Editing Talk:Blooding Years
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:The argument isn't to change the page to say that the conflict isn't ongoing. It's simply to label "citation needed" that the conflict is ongoing. Great Schism page and other pages for example have citations for start and end dates, even if the outcome is ongoing. This page should see the same treatment. | :The argument isn't to change the page to say that the conflict isn't ongoing. It's simply to label "citation needed" that the conflict is ongoing. Great Schism page and other pages for example have citations for start and end dates, even if the outcome is ongoing. This page should see the same treatment. | ||
:If you want too add [Book Name/Game Name - page number - "Dural 'Mdama is still alive"] as a citation, even that would be better than AlertFiend's argument that it "doesn't need evidence because it doesn't need evidence".[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST) | :If you want too add [Book Name/Game Name - page number - "Dural 'Mdama is still alive"] as a citation, while I personally don't see that as being substantial enough, even that would be better than AlertFiend's argument that it "doesn't need evidence because it doesn't need evidence".[[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST) | ||
::We do not need a citation because it is not something to use citation on, the reason why the other pages have citations is because they have end dates and they use the citations to state when it has ended in canon, the Blooding Years has not ended and it would be pointless to add a citation because we do not have a definite point on the "ongoing" status of the conflict. The reason the Great Schism has a citation is because it has been narrowed down in the "future" of Halo that is not currently the present. Personally, if Jugus, Nighthammer, etc want to add it in I have no problem with it as long as they can explain why because to me it makes no sense but I trust their judgement, and please do not strawman. [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. <small>([[User talk:AlertFiend|Converse]]) </small> 07:27, 23 November 2016 (EST) | ::We do not need a citation because it is not something to use citation on, the reason why the other pages have citations is because they have end dates and they use the citations to state when it has ended in canon, the Blooding Years has not ended and it would be pointless to add a citation because we do not have a definite point on the "ongoing" status of the conflict. The reason the Great Schism has a citation is because it has been narrowed down in the "future" of Halo that is not currently the present. Personally, if Jugus, Nighthammer, etc want to add it in I have no problem with it as long as they can explain why because to me it makes no sense but I trust their judgement, and please do not strawman. [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. <small>([[User talk:AlertFiend|Converse]]) </small> 07:27, 23 November 2016 (EST) | ||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
With both opposing factions in shambles, evidence strongly suggests that the Swords of Sanghelios has emerged victorious as the two other opponents have lost. The burden of proof now lies with proving that the blooding years are still ongoing. Perhaps new stories and lore in the upcoming months will reveal more. [[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 22:00, 20 November 2016 (EST) | With both opposing factions in shambles, evidence strongly suggests that the Swords of Sanghelios has emerged victorious as the two other opponents have lost. The burden of proof now lies with proving that the blooding years are still ongoing. Perhaps new stories and lore in the upcoming months will reveal more. [[User:Editorguy|Editorguy]] ([[User talk:Editorguy|talk]]) 22:00, 20 November 2016 (EST) | ||
:Just because the faction's leader is killed does not mean the said faction immediately ceases to fight and exist. There are plenty examples of this both in the ''Halo'' universe and in real life. Better to wait until we know for sure.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 22:33, 20 November 2016 (EST) | :Just because the faction's leader is killed does not mean the said faction immediately ceases to fight and exist. There are plenty examples of this both in the ''Halo'' universe and in real life. Better to wait until we know for sure.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 22:33, 20 November 2016 (EST) | ||