Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Halo 2[edit]

Gamecruft and game-guide in extremis. This article is unverified: there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source. Additionally, this article is unverifiable: there's little to no independent commentary on these weapons, outside of how-to guides.

There's constant how-to advice; a couple examples:

  • "Human weapons, however, are more effective than plasma-based weaponry against skin and flesh, making them more useful when shields are down, and ideal against the Flood."
  • "As with other weapons, the sniper rifle is most effective when used for head shots, which kill targets in one hit."
  • "Similarly to other human weapons, turrets are best used in bursts rather than prolonged periods of fire."
  • "The Battle Rifle is largerly considered the better of the two, but if fired with accurate aiming and precise timing, the Carbine can technically kill faster than the battle rifle can."
  • The entirety of List of weapons in Halo 2#Balance, complete with color-coded table highlighting the merits and weaknesses of each weapon

Simply editing out this advice would leave nothing but paraphrased descriptions of the history of the weapons, and Wikipedia is not the place to abridge the source material from the manual.

There is relevant precedent in other AFDs, such as those for two similar articles for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even though I am an avid Halo 2 player, this doesn't belong here - it works better on the Halo strategy wiki, which has more and better information than this anyway. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite a few links directing to this article, so it may be more important than you think (this includes a lot of redirect pages, which should be deleted as well should the consensus here be delete). Also note that there is an article on weapons in the first Halo game: List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved The nominator may want to put this list up for deletion as well. —EdGl 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the reason for all the links, I would imagine, is that this was a merge target for a whole bunch of stubs with similar gamecruft/gameguide problems. As for the other list, I'd really rather keep these AFDs separate whenever possible so that issues with each article can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing wrong with including this information. It's well presented and there is nothing here that should offend wikipedia users. - Richardcavell 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how this addresses my argument above. I didn't claim that the presentation was problematic, or that the content was offensive; rather, I claimed that this article doesn't fit into Wikipedia's mission, as it is largely an abridgement of source material and a instructional guide, both of which fail WP:NOT, and that it is not and cannot be sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I happen to disagree with some of WP:NOT, as it is my prerogative to do so. I don't see a difference between the inclusion of individual weapons from Halo and the inclusion of individual kangaroo species, or individual Supreme Court judges. A user may have a need for information on any of these, and regard all of them as noteworthy. - Richardcavell 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Individual kangaroo species are widely discussed in peer-reviewed sources; likewise for Supreme Court justices. Not so for this article's subject. If you're conceding the point that this fails WP:NOT, though, there's not a lot more to discuss (seeing as WP:NOT is still binding policy). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is your right to disagree with WP:NOT, you should take that debate to the WP:NOT talk page. It so happens that AfD debates should be centered on whether or not the article meets the current policies and this one does not. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While difficult to source certainly, I would say that the weapons of Halo 2 are much more important to the game than Master Chief, the plot, and certainly any other character. I've removed the charts, which were certainly OR. I have removed/altered the sections of text you labeled as how-to advice, which some of them most certainly were. While there are probably other content issues and weasel words, these don't constitute deletion. While I am in favor of deleting cruft (I've been doing some of the work on Proto's list), such as RuneScape holiday items and articles for every single CS map, I think that a single (hopefully sourced in the future) article describing the most important (imho) aspect of a popular game can be non-cruft. Wickethewok 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can this possibly be sourced, though?
      As for rewriting this article, is there a single sentence in this article that isn't advice on playing Halo 2 or abridged from the game's manual? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, all you removed was the "Balance" section, which was particularly bad, but the article is still studded with game-guide-style advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With a limited amount of searching, I was able to find a review from IGN mentioning some of the info presented in the article. While there is certainly much unsourced material, I do believe it is possible to cite portions of it, though I don't know how much. I do believe that there are indeed sentences that don't fit the bill of a how-to guide. Stuff like (paraphrasing here) "unlike other covenant weapons, the carbine needs to be re-loaded" or the "magnum is a semi-automatic pistol that can be dual-wieldable" seems acceptable to me. Certainly a lot of stuff claiming "the magnum is most effective when used with the plasma pistol" or whatever needs to be removed, but I think if that stuff is removed, there is still an article there. Wickethewok 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is "The carbine needs to be reloaded" not instructing people how to play the game? Eating an orange isn't any more acceptable per WP:NOT for being phrased "The peel needs to be removed" instead of "You need to remove the peel" or "It is a good idea to remove the peel." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the article for Orange says "The fruit is commonly peeled...". So how about if the example carbine sentence said "The carbine is reloaded" or something more elegant. My phrasing was poor in the previous carbine example where I used the word "need". Clearly not every sentence discussing an action performed by a human is a "how-to" or instruction. Wickethewok 05:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Orange has content other than that brief mention of how one eats it. This article, other than abridgement of the game's manual, does not. It's a matter of degree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tomorrow, I'm going experiment and try remove all the stuff that can be construed as how-to and see whats left. I'd of course like to hear your opinion when I finish that (I'll drop a message here). Also, for hilarity's sake, check out the article before I greatly reduced it a month or so ago: here. Now that was bad. Wickethewok 06:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gamecruft. Not of encyclopedic value and does not meet WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or completely overhaul. The list itself may be somewhat useful to keep the main article clean, but most of it (all of the strategy stuff) violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and so forth. Perhaps deleting it and the Halo 1 equivalent, and then covering them both (in a far more brief manner) in one article like The Legend of Zelda series songs is in order. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Crufty, but harmless. I suppose someone interested in looking up information on fictional weapons might be interested, Halo 2 is widespread enough to be notable, and I don't see a problem with this article as long as it's NPOV (original research and advice removed). As I see it, the biggest downside is that it might be a chore to maintain as all the would-be experts re-submit POV comments. --Alan Au 07:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I've reconsidered; individual fictional weapons might be notable, but the list probably isn't. This also sets a bad precedent; what happens when other editors want to create articles about the weapons in every game? --Alan Au 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It's a game-guide. Dionyseus 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if extremely pruned, I'm as opposed to gamecruft as anyone else, I even listed for deletion practically wikipedia's entire orbiter game guide, but this article has a significant potential to exist as a collection of verifiable, non original research data. I'd think of it as analagous to a list of minor Star Wars droids or List of recurring robot characters in Futurama--every member of the list has verifiable data documenting its contribution, however minor, to the larger plot of a major, notable work, and knowledge of the individual members adds to an understanding of the greater work. The weapons of an FPS are surely as critical to it as the characters of a film like star wars, and being able to see what sort of weapon the "needler" is will help me understand halo in the same way knowing who 4-LOM or IG-88 refers to will help me understand star wars. We shouldn't be giving out gameplay tips, but a collated description of the weapons, referenced to sources like game guides and reviews, and limited to that content, is useful and not a mere indiscriminate collection of information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a game-guide. In ten years, this will be about as relevant as an in depth discussion of every Jet Set Willy level is now. -- GWO
  • Delete. People who are interested in this kind of information should be looking for it on GameFAQs. — Haeleth Talk 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see is hurting anyone--Anselm 14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, its rare that articles hurt anyone (except for that one time Michigan State Capitol jumped me in an alley), so could you perhaps discuss your reasoning as it relates to some of the above arguments? Wickethewok 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay,I remember reading when first joined here that if one could not only include basic information about poker, but also make a poker-game guide there was no problem with it, I see the same situation here. Still if it seems too much of a guide then making a renovation should be enough, or even merging it with another halo page, but I think that deleting it is excesive--Anselm 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd personally argue that the examples of "advice" which you're citing are less hints than extended descriptions. For example, "the sniper rifle is most effective when used for head shots, which kill targets in one hit" seems like a very reasonable way to summarize a sniper weapon in general. More generally, though, this article is indeed a little bit gamecrufty, but is well within reasonable limits, particularly for a game as popular as Halo 2. (If the same was written for Pathways Into Darkness, though, this would be a strong "delete".) Zetawoof(ζ) 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So to summarise: you like Halo, so its cruft is allowed? Proto::type 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; actually, I don't particularly like FPS games. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This weapon is Dual Weildable and is more effective when you have a Plasma Pistol Magnum combo or 2 magnums.. Not good. Most of the ideas and claims in the article sound sane, but nothing is referenced at all. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "is dual wieldable" part is quite fine; the second bit should probably be removed. However, this sort of thing doesn't necessarily doom the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft. fbb_fan 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article fails the policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NOR. It is also against the guidelines in WP:CVG. And it's crufty beyond all cruftyness (cruftiness?). But I like playing Halo. Keep. No, wait, delete', of course. People liking the subject of the 'article' is not a get out of jail card for failing three of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Proto::type 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eegads, while I think this may be able to fit standards if modified, some of the "keep" arguments here are quite poor and have actually swayed me the other way. Vote changed to weak keep (from keep) above. Wickethewok 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOT, what do you guys think is meant when Wikipedia policy says "Wikipedia is not a game guide" if not this? A game guide doesn't have to be a walkthrough or say "you should do this instead of this" to be considered a game guide. Every single game guide that you can buy in a store will have a list of weapons that looks exactly like this. Delete this article and every one like it. Recury 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Batmanand | Talk 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gameguide and crufty to boot. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but only conditionally. It would need to be massively rewritten to something like The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items because as it is it's really a game guide. --ColourBurst 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment. I wrote that article from the ground-up, merging crufty articles such as Light arrow into relevant prose. I think all of our item articles should be similar to this. -Randall Brackett 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I don't see how The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items is a more legitimate article than this one. Certainly Zelda has more history than Halo at this point and the article is probably written better, but isn't it still an uncited article involving video game items? Wickethewok 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's far more concise (all Zelda series games being in one article), and only has solid information about the items rather than seld-researched strategies and such. The lack of references isn't good, though :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still a game guide and should be deleted per WP:NOT. Recury 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you edited it down to the just the names of the weapons in the game, that would still be game guide information and would still violate WP:NOT. Recury 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is your opinion, but note that my comments above were not directed at people who chose delete for your reasons. I am directing this comment towards those who chose to delete unless there was a major rewrite, merge, or just wanted the content edited. Also, I think its important to note that there is a difference between having some content that would be in a game guide (such as basic character descriptions, etc), and actually being a game guide. Wickethewok 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. However, if the vehicles page got deleted, then this one doesn't look like it's gonna win either. -007bond 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and merge into a single article.--Zxcvbnm 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is different from merge, you have to pick one. If you pick merge, the article will just become a redirect to the article that it gets merged into. Also, which article do you want to merge this one with? Recury 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, it already exists. Point stands, but it makes everything a little simpler. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved and List of weapons in Halo 2 into List of weapons in the Halo universe per my suggestion above. RandyWang (raves/rants) 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, come on folks we have the info on GameFAQs we don't need it here. Whispering 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a video-game guide hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there should be a brief mention of the weapons in the main article but for anything else there is GameFAQs. --Cornflake pirate 10:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: people online needto have a place for this stuff!!! I'm tired right now, and can't thnik of a better reason. Keep. RelentlessRouge 12:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They can find game-guides at GameFaqs.com. Dionyseus 06:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I support covering balance, though as it's part of gameplay and design, which are topics we're supposed to cover according tot he computer and video games project. The weapons are quite integral to the game and just too long to be a section in the gameartickles. I would support merging into a List of weapons in the Halo series as most of the weapons are the dsame game-to-game. Ace of Sevens 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Interesting and pertinent point. Game design is a valid subject to cover, so this sort of material is worth keeping - the array of weapons and comparisons does indeed reflect game balance and design. For instance, the even more detailed and stat-heavy List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved would be non-cruft by that standard. At the same time, the information being necessarily stated as fact would appear as a game guide. I'd argue the descriptions here are facts (about fictitious weapons) and not a how-to guide. Besides, the chess strategy and tactics article would be an even more in-depth "game guide", by comparison. --SevereTireDamage 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment which two weapons work well together is game guide material. The article needs major rewriting, if anything. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an interesting article and as per SevereTireDamage FullSmash26 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Dionyseus, Consumed Crustacean and Bwithh will there be any wikipedia left once you are done deleting everything? Looking at your edits, you have a huge amount of afd's where you call for deletions or nominate things. Just asking that you reconsider your deletionist ways. FullSmash26 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're dramatically overestimating the number of articles nominated for deletion on Wikipedia, and underestimating the size of Wikipedia. Excluding speedy deletions, about 100-200 articles are nominated for deletion daily. This is a drop in the bucket , given the total size of wikipedia. I would guess that when I'm regularly active, I participate in around 3-8 afds daily. I also generally choose to only vote in discussions which are not foregone conclusions, or on which I have long-standing views on. I concentrate my efforts in arguing cases which are tightly fought. I'm deletionist, but that certainly does not mean I want to delete everything as you suggest - it just means I favour higher general standards of inclusion. I vote for keep perhaps 1 time out of 15 - but that's because most of the afd nominations are good ones. Examples of very recent (i.e. in the last week or 10 days or so) afds, where I have not only voted keep, but actually been one of the main arguers for keep have been Twink (gay slang), Gosh Numbers, Female sex tourism and Zsanett Égerházi. In the first case, I was an early keep voter who identified the nomination as likely to be bad faith. In the last three (with the caveat that two are still active), I believe I was instrumental in swaying debates (that were originally majority delete) towards keep or no consensus through researching evidence. Deletionism does not mean we want to delete everything. Bwithh 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FullSmash26, Almost two thousand articles are created each day, and Wikipedia reached 1 million articles on March of this year. [1] Each day over a thousand articles are deleted, and this is necessary to keep the encyclopedia clean and serious. Imagine what a joke Wikipedia would be if every MySpace Musician were allowed to have an article. Wikipedia is currently at least three times larger than any paper encyclopedia, and we must ensure its integrity remains intact. Deletion Policy Dionyseus 14:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if possible, if not delete. This is OR and there are copyright issues on many of the pictures. However, I see no reason why games guides cannot be assembled on wikibooks and that seems a suitable home. BlueValour 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fan cruft. OSU80 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_weapons_in_Halo_2&oldid=1138028235"