Talk:343 Guilty Spark

Spark's Rampancy
Do we have anything solid that states 343 as being rampant? To my observation everything he did was within a degree of protocol. Even in Halo 2, he didn't "help" put the ring in Standby Mode, he was simply inactive. It wasn't his ring, protocol would dictate that he should not interface with its systems. Thoughts?Ocean Soul 18:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * The red light only flashes when he is in defencive mode - either protecting a reclaimer or the control room. At no point did he go against protocol; he even turned on his allies because of it. Because of that we should not say that he is rampant, and the red light setting should not be regarded as evidence of otherwise.--  Fore  run  ner '' 19:09, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Cryptum all but outright states that Guilty Spark was not rampant. The monitors of the Halos that Mendicant Bias had captured attacked their Forerunner creators when the order was given to destroy the Halos. Monitors are programmed to defend against any attack, regardless of its source. --Courage never dies. 19:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks that he was not rampant. Ocean Soul 20:42, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * I've been thinking about this for some time, and I agree. However, Johnson's entry in the Essential Visual Guide states Guilty Spark was rampant, so I'm not exactly sure what to make of it.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 09:10, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Maybe Spark was programmed to respond in a slightly nicer way, instead of (trying to) outright killing them. pestilence   Phil,  pestilence!  10:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Era dispute
Should the post-war era be included in the era template? If the time after the events of the level The Covenant count as post-war, then I understand, but given the fact that the war between Humanity and the Covenant Separatists and Loyalists went on for over ten years after Truth's death, it shouldn't. --


 * It's post-Human-Covenant War.--  Fore  run  ner '' 19:13, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Monitor of Installation 04 and its replacement.
Are we sure about this, I mean we know that he was for the original installation but are we sure that he was for the replacement as well?--210.56.81.228 01:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Halo Anniversary
Are we putting the people in Halo: Combat Evolved also in Halo: Anniversary? I don't know why, but that just seems kinda weird. Maybe that's just from 4 hours of sleep, idk. Vegerot ( talk )  03:21, 28 July 2011 (EDT)!


 * Halo Anniversary is a port of the original game with a graphic enhancement (not a remake - remakes are re-made); I don't think it's necessary. Then again, we also have articles like Halo 2 Vista.--  Fore  run  ner '' 05:54, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree it's unnecessary to add Anniversary to appearances sections - basically, if it's in the original game, you know it's in Anniversary and the other way around. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:00, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I know I'm just an annon but hear me out, I think Anniversary should be in the appearances section based on the new terminals. The teaser trailer showed several monitors which means that new characters are being introduced and their only appearance will be Anniversary for now. Maybe we should just add it for the new characters but it is something to consider--210.56.81.17 07:52, 28 July 2011 (EDT)