Halopedia talk:Canon policy

Something needs to be set up like Wookiepedia


 * Yeah, I'll get to it eventually. -ED 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion among new and inexperienced users about the difference between fanon and fanfiction, and why we don't allow it. Perhaps a section on why we don't allow it as well?  Specops306 ,  Kora 'Morhek  04:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion
For the record, the current policy isn't the way I currently would have written it. --Andrew Nagy 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Statements from authors don't trump everything. They created the games, but they can't change them once they're gold. If a Bungie representative says in 2002 that Johnson survives Halo 1, he's simply wrong; anyone who's played the game on Legendary knows he dies.
 * One way of looking at it is that H1 is in a slightly alternate universe from the later games, which until FS E3 2003 was released was the only Halo universe we had access to.
 * One reason to accept Bungie statements over canon is if they represent the intent to change that aspect of canon; but even then, it shouldn't be considered completely canon until it's part of a published story.
 * Story-telling media like games, novels and audio dramas should trump supplementary/background material like manuals, websites, strategy guides and flavor texts.
 * An exception might be if the background material resolves a contradiction that previously existed; sort of a tiebreaker vote.
 * When there's a contradiction, the "cost" of resolving it one way or the other should be considered. GoO says (IIRC) that there were no second-generation Spartan IIs and no augmentation casualties among the Spartan IIIs; but if you accept that, the ilovebees audio drama can't have happened at all (no Melissa), whereas it doesn't really affect GoO's plot if just that passage is considered a mistake.
 * While the games should be the top level, actual game mechanics should be excluded from this; they're too often ridiculous, and they're not even consistent between games.
 * Also, some non-gameplay things like the Megg are clearly out-of-story; while things like the Thirsty Grunt and H1's Legendary ending are more ambiguous.
 * About GoO versus ilovebees, one was a book, and the other was an advertisement. A similar contradiction happened when the Believe Campaign showed Spartan 117 in a battle that he never took place in.(Quirel)
 * About GoO versus ilovebees, one was a book, and the other was an advertisement. A similar contradiction happened when the Believe Campaign showed Spartan 117 in a battle that he never took place in.(Quirel) --
 * Not seeing the relevance. And it's an advertisement only in a technical sense; it's also an independent narrative that adds substantially to the universe. --Andrew Nagy 19:02, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Employees?
Does anyone have a source that employee claims are canon? To me it makes no sense to use that system of canon, because if employees say things that don't make sense or seem contradictory then there's nothing for the fans to do. If we see something in a game that is a contradiction, then we can always find an explanation. For example, I've always found the claim that only 200 millions survive on Earth after the invasion to be extremely dubious so I have assumed that it must be the result of propaganda.


 * I don't have an answer, User:CaptainZoidberg, but I would ask you to please sign any edits you make to talk pages. When you edit a page, you can sign it by typing four tildes in a row ; when you save the edit, the tildes will automatically be replaced with your username and the date that you made the edit. This is useful on talk pages, as it allows us to know what was said when by whom without having to dig through the entire edit history. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Halo Encyclopedia's Canoness
Not sure if thats a word but... anyways, the HE has a wealth of new info, but a large number of mistakes regarding information we already knew. My question is, do we consider the new info canon, or do we wait for more conmirmation? Jabberwockxeno 00:04, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * The word's "canonicity", and yes, I needed Dictionary.com to look it up. I thought it was "canonicality", which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue lol. Anyway, I suppose it depends on how big the mistakes are, but in general, I'd recommend waiting for additional confirmation. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  00:52, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought is was canonicty to, but I couldent find it... anyways, there are some timeline errors, wrong pictures in relation  to the text (it shows the scout helmet intsead of the rouge helmet in the rouge entry for example.)etc. the book is one of the coolest things I have ever read though, pick it up if you can. Jabberwockxeno 02:21, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * To illustrate how truly terrible the Encyclopedia is at keeping canon sacred, I need only state that it said that the cannon of a Scarab walker could be detached and used as a hand-held gun. (like H2's famed Scarab Gun). This book is bull. Read its talk page for a list of errors and discussion of its canon.--Nerfherder1428 19:30, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how many errors it has, every information in Encyclopedia will be considered as canon info unless of course it contradicts the established superior canon.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 19:34, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I find that the bit about the scarab gun that it gives reasonable. We already know that the scarab's main cannon (the H3 one, but it clearly states that the two scarabs are different models.)Is an enlarged version of the hunter’s main canon. Assuming this, it would be able to be detached. It says NOTHING about it able to be hand-held; it just says portable, which can mean it can be moved, not necessarily carried. Jabberwockxeno 17:29, October 26, 2009 (UTC)