Talk:List of inconsistencies in the Halo series

Halo Wars-Halo Escalation
So it's been confirmed that it's the Spirit of Fire. In the first issue, it was said that the ship they found had been missing for thirty years. The Spirit went missing in 2531. This comic supposedly takes place in 2558. Super confused.Maginot Sphere (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2014 (EST)
 * The summary probably is meant to mean "nearly thirty years", as opposed to "thirty years." Anyways, I reverted your Escalation edit, as Issue 6's summary confirms the lost ship to be the Spirit of Fire.-- 13:37, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Mark IV in Prologue
Please discuss it here and keep it civil.— subtank   19:08, 7 June 2014 (EDT)


 * Josh Holmes has stated the armor isn't canon quite a few times. Some may argue that the Halo 4 EVU contradicts that but that doesn't matter, the word of a developer trumps that of extra media every time.
 * - User:JJAB91


 * In my opinion both are "the word of a developer". 343I put together the H4:EVG and now Josh Holmes gave you two explanations for the inconsistency. One was from a real-world perspective. The other, he simply says it's not canon. Nonetheless, its an inconsistency that shouldn't be disregarded. If 343I didn't include that explanation in the guide than there'd be no reason to point out the armor discrepancy (at least after the twitter post). Also I noticed he didn't say anything about what was said in the EVG. This situation is similar to how Frank O Connor said the ONI PRO-49776 isn't a prowler, yet 343I created the Sahara-class heavy prowler which retains the exact same design. It raises more questions than answers.-- Killamin7  [Comm |Files ] 21:06, 7 June 2014 (EDT)


 * To be blunt, this isn't a debate over whether the armor's appearance in the cutscene is canonical. The problem is that this page is supposed to list all inconsistencies in the series. Josh Holmes' statement very well may supersede the "Mark IV variant" explanation in the hierarchy of canon, but the fact is that Source A gives one explanation for the issue while Source B takes a different approach. That being said, the whole story (meaning both the EVG ' s and Holmes' accounts) will be represented by this article.-- Our vengeance is at hand. Gravemind.svg ( Talk to me. ) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (EDT)


 * Well then may I make an edit request? I request this "However, Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide establishes that John's suit's superficial upgrades are based on a variant of the Mark IV, retroactively indicating that the suits seen in the Prologue are in fact this particular variant" be slightly changed to this "However, Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide establishes that John's suit's superficial upgrades are based on a variant of the Mark IV, possibly indicating that the suits seen in the Prologue are in fact this particular variant" As while the EVU states that John's custom MKVI is based on an earlier line of MKIV it is never directly stated that what we see in Halo 4's prologue is that MKIV, so I request this minor change as since it is never directly stated it leaves it open for interpretation and later changes, as well as pleasing both sides and ending this edit war. - User:JJAB91


 * I know the page is already locked, but I concur with Braidenvl, my problem wasn't the authority of Josh Holmes' statement, it was that the other explanation was removed. --  Qura 'Morhek   The Autocrat     of Morheka   03:03, 8 June 2014 (EDT)


 * I'm with Braidenvl and Morhek - the issue here was the removal of the EVG's explanation, not what Holmes tweeted. Like Killamin7, I'd also to question the logic of deferring to direct developer statements over likewise official media: over the years we've had plenty of more or less silly "explanations" to appease the fans - that the M7 SMG was still "in the factory" during Reach or that the Skirmishers were all wiped out during the same game (oh yes no, the Kilo-Five Trilogy cannot be canon now!). Or Frankie's aforementioned prowler comment. Personally, I would prefer if Holmes' statement superseded the EVG's explanation since I'm not a fan of the utter lack of a logical visual continuity in the MJOLNIR series' development, but it doesn't justify removing perfectly valid information. I would have no problem with changing the "retroactively" to "possibly", though I don't see the point - the intention of the EVG's statement was crystal clear. I mean, consider a scenario where the EVG isn't referring to the Prologue suits: that there is a canonical Mark IV variant identical to the one in Prologue, but the armor in Prologue isn't that variant but is instead wholly non-canonical. In that case, what was the point of the EVG's claim? To establish there is in fact a Mark IV variant identical to the Chief's Halo 4 suit that we never see, because the only feasible appearance of that suit isn't canon? --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 08:40, 8 June 2014 (EDT)


 * Then again the EVG never stated that the MKIV looked exactly John's custom armor, just that his armor "resembled" the MKIV. User:JJAB91

Article reorganization
Wouldn't it be more practical and cohesive to do away with the separate "Discrepancies" and "Conflict" sections and just have a single list where each piece of media would have its own "Internal" and "External" sections for both categories of discrepancies? Having the titles appear twice on the page is rather redundant. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (EDT)


 * That sounds much more efficient. I suggest retooling "Inconsistencies rectified in re-releases" into a broad "Resolved inconsistencies" section. It could list issues that haven't been rectified officially but have adequately straightforward explanations. -- Our vengeance is at hand. Gravemind.svg ( Talk to me. ) 00:33, 1 September 2014 (EDT)


 * Agreed. I wonder if we should also recognize one additional type of discrepancy: logical inconsistencies. These are ones that don't contradict a specific quote or page number but otherwise don't quite work in the setting and at worst break its internal logic. Examples of these include Thel regarding Jai as a "demon" for hiding his face in TCP, Forerunners suddenly having stargates in TTW and now Escalation, or the Sangheili apparently having no analogue for the rank of Fleet Admiral in Glasslands. Or should these still be grouped into the external inconsistencies category? --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 04:18, 1 September 2014 (EDT)


 * Giving indirect contradictions their own section is definitely a good idea. Indeed, violating the spirit of Halo isn't much different from violating the letter. How about something like this? -- Our vengeance is at hand. Gravemind.svg ( Talk to me. ) 11:01, 1 September 2014 (EDT)


 * That would work, though it's debatable whether the implied discrepancies need their own main section as opposed to just a subsection under each work (like the way the page is currently organized). The list is already quite long so certain titles would be appearing on the page at least twice (see this edit for an example of how the list/index looks with some entries added). And I'm not sure there even are enough implicit discrepancies worthy of mention to warrant their own section tree (given the subsectioning by media type). --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (EDT)

Not sure what I was thinking there. This iteration should be better. -- Our vengeance is at hand.  ( Talk to me. ) 10:16, 2 September 2014 (EDT)


 * Much better. Tuckerscreator was actually working on a dedicated article for resolved inconsistencies which would trim this page even further. Last I heard it was coming along nicely, but I haven't seen him around here in a while so I'm not sure if that's still the case. Regardless, we can put the resolved ones on this page for now and then later move them into Tucker's article when (if?) he gets it finished. --Jugus (Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 12:19, 2 September 2014 (EDT)

Air Force
About Thorne and the Air Force... I've never understood what the problem was. He just talks about the US Air Force. It doesn't mean he is unfamiliar with the concept of an "Air Force" in general, let alone the existence of the UNSC's Air Force. He seems more fascinated by the splitting than by the Air Force itself. "A military group called the Air Force split off the Army to form its own branch." It sounds vague for sure, but it's supposed to reflect the historical aspect of it. I could say: "A group called the Continental Army preceded the United States Army." Yet, I'm familiar with both. And don't forget that from Thorne's point of view the US military is something distant, from the past, even though the names are the same. You wouldn't talk about a 15th century Navy in the same way as you would talk about a 21st century Navy. Imrane-117 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
 * I totally agree. I've always interpreted Thorne's phrasing as, "The Air Force went independent and the rest is history." The part where he's unsure whether there were Spartan-IIs other than the Master Chief is another story, though. -- Our answer is at hand.  Gravemind.svg ( Talk to me. ) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Actually, it doesn't reference the US explicitly in its wording and uses the term "Air Force" in quotes as though that is the unusual item in question. It later calls out the first Chief of Staff by name so a reference to US is implied but indirectly. It still doesn't explain the use of "Air Force" in quotation marks since the UNSC's branch has an identical name. I was similarly puzzled by this as UNSC Air Force references have been around at least since Halo: Reach.. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
 * The quotes on "Air Force" are also what I take issue with. Why say "a military group called the 'Air Force'" and not just "the US Air Force" or "the Air Force of the United States" or something of that sort if he wanted to differentiate it from the UNSC one? Though I can definitely understand the "the rest is history" interpretation, it seems like something one would use if he were a part of the Air Force himself and felt like expressing pride in his service in a particularly dramatic way. But with his lack of ties to the Air Force and the way he refers to the "Air Force" as historical trivia and not present-day reality (by making no distinction as to what entity's air force he's talking about) I'm more inclined to see it as a discrepancy. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (EDT)