| discuss

Halo trilogy

4 articles

Halo: Combat Evolved

Halo 2

Halo 3

As per discussions at the just passed Halo media featured topic candidacy, this topic overly overlaps with that one, and so should be removed. The only article contained in this topic and not that topic is the main article, Halo (series), which can (will?) be reincluded at a later date via a future Halo overview topic. As an aside, the Halo media topic took me over an hour to promote :S Too many s :/ - rst20xx ( talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Demote - No real reason for this to stick around, even if there is an additional article that wasn't included in the new one, if it will be introduced at a future date. NuclearWarfare _{( Talk)} 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Remove per above. On a side note I think the halo media topic should have stayed as a supplementary nomination. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Remove Z gin der 2009-02-17T18:51Z ( UTC)
• Remove, and comment --Since this topic is now encompassed by the List of Halo media, can we just redirect this page to the new one? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You mean Wikipedia:Featured topics/Halo trilogy? I think it's meant to sit on the former featured topics page. And beyond policy, to give an argument as to why doing it that way might be beneficial, it highlights past procedure that may serve to inform future topic builders - rst20xx ( talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Ah. Okey dokey. (Man, I should have just left the other one a supplementary nom and saved all this trouble in the first place... oh well. :P) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 23:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Question and Comment Will this topic be listed on the Wikipedia:Former_featured_topics page? I don't believe that it really belongs there for 2 reasons. First, this was really just a supplementary nomination. And second, this topic will never be re-nominated as long as a larger halo topic is featured. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Well that's what I just said. But I'm getting the sense that everyone now wants the media nom to have been a sup nom. I wonder if there's consensus to bend the rules a little? rst20xx ( talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Uh, which way? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Well it's too late now to have that be considered a sup nom but we could I guess merge this topic into that one like you suggest, which would include a merge of {{ featuredtopictalk}} and the two talk pages in general. Actually I don't see why topics can't be merged, everything else can be merged after all! rst20xx ( talk) 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Demote and ? -- Well like someone said it would be best to either redirect it or not list it on the former archive page.-- TRU CO 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merging - I shall attempt to merge the two in a sensible manner. Wish me luck - rst20xx ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• OK, I am going to effectively treat this as a standard removal, except I won't list this topic at WP:FFT, I will redirect it to the media topic, and also see [1] - rst20xx ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply