Halopedia talk:Canon policy

Something needs to be set up like Wookiepedia

Yeah, I'll get to it eventually. -ED 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion among new and inexperienced users about the difference between fanon and fanfiction, and why we don't allow it. Perhaps a section on why we don't allow it as well? Specops306, Kora 'Morhek 04:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bungie Employees?

I, personally, wouldn't put them at the top. Some Bungie employees were planning on making the Master Chief a robot in Halo 3 before they were stopped. I'd put them just under the books... --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 00:49, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the books... Where do you think they get their canon information from? DavidJCobb  02:07, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The Halo Story Bible is written by Bungie employees, so don't even try that as a loophole to my rhetorical question. DavidJCobb  02:07, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

For the record, the current policy isn't the way I currently would have written it.

• Statements from authors don't trump everything. They created the games, but they can't change them once they're gold. If a Bungie representative says in 2002 that Johnson survives Halo 1, he's simply wrong; anyone who's played the game on Legendary knows he dies.
  • One way of looking at it is that H1 is in a slightly alternate universe from the later games, which until FS E3 2003 was released was the only Halo universe we had access to.
  • One reason to accept Bungie statements over canon is if they represent the intent to change that aspect of canon; but even then, it shouldn't be considered completely canon until it's part of a published story.
• Story-telling media like games, novels and audio dramas should trump supplementary/background material like manuals, websites, strategy guides and flavor texts.
  • An exception might be if the background material resolves a contradiction that previously existed; sort of a tiebreaker vote.
• When there's a contradiction, the "cost" of resolving it one way or the other should be considered. GoO says (IIRC) that there were no second-generation Spartan IIs and no augmentation casualties among the Spartan IIIs; but if you accept that, the ilovebees audio drama can't have happened at all (no Melissa), whereas it doesn't really affect GoO's plot if just that passage is considered a mistake.
• While the games should be the top level, actual game mechanics should be excluded from this; they're too often ridiculous, and they're not even consistent between games.
  • Also, some non-gameplay things like the Megg are clearly out-of-story; while things like the Thirsty Grunt and H1's Legendary ending are more ambiguous.

--Andrew Nagy 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

About GoO versus ilovebees, one was a book, and the other was an advertisement. A similar contradiction happened when the Believe Campaign showed Spartan 117 in a battle that he never took place in.(Quirel) --—This unsigned comment was made by 72.251.74.7 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Not seeing the relevance. And it's an advertisement only in a technical sense; it's also an independent narrative that adds substantially to the universe. --Andrew Nagy 19:02, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Employees?

Does anyone have a source that employee claims are canon? To me it makes no sense to use that system of canon, because if employees say things that don't make sense or seem contradictory then there's nothing for the fans to do. If we see something in a game that is a contradiction, then we can always find an explanation. For example, I've always found the claim that only 200 millions survive on Earth after the invasion to be extremely dubious so I have assumed that it must be the result of propaganda.

I don't have an answer, User:CaptainZoidberg, but I would ask you to please sign any edits you make to talk pages. When you edit a page, you can sign it by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~); when you save the edit, the tildes will automatically be replaced with your username and the date that you made the edit. This is useful on talk pages, as it allows us to know what was said when by whom without having to dig through the entire edit history. DavidJCobb  23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Halo Encyclopedia's Canoness

Not sure if thats a word but... anyways, the HE has a wealth of new info, but a large number of mistakes regarding information we already knew. My question is, do we consider the new info canon, or do we wait for more conmirmation? Jabberwockxeno 00:04, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

The word's "canonicity", and yes, I needed Dictionary.com to look it up. I thought it was "canonicality", which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue lol. Anyway, I suppose it depends on how big the mistakes are, but in general, I'd recommend waiting for additional confirmation. DavidJCobb  00:52, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

I thought is was canonicty to, but I couldent find it... anyways, there are some timeline errors, wrong pictures in relation to the text (it shows the scout helmet intsead of the rouge helmet in the rouge entry for example.)etc. the book is one of the coolest things I have ever read though, pick it up if you can. Jabberwockxeno 02:21, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate how truly terrible the Encyclopedia is at keeping canon sacred, I need only state that it said that the cannon of a Scarab walker could be detached and used as a hand-held gun. (like H2's famed Scarab Gun). This book is bull. Read its talk page for a list of errors and discussion of its canon.--Nerfherder1428 19:30, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how many errors it has, every information in Encyclopedia will be considered as canon info unless of course it contradicts the established superior canon.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:34, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I find that the bit about the scarab gun that it gives reasonable. We already know that the scarab's main cannon (the H3 one, but it clearly states that the two scarabs are different models.)Is an enlarged version of the hunter’s main canon. Assuming this, it would be able to be detached. It says NOTHING about it able to be hand-held; it just says portable, which can mean it can be moved, not necessarily carried. Jabberwockxeno 17:29, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

I'd put the Encyclopedia's status at the bottom of the barrel... But everybody who has read through the HE's Talk Page already knows my opinion... very well.--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 00:47, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy Review

Currently, our canon policy still states that Bungie employees are the highest source of canon, above all others. Now that 343 Industries owns the Intellectual Property, this should be changed accordingly to reflect the transition. I'm all for loyalty to Bungie, that great company of awesome, but we're a Halo wiki, not a Bungie wiki. 343i employees are the new word of god for Halo.

It's a minor change, a few small words and a change of phrasing, but we've already seen the result of a confusing canon policy - 343i has made it abundantly clear that the Halo Wars version of the Mark IV suit is canon, yet we had (and may still have, I don't know about that) members here who insist that, because Bungie didn't directly supervise that part of the game's development, and the design is contradicted by The Cole Protocol's cover, that it can't be canon. This is just one example. There are many others. Currently, yes, our canon policy is phrased to make the Mark IV suit of "inferior" canon. But the policy is wrong.

Lacking admin status, I just ask our administration to review the issue. Perhaps submit it to a community appraisal (not vote, because then the claws would come out). But something must be done. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 09:05, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

The Canon Policy has always been in its perfect state ever since it was created/introduced to the Halo Nation. The way you should interpret canon is really easy; everything and anything created by Bungie will remain superior and is set in stone. 343i merely manages the content, add new content to the established Halo Universe and is allowed to bend canon. If we consider that everything the creator has produced is changeable by the manager simply because the creator no longer owns the IP, then canon can easily be broken/ignored and retcons will be more apparent than ever before. In a way, Bungie-created content (i.e. games, novels) are the absolute canon where 343i merely expands canon, acting as the new caretaker of the Halo Universe. To get a sense of what I'm trying to say, refer to this section of the Wookiepedia's Canon article. A way to resolve this would be to embrace everything added to the Halo Universe by those contracted by Microsoft Game Studios as canon. This includes taking Halo Wars' Mk IV armour as canon but regarded as 343i's version of the Mk IV MJOLNIR.

"Currently, yes, our canon policy is phrased to make the Mark IV suit of "inferior" canon. But the policy is wrong."

— Specops306

For those who still think the Halo Wars' Mk IV is not canon, "screw them and let them live in their own fantasy world". As stated previously, Halopedia always regards everything created for the Halo Universe as canon and that the policy has always been in its perfect state since it was created. In what way has the policy is wrong?

Perhaps we should add a special section for 343i and its employees as "Expanded-Universe" team since they are in charge of expanding the Halo Universe. that would certainly clear up some issues (and hopefully not create another). They would be under Bungie and its employees since they are the creator of the Halo Universe. For an "Expanded-Universe" team, it cannot ignore the established/absolute canon (i.e. Honor Guard Councilor which has been confirmed by Bungie dev team as a internal bug, thus not canon but confirmed as canon by Halo Encyclopedia by 343i), but it can bend canon (by introducing retcon. i.e. example is Thel's first experience of fighting a SPARTAN). It can also introduce new canon that has not been covered by the established/absolute canon (i.e. Ralph-303, Booster Frame, visuals of a Covenant Escape Pod). This is what I think which is best to solve this problem.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 09:49, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the policy places Bungie-created material above all others, even after they no longer retain direct oversight of their IP. Star Wars may not be a good example, one, because it's history is so long and convoluted that its hard for even Wookiepedia to make heads or tails of some aspects, and two, George Lucas still controls what he created (for good or bad). Bungie is in neither position - it has a half-dozen novels, a few comic series, and a game made by another company. This is pathetically small compared to the SW EU. True, while Bungie held the property we accepted their word as law, and were happy to do so. But now that the IP is owned by another party, do they keep that status retroactively? Do 343i have the right to say, for example, that elements of a prior Bungie game are suddenly outdated, canonically? Say they go ahead with a Halo movie, overseeing it so that it's in line with the canon, and it alters the events slightly for pacing's sake. This is a newer canonical alteration by the current property holder, but by our policy it would still be inferior-canon because it conflicts by a nearly decade-old game created by the original property holder.

Personally, I would like to see it changed to read that employees of the company that is the current property holder are the highest canon, because when Bungie end their involvement with Halo, are we still expected to consider their word overriding canon? We've put Bungie up on a pedestal, which they rightly deserve, but is what we're doing right, or is it going to come back and bite us in the arse later? I'll admit that the games aren't going to be easily retconned, ignoring my example of a Halo movie, but the novels produced by Eric Nylund and William C. Deitz were authorised by Bungie. Does that mean that reissues of these novels by 343i are of inferior canon to the originals, retcons and all? Likewise, Joseph Staten's Contact Harvest states that there are only a dozen UNSC colonies, of which Harvest is (from memory) the twelfth, when we know this not to be the case given how many other worlds we've seen, and how many we probably haven't, in other EU media. I'd like to put Bungie up on a pedestal, and god knows they've earned it, but doing that presents problems.

And sorry about unsigning my original comment. This is coming from a former admin! How unprofessional! XO -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 10:35, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, using Star Wars may not be the best example, but certain things of it is usable/applicable to this issue. Perhaps fixing the wordings of the canon policy would provide some clarification? Would this be a good example? ^{Darn me, I forgot all about Halo Fanon's Canon Policy. It practically solves almost every canon issue in the Halo Universe... >.<} A bit of changes here and there to accommodate an encyclopaedia's needs and it should solve our canon problem.

Regarding the novels reissued by 343i, those novels are only undergoing spellchecks (i.e. 2552 instead of 2542, SPARTAN tags error) and a visual cover update. Other than that, 343i has confirmed that nothing will be changed or added.

We're not robots... Administrators are humans too! =.=' - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 10:58, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the novel reissues, I must state the contrary; they will in fact include new material. In addition to the spelling alterations, dates ect., there will be new bits of info here and there, perhaps even a few new scenes. Apparently, it's all to further connect the games and other novels. I'm pretty sure The Fall of Reach will have edits to accommodate Halo: Reach. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 11:13, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Link to an article saying so? The waypoint website didn't mention this. :| - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 11:17, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about new scenes, etc, but I do recall reading that there will be extra material in the back of the reissues, commenting on the new content or issues that need to be/will be resolved. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 11:24, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot how HaloFanon came into solving the canon issue. >.> - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 11:03, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I must strongly agree with Specops on this one. As he said, clinging to Bungie even after they sold the IP isn't the logical thing to do. 343i are the word of god when it comes to Halo now, and rendering every other item of Halo media to be released as inferior canon because Bungie started Halo is not of wiki standard. Specops basically said everything I'm trying to get across here, so I'll let his comment be read and use this as further agreement. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 10:48, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be used for perspective. When the Fallout IP passed from Interplay to Bethesda, the Fallout community was divided in the exact same way the Halo community is today: there were those who simply loved Fallout and those who only cared about the original developers' vision for the franchise, or at least considered it to be irrefutably superior out of simple personal preference. Today, as Bethesda holds the IP, they have the definitive say on canon matters. The Vault's canon policy, (granted, it's a very sparse page), acknowledges that Bethesda has the final say and does not treat Interplay's material as "more canon" simply because it started the franchise, even if some of its users might disagree. The Vault does not have a "This article contains content from Bethesda Softworks that may conflict with the vision of the original developers" template, or anything of the sort. The same story is true of Westwood/EALA and the Command and Conquer franchise: even though many fans still prefer Westwood, the franchise has moved on and canon has evolved exponentially.

Now that I've said all that... Halo has no expanded universe. There is only the universe, and everything therein is canon, regardless of who developed what media. It's been that way since the Bungie days. Of course, I'm not contesting the games trump books trump ads system; it works. As 343 Industries now holds the IP and Bungie will soon be out of the picture forever, 343 will irrevocably be in charge of the franchise, canon included. I suggest that we wait for Reach to be released and for Bungie to bow out, then wait a while so people come to accept their abscence and become less acrimonious to 343 Industries, then revise the canon policy. --"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson 17:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Glitches, multiplayer and easter eggs canon.

See title. As glitches, multiplayer and easter eggs are rather obviously non-canon. That is, they don't exists canonically in the Halo universe. Problem is, gameplay seems to be rather exempt from canonity. I would like to know if adding a Non-canon tag is necessary for articles like CTF, Super Jumping or forge. DatrDeletr 22:01, 16 November 2010 (EST)

A logically-sound structure of categorization

I'd be remiss to exclude the relevant post about Halo canon policy found here. In "Part V", it outlines a simple 6-level canon system and makes some generally sound comments about canon policy altogether. I'd just like to submit this to consideration.

Halopedian5 13:37, 2 February 2011 (EST)

The current canon policy is in a stable state, thus requiring no major udpate. — subtank 13:42, 2 February 2011 (EST)