64,687
edits
Forum:Amending the Canon Policy: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "([A-Za-z]+) Policy" to "$1 policy"
m (→Comments) |
m (Text replacement - "([A-Za-z]+) Policy" to "$1 policy") |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader | {{Forumheader/Archive}} | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Halopedia's [[Project:Canon | Halopedia's [[Project:Canon policy|Canon policy]] is... how do I put it... outdated. Not significantly outdated but simply requires a little fix regarding its hierarchy of superior/inferior canon. If one were to put it in an illustration, it would be as so: | ||
{| width="100%" align="center" | {| width="100%" align="center" | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*Bungie-canon consists of products made by Bungie, that is the Halo Trilogy and Halo: Reach. Microsoft-canon would include everything else ranging from novels, trailers to third-party reports. | *Bungie-canon consists of products made by Bungie, that is the Halo Trilogy and Halo: Reach. Microsoft-canon would include everything else ranging from novels, trailers to third-party reports. | ||
*Some may ask, what about the novels? Wouldn't they be part of Bungie-canon? | *Some may ask, what about the novels? Wouldn't they be part of Bungie-canon? | ||
{{Quote|It's pretty fair to say that the Fall of Reach novel was considered a Microsoft project rather than a Bungie project -- I don't think anyone would argue with that...|Frank'O<ref name="ign">[http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1126799p3.html '''IGN''': ''Beyond the Ring: Bungie's Renegade Development of Halo's Fiction'']</ref>}} | {{Quote|It's pretty fair to say that the Fall of Reach novel was considered a Microsoft project rather than a Bungie project -- I don't think anyone would argue with that...|Frank'O<ref name="ign">[http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1126799p3.html '''IGN''': ''Beyond the Ring: Bungie's Renegade Development of Halo's Fiction'']</ref>}} | ||
*To simply put; no. As per above, the novels is a project headed by Microsoft Development Team (now known as 343i) since 2001. And yes, this includes even Staten's Contact Harvest novel. While Microsoft develops the novels using their assets, Bungie was only there to supervise and give suggestions to make the novels more appealing/true to the Halo Universe. In other words, Bungie was not directly involved in the writing of the novels; they only gave suggestions to improve the content. So, where would this put the novels in the canon hierarchy? Under Microsoft-canon, under Microsoft games. It should note that Halo Wars, despite having some content improvement suggestions from Bungie, is entirely 343i/Microsoft, thus making it part of Microsoft-canon. | *To simply put; no. As per above, the novels is a project headed by Microsoft Development Team (now known as 343i) since 2001. And yes, this includes even Staten's Contact Harvest novel. While Microsoft develops the novels using their assets, Bungie was only there to supervise and give suggestions to make the novels more appealing/true to the Halo Universe. In other words, Bungie was not directly involved in the writing of the novels; they only gave suggestions to improve the content. So, where would this put the novels in the canon hierarchy? Under Microsoft-canon, under Microsoft games. It should note that Halo Wars, despite having some content improvement suggestions from Bungie, is entirely 343i/Microsoft, thus making it part of Microsoft-canon. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 40: | ||
;Is that it? | ;Is that it? | ||
{{Article | {{Article quote|Historically, over the decade of Halo storytelling, Bungie would maintain creative ownership and direction of these various projects.}} | ||
*Yes for making amendments to Canon | *Yes for making amendments to Canon policy. The only problem we have right now is who's superior and who's inferior. Hopefully, you had a nice read. | ||
;<big>TL;DR</big> | ;<big>TL;DR</big> | ||
| Line 93: | Line 92: | ||
:::You've done a great job, Subtank! I'm glad that your proposition isn't a case of "''Bungie first, all else is irrelevant''", like so many so-called "fans" favor. With this policy, the heart of the series is the heart of canon, while everything else is respected, just as it should be. In fact, this policy isn't a major change from the current one, the only exception being that Bungie no longer has the indomitable, end-all-be-all say on canon. Many thumbs up! --[[User talk:Braidenvl|"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson]] 14:17, 13 November 2010 (EST) | :::You've done a great job, Subtank! I'm glad that your proposition isn't a case of "''Bungie first, all else is irrelevant''", like so many so-called "fans" favor. With this policy, the heart of the series is the heart of canon, while everything else is respected, just as it should be. In fact, this policy isn't a major change from the current one, the only exception being that Bungie no longer has the indomitable, end-all-be-all say on canon. Many thumbs up! --[[User talk:Braidenvl|"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson]] 14:17, 13 November 2010 (EST) | ||
:::Oh, I'm ''very'' happy, about a lot of things! :D -- [[User:Specops306|<b><font color=indigo>Specops306</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>Qur'a 'Morhek</sup></font></i></u>]] 18:18, 17 November 2010 (EST) | |||
Looks good. There's just a little discrepancy where "fanon-canon" is listed also as "Halopedia-canon". If you're going for the former on either Halopedia or Halo Fanon, I'll suggest using simply "fanon", as that's a portmanteau of "fanfiction" and "canon" already. --<b>[[User:Dragonclaws|<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#3B3F42">c</font>laws</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Dragonclaws|<font color="#DE397E">talk</font>]])</sup></b> 15:05, 13 November 2010 (EST) | Looks good. There's just a little discrepancy where "fanon-canon" is listed also as "Halopedia-canon". If you're going for the former on either Halopedia or Halo Fanon, I'll suggest using simply "fanon", as that's a portmanteau of "fanfiction" and "canon" already. --<b>[[User:Dragonclaws|<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#3B3F42">c</font>laws</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Dragonclaws|<font color="#DE397E">talk</font>]])</sup></b> 15:05, 13 November 2010 (EST) | ||
:Well, Halopedia-canon is essentially fixing ''errors'' of the Halo Universe. Such example is renaming | :Well, Halopedia-canon is essentially fixing ''errors'' of the Halo Universe. Such example is renaming 105th MEU to 105th Shock Troops Division. It's not really fanon; it's simply fixing minor canon issue. - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 15:52, 13 November 2010 (EST) | ||
::Then why'd you use the term? My point is that if you use it, the term on its own has "canon" as part of its meaning. Like, you wouldn't say "smoky smog" because "smog" is a portmanteau of "smoke" and "fog". --<b>[[User:Dragonclaws|<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#3B3F42">c</font>laws</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Dragonclaws|<font color="#DE397E">talk</font>]])</sup></b> 18:54, 13 November 2010 (EST) | ::Then why'd you use the term? My point is that if you use it, the term on its own has "canon" as part of its meaning. Like, you wouldn't say "smoky smog" because "smog" is a portmanteau of "smoke" and "fog". --<b>[[User:Dragonclaws|<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#3B3F42">c</font>laws</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Dragonclaws|<font color="#DE397E">talk</font>]])</sup></b> 18:54, 13 November 2010 (EST) | ||