You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with
other benefits.
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 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{FOF-2|3-13-2007|[[User:ED|ED]]|Sources need to be cited}} |
| | |
| ==Expand== | | ==Expand== |
| Expand please. | | Expand please. |
Line 13: |
Line 15: |
|
| |
|
| Those ''facts'' were never stated in the HGN and it is not directly implied that Paris IV itself is the cover up. {{unsigned|Ajax 013}} | | Those ''facts'' were never stated in the HGN and it is not directly implied that Paris IV itself is the cover up. {{unsigned|Ajax 013}} |
|
| |
| ==Year==
| |
| Does anyone know where the idea that the siege took place in 2549 came from? I've just checked ''First Strike'' and the ''HGN'' and turned up nothing. Given that [http://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=Siege_of_Paris_IV&diff=1201604&oldid=1201528 a fair amount of the article] (specifically the involvement of Marines other than Johnson, Johnson defending the main evacuation site, and the Covenant winning) had no provenance in official sources, it's entirely possible that the year of the siege is simply fanon that's been allowed to remain since 2006. --[[User:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">'''''Our answer is at hand.'''''</span>]] [[File:Gravemind.svg|14px]] ([[User talk:Braidenvl|<span style="color:gray">Talk to me.</span>]]) 13:08, 4 February 2017 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :The ''Encyclopedia'' states the siege took place in 2549. It's likely the ''Encyclopedia'' took it from here, but it's still canon at least. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 18:54, 4 February 2017 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ::A good idea for the Encyclopedia is to simply take it as canon, 343i like to reference it now and then. I mean look at the Catalog posts for proof on that. If another source contradicts it then the other source is the canon version.-[[User:CIA391|CIA391]] ([[User talk:CIA391|talk]]) 19:19, 4 February 2017 (EST)
| |