Talk:List of inconsistencies in the Halo series

Discrepency: Rotating sections in UNSC ships
the PoA doesn't have the spinning parts because they have artificial gravity they say this in the fall of reach book around when capt. keyes got on the ship and some LT. was telling him about the upgrades it got.


 * The top of page 274 of Fall of Reach describes a rotating section for the ship. It also describes the engine room as having no gravity. Though I do remember that being said somewhere, I can't remember exactly where either. -ED 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict: Pelican ordinance payload
The equipment in the pelican can be moved out or in to create more space. The idea of the spartans fitting in there was explained in FoR,


 * Where? -ED 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Scetches of the pelican were much larger than the ones in the game. Also just because it says its a pelican, it doesn't make it the t77-7 model or what ever its called, thats how like 75 kids could be on at the same time.


 * Where? -Chief2552 19:27, 14 September 2006 (GMT)

It says 10-12. I believe these are how many it SEATS. it could much more if the children were standing up. That coupled with Chief2552s' aurgument makes it pretty easy to belive that it could hold 75 children

Discrepency: Pelican ID
In Halo: CE, the easiest explanation for the repeated sightings of E419 on the pelicans despite each having its own unique ID is due to just using the same textures for the pelican models over again. This is a common technique used in the gaming industry, unfortunately.
 * That's noted in the Echo 419 page. For continuity reasons, I imagine we'll never be able to remove that one. -ED 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Errors
Should typos be listed, such as "Jerico VII"? --Dragonclaws 21:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a source of where the spelling occurred-- Esemono 05:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Should that have a new header or use one of the existing ones? --Dragonclaws 06:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * new header -- Esemono 07:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Canon
Shouldn't the books, written later and in more detail than the manuals, be considered superior canon? I mean, they have added onto the original mythology, making them IMO more up to date. --Dragonclaws 02:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Grunt Conflict
The Section on Manual to Book Inconsistancies incorretly states that 1 meter is 6'3". This is incorrect. One meter is in fact approximatly 3'3"