Talk:Second Battle of Mombasa: Difference between revisions

m
Text replacement - "([A-Za-z]+) Policy" to "$1 policy"
m (→‎Untitled: clean up, replaced: [[Image: → File: (3))
m (Text replacement - "([A-Za-z]+) Policy" to "$1 policy")
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 63: Line 63:
Can this battle even be considered canon? It was a part of the Believe campaign, whose canonicity is ambiguous at best. Several parts of it contradict facts set up by, for example, Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST, as well as the dates given in [http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=16989 This Bungie.net entry]. In fact, most content here related to the time between H2 and H3 is based off the Believe campaign, which blatantly contradicts newer, set up facts.  
Can this battle even be considered canon? It was a part of the Believe campaign, whose canonicity is ambiguous at best. Several parts of it contradict facts set up by, for example, Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST, as well as the dates given in [http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=16989 This Bungie.net entry]. In fact, most content here related to the time between H2 and H3 is based off the Believe campaign, which blatantly contradicts newer, set up facts.  


So. To avoid confusion, I vote this page, as well as most Believe-related stuff here should be marked with the [[Template:Not Canon|Non-canon template]]. Even though never officially confirmed as being non-canon, it has became obvious it doesn't fit in with the established canon. As always, the games override everything else. And Believe was just a marketing campaign by Microsoft. --[[User talk:Jugus|Jugus]] 09:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
So. To avoid confusion, I vote this page, as well as most Believe-related stuff here should be marked with the Non-canon template. Even though never officially confirmed as being non-canon, it has became obvious it doesn't fit in with the established canon. As always, the games override everything else. And Believe was just a marketing campaign by Microsoft. --[[User talk:Jugus|Jugus]] 09:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


== Halo Encyclopedia ==
== Halo Encyclopedia ==
Line 95: Line 95:
In that case it would be good if we errr changed some of the rules then, if halopedia isnt Canon pedia. --[[User talk:CookieMonstersayshello|CookieMonstersayshello]] 07:22, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
In that case it would be good if we errr changed some of the rules then, if halopedia isnt Canon pedia. --[[User talk:CookieMonstersayshello|CookieMonstersayshello]] 07:22, 9 June 2011 (EDT)


:It's an unwritten rule when it comes to content that is not of canon nature, subjected to [[Project:Notability Policy|notability]]. The very reason why we also cover multiplayer content and all other stuff. — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 08:41, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
:It's an unwritten rule when it comes to content that is not of canon nature, subjected to [[Project:Notability policy|notability]]. The very reason why we also cover multiplayer content and all other stuff. — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 08:41, 9 June 2011 (EDT)


Errrm no, i dont think "Halo is not a speculative forum" is an unwritten rule mate. Go look up halo's policies and find out. --[[User talk:CookieMonstersayshello|CookieMonstersayshello]] 10:43, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Errrm no, i dont think "Halo is not a speculative forum" is an unwritten rule mate. Go look up halo's policies and find out. --[[User talk:CookieMonstersayshello|CookieMonstersayshello]] 10:43, 10 June 2011 (EDT)