EST)
+::::Ok! So I've seen the new [https://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=Terminal_(Halo_3)&oldid=1565945 edit] from [[User:Tacitus|Tacitus]] and I have to say I'm thrilled with this! I really have to thank the staff for being able to take the criticism and keeping all my proposed changes! I was honestly thinking this would be a much more heated discussion, but I'm very glad it's been calm and simple.
+::::And the decision to merge down the "In ''The Forerunner Saga''" into the "Production Notes" section is a really great one, it looks much nicer this way. I think having the main issue in it's own part in there is also the right move.
+::::The lore clarifications and additions made are also appreciated, I think the article is super clear and accurate to current knowledge about all the little details and contentions. In particular the clarification on the exact differences between the original idea and the terminals/iris are really good. Also the point on The Forerunner Saga's point of view is great too, I struggled find a way to word that myself, good change.
+::::As someone on the original side of the debate I do want to say that I don't agree with the part on where it says where Contact Harvest and lines Halo 3 may imply the original idea wouldn't be contradictions with the terminals, if they ''do'' mean to say Forerunners are ancient humans as originally thought than wouldn't that be a contradiction the terminals? And isn't that proven for Contact Harvest? I think a better way to say it is that they could be understood in another context regardless. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But of course given that we don't know what the actual intentions of any exact lines I'm not saying for certain, and I suppose this could be a way of being neutral showing "both sides" as I originally proposed so I'll just leave it at that. :P
+::::The one and only thing I think should be changed is the edit from:
+:::: * '''"However, it is not known exactly what stance he might have taken on the team." --> "However, how much he knew remains uncertain"''''
+::::I don't understand the new phrasing here, It's not about knowledge, it's about what Joe's intention was right? Isn't it about if he was writing with the original forerunners idea or the new one? If the idea is to make it less combative I think it should be:
+:::: * ''''"However, what his intentions might have been remains uncertain."''' or '''"However, what implications he may had remains uncertain."'''
+::::Or something along those lines.
+::::Again, thanks for listening and for all the great additions! I imagine it was a little tense but I think this has worked out just fine. [[User:TNS22|TNS22]] ([[User talk:TNS22|talk]]) 12:36, December 20, 2022 (EST)