2,320
edits
Talk:M99 Stanchion: Difference between revisions
→"recoilless"
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
[[User:S3anyBoy|S3anyBoy]] ([[User talk:S3anyBoy|talk]]) 11:51, May 28, 2019 (EDT) | [[User:S3anyBoy|S3anyBoy]] ([[User talk:S3anyBoy|talk]]) 11:51, May 28, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:To me, at least, the IDing of it as a recoilless by Buck would stand as a good citation under our standards. Even if Forbeck and others got the false impression that it was recoilless from here(and you've rather convinced me on the latter part),the fact that it was stated in a book means that we have to include it. This wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened(I recommend you check out the [[Halo Encyclopedia]] incident), and the standard set by that event is even if the information in a piece of canon media was initially sourced from a false claim/misinformation on Halopedia, its inclusion in the canon work means that we must include it here. I don't like it any more than you do, but thew alternative is that the wiki can decide to ignore parts of canon on a whim. We're not the canon makers. We're just the catalogers. Though this should probably be mentioned in a note on the page or something. I'd recommend contacting someone higher up in the wiki and more versed in lore for a final opinion.--[[User:D9328|D9328]] ([[User talk:D9328|talk]]) 16:19, May 28, 2019 (EDT)d9328 | |||