Talk:Human colonies
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Given that this article will go into the details of colonization (and presumably, terraforming as well), would it not be better to call it "Human colonization of space" or something similar?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 11:24, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
- Yeah, that title would be a little more appropriate.--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 20:05, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
- Could tie in with how we've titled Prehistoric human civilization. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 20:34, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
Wow, we sure are finding out about a lot more colonies nowadays, aren't we? Awesome.262VigilantGuardian 15:00, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
Inner or Outer?[edit]
Given that some colonies aren't given an inner or outer label, should we include a section for these? Col. Snipes450 12:30, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
Glassed[edit]
There are several planets listed as "Glassed" that should be listed as "Unkown Status." For Example New Constantinople is listed as "Glassed" when according to the Book Ghosts of Onyx it was likely a UNSC Victory, so it should be listed as "Unknown Status." There are a handfull planets that need to be changed. Flavius Aetius (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2013 (EST)
Inner Colony list[edit]
Given that it's been consistently stated that the last of outer colonies were glassed or otherwise destroyed or abandoned in 2536, by definition every known remaining UNSC colony is or was an Inner Colony. Is there anything in the Encyclopedia or any of the Visual Guides that contradicts this that I'm not aware of? -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 02:04, 20 February 2014 (EST)
No, it's been said that the majority of the Outer Colonies were wiped out by 2531. Some still remained.262VigilantGuardian (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2014 (EST)
- Yeah, the statement about the Outer Colonies' destruction in the original Halo timeline always did say "virtually all". Venezia, for example, obviously isn't an Inner Colony, though I don't think it's ever definitely categorized in the books. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:30, 20 February 2014 (EST)
- Ack, thanks for the clarification. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 02:39, 20 February 2014 (EST)
I just thought about whether or not that Camber is a Inner or Outer Colony World and I have decided that it is a Inner Colony, along with other colonies that were featured in H2A/Terminals 2 and 3. Reason #1: the high population (5.6 million), Camber seems to have sprawling cities across it's surface and a economy that is based around manufacturing, a hint that it is one of Inner Colonies; Reason #2: it's defenses consisted of a ODP cluster (which were common among the Inner Colonies like New Carthage and Reach), several Marathon-class heavy cruisers, some Halcyon-class light cruisers, and a huge amount of frigates (possibly some destroyers and carriers, wouldn't be a UNSC Navy battlegroup without them), such defenses would mean that Camber was a Inner Colony. As for the other colonies it's simple, they are heavily populated (Estuary: over 89 million; Mesa: over 219 million; Greydowns (possible lunar colonies): over 76 million; Kroedis II: over 15 million; Alluvion: over 336 million; Bounty: over 199 million), and that makes think that these colonies should be in the Inner Colony list, just though I'd get that out. So, what do you think? - EpicZealot1239
- We concluded New Carthage was an Inner Colony based on its possession of an ODP platform. In the case of Imber it sounds reasonable to conclude it was one. The fact that the other colonies were attacked after Imber, as the Covenant were pushing into the Inner Colonies, also suggests that they were too, even discounting the population figures. Like Carthage, we should add them to the Inner Colonies list, with an explanatory footnote. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 19:39, 14 February 2015 (EST)
- For the population figures, see my remark on them. I don't think the figures reflect that, since they increase. For the rest, I don't have much to say. Perhaps they are inner colonies. Imrane-117 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2015 (EST)
"Under UEG Control" or "Still Held"?[edit]
The page might look a little less cluttered if we were to stick with one status instead of two, as these mean essentially the same thing. I know it's merely aesthetic, but does anyone agree that we should settle on one status for colonies still intact in the aftermath of the war, or is it unnecessary to express concern over this? Just something I thought I'd bring up. As silly as it sounds.262VigilantGuardian (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2015 (EDT)
- I use "Under UEG Control" when we know that the UEG is governing the planet, while I use "Still held" to refer to colonies still held by humanity, but we don't know who is governing them. For example, some colonies are under the control of the URF, while some cut connections with the UEG. Though I suppose "Still held" works best overall. - NightHammer (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (EDT)
- Whatever everyone agrees works best, I can see your reasoning there for the two labels.262VigilantGuardian (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2015 (EDT)
- It might be advisable to look into a symbolic key system, rather than typing it out for every colony or system. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 00:16, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
There are many colonies under UEG control or still held and you put unknown status you should put under UEG control or still held not unknown status. —This unsigned comment was made by Terran2002 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
If there status is unknown we should keep it unknown. Please sign your comments. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 16:45, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
Featurelist[edit]
Per title, would anyone be opposed to using the featurelist template for the list of colonies? As of now the list is quite massive and takes up at least half the page, so it would be nice to reduce the amount of scrolling, especially for those using the site on mobile.--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 11:12, 21 January 2019 (EST)