Forum:Amending the Canon Policy

Forums: Index → Archive → Amending the Canon Policy

Halopedia's 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 outdated. Not significantly outdated but simply requires a little fix regarding its hierarchy of superior/inferior canon.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:

Current Bungie Employees ↓ Halo Games ↓ Halo Literature, Soundtracks, and Other Media ↓ Bungie Affiliates ↓ Announcement Trailers ↓ Halopedia Canon

The problem with this current policy is that Bungie is no longer part of the Halo Universe, and, as much as we love their work, we would have to change the order of canon to accommodate future canons, thus placing 343i as the primary source of official canon.

Now, I will address the amendments that should be applied to the canon policy;

Who's the top?

• While I am aware that 343i would be the official word of all things canon and not Bungie after September 14, 2010, let us not forget that it is Bungie's products that made the universe of Halo as unique as it is. Due to this unique status, the canon policy would have to adopt similar policy as laid out in Wookiepedia, where the six films are the highest source of canon and all others are below the films. Consider this as a "creator's rights" to the franchise.

Introducing Bungie-canon, Microsoft-canon and Fanon-canon

• 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?

"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

• 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.
• So, what do this mean? Who's superior? Back to first issue, Bungie is deemed to have earned the "creator's right". This unique right allows them to be the superior source of canon for the entire 10 years of being in contract with Microsoft. This does not include products released by Bungie after September 14, 2010. This right only holds them being credible from 2001 to 2010. Microsoft would be the secondary source of canon, followed by third party reports

What is Microsoft-canon exactly?

• Microsoft-canon, also known as 343i-canon, is the continuity/expanded project of the Halo Universe. 343i, approved by Microsoft, would be the primary source under Microsoft-canon and anything released by them will be considered as official canon. Anything created by Microsoft and its affiliates would have been considered as being approved automatically by Bungie, thus making them canon.
• Under Microsoft-canon, it would have a secondary canon hierarchy; the games would be superior, followed by the novels, other literatures, the marketing campaigns and other promotional items... in that exact order. Because Halo is essentially a game franchise, game titles would be the superior source of canon in each category.

Whoa... Halopedia-canon?

• Halopedia-canon is simply fixed errors made in official canon by the Halo Nation. It is the lowest form of Canon...

What about Marketing Campaigns?

"We wanted to, as a studio, stay focused on making great games. The novels were great [for Bungie] because we knew we had created this universe that had the possibility for lots of different stories. But we, Bungie, simply didn't have the bandwidth, and honestly the talent, necessarily, to do things like novels or comic books, et cetera."

— Staten

• The above quote should be sufficient to establish that Bungie had no time to be directly involved in the Marketing Campaigns. This would place them directly under Microsoft-canon.

Is that it?

“

Historically, over the decade of Halo storytelling, Bungie would maintain creative ownership and direction of these various projects.

”

• 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.

TL;DR

Just look below... >.>

Bungie-canon (Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3, ODST and Reach)* (Halo Graphic Novel)** ↓ Microsoft/343i-canon 343i games (Halo Wars) ↓↓ Novels (The Fall of Reach, The Flood, First Strike, Ghost of Onyx, Contact Harvest, Cole Protocol, Evolutions, The Forerunner Saga) ↓↓ Comics and other media (Halo Uprising, Helljumper, Blood Line, Fall of Reach (Boot Camp, Covenant, and Pillar of Autumn), Encyclopaedia, Legends) ↓↓ Marketing content (ilovebees, Iris, We Are ODST, Remember Reach, etc) ↓↓ Halopedia-canon * = denotes credibility over the duration of the contract. ** = An exception as Bungie approached a third party by itself without having Microsoft advising it.

Comments

Copy+pasta hooray! - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:01, 13 November 2010 (EST)

For those wondering, H:Reach didn't break canon, the novel did. ;) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:01, 13 November 2010 (EST)

I hope you're happy Specs. :) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:04, 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! --"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 -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 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. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 15:05, 13 November 2010 (EST)

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. - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 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". --Dragonclaws^(talk) 18:54, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Let's ask Esemono, shall we? :P - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:25, 13 November 2010 (EST)

No, I was just talking about "fanon-canon". You used that term. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 14:15, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Oh, that. It's a false term, simply exchanging Halopedia for Halo-Fanon. Putting it as Halo-Fanon-Canon doesn't look nice, so it is shortened simply to fanon-canon. The actual meaning behind the term is still based on Halopedia-canon. :P - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:25, 15 November 2010 (EST)

There's a very fine line between the so-called "Halopedia canon" and fan fiction, so I'd prefer we didn't include that tier at all. Any canon mistakes we can fix while still staying within the bounds of canon, need some form of official confirmation, even if the confirmation is a "lower" canon source overriding a higher one. This is, of course, a special case that would only make sense if the "higher" source seems clearly erroneous or contradictory in some other way. For example, the issue with the 105th MEU was not exactly a case of fanon, since the name "105th Shock Troops Division" has been used in another canon source. It was merely one official source being considered superior to another. I can see the "Halopedia canon" tier was originally added in 2006, when the wiki was still at its infancy. I do believe our criteria on canon is a lot stricter these days, and if we fix an error while still staying true to the canon, I wouldn't necessarily label it "Halopedia canon". It's simply us interpreting canon in a way that makes the most sense in the context and causes the least problems. This issue could be explained in the policy itself, but I don't think we need a specific tier for it in the canon hierarchy.

The new layout looks good to me, and a change is indeed in order since Bungie's no longer supplying new canon material. Placing the Encyclopedia and Legends below the novels also makes sense, considering the several inconsistencies present in them. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 15:09, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Halopedia at its infancy... funny when you look back at the past. But enough of reminiscing. Let's update it shall we. :) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 15:26, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Just as example, what on Halopedia currently would fall under "Halopedia Canon"? The Falcon's classification was cited back the other wiki, but that doesn't seem to be the case over here.Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 18:17, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Consider the Pillar of Autumn's escape from Reach. On the Fall of Reach article, we've stated that the Autumn was dry docked in Aszod after the Gamma Station mission. Of course, this theory wasn't created without foundation; the timeline was carefully considered. Furthermore, the article notes that said explanation is speculative and unofficial. Besides that, I can't think of any other instances of Halopedia canon. --"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson 18:27, 16 November 2010 (EST)

You got the idea quite right. :) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:25, 16 November 2010 (EST)