Talk:Hellspartan project

Deletion

Personally, I don't think such SPARTAN program exist because of the following reasons:

1. Seeing that the Hellspartan EVA action figures were exclusive only to those visiting the San Diego Comic-Con 2008, McFarlane needed something to excite the fans and introduced their version of the SPARTAN program.
2. The added information about the new SPARTAN program is not canon as it was not supervised by Bungie or Microsoft. That said, the information was added only for the "awesomeness" and for the Comic-Con.

Voting

1. Support- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 15:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support- Agreed. This is not needed.--Jugus 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Subtank took all the words out of my mouth ^_^ - File:Commander Silver Leaf.PNG Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Should we not accept Hod Rumnt (Prophet of Mercy) or Sesa 'Refumee (Sangheili Heretic Leader) as their real names because it is also only seen on back of the action figures? At the most, an ambiguous canon warning at the top should be used in favor of simply deleting this [semi] in-universe item. User:CommanderTony/Sig
5. Support - There is hardly enough evidence for this to be allowed File:UNSC MIC.jpgCaptain MIC 17:30, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
6. Support- Clearly an article for deletion. --^{Odysseas-Spartan}53 15:49, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Yes, it was probably made to increase the 'awesome' factor of this action figure, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be left with an ambiguous canon notice on top of the page --Necrosis103 13:32, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral - Will wait for the letter. Smoke^{Sound off!} 03:29, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Yeah, this is merchandising, not canon.--Rusty-112 19:10, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - I think that if bungie and microsoft ok'd the figure then it becomes cannon weatrher or not it is stated in the games,but the problem arises that the unit comprised with 5 spartan-II's,which could comprise of the second class of spartan-II's and,or grey team which is one group of spartans that are actually MIA.--Leozilla 03:44, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral - Let's wait a bit. Template:SoF/Sig
12. Neutral - We could always add the Not Canon template on it.112 22:17, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - it feels wierd saying this, but there's nothing here that actually contradicts canon. All it means is that the UNSC engaged in research to improve the performance of MJOLNIR Mark IV suits, using two members of the pre-existing Spartan-II's. That's not exactly unusual. If anything, it means very little, considering the Spartans would have abandoned them for newer Mark V anyway. Besides that, all Todd McFarlane figure summaries are from the Halo Story Bible, so I would assume bungie or MS gave them the go-ahead for them. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 22:21, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral - I agree that we should wait a little bit untill we decide. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 22:23, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose - This has bit sitting here for some time. I don't believe it's canon, but it still deserves a spot on the site, as long as it's designated as non-canon, or least canon that has yet to be confirmed. -- GHOST R3V0LV3R 20:16, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - As per Specops and Ghost Revolver. SNOR^{3} 20:22, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose - There's nothing that says its false...so I guess it'll stay. --File:Colonel Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   01:50, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - As per Kirk and Sur'a. It doesn't contradict canon necessarily and shouldn't this wiki be inclusive of all things Halo, aside from fanon, obviously.--Kross^{Transmit on Holonet?} 03:10, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Reply to Mcloganator:

Those are regular figurines, thus I would assume received notes from Bungie about their background. The Hellspartans however are exclusive figurines, thus need to stand out from the rest of the regular figurines and to make it a limited version. How would they [McFarlane] do that? By introducing a totally new and unknown SPARTAN-II project no one heard off and making sure it will only be available in one location (San Diego Comic Con 2008), thus making it an "epic" action figure fanboys (and fangirls) would want to buy.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 13:46, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless of whether or not it's a limited or mass-produced product, we have no right in saying what's canon or not without official proof from official sources. User:CommanderTony/Sig

Ok. *grumbles* Sent a letter to McFarlane though I can already predict their response.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:06, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

You likely won't hear shit from them, nor will they probably give an edumacated response. I'll ask some people I know at 343 Industries about it, at least they'll know about it. User:CommanderTony/Sig

• Reply to General5 7:

it should stay. why lose whats little known about them. keep em --72.2.86.194 01:43, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to GHOST R3V0LV3R

I think you're missing the point of this argument: It is the article that will be deleted, but not the description of the program. It is its canonicity that is under debate; if it is not canon, it should not be awarded as an article but as part of the toy series but if it is canon, then it will be an official article. It will, however, be redirected under McFarlane Toys. So, the current argument is to whether or not allow the description of the program to stay as an article.

• Reply to Spartan 112

I agree with this. GHOST R3V0LV3R 20:19, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

• General Reply

It's talk pages like this that makes me sick. Do I think the very idea of these Hellspartans makes any sense at all in the context of the Halo universe? Not particularly. But like all of you, my opinion doesn't matter. Third party associates and marketing are all covered under the canon policy. It's there? It's canon. Limited releases and that crap aside, Mcfarlane put it out and both Staten and our own policy states that it WILL be treated as canon if it does not conflict with previously established works. It's not for us to judge. To see even our administrators make mistakes like this over and over again is disheartening. Shape up Halopedians! We have a duty to uphold!--Nerfherder1428 19:56, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

"'"The added information about the new SPARTAN program is not canon as it was not supervised by Bungie or Microsoft. That said, the information was added only for the "awesomeness" and for the Comic-Con."'"

— My argument

The issue behind the article is whether or not these Hellspartans are in the canon Halo universe. If we were to apply your judgement in this discussion, then I suppose Halo Wars Clay should also be awarded an article in Halopedia. Let me remind you that there's a clear line to whether or not a product breaches canon and that most products are likely to be in breach of this. If the Hellspartan is indeed not canon, it will be redirected to McFarlane's article.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 20:30, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that I am actually arguing the canonical implications of the so-called Hellspartan. I'm not here to argue whether we should introduce this information as an Mcfarlane action figure page. Nor do I agree that we should add Halo Wars clay as an article. I'm not here to pick a fight; I myself wish that these Hellspartans never existed. But if you were to have read my above statements, I made it pretty clear that I was referring to canon and canon only. And since that argument was rebutted with an another argument about something moderately unrelated, I will address my points again as clearly as I can.

If it is true that Mcfarlane had absolutely NO approval from Microsoft or Bungie (and therefore infringing copyright laws and setting themselves up to be sued) when they made this product, it's canonicity would indeed be thrown out the window. But that's not the case. Your "Halo Wars Clay" is not an official Microsoft product and its makers will likely be sued for their blatant disregard to merchandising laws.

In the case of the Hellspartans however, we have something different. Although Microsoft & Bungie didn't explicitly tell Mcfarlane to make this figure and instead gave them the freedom to do what they wished with it, Microsoft, as the Halo IP owners, still had to have stamped an approval on the product for it to be legally legitimate. M&B doesn't have to directly be involved with every step of the creation of a product in order for that product to be classified canon (*cough* HALO WARS!!! *cough*). So even if the product is only endorsed with the Halo logo, and regardless of the purposes of its creation, its material is canon in the Halo universe, albeit on one of the lowest rungs of the canon ladder. This policy is reflected in a variety of wikis, including the ever-popular Wookiepedia. It's funny though...we already have provisions for that in our own canon policy article, something I fear that people are becoming increasingly fond of misquoting.

So in summary...as much as it pains me to claim such a ridiculous idea as canon, we must include the Hellspartans within the confines of the fictional Halo universe as, regardless of Bungie's direct involvement, they are products of a third party developer and endorsed by Microsoft for this Comic-Con event. --Nerfherder1428 20:00, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

If its a matter of Bungie not approving of it, 343 have actually held the IP for a while now, and since they're far more involved in the process of figure concept, design and approval, I would say that they would have had to have known about the figure. Its business practice - McFarlane couldn't have simply done it without their approval. The fact that it exists at all, to me at least, is evidence that 343 doesn't mind it. Until there are any contradictions to this, then, its a part of the Halo Universe. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 09:38, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Naming

Canon issues aside, shouldn't this be named "Hellspartan Project" or something? I know it's only a nickname, but it's the only official name we got and it's better than the current one, ie. having no name at all. And it isn't really "unknown" when we have a name, even if it's only a nickname.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 20:29, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

And there are other articles that have nicknames as placeholders: Spectre, Shadow, Sparrowhawk, Concussion Rifle... etc. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117