Talk:High Charity

Population
The Essential Visual Guide lists the population of High Charity as 23,831,346. But according to the Bestiarum, this refers to the total San'Shyuum population (hence the distinction between "at reseeding" and "currently") and not the whole of High Charity (which would obviously include numerous members of other species). Thus the Visual Guide's population figure should be considered erroneous, or referring only to the San'Shyuum living in the city. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (EDT)
 * I may be mistaken as to intent, but I think the interpretation of the content of the Bestiarum was not to imply the Prophet species numbered 23,831,346, but that it was indeed the total population of High Charity with all its constituent races. The world log off to the side of each page is referring to the population of each world, in this case High Charity, as it's the only viable 'homeworld' to list for the Prophets now. So even though the page is about the San'Shyuumm, the population figure is for all of High Charity, not just the Prophet portion. For example, we know there exists more Sangheili colonies than just their homeworld. The Bestiarum entry on the Elites refers to Sanghelios as a population of 8.135 billion. This is just the population of the planet, not just the Sangheili residents. Any Unggoy or Jiralhanae servants would be counted among that population number. There'd similarly be other Sangheili on other colonies that are not reflected in that number. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2014 (EST)
 * I did consider that, but then Contact Harvest states that there were "a little more than twenty million" San'Shyuum in the Covenant, which would nicely correlate with the Bestiarum's figure; since most of the Prophets are known to live in High Charity, this would make the population of other species in High Charity almost nonsensically small, particularly given the Unggoy practically own the lower districts. The point about the population figures referring to the worlds, not species, is valid for the most part, though the "Uncategorized"/Reclaimer entry uses Earth's "sudden change" population (or what was intended to be the remaining human population at the time) instead of that of Eridanus II, which the other stats refer to. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (EST)
 * I can understand what you're saying. I guess all I can offer is that the Contact Harvest info and the Bestiarum info were known when the Visual Guide's value was decided. Perhaps the figures of the San'Shyuum numbers mentioned in Contact Harvest were era-dependent. How far back was that referenced. I can't check the novel at the moment. The High Charity figure would coincide with Halo 3, or 2552. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2014 (EST)
 * Contact Harvest page 262 offers the following: "There were a little more than twenty million San'Shyuum in the Covenant. Not a very large number compared to the faith's billions of adherents. But it was significantly more than the thousand or so individuals who had fled the San'Shyuum's distant homeworld long ago." Since this is circa 2525 timeline-wise, there would inevitably be some change in their population in 27 years, if not anything dramatic. But if the population number was actually discussed during the creation of the Visual Guide, I trust you had your reasons. --Jugus  (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:48, 11 December 2014 (EST)
 * I suppose the first assumption made was that the Bestiarum was correct in its value of High Charity's population as of 2552, presumably when the information was presented by whatever Forerunner AI that compiled it. I think that was the starting point and that all other info would have to conform in some fashion later. I still think it's fine to question this, but I'm confident that 343i could come up with some plausible scenarios to explain any perceived discrepancy. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (EST)

New Image?
Should we update this page with a new image from AnniversaryLord &#39;Themee (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Do we have a decent image of High Charity? -- SFH (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2014 (EST)
 * Not really. This one isn't bad, but its eclipsed. Plus the battle going on overhead probably isn't helpful. We have these two, but neither are really the focus of the image. There might be a decent one somewhere in the terminals or the new Blur cutscenes, but I haven't looked. - NightHammer (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (EST)
 * This would be a good one. From here.--TDSpiral94 (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2014 (EST)
 * While I'd prefer an image with a proper background and environment for context, it's indeed quite good. That portfolio seems to have more useful stuff as well. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 13:16, 4 December 2014 (EST)
 * I agree with Jugus. It would be ideal to get one with a proper background, but I'm not entirely sure if that's possible. So this would be a good alternative. If no one else disagrees, I can upload it. - NightHammer (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (EST)
 * Holy Cow, that is a good one. Lucky find there, I'd definitely use that as well.262VigilantGuardian (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2014 (EST)

Italicization
I don't recall "High Charity" being italicized in any official media, whether from the Bungie days or from 343i. It seems we took to italicizing the name because the city is mobile, not unlike a giant ship. Any thoughts? -- Our answer is at hand.  ( Talk to me. ) 12:35, 3 October 2015 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I agree. In most novels, ships are italicized but High Charity isn't. It's probably best to remove the italicization. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 12:41, 3 October 2015 (EDT)
 * Yes, I think it should be changed. Like NightHammer said, High Charity isn't italicized in the books, and it isn't italicized in the Halo Waypoint universe article either. -- Topal the Pilot Blueteam.png ( Talk | Contribs ) 19:08, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

Mythos
Page 112 of Mythos has a layout of High Charity with several locations being marked, I cannot make heads or tails of these terms. Is it just me or did I miss several things? Col.  Snipes  4  50  00:41, 14 September 2016 (EDT)