UserProfile:BaconShelf
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
BaconShelf
30,838 article edits
Sent a message to
WarGrowlmon18
"We can, though High Charity is a mobile station - so its location at tha..."
Edited the page
Starholo
"Redirected page to [[Kelguid]]"
Edited the page
Operation: RED FLAG
"Undo revision 1756069 by [[Special:Contributions/WarGrowlmon18|WarGrowlm..."
About meI do 3D art and work in the modding scene for various games.
Hobbies & interestsMostly space games; Elite, Stellaris, COADE, Kerbal, etc.
You must be
logged in to post messages to other users
I'd put both or maybe say "current location." Further down the page it mentioned that there might've been a successful mission to there based on the data. I've always gotten the impression that High Charity was not often moved. The Prophets did it in Oblivion because they knew that their location might be compromised. In Halo 2 they moved the city because of the discovery of the Sacred Rings.
Being true aside, the text 'unambiguously stated' wasn't even present in the initial version of the article you reverted, as I had attempted to rewrite portions of it multiple times to appease you only for each one to be immediately undone.
I would've appreciated perhaps iterating on the language further instead of undoing each one completely, as I believe the language present in that initial version of the overview is quite flawed even from a completely neutral perspective. For example, the verbiage of "For much of the original halo trilogy" implies that at some point prior to the release of Halo 3, forerunners were no longer intended to be human, which is untrue according to several developer accounts (and the content of the game itself, but as you said, some people seem to disagree with that for some reason) or other things like the broken page link for "reclaiming" at the top of the page. The least you could do is at least attempt to comprise between the two versions.
I don't understand the point of neutering the page dedicated to documenting a retcon just to appease people who get mad when the existence of said retcon is pointed out. I would perhaps agree that the language might be inappropriate if this was for something such as the main page for forerunners itself, but it's not. The intent and interpretation *did* shift over time and that should be the point of the page, not obfuscating and downplaying that fact.
Please elaborate on what specifically you removed you viewed as too 'opinionated' or incorrect.
What's the point of editing the Human-Forerunner connection page to remove objectively correct information? The entire point of the page is literally to document the retcon. They are not 'opinionated' edits. If you prefer the modern interpretation there are plenty of others pages that document it.
