Talk:Main Page

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 16 - 17 - 18 - 19

Note: This page is the best place to ask questions and propose projects. To get a better response from the Halopedian community, please see the Community forums instead. For questions and answers regarding the Halo universe, see our "Ask Us Anything" page.

Page title capitalization guidelines

I thought about making a blog about this, but then again, it's small enough a matter to be discussed here. Template:Username1 already addressed this in a blog, as well as some comments but barely anyone has taken any note of it.

So my question is, why is it common practice that we capitalize every word in page titles? For a recent example, Unnamed Sabre Launch Facility and countless more. "Launch", or "facility", aren't proper nouns and shouldn't be capitalized. I've done it myself in the past, yes, but just because it's common practice here. Wikipedia doesn't do it, and for a reason. It makes titles look out of place and complicates linking. If one wants to make a link for such a page, and they don't want to make the text to look awkward, it needs a redirect or a piped link.

So it's like we have this capitalization rule as a relic from the old times, but no one has bothered to do anything about it. I say we change it so that only proper nouns are capitalized, and with normal ones, lowercase letters will be used. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:14, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I started writing a blog with a formal proposal, but this is as good a place as any to discuss it. As is expected, I'm for the grammatical capitalization. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 02:20, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this has been on my mind for a while now. Halopedia has serious capitalization problems, and we really need to introduce a new policy regarding it. I've seen proper use of capitalization on another wiki I am common on, and things look much tidier and efficient. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:11, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

See Dragonclaws' proposal to Capitalize Titles Canonically.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:13, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Wiki

Most of the Wiki's basic features are down for me. Whenever I try to upload or delete an image, move or delete a page, rollback an edit or block someone, I get the following message: "The database is currently locked. Our main datacenter is down, you are accessing our backup datacenter. We are working to fix the problem". In addition, features like comments or avatars are down as well. It's been doing this for about three days already so it seems to take a bit long to be routine maintenance. Needless to say, it is extremely frustrating. Is this happening for anyone else or is it region-specific or just me? Because I've seen some others upload and delete images or pages with no problem, and if the database is really locked, how is that possible? It doesn't do this on other wikia sites though, just Halopedia. Haven't really seen anyone else report the problem so I guess it has to be regional. Just asking if it can be fixed, or if I just have to wait patiently. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:42, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

That happens often to me, mostly when I tried deleting an article. Simply refresh and repeat the procedure will sometime bypass this error. However, the error might not afterall be an error; Wikia could have taken down the features for temporary maintanence without notifying the administration team because it could simply be a minor bug that they wished to fix. So, just be patient is all I can say. :) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 18:55, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

Ok, so what the hell is wrong with the sidebar? Where did the Halo stuff go and what the f**k is up with all those picture links? - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 22:44, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Blame Wikia :P BTW, it wasn't like that 10 minutes ago...--File:Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   22:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, it suddenly appeared. At last it's back now... - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 07:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

This happened to me once but it is back now. ;-) --File:Major Grade One.png Cally99117 15:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Usage of bracketed addendums in article titles

I've begun to notice the unneeded usage of bracketed addendums in a sizable amount of articles lately, usually those that have a level of the same name. Examples of this include 343 Guilty Spark (Monitor), Armory (Room), High Charity (Structure), Cairo Station (Platform), Gravemind (Form), Kizingo Boulevard (Location) and countless others. If several articles share the same name, the bracketed distinction should only follow the titles of those named after the primary subject.

For example, there are two instances in the Halo series titled "343 Guilty Spark"; the monitor and the level. The level is named after the monitor, thus should be the only article using bracketed information in its title to distinguish it from the primary subject, with a small note at the top of the page to cover any confusion ("Were you looking for ____?"). If there is more than two instances, Gravemind for instance, the same rule should apply, but with a disambiguation page made to organize the other secondarily named pages, again with a note linking to it ("For other uses of "Gravemind", see Gravemind (disambiguation)"). This is what I, and indeed many other wikis, think should apply when it comes to this scenario, and I think Halopedia should implement it also. While I believe this should be incorporated into the Manual of Style, I'd like to address it here, and see what people think. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 20:33, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have brought this up in a blog or on the forum, but whatever. Well, your points are valid; problem is, we need some sort of list in order to locate all articles about subjects named after something else and have a parenthesis indicating that, if we are to start correcting them. It's crazy to start looking for such articles all around the site. Another problem is that there are already articles like 343 Guilty Spark and Gravemind, without brackets, but they are disambiguation pages, so we need to carefully copy-paste everything on them and SOMEHOW keep the disambiguation page as well because it's needed. And as per an old proposal by Manticore, we may not create pages with the word "disambiguation" in brackets (it would also not make sense since we are trying to get rid of them). So yeah, its not that easy.- JEA13 ^[iTalk] 20:50, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

About the list of pages about that subject, you misunderstand, I stated that there of course should be disambiguation pages, but that the name of the page detailing the primary subject should go unchanged. And as for this proposal of Manticore's, I have never heard of it before, but think it to be quite ridiculous. We need disambiguation pages, as what I'm proposing is to retain consistency, the term "disambiguation" is inevitable to retain that, its elimination is nothing more than preference over order and consistency. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 20:57, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; I was just thinking about this a while ago. Pages with the name of the original subject (like Gravemind or Covenant) should obviously not be disambiguation pages, since the original subject is what people are looking for - or linking to - most of the time. Like you said, the primary subject article should have a link to the disambiguation page which would have the addendum (disambiguation). It's a good idea, and common practice in most wikis anyways. Also, the bracketed addendums shouldn't be capitalized like they have been before, for example, Cairo Station (Platform) or High Charity (Structure). That makes it easier to link to them, not to mention more grammatically correct. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 21:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I disagree; I was referring to the old proposal which I'm sure the older admins will remember of. But the idea is good. - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 21:23, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The sentence should be as so: "SUBJECT redirects here. For more uses of SUBJECT, see SUBJECT (disambiguation)". Oh, it was me who began making disambiguation pages which were later deleted by Manticore back in 2007/08 if you're wondering....- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 07:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fanon Titles

I have had it with fan-titles as the main title because this is an encyclopedia not some forum in which fan-titles are allowed in (with the exceptions such as Final Grunt or Hugging Elite) and we should do something about this, so I have made a project on moving: Covenant Rope, Brute Landmine, Covenant Supercruiser, Crow's Nest Bomb, (there are more but I am too lazy to make a draft for all of them). This is one of the many problems with halopedia. --File:Major Grade One.png Cally99117 06:59, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Make a proper proposal or don't propose anything at all... >.< - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 07:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

How about make a proper reply or don't reply at all... >.< --File:Major Grade One.png Cally99117 07:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Cally, one more proper smartass comment from you and you'll get an all-expenses paid [suspension] vacation. User:CommanderTony/Sig

Oh, the irony.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 09:08, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

What would you propose they be moved to? Is not "Covenant Rope" (or "rope") an accurate description if not an official name? If anything, I would think those Easter eggs are the least appropriate, and I could see them being moved to something like "Comical Grunt (Halo 3)" and "Elite (Easter Egg)". --Dragonclaws^(talk) 09:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Titles like those may be more appropriate, but the current ones are easier to find and link to. Plus, there are tons of Elite-related easter eggs, for example. The use of fan-made names should not be encouraged, but in the case of easter eggs, I think it's simply more convenient unless the title is something utterly ridiculous. Besides, a title like "Hugging Elite" pretty much describes what it does. As for titles like "Covenant Rope", I think that's descriptive enough to make it clear that it's not the official name of the item and adding "Unnamed" to it won't really change it at all. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:10, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that easter egg titles are not included but some articles are not like that and do not really fit halopedia mainly because of their fan-titles in which I have made several drafts and currently two more pages to fix, and if you want to see them look at the list:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

--File:Major Grade One.png Cally99117 17:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

But those names aren't "fan-names" like dubbing Rtas 'Vadum "Half-Jaw" because of his jaw injury when we had no idea what his name was. Each of those is an accurate description of something whose name we don't know. I don't see why your names are necessarily better than the things we have now. How is "Brute Landmine" a fan-name and "Hugging Elite" is just fine? --Dragonclaws^(talk) 18:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I have only chosen a few like Brute Landmine because it has absolutely no sources or evidence to prove that is a near canon title and Covenant Supercruiser which has never been confirmed to be a cruiser. RE: Hugging Elite: We as i said easter eggs are not included becausethey are for fan speculation. --File:Major Grade One.png Cally99117 18:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I might start thinking about including stuff like Hugging Elite and other easter eggs and glitches. So should I make this into a forum now? --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

I think you can go ahead. I do agree with some stuff, like the "Crow's Nest Bomb" and "Legendary Planet". I do disagree with stuff like the land mine. "Brute Landmine" and "Covenant Rope" are descriptions, just as your "Unidentified Air Burst Mine" and "Unidentified Covenant Tether" are descriptions. Of course, I can offer no official sources showing that their current titles are canon, but neither can you with your descriptive titles. It is clear that the mine is of Brute-origin and that the rope is of Covenant origin, so the titles are accurate even if they are not canon. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 17:58, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

And about easter eggs and glitches; they are mostly non-canon so they might stay (as non-canon and unconfirmed titles work in a bit of a similar way). --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

Here is the new proposal. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

(Level)

Okay, this has been annoying me. On Wikipedia, parentheses are used in links to disambiguate. For instance, on Wikipedia, Halo takes you straight to the disambiguation page of all things that are called Halo, and you have to use Halo (series) to get to our beloved franchise. Likewise, on Halopedia, Halo is a disambiguation page, and you can choose Halo (Halo 3 Level) or Halo (Halo: Combat Evolved Level), etc. to get whatever article you want. However, the parentheses have been extended past simple disambiguation and into a rather pointless classification method. When we've got two or more things with the same name, such as Cortana, then it makes sense to have Cortana and Cortana (Level). Because Cortana the AI is the most obvious use of "Cortana", the Cortana page is specifically our favorite AI's page, which makes sense. The problem is that "(Level)" has been adopted as something automatically put in a level's title, which is excessive and doesn't make sense. The fact that "Assault on the Control Room" is a level should be obvious from the context of the link or from the content of the page, depending on how one is arriving at the page, and placing "(Level)" in the title for no reason but classification is just superfluous. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 10:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no idea how a practice like this came to be; having the (Level) addendum is pointless when the only article with that name is of the level. It stands to reason it should only be used when there's another subject with the same name. Also, now that we're adopting the new capitalization standard, shouldn't the parentheses be in lowercase most of the time? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

The practise became official back in 2007/08, as with the capitalisation though I can't seem to find archives of it. I believe one of the argument for the practise was to maintain consistency, but don't take my word for it.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 11:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)