Talk:Troop Deployment Pod

This entire page sounds like conjecture! If this Pelican attachment is something shown in the Art of Halo 3 or something, can someone please make a note of it? I just read all the supposed "sources", and there is no mention of any extra attachment to the standard Pelican. This page needs to be deleted.


 * Please sign your edits. And though it is true that the extended cargo bay is not explicitly stated, it is heavily implied. Could it even be possible to cram 75 children in an unaltered Pelican? Doubtful. 30 Spartans? Almost less likely. It seems that the users of the wikia are relying on this common sense argument to support the claim. And in this particular case, I would take common sense as an acceptable source.


 * I do not know if there is a concept art piece from any of the art books, but the picture and idea originates with Stephen Loftus over on HBO. I highly recommend you see some of his work to understand why his logical approach is taken in such high regard.--Nerfherder1428 16:25, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I know how to do on these wikias is correct poor grammar. I don't know how to sign my edits, nor do I care to learn how to. I don't do enough editing to see any reason to bother, and even if I did learn any wiki-editing skills it would only be to make this page a candidate for speedy deletion. Implication is NOT fact, nor source nor anything that warrants a page on the factually based Halopedia. 75 children? 30 Spartans? OVERSIGHT; on the part of the author, but a simple oversight still. Fall of Reach was Eric Nylund's first Halo book, and I doubt he knew as much about the Halo universe as he does now. In Ghosts of Reach he correctly lists each Pelican as being able to carry 21 children in aerial drop gear, and at least one handler. I'm sure if you asked him now he would state, as I have said, that this subject was all OVERSIGHT, on his part, but of course, at this point, that is simply something I am implying.
 * COMMON SENSE IS NOT A FACT. IT IS NOT A SOURCE. You see with your own eyes a flying saucer. Your common sense knows it was real, YOU know it, but that doesn't make it a fact, nor a source to show others that you saw it. To keep this as short as possible: KEEP COMMON SENSE TO YOURSELF OR YOUR FANON. On Halopedia, show me FACTS, show me SOURCES, CITE, QUOTE- ECT.!
 * As a matter of actual FACT, there IS a piece of concept art, in The Art of Halo; however it is CITED as CONCEPT ART, and as such not an applicable part of the Halo Universe until BUNGIE, or a real canon-creation source says otherwise. And is Stephen Loftus a... Bungie employee? A writer for one of the books perhaps? Hmm... Well, well; it would appear he is nothing more than a fan, though I must admit, quite an intelligent and analytical one, but a source of canon and cold hard fact? NO. What he does is, in short, CONJECTURE, which is not acceptable as source on Halopedia, if I remember correctly.
 * If it's legal, I can scan the images of the concept art from my copy of TAoH, and you can use them to create a page detailing the Troop Deployment Pod as an early Bungie concept for Halo, which would be totally acceptable. This page could also be referred to as an answer to the 75 children/30 Spartan question, however...
 * As a matter of actual FACT, there IS a piece of concept art, in The Art of Halo; however it is CITED as CONCEPT ART, and as such not an applicable part of the Halo Universe until BUNGIE, or a real canon-creation source says otherwise. And is Stephen Loftus a... Bungie employee? A writer for one of the books perhaps? Hmm... Well, well; it would appear he is nothing more than a fan, though I must admit, quite an intelligent and analytical one, but a source of canon and cold hard fact? NO. What he does is, in short, CONJECTURE, which is not acceptable as source on Halopedia, if I remember correctly.
 * If it's legal, I can scan the images of the concept art from my copy of TAoH, and you can use them to create a page detailing the Troop Deployment Pod as an early Bungie concept for Halo, which would be totally acceptable. This page could also be referred to as an answer to the 75 children/30 Spartan question, however...
 * If it's legal, I can scan the images of the concept art from my copy of TAoH, and you can use them to create a page detailing the Troop Deployment Pod as an early Bungie concept for Halo, which would be totally acceptable. This page could also be referred to as an answer to the 75 children/30 Spartan question, however...
 * If it's legal, I can scan the images of the concept art from my copy of TAoH, and you can use them to create a page detailing the Troop Deployment Pod as an early Bungie concept for Halo, which would be totally acceptable. This page could also be referred to as an answer to the 75 children/30 Spartan question, however...




 * Occam's razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity, which is to say, the most simple answer is often the correct one. And the simple answer to the 75 children/30 Spartan question: Simply, oversight, or creative licence. This page has no basis for its existence as it is now. Please take the correct measures to ensure this page's eventual deletion or alteration as is needed.




 * Now to FINALLY let my inner Halo player out: Eat THAT NOOB. --Chance C-SG318 4:27, August 21, 2010 (Pacific time)


 * Alright shooter, let's not get our panties in a bunch. I did not insult or otherwise assert any kind of bias on your original observation. I only meant to explain why someone may have decided to add this particular article on to the wiki we've created. So calm down, crack open your preferred beverage, and relax. It's just Halo!


 * After reading your slightly belligerant, overly-capitalized, wall-o-text rant, I would say that I have been a part of this community (though not always an editor) for the better part of two years. Do not pretend to assume any kind of superiority over my assumed "newbishness". And as for your assertions, common sense is an acceptable form of canon ONLY when supported with logical reasoning. Otherwise, as you so exquisitely wrote, it would be considered conjecture without basis. If you read my original statement, I made no claim as to which this article should fall under, but rather why someone would support both claims. Do not pretend to scold that which you obviously did not not comprehend.


 * Oversight, though prevalent in much of the Halo literature, is something that realy drives many of us editors nuts. However, the assumption of something's canonicity is never up to us. If we're told that Master Chief is actually a twenty foot tall bunny rabbit with a thirst for Grunt blood, then he is in fact a twenty foot tall bunny-vampire. If Eric Nyland told us that 30 Spartans and 75 kids could fit in a Pelican...well we've got to accept that as canon until material comes out saying otherwise. This Ghosts of ONYX (not Reach) claim would be a good example of this if not referring to a completely different event.


 * So yeah, all kinds of canon (including your assumed "oversights") rank above common sense. But common sense to fill in the gaps sometimes ranks above an absense of canon in certain circumstances as well. As for the Troop Deployment Pod's canonicity, that falls under a gray area. All in all, I am at least open to the proposal of changing the article to a concept piece template and am very glad that there's now an official concept art piece to add to the page. Other than that, I somehow fail to agree with much of the rest of your very personal and very emotinally fueled rant. And the signing-in bit wasn't a suggestion, it's required. So thank you for doing something correctly the second time around! And let's get back to talking about ideas and suggestions in a calmer and more efficient manner.--Nerfherder1428 04:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)