Talk:Halo 3: ODST

Native Resolution
Yesterday I added the native resolution of the game to the infobox, but the edit has been reverted by David Fuchs. The info was verifiable (and was already mentioned elsewhere in the article) so I was wondering if anyone could provide a reason for this? I don't want to start an edit war or anything, so if I could get some info on this that'd be great. It is something that is included on most good quality game articles, so why shouldn't it be included here? People shouldn't have to search through the article to find something that is usually, and IMHO should be, in the infobox.  Alphathon TM ( talk ) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is resolution all that important? It's given the passing mention it deserves, but considering no review I found besides that one even mentioned resolution, it's a rather trivial addition. Infoboxes get bloated enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if I didn't think it was important enough I wouldn't have added it. As I said most, if not all, high profile game articles mention the native resolution in the infobox* (with the exception of PC games which don't have a native res), and it is a category for a reason. It is at the very least important to mention as people should know when the output resolution != native resolution (such as in this case or the recent call of duty games). Why exactly does it only deserve a passing mention, in the reception section of all places? Many of the reviews I read when it came out (or was about to) seemed to focus on the differences between it and Halo 3, which also features the 640p resolution, so it may have mentioned it in passing, if at all (taken as a given). Besides, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - only mentioning technical information in the reception section seems ludicrous. Why is the info on who composed the score more important than the resolution? What about its input methods? I fail to see why resolution is any less important than things like that. Besides, what are infoboxes for anyway - it seems to me that they are for quick access to bullet-point style facts and figures, which resolution certainly falls under.


 * In a nut shell, it is relevent because:
 * It is different from the output resolution which is mentioned on the packaging.
 * It is a non-standard resolution.
 * It is no less important than other things in the infobox.
 * Most other game articles mention it in the infobox, so should be there for comparison and consistency at least.
 * It should be there to show the progression (or lack there-of) from Halo 3 - being a psuedo-expansion and all.
 * Many people find technical info interesting and/or useful, and that is what an encyclopedia is for - to act as a reference guide and to provide interesting and useful information - why should a single line of text be removed because it will make the infobox "bloated".


 * * For example Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: World at War, Killzone 2, Resistance: Fall of Man, Resistance 2, MotorStorm, God of War III, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune...the list goes on. The only ones I found that don't have it are Beyonetta, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Fable 2. There are probably more, but of the ones which I checked, the majority list it.
 *  Alphathon TM ( talk ) 15:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

paragraph rewrite for FAC
A live-action trailer titled "The Life" was posted on the Internet in September and later used in television spots as part of the promotional material released for the game. Filmed at several locations in Budapest, Hungary, The Life follows an ODST named Tarkov from his inspiration at a military funeral to become a soldier, through training and combat and up to the moment he becomes a leader in battle. The short film was created by advertising agency TAG SF with effects by Asylum, and directed by production company MJZ, who also handled the award-winning Halo 3 "Believe" advertisement. Legacy Effects designed and fabricated props, weapons, armor, and a Covenant Brute costume within two weeks. Bungie supplied 3D geometry that allowed the company to quickly create accurate representations of in-game items, and provided input on the UNSC dress uniforms. The initial cemetery scene was filmed inside the cooling tower of an active nuclear power plant in Budapest, and outside the tower the production team created a mud pit and obstacle course to simulate basic training. Members of the Hungarian special forces served as drill instructors in the training sequence, firing blanks. Finally, filming moved to an abandoned Soviet-era aluminum refinery for the short's final memorial scene. An additional scene was shot there, but did not appear in the final product.
 * left unmentioned were the stripmine "battlefield", the "additional scene" is available on the internet, PLUS the costumer designer for the full-dress uniforms n the funral scene also did Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan and won an academy-award winner for one of them... • Ling.Nut 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Including full name at start of article
In keeping with standard encyclopedic practise, I recently added the full title at the start of the article ("Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers").

The idea behind this practise is to initially define what an acronym stands for, thus giving way to its further use in an article. Its purpose is in no way related to whether or not the subject of an article is commonly referred to by its full title.

The Encyclopedia Britannica follows this same principle, and it is also defined in the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

The edit I made was reverted. I believe this was due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of initial full-title article definitions.

InternetMeme (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The full name of the game is not "Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers". It's just ODST. Point me to any official source that names it otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see the misunderstanding now. As I wrote above, the purpose is to indicate what an acronym stands for; it's not at all trying to imply that it is what a thing is called.


 * So, a person who looks up the article can immediately think "Ah, so that's what those letters stand for", not "Ah, so that's what the game is normally called".


 * This is the reasoning behind the universal standard of initially spelling out acronyms.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That settles it then. I'll update the article in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you don't think this is a good idea, you should work on getting a concensus for an update to the Manual of Style. In the mean time, the article should follow that.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't exactly settle it, actually. Leading an article with "Orbital Shock Drop Troopers" is a horrible idea, as it's not helping readers understand what the abbreviation means. What the hell is an Orbital Drop Shock Trooper? It's not something that's meant for that part of the lead; the third sentence does this much more effectively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see another misunderstanding now. As I wrote above, the purpose is to indicate what an acronym stands for; it's not trying to say what it means.


 * So, a person who looks up the article can immediately think "Ah, so that's what those letters stand for".


 * It would be standard practice, further in the article, to elaborate on the definition of the words. The reasoning being that if a term is significant enough to be part of the title of a game, then it is significant enough to define.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't defining it, you're spelling it out. There's a difference, and words without definitions are not helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just a semantic argument. I'll re-word my statement then:


 * The purpose of initially spelling out acronyms is so that a reader knows what the letters stand for. It is a universal practise in encyclopedias, and professional journalism. It's basically part of English grammar.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that what ODST stands for should be spelled out in the first sentence. It's completely certain that the title of this game is NOT "Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers" so it's confusing to say so in the first sentence (and the "always referred to as simply" feels awkward). The meaning of ODST can and should be spelled out in the lead but not in the first sentence. You say that your intention is to inform readers about what ODST stands for but by expanding ODST in the first sentence, any rational reader cannot help but think "Ah, so that's what the game is normally called", or else think that it's a remarkable waste of words to name something as such and then immediately qualify it by saying that it's never referred to that way. The first sentence should match the title of the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a fair comment. It's not a good idea to confuse readers. Nevertheless, it is fundamental grammatical practice to spell out acronyms on first usage. Maybe it would be an acceptable compromise to spell it out later in the first paragraph. InternetMeme (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is already spelt out later in the para, and that's good enough really. Your current version is wrong as it now says the game is called Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand how abbreviations work. By definition, the full title of the game is "Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers". It is simply uniformly referred to by its abbreviated form.


 * A similar concept is the fact that nobody calls "Barack Hussein Obama II" by his full name. That doesn't imply that "Barack Hussein Obama II" isn't his full name.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, provide an official source saying the game is called "Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers". Christopher Connor (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, what else would "ODST" stand for? InternetMeme (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the game developers may well have decided ODST stands for Orbitral Drop Shock Trooper. However, that isn't the official title of the game, which is just Halo 3: ODST. So saying that it is the official title, like the article is now, is simply wrong (the reason it's "always referred" to as "ODST" is because that's the actual title of the game, not because "Orbitral Drop Shock Trooper" is longer to say). We can't say the game is called "Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers", because it isn't, and what ODST stands for is explained a few lines down. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in the case the correct way to introduce the game would be "Halo 3: ODST (Orbital Drop Shock Troopers)."


 * Incidentally, it's not uncommon for the game to be referred to as "Halo 3: Orbital Drop Shock Troopers":




 * InternetMeme (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, since you seem to have acknowledged your error, can you correct the article? With respect to the new point, I still don't think it's necessary, because it's explained below. No need to say the same thing twice. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I'll fix my error now. Incidentally in the mean time, Der Fuchs has subversively slipped in a revert back to the old intro : ) InternetMeme (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your error was already fixed by David Fuchs. The old version has stood for a long time and nobody objected to it in the article's FAC. Your edit summary ("per discussion") was misleading as only you want the article that way, against the views of three other editors. Incidentally, your recent edit introduced another error, as seems to be the habit. Instead of engaging in this slow edit war, it would be good if you could gain consensus from other editors. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I can't possibly take you seriously if you're going to resort to personal attacks. I'm not in the habit of introducing errors, and it is puerile to suggest that.


 * Getting back to the point: It is part of English to spell out acronyms on first use. This article is written in English. Draw your own conclusions. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but do any of you three have any kind of literary degree? This kind of thing is fairly common knowledge, and it is also written in the Wikipedia guidelines.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, why didn't you put the comma in yourself? InternetMeme (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks? I'm not the one speculating on others' education. I can only go on your edits, and the two edits I saw introduced errors: one called the game by the wrong title, the other left a meaningless phrase. You appear to have identified your second error but you don't want to fix it for some reason. Can I ask why that is? You've been revert-warring on this article for three weeks now, and have yet to come up with a convincing reason to justify your edits. On the other hand, "Avoid abbreviations when they might confuse the reader, interrupt the flow"—which appears to apply in this instance [an oversight, due to wild and far-fetched dreams of having the other editor banished] Christopher Connor (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline you cite is stating the opposite of what you are saying. It is advising to avoid using abbreviations—not to avoid spelling them out. What on earth compelled you to bring that up? Do you have even a passing interest in correct English usage? And as I subtly implied before, it is you that initiated this degeneration into personal attacks, which I only entertain for the amusement it brings to an otherwise very repetitive discussion.


 * As I said before, the convincing reason to justify the edit is that It is part of English to spell out acronyms on first use. It is likely that some kind of formal education on the matter is required to know this, hence my suspicion that you haven't studied English. I thought the fact that guideline is written in the manual of style was good enough, but it would help if we could get someone educated in journalism to weigh in on the subject.


 * In the mean time, the article should follow the guidelines. InternetMeme (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Truly, I am stupid. I'm going to go take classes in English now. The rule applies more to general terms and names than to works like games and books. The guideline doesn't really distinguish between these. I doubt there's any hard and fast rules about this. Rather, it's about editorial judgement, and to spell it out at the beginning doesn't really help the reader when it's done later in context. Still, worth getting more input, though I doubt your revision will be implemented. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with this. InternetMeme (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Original Soundtrack
As of right now searching 'Halo 3: ODST Original Soundtrack' and its variations results in a redirect to the main article's Audio section. Does not this soundtrack deserve its own page like all of the original trilogy, ie with tracklisting and an in-depth writeup? For congruence's sake. (I'd do it myself but I'm new to editing) Amozoness6 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not really enough content for the reception of the soundtrack itself to warrant a separate article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. Apparently Halo CE, 2 , 3 , and Reach called for their own pages. I would say that ODST's soundtrack is one of the greatest accomplishments in the franchise and worthy of an article. Amozoness6 (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the first three have much more in terms of reception and impact than Reach, although if I had to go back and write those articles again I prolly would merge in the Halo OST since its reception from important reviewers is pretty thin. It's not a slight against the soundtrack's quality (it's tied with Halo 3 as my favorite of the bunch) but there's just not the sources to support a really rich article separate from this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm glad it isn't some kind of preferential treatment for nostalgic themes. And I understand where you're coming from when you say there's not much that would necessarily warrant another article but I want to make it clear that a major reason for suggesting this is the tracklisting. In my opinion ODST's music is much more identifiable and epochal than its passing mention lets on. If a new article is out of the question would including it in ODST's Audio section be too out-and-out? Amozoness6 (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Including tracklists in articles is something of a divisive issue, but I personally have no issue with it (I've included it in other articles, such as Halo Wars.) If you want to add it, just go ahead (might want to cite the booklet or a good source online if you can find it though.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been coy about it but all this time I'm trying to warn you: markup languages are not very intuitive to me. Probably give it a go later but I won't be surprised if it's reverted for being ugly xD Amozoness6 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that the Halo Wars one is kind of odd. Just copy the text from, say, Wipeout 3 and then modify the fields. It's not too hard if you've got a template to go off of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally completed it. I hope the edit isn't too divisive and that people searching for the tracklist on WP - as I was when I first noticed - appreciate the trouble. Thanks for helping this fledgling Wiki editor :) Amozoness6 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Halo 3: ODST. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090813052735/http://www.bungie.net:80/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime to http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090620005249/http://www.bungie.net:80/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime to http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090914051349/http://www.gametrailers.com:80/episode/gametrailers-tv/69? to http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/gametrailers-tv/69&ch=3&sd=0?ep=69&ch=3&sd=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Halo 3: ODST. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100217080842/http://www.bungie.net:80/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime to http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating the Entry
Overall a pretty good wikipedia article, very descriptive and the article seems neutral; no particular claims seem to have a bias to a particular position. The information is also sourced very well, there does not appear to be any plagiarism ; however, not all of the links were working properly when I clicked on them (possibly outdated). Zachbousquet (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to the reference urls? Which ones don't work? I'll see if I can repair or find an archived version. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Halo 3: ODST. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3174518&p=4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3untitledodstgame/news.html?sid=6214022&mode=previews&tag=result%3Btitle%3B1
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5sq1K2SHk?url=http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1023645p1.html to http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1023645p1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3175986

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halo 3: ODST. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828151220/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/16/microsoft-confirms-bungie-is-developing-new-halo/ to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/16/microsoft-confirms-bungie-is-developing-new-halo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halo 3: ODST. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013032024/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/10/halo-3-recon-bonuses-for-halo-3-players/ to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/10/halo-3-recon-bonuses-for-halo-3-players/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925020102/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/09/21/best-place-to-buy-odst-probably-toys-r-us/ to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/09/21/best-place-to-buy-odst-probably-toys-r-us/
 * Added tag to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3176104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Free box art?
I was browsing the Flickr account of Microsoft Sweden, a Swedish division of Microsoft, which owns the Halo intellectual property. On that account, I found an image of the Halo 3: ODST box art, and further down on that page was the CC-BY 2.0. I was skeptical to believe it, so I went to the account's About to confirm whether it is the official account of Microsoft Sweden. It has a link to TechNet, which as of now is a dead link, but thanks to archive.org, we can check to see whether that page would link back to the Flickr account. Surely enough, if one looks at the right side of the page and finds the icons under the word "Presskontakt", they would find that one of them—a Flickr icon—leads to the Microsoft Sweden Flickr account. This could only mean one thing: that Microsoft did indeed release it as free, which is rare for them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking that it may be appropriate to relicense the image on Wikipedia under CC-BY 2.0.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't think what would likely be a mistake and isn't the main branch of Microsoft matters. It's not a free image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I was thinking about the main branch of Microsoft, and I did figure that the license might have been unintended. I could still see some of the photographic library by the Flickr account as being genuinely CC-BY, such as its own photographs of events or old (American) advertisements for Windows or its programs, but I think you are right that the box art is anything but free.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 23:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's unfortunate, but it is what it is. For a while we had basically all these Ubisoft screenshots marked as free due to what really seemed like a mistranslation issue with some German staffer. It ended up getting removed and those images deleted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)