Talk:Michael Stanforth

Untitled

I don't think he would leave the battle of reach--Ryanngreenday 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Reach was in FLEETCOM sector one, Stanforth commanded sector three. He may have gone back to his command before the fight. -ED 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Details

According to The firefight map Alpha site, His name is actually Hieronymus Michael Stanforth 07/03/2486-08/30/2552 Molotovsniper 22:10, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

It also listed him as a Vice Admiral on the plaque.SPARTAN-177 23:03, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

There were large inconcistencies for both Santforth as well as Halsey and Cole. In both dates of birth, death and service number. Which is why it was decided these plaques are the inconsistencies, as multiple other works encourage other facts. These are merely concidered easter eggs.--Thijsbos 03:19, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Harold Stanforth

So The Impossible Life and the Possible Death of Preston J. Cole features a character called Admiral Harold Stanforth who was a superior and friend to Preston Cole during the first years of the 25th century. He's first mentioned when he informed Cole of Lyrenne Castilla's Insurrectionist allegiances on June 13, 2503.

At first glance this appears to be a different person from Hieronymus Michael, who would have been only 16 at the time; it seems plausible that Harold was his father, or another relative. However a problem arises in that Harold's Service Number is exactly the same as Hieronymous Michael's, 00834-19223-HS. Both men also commanded ships called the UNSC Leviathan, though admittedly several decades apart.

So what's the answer? Is Harold a seperate person who deserves his own page? Or is this a case of contradictory information on the same person? I personally think the answer is the former. Their ages are simply too far apart to be the same person, and Micheal's Leviathan was a Marathon-class Cruiser, which was not around in 2503. The Service number is likely just an oversight. What does everyone else think?-- Rusty - UserWiki:Rusty-112| 112 ]] 20:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you, at first site of his name in Evolutions, I thought it was his father. --Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, UNSC Marine Corps 03:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

The two are likely related. they may have even been intended to be the same person. who knows? but for an in-universe perspective, the Service number is likely an error.--WhellerNG 21:24, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, however I thought there already had been made a page for Harold Stanforth from the Life and Death of Cole. --Thijsbos 03:31, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Rank in 2525

In the TOR edition of FoR it saids he is a Vice Admiral in 2525 so it looks like the Rear Admiral bit was a mistake as shown on page 117. I'm going to change the bio bit but I don'tknow if I should change the trivia or delete it. SPARTAN-177 23:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Head of Section III

Why is he not listed as in ONI?--User:JohnSpartan117 22:32, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Stanforth the Unnamed Vice Admiral?

For those that have the Halo Reach limited or legendary edition, I'm here to point out the similarity's between Stanforth and the Unnamed Vice Admiral of Halsey's journal:

1. Most obviously, both were Vice Admirals.

2. The unnamed vice admiral was a high ranking member of ONI section III, so was Stanforth. Stanforth was, in fact, the head of the section for a while as stated here: http://www.halopedian.com/File:Stanforth_Mem.jpg

3. Both had a lot of involvement in the Spartan-II project. In FoR, Stanforth briefed the spartans in 2525 and assigned Keyes to Halsey while she was observing the candidates.

4. Both probably were involved in other Section 3 programs, it is known of the unnamed vice admiral that he was involved in the S-III project.

5. Both were present during the battle of Sigma Octanus IV.

Herefor it seems highly likely to me that unnamed vice admiral mentioned in Halsey's journal is in fact Stanforth.--Thijsbos 11:08, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

I would agree that they are very likely the same person. - Halo-343 (Talk) 11:50, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Jugus did so too. Is ok if I update this page with content from the Unnamed Vice Admiral page?--Thijsbos 13:07, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Yeah. With all the similarities, I think it's safe to say they're one and the same. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:00, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Age and rank

Wait a minute. If I'm reading the numbers right, Stanforth was a full Navy Captain by the age of twenty one, then a Vice Admiral by the age of twenty four and the head of a major division of the UNSC. Does that strike anyone else as odd? -- SFH 15:31, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I would suggest that there is some degree of overlap between Hieronymus and Harold Stanforth, as "the Vice Admiral" is never mentioned by name in Halsey's journal. However, Harold Stanforth was already a full admiral by 2503. Assuming that Harold was Hieronymus' father, the former probably could have pulled some favors for his son; however, there is no way that mere nepotism could make one a captain within three-or-so years of service. Simply retconning his year of birth to 2476 could solve the whole problem, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. --Courage never dies. 15:59, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

This is written in the article's Name section: "As the Data Drop written by 343 Industries reiterates his first name as Harold, this article follows suit". Actually, he is called "Harold" once, while "Hieronymus" is used around four times. It still doesn't make much sense with the Data Drop: Parangosky calls him "Harold" while the messages continuously state "Hieronymus"; she uses it casually which makes it sound like another middle name or a nickname. It may explain the "Harold" from the Cole short story, although this one was initially an error as it was used both formally and informally. Anyway, according to the Data Drop, this would make "Hieronymus" his formal first name.

About his rank: he was also an Admiral in 2531, according to the short story. It's apparently not precised in the article. Basically, he's always an admiral in the story (or at least in 2503 and 2531, not sure if I've missed something else), so... Do we consider that to be one of many errors from Nylund, or should we consider that it was again a temporary position? As Dr. Halsey's journal was written by Nylund, I'm wondering if he may have actually fixed some of his errors when writing it. Imrane-117 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2013 (EDT)

You're absolutely right about his name. The Data Drop - with one exception - consistently calls him Hieronymus. The article has been fixed accordingly. --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 15:37, 28 August 2013 (EDT)

New birth date

A: Vice Admiral Michael Stanforth was born on 15 July, 2486. (CANON FODDER 4-4-15). We have to add another inconsistency, because the ONI memorial says 3 July 2486. Also, 343 had a chance to solve all the inconsistencies, but they didn't, why? At this point we may reconsider the existence of two Stanforth, they could be father and son to explain the similar name, and Parangosky maybe calls the vice admiral "Harold" as "Harold junior" in a sort of colloquial nostalgia to his father. Codename: SURGEON (talk)

No. This Canon Fodder retcons the ONI memorial.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 10:24, 5 April 2015 (EDT)

I'm glad to see this. In the original The Fall of Reach, Stanforth was 10 years Halsey's senior and the Definitive Edition corrected it to 6 in keeping with the ONI memorial. It's nice to see Waypoint has also caught up. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2015 (EDT)

It seems they're either regarding Harold Stanforth as a different person (likely Michael's father) or failed to take him into account when they decided upon this. It is still a little odd he'd be described as this grizzled and gray vice admiral at age 39 (especially considering cryosleep), but then again Halsey's and Mendez's ages also turned out to be lower than originally indicated. Changing the date from July 3 to July 15 seems totally random though. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:27, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, looks like we have to change it back, july 3 was a mistake, check here: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/db05ce78845f4120b062c50816008e5d/topics/canon-fodder-4-4-15-clarity-grace/af75b524-4678-4c9e-82b2-901c51fcdf64/posts?page=5#post83 Codename: SURGEON (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2015 (EDT)