Talk:Halo Array/Archive 1

Desctruction?
The page mentions that 04 was destroyed, but never says how... As someone unfamiliar with the Halo series, I think it we be a good idea to either add this information, or remove all mention of destruction. - SigmaEpsilon → &Sigma;&Epsilon; 20:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I regret to say that I'm somewhat unfamiliar so I can't add those details, but I am familiar enough to know that the details exist, so removal would be a bad route. -- Masterzora 05:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. Peptuck 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler
The first line, Halo is a weapon of mass destruction is a spoiler. Takes away the shock from the game when you Holy fuck, this halo is a weapon. Meh, but I played the game before reading the page so it's not ruined for me JayKeaton 06:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

2 covenant cruisers...
The entire game of Halo: Combat Evolved is played on the ringworld, with the exception of the first level, which takes place on a UNSC cruiser (Halcyon-class) called the Pillar of Autumn, and two levels set aboard the Covenant cruiser Truth and Reconciliation and another Covenant cruiser(unknow name)

Was not the Keyes level on the same Truth and Reconciliation cruiser? The cruise was huge, so it may have covered a part of land that was not accessable during the T&R level... Correct me if I'm wrong... --Sidewinded 17:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was. It looks damaged and it appears to have moved, but Halo: The Flood confirms that its on the same ship. Peptuck 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome, I wasnt completely sure, but Cortana mentioned she disabled "a covenant cruiser" but didn't mention an others; this also is supported by the fact that there werent many cruisers (2-3 max i think) to beguin with. anyway, thanks for fixing :) --Sidewinded 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cortana disabled the Truth and Reconciliation. That's why it's in the canyon lands and not looking for the cursed library. As you approach the T+R, that is when she mentions she disabled it, although I have to admit she never names it. 9:53, December 8, 2006

Unsourced statements
Where do all these numbers for planet sizes come from? And the positioning of Alpha Halo at L1? It's been a while since I've read the books, and I don't remember seeing anything about that in the videogames... Roffler 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited the first paragraph, hoping thats less "in universe". Roffler 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The unsourced planet sizes are still there, and plus a contradiction occurs later on when discussing the lagrangian points in the Astronomy section stating that "In the game, the apparent sizes of Basis and Threshold are not depicted correctly, nor are they accessible in the game."
 * Bits and pieces, bits and pieces... Gettin there, as I find time. Roffler 23:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * /Wipes brow.
 * Some stuff still unsourced, but makin progress. Roffler 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At HBO, Stephen Loftus calculated the planet sizes from in-game models. His findings can be found here:. This is where the planet size numbers came from. Peptuck 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Marine Struggle on Installation 04
Hey all! I notice the article on Halo, my favourite piece of science fiction and gaming delicacy, doesn't contain any details of the exploits of the other UNSC personnel on the ringworld during Halo: CE. I have the knowledge from the books (notably "The Flood" and the beginning of "First Strike" as it explains how Johnson got off the ring) but it's hazy, as i haven't gone over them in a while.

I thought it useful to add that the covenant cruiser "The Truth and Reconcilliation" was destroyed, ultimately, by Marines on Halo trying to take off in it, because the marines did not want to take back flood specimens to Earth for a buffet. The name of the Marine eludes me...and the name of the Commander does too... please fill in these gaps, as a proud Halo Munchie i would love to be able to see the UNSC displayed and represented in all it's hardcore green glory.

As Sergeant Johnson once said (Halo 1 - The Pillar of Autumn - Legendary Mode Intro whilst addressing marines in Hangar bay Seven) "I don't care if it's a big son-of-a-bitch machine, or a giant hula hoop!" --Fortune117 02:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything above is from the Halo Book Series.

Move?
I think moving this to Halo (Halo Series) would be a less in-universe title--71.123.191.125 04:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gravemind's Location
As far as I know, it's never been confirmed that Gravemind lived on Delta Halo. Although it is logical, it's possible that he hijacked the teleportation system and threw them onto some planet somewhere. It doesn't make much sense that the Forerunners could capture something as powerful as Gravemind and put it on the ring. Quadrius 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "That creature underneath the Library, that Gravemind, used us." Cortana says, outright, that the Gravemind is underneath Delta Halo's Library in the first couple of minutes of High Charity. Unless we find actual evidence that says he was anywhere else, beyond speculation, that's where he is. Peptuck 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrifugal/centripetal?
There's been a lot of edits changing around whether the ring produces centrifugal or centripetal force. Can someone provide a source? The only reports I could find was pseudo-science debates on Halo forums.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Acctually this kind of gravity generating has been proposed and used for quite some time. its basic If you have ever been to a fair they usally have a UFO shaped attraction called the Gravitron. what this ride does is it spins rapidly while the rider is reclined on a vertical plain. as the ride spins faster and faster the rider begins to feel a gravitaional force upon their bodies which force them on to the plane they were reclined on; thus, enabling the rider to acctually move up on the plane and have their feet off the ground. if the rider attempts to "lift their heads" they will feel a massive gravitaional force being placed upon them limiting their abilitys to do so. it a very neat device if your ever intrested in checking out for yourself how centripetal force works then head out to the local fair =)

Maverick423 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just finished playing Halo 3 and it is obvious from that game that gravity on the halos is not simulated by spinning the rings. I think that this section needs to be changed.

87.80.236.98 12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps but centripetal is outward force (slingshot), for cetrifuge is inward (gravity) if you're looking for the mathematics or measurements is in this link

New Edits
Okay, a few of the new edits disturb me, but I want to discuss it rather than turn it into an edit war.


 * 1) The statement that there are 5 Halos left. -- As far as anybody knows, there are currently six Halos intact. There is only certainty that one is left (Installation 05), though it can be fairly assumed that there are six (all but 04).  Even if 05 is deactivated, it is still intact and therefore counts.
 * 2) Unnecessary and/or unencyclopedic information and comments: ("probably not as it only destroys sentient life", "The fate of Delta Halo is not unknown it is merely deactivated perminantly (watch this sequince at the end of the game to see halo almost fire(it use's a plasma burst)", etc.). -- the "probably not" comment is unencyclopedic (being an editor's comment). The "fate" coment is, as far as I can tell, unproven. I might be forgetting something (it's been a while), but I don't remember it being permanently deactivated.
 * 3) The removal of useful information (age of the rings, possibilities about why humans are needed to be Reclaimers) -- Why?
 * 4) The rampant spelling errors (which I plan to fix when I get a chance if somebody else doesn't first).

If nobody responds to this to discuss or explain within a couple weeks, I'm just going to revert. -- Masterzora 23:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Went through and corrected some of the probems. Unfortunately, the Halo articles are all rife with fanon, assumptions, unnecessary commentary, and stuff that just plain wasn't true. Its a nightmare slogging through this mess. Had to delete entire paragraphs in some articles.....Anyway, I'm doing what I can. - Peptuck


 * Hey, thanks. I was just about to go through and fix stuff but you had that taken care of. I'm glad, as this is one of my favorite articles and I hate people adding in their own theories and crap to it.  Thank you. -- Masterzora 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I saw all the difficulties, and I mobilized the fact freaks over at Halo.bungie.org. We'll get this whole thing set back up proper-like in no time! -- Peptuck

Someone should add the fact that the Forerunners also referred to the Halos as "Fortress Worlds," according to Cortana in Halo 1 when she first interfaces with the Halo computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.250.250 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pacing of certain parts of this article needs to be worked on. For example, the Heretics and the celestial bodies around Halo 04 are mentioned several times before they are formally introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.250.250 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Library Halo2.jpg
Image:Library Halo2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Halo's rotational axis and inclination
I took out the following:

"The rotational axis of Halo is perpendicular to the line between Threshold and Basis, placing the two at opposite ends relative to Installation 04, and both are about 90 degrees left or right of the ring of Halo."

The statement appears to contradict itself (I think it meant that the rotational axis of Halo is equal to the line between Threshold and Basis). In any case, unless it says anything about this in the books, it is not clear that both are (about) 90 degrees left or right of the ring from the viewer standpoint, considering that it does not appear that way in the game (both in cutscenes, and during gameplay).

By the way, if Halo is inclined, I don't know how it copes with tidal forces. Oh well. FractalFusion (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ThresholdHalo.jpg
Image:ThresholdHalo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:C20 29.jpg
Image:C20 29.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DeltaHalo.jpg
Image:DeltaHalo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Halo-landscape.jpg
Image:Halo-landscape.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo Size
Of the Halo's, the diameter is known, any work done on width, thickness or weight? Anything known about how many humans could be supported on it? Can it jump, or does it "roll" its self across the universe to it intended locatation within the Milky Way galaxy? Is there a second Ark, in case the first breaks? 76.170.118.151 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 2009-09-23 T22:59 Z-7
 * All that falls under original research. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Delta halo flood
I am a huge fan of the series, but I am still confused as to what happened to the flood on delta halo. After most of the flood were destroyed on the ark, couldnt there still be a threat of infestation present from the other halos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.81.118 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unless they were released from containment (which is what inadvertantly happened the first two times).--99.237.222.73 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Marathon Reference
The five Lagrangian points in a two-body system... depicted in the scientific Analysis is obviously a reference to the Bungies "Marathon Series" - the Logo of the Series, that flows thru the whole Halo-Series -, though it might be unintentional and just this one picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBulletDodger (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Now come on, am I the only one that smart to actually "see" the Marathon logo in that scientific Drawing-whateveritis? That's just amazing, isnt it, how many things from Bungies "Marathon"-Series appear in Halo? Like "..if I had a Super-Weapon" or many Covenant Signs that shape the Marathon logo?--BenBulletDodger (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Iain M Banks
Much mention of Larry Niven, who wrote of a Ringworld. Halo is clearly very much not a Ringworld. It's not even 1% the size of a Ringworld. What the Halo is, is an Orbital, as described by Iain M Banks. And yes, Orbitals are inspired by/ripped off from the Ringworld idea, but crucially they're at least a bit more sensible technologically. But in the end, Halo's an Orbital, not a Ringworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Halopedia?
I have noticed that the source "Halopedia" was on the external sources list. I have been repeatedly hammered for editing in factual content, and although it is true that some of it was uncited, most of it was obviously factual. I have been thinking the problem I was running into was having Halopedia influence my knowledge on what is actually factual, as i do read it quite a lot. But upon seeing it in the external sources list i was wondering if it would be considered a relaiable canon source. Thanks 67.170.15.19 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildlife
i believe something is missing in the wildlife section: in the level of halo where you first encounter the flood, there are small glowing bugs flying through the jungle/forest/whatever it may be...
 * There are also "dinosaurs" and rampaging reptiles in the E3 Halo trailer. As not enough information is known about such wildlife, it isn't included. 67.170.15.19 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of the Superweapon
Is it ever explained why the designers want to stop the spread of the Flood by wiping out all life in the galaxy? Clearly it isn't to protect people from the Flood, since those same people are being wiped out by the weapon...

Unless the idea is that current civilisations must be sacrificed, but future ones will still evolve again, which they otherwise would not, the Flood strangling everything...? Evercat 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Its evident that the Flood rely on other races for it to reproduce, and as fodder. When the halos are fired, they litterly cut the Flood of their supply of food, causing them to starve and die out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.183.180 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They got two of every kind of species they could find (hense why Bungie called it Ark) and put them on the ark which was outside the Halos. They fired the rings and then they returned the races to where they had been previously. Presumably all the Forerunners died though.


 * No evidence that they only gathered two of every species, and according to Didact's own messages, he survived Halo's activation. Peptuck (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if halo legends is to be considered canon, the "Orgins" episode shows more than two of every species emerging from the forerunner keyship. No, he submitted himself to the fate, he went on the "great journey." Hence why the Covenant believe the firing of the halo array to be the "great journey" to godhood. 67.170.15.19 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Genetic storage/Sentinel production
Where is it stated that the Libraries contain genetic information? As it stands, this is all speculation, and there's also no indication the Library has facilities for Sentinel production. That's what the Sentinel Factories and Sentinel Wall are for. Peptuck 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Genetic information as in flood research and database on existent species. The Sentinels are robotic drones, they do not have genetics. 67.170.15.19 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Halos or haloes
I believe in the Halo 3 manual it refers to them as haloes. Which spelling is mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.O.R. 25 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends. Halos is valid (and American) plural spelling. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Monitor Table
Is the table of UNSC designations, Installation numbers, and Monitor designations necessary, or at least even worth keeping? At this point, the UNSC designations are now purely speculative, except for Delta and Aplha Halo and we can't even accurately speculate which installations they belong to. The installation numbers are obviously 01-07 given that we know there are seven, two of which are number 04 and 05, and the fact that the Monitor numbers we know of are 7 to the (installation number - 1)th power can be explained without a misleading table. Move to remove. -- Masterzora 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC) the names delta halo and alpha halo are both refereed to as such in the second instalment of the game when they find the second halo. the daughter of the captain of the pillar of Autumn aks cortana if its the same thing as the alha halo her father found and the delta halo thus gains its name from the title of the mission you land on the halo which is called "delta halo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.94.205 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about Halo's purpouse
The way I interpreted it, Halos were to use the Flood as weapons. If they use radiologicals to wipe out anything big enough to sustain it, why not just obliderate the Flood? Can anyone tell me where it states any of this? 72.205.243.188 05:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Flood are immune to Halo. Either the Flood adapted to Halo's weapons or the Forerunner chose to deliberately allow them to survive, for unknown reasons. Irregardless, Halo's weapon is the only known way to contain the Flood,a s 343 Guilty Spark says at the end of Halo 2 that the Forerunner exhausted every other strategic option to contain the Flood.
 * In Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, Cortana, who has analyzed Halo's structure and knows how it operates, sends out a distress beacon that is tagged with radiological and biological warning codes; the biological code is for the Flood, and the radiological one is for Halo's own weaponry. Therefore, we know Halo's weapon is radiological in design. Peptuck 06:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Either it kills animal cells or the Flood are immune like cockroaches.--99.237.222.73 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Forerunners created the Halo Array to destroy all sentient life in the galaxy there for destroying there food source and them dying out if the halos were designed to destroy them theres still a chance that other flood from other galaxies will arrive and continue on 66.183.44.117 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How were the Flood made?
I just dont get it the flood is sentinent but how could the forerunners have created it??? I think i dont have one 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)--I think i dont have one 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, according to the Beastiarum (the book/DVD that came with Limited&Legendary editions), the Forerunners noted that the Flood is propably of extragalaxial (is that even a real word?) origin. So, they didn't create it. They found it. --Petrim 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the flood found the forerunners 66.183.44.117 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Analysis
Why is this section here if it is just a picture? There is no explanation of why this diagram applies and it just serves to add an empty gap. Either the diagram should be explained or the section removedSupergeek1694 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's going to be expanded, unfortunately I don't have the book with the content for expansion in my possession at the moment. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The scientific objections to a Halo-structure all hinge on speculation of it's construction based on our current technology. It is clearly powered, so may have shielding to protect itself from asteroids and microasteroids. The fact that it would take billions of units of metal ore to construct is also irrelevant if the forerunners had energy -> matter creation abilities.

Also, why does anyone think that the way the halo structures create gravity is by spinning? No one seems to demand that any other sci-fi structure or ship spins to make artificial gravity. Maybe there are streams of gravitons running inside the station, or maybe there are other technologies at work.

In short - anything in sci-fi can be argued against simply due to the fact that it estimates an amount of technology currently unavailable to us. What purpose does this section serve? Most wiki entries don't have sections like this. A Stargate is a preposterous concept, but no one wants to try to argue against it. In 500 years if we still can't understand how a Halo ring could be made to function, then maybe we can put this section back on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.197.19 (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is mentioned in the Halo books that most of the Covenant's technology is taken originally from Forerunner artifacts, and the Covenant have artificial gravity on their ships. The same technology could easily be at work on Halo. And there is also the fact that the Ark, as it is not spherical or circular, could not generate gravity by spinning in the same way that a ringworld or Dyson Sphere could. Therefore artificial gravity must be at work there, too. Cooper 25 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Covenant used gravity generators on the Halos as with the ships and the Ark, why use the exact same design as a ring habitat? They could have just as easily (maybe even more easily) built them as giant space stations à la Star Wars' Death Star or Star Trek's Spacedocks, that is as scaled-up versions of the ships with multiple decks and fully encased with a hull, or even as mini-Arks with everything held to one face by artificial gravity. Instead they picked the exact design one would expect for an artificial world using centrifugal force to replace gravity. Just because their technology amounts to magic doesn't mean one can hand-wave away objections like this, as their technology would still be governed by rules, even if those rules are made up by the creators of the games.


 * I also see no reason to reject a section just because it demonstrates the infeasibility of a particular fictional concept. The articles on Orbitals, the Ringworld, and this very article all specify that the material is unobtainium. Indeed, the Ringworld article goes into great depth about the science, including having a section dealing with the error in the first edition that was corrected in later editions. The Scientific Analysis section here simply goes into greater depth than most because there's an essay dedicated to the topic. Pfhreak (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Halo's firing range
alpha halo and delta halo does not exist and there is a map in halo 3 that is a firing range  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.154.21 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC) We don't know the firing range for all of the Halo's. 343 GS only confirmed 25,000 lightyears for Instalation 04, the one from the first game. Someone should add that it.

Why is installation 04 called "Alpha Halo" if installation 05 is "Delta Halo"? That makes no sense. Also, isn't it a little unwise to extrapolate a whole naming convention from one or two examples? It seems unlikely that the monitor of installation 06 would be 16807, it would be too cumbersome to pronounce in the cinematics ;) Sippan 08:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ummm.. I don't care if it makes sense, but it is officially Alpha Halo and Delta Halo. Unfortunately, I don't remember where exactly it is stated, but I think it is probably in one of the books. I wish I had a more concrete basis for this, but I promise that it is true. Is there anyone who can back this up for me? --Masterzora 09:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Found enough official evidence: http://halosm.bungie.org/story/halo2_level_transcripts/lv01_heretic.html Masterzora 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But it's not official, halo.bungie.org is a fansite unaffiliated with Bungie Studios, and although that page is a transcript of the game, all mentions of Alpha Halo seem to be written by someone outside of Bungie. Sippan 20:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * More official than the next best, which was more or less a guess. Besides, I'm positive that I've seen it called Alpha Halo somewhere more official than a random website, but I can't remember where.  Might have been the books or something... but nothing I can produce right now. -- Masterzora 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This article says both that the radius and diameter of the halos are 10,000 km, which is obviously not possible, as the radius is half of the diameter. Could someone clarify which of these it is? 71.209.204.139 02:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to http://halosm.bungie.org/story/halo.html it's the diameter. I trust this as an official enough source and will make the necessary edit.  Masterzora 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was just reading over the entry and I noticed in the names table something interesting: HALO "0" = 70 = 1 (01 Shamful Anomaly Installation 01, The Ark) Now, a quick Google search returned no reliable results. Anyone else got anything official on that name before I fix it? Masterzora 05:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Shameful Anomaly is not cannon as far as I know. I do not think that installation 01 is the ark either. On the hologram at the end of Halo 2 seven rings are visible. The ark is something different, rather than an actual halo installation. --195.93.21.34 13:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The name Shameful Anomaly appears to have come from here. This 'script' is almost definately a fake and shouldn't be regarded as cannon. --195.93.21.34 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I found. I believed it to be equally unreliable.  I'm fixing it now -- Masterzora 20:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This has gone off topic. But someone should, using the 25,000 Lightyears, figure out where the halos have to be if that is there range. We should assume that they all have the same range. It wouldn't have to be perfect.


 * Taking the blast radii as exactly 25,000 light years for each ring and the Milky Way diameter as exactly 100,000 light years, I found that the range seven rings perfectly covers the galaxy. One ring in the centre and six evenly spaced out 43,301 light years from the centre and the two neighbouring rings (like the vertices of a hexagon hexagon), ie 6,699 light years from the edge of the galaxy. This is the only arrangement with complete coverage, however, if the blast radii are slight less than 25,000 or the Milky Way's diameter is slighlty more that 100,000, both of which are approximations, it's possible for there to be small safe spots at the vertex intersections of the blast radii so as a personal note it could be a design flaw to have only seven rings, eight would have been safer. On some further calculations the blast radii extend UP TO 18,301 light years from the edge of the galaxy.
 * I'd draw a diagram but I'm too lazy.  -Cheers,58.175.85.16 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gravity, Rigid Body Rotation, Tangential Acceleration, Psuedo Forces, etc.
It seems to me that the biggest flaw in these ringworld ideas and spinning spaceships is that artifical gravity would not translate to the non-rigidly attached humans moving around inside/on them. You need friction, magnetism, velcro, etc. to HOLD the object to the surface, rigidly, in order to essentially add these objects to the "whole" of the rigid body and couple the forces associated with rigid body rotation. Even if you did this the only result would be the appearance of weight. Objects tossed in the "air" by a person stuck to the inner surface of a ring world would NEVER drop. if you were to set up a big gigantic ring in empty space, place a small object 5 feet from the ground (no spin yet), and then begin the process of spinning up the ring.... the object would, again, NEVER drop to the inner surface. it would just be 2 objects in space. One big gigantic ring spinning, and one floating object. An enclosed atmosphere would not work either. Gas molecules/atoms are not CAPABLE of being "stuck" to a rigid object and thus experience forces that apply to them. Gasses "stick" to planets because of gravity. Plain and simple. It seems a lot of people ignore this glaring inconsistency when they discuss ringworlds in fiction. Sorry to say, but the only way you can make this idea work in the sense described in fiction is with "field" type artificial gravity (artificially increased gravitational field).68.6.76.31 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Math Error?
I believe that the last sentence of the following quote contains a math error: "Installation 04's "maximum effective" range, according to the Monitor, is a radius of 25,000 light years. The activation of one ring's superweapon causes the other six Halo installations to activate and fire as well, extending the range to the entire Milky Way galaxy, or more precisely, 3 galactic radii."

According to wiki, the radius of the Milky Way is about 50k LY. That means the total area is about 8*10^9 LY. If the range of each Halo is 25k LY then the area of effect is 2*10^9 LY. If all seven Halos were arranged so that their effective areas only just touched (which isn't possible with 7 circles, and anyway they are orbiting the galaxy and changing positions, thus this figure is a very generous over estimate) the total area would be 14*10^9 LY. This is only slightly more than twice the total area of the galaxy, and remember, there would have to be overlap, so the actual area is much smaller. Nonetheless, this hypothetical area subtends a circle of only about 66k LY. 66k LY is only slightly larger than the radius of the Milky Way. It is certainly not three times the radius as stated in the article.

More likely, seven Halos with effective ranges of 25k LY just barely covers the entire galaxy. There is a lot of overlap and under certain circumstances (caused by the installations' orbits) there would be areas of the galaxy with no coverage at all.

Christopher.secord 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no error. What is quoted in the article is taken directly from what 343 Guilty Spark says at the end of Halo 2: "They and all additional life in three radii of the galactic center died, as planned." Additionally, Spark states in halo that "Once the other installations follow suit, this galaxy will be quite devoid of life, or at least any life with sufficient biomass to sustain the Flood."
 * More likely than not, Spark is saying that the Halos amplify each others' power when they fire in conjunction. One ring has 25k radius effect, but the entire network, when firing together, extends out to a much greater range. Peptuck 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "There is no error." Oh, there’s an error alright.  The math doesn’t lie.  You just made up an explanation to stitch together two cut scenes.  What you just did is exactly like Star Wars fans making stuff up to try and explain away George Lucas’ error in thinking that a parsec was a measure of time.  Please don’t do that.  If there is an inconsistency in a game, that’s fine.  Just let it go.  You don’t have to make up explanations to cover their backs.


 * First of all, if your quote is accurate, the monitor did not say what the article currently says. The monitor did not say all life within three galactic radii.  So, since the Monitor did not say it, and since the math does not support it, why does the wiki article say it?


 * Why does the article add the word “precisely” as if seven 25k LY circles are “more precisely” 3 galactic radii? That simply isn’t true.  Therefore, it cannot stay in the article.


 * Maybe the best solution is something like, “In Halo CE, the monitor gives the effective range of the station’s weapon as 25k LY. In Halo 2, the monitor states that all of the stations firing simultaneously have a kill radius of 3 radii”


 * But you can’t have the word “galactic” because a: the Monitor didn’t say that. And b: the math clearly does not support that.  And you can’t have the word “precisely” because these two statements by the Monitor do not match, 25k LY is not precisely (or even close to) 3 galactic radii.  If Halo 3 comes out and Bungie used an explanation similar to the one you just made up, then that will be different.  Christopher.secord 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh, either way. I do think we should include the exact specifications of what Spark has said. Installation 04 has a maximum effective radius of 25,000 light years, whole the entire network kills all sentient life "in three radii of the galactic center." After all, even with the math you have accurately provided, it works on the base assumption that all Halos have the same maximum effective radius or that they do not have some alternate effect when fired at the same time. Since we know so very little, and only have reliable data on one ring and the entire network as a whole, there's insufficient data to really call this an error. It could be an error, but like what Bungie is often wont to do, it is more likely to be accurate, and the entire nature of the Halo system has not yet been fully explained. Peptuck 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with including the exact quote from the game. Christopher.secord 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize I'm chiming in extremely late, but I'd like to state that I can't see the error here. He didn't say that the blasts cover the entire galaxy by any means.  That would only be necessary if the entire galaxy contained life.  So long as there are systems that don't, it is perfectly reasonable that all life within 3 radii was exterminated using 25k radius blasts. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the dialogue is worded badly, it doesn't mean the blast extends three galactic radii outside the galaxy. After some careful calculation I've found that the diameter of the blast is up to 2.73 galactic radii. Close enough to three? Although, having said that, the average diameter of the blast I would estimate to be something like 2.4-2.5 galactic radii. Check my post under the "Halo's firing range" section of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.85.16 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How many cubic light years IS a radii?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that I am 3 years late, but in case you still want to know, here is the answer. First off, the singular of radii is radius. Second, a radius is a measure of distance, not volume, so it would be in light years (or some other measure of distance) not cubic light years. Third, the radius of the milkey way is 50,000-60,000 light years. KingSupernova (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

article needs picture of a halo, not a ship approaching a construction site
Why is there no picture of an actual Halo megastructure in the article? Need to show the subject matter. Anyone can legally take a screenshot of one during a game and upload it. I don't own any of the games since I don't have the reflexes to play such things, but someone who does, please take a screenshot.  D r e a m Focus  19:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only images available are during cutscenes between playable levels. I would be glad to help, but I don't have the technology to take a screenshot of a cutscene. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All the cutscenes are on YouTube, some in high quality. Just have to find the right one and take a screenshot of that to use.  The cutscenes are hours of footage, so hard to look through them all and find it.  Someone who played the game, perhaps knows which area showed the Halo perhaps.   D r e a m Focus  18:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with the first image exactly? It adequately displays the geometry and scale of a Halo. I don't think another image is necessary. It is pretty explicit what a Halo looks like from the text and the first image, it is just a massive ring. The1337gamer (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Light delivery?
Obviously halo would need a light source, probably the sun. However, how this light is delivered is not specified. Do the halo use an array of mirrors to direct sunlight to its inner surface, or does it function identical to an orbital, and thus have a "one hour day"? I can't seem to find anything discussing this. Ingebot (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it's not discussed. The games don't delve into it, neither do the books, and I can't think of an outside source like Grazier that discusses it either. The observable inference is they just have a irregular (to us) day-night cycle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halo (megastructure). 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 tag to http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox360/f/halo-the-story-so-far/a-20070921163121627052/g-2005000000000000000350
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331164029/http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime to http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=bungiepodcasttime

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) 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Halo Array Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Halo (megastructure) → Halo (fictional megastructure) – Megastructures such as the Great Wall of China exist in real life. Titles should clearly distinguish between fact and fiction in areas where they could potentially be confused, even if the amount of real life megastructures are low. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Against I don't think we need to load the article title/link when the word "fictional" is the 5th word in the article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest Halo Array - This is how its referred to on halopedia, Halo wikia, and on the official site. I don't see any reason to disagree that it'd be the best name for this concept. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NATURAL that does seem like a better option, especially because the article is about the Halos and their controller, so to speak, rather than just the original Halo.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Halo Array makes far more sense than adding an unnecessary disambiguating term (are there non-fictional megastructures named Halo we're worried about?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Halo Array would make sense and would be a natural disambiguation, but the proposed title could be redirected to wherever it ends up. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed Per WP:CONCISE. Is there another Halo "megastructure" to disambiguate from? No strong opinion on Halo Array as an alternative, but if that's what its known as, WP:NATURAL. -- ferret (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If my memory is served well it's just referred to as "Halo" in the singular sense in the games. I don't think the phrase "Halo Array" is uttered. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Halo Array" is the official in-universe name for the network of Halo rings, hence why I created the redirect in the first place. The official Halo website has the topic placed at that title: and the official print Halo encyclopedia uses that name in the section heading. In game, they use Halo in the singular sense because they are only ever dealing with a single ring, not the whole set. 343 Guilty Spark refers to them all as the Halo Array several times in the Halo Anniversary terminals. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. There's no other Halo megastructure types to disambiguate from. Honestly, if Halo (structure) is free, that may be enough, as there's no other structure types to disambiguate from either. My opinion also mirror's Ferret's - I don't object to "Halo Array", but I don't know enough about the subject to actively support it either. I'm fine with it if people agree with that. Sergecross73   msg me  21:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. I'm pretty sure the (original) games just referred to the structure as the Halo, but if it's now known as the Halo Array, it can be moved per WP:NATURALDIS, which I'd support over the OP's suggestion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Echoing the points made above. I'm fine with it either being moved to Halo Array, as I've explained above why I feel it is an appropriate title. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to Halo Array as this title is least likely to confuse readers. feminist (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Halo 04" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Halo 04. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability
This article, despite being a WP:GA, seems to have zero notability. Can anyone address this before this ends up at AfD? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with a merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To Factions of Halo or do you have a better target in mind? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of the game series/franchise articles have a "common elements" section talking about gameplay, themes, or elements that recur in the series; that might make a bit more sense if the Halo (franchise) page was restructured a bit? But otherwise Factions of Halo is the more obvious current target. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)