Talk:Reproduction

Why we do not need this article

Reason: Because it will pretty much lead to speculations. Remember "What Halopedia is not". Additionally, seeing that the first entry is on the Drones, why not just update the Drones article on its anatomy and physiology by adding the reproduction sub-section? That said, just update every species articles on their reproduction processes. All we need is a biologist to explain it all.

Secondly, if the article stays, I would recommend that it should only mention how reproduction is different on the human side only. I mean, we have all the sources we need. As per above, speculations are not needed. If needed, just add them at the respective species anatomy and physiology section.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okaaay lets not get to into halo. Not that each and every one hasn't crossed the line of obsession when it comes to halo by joining this site, but this? This is just inviting Halo obsessed perverts to the page. maybe we could focus a little more on fighting style and a little less on how big Brutes make little Brutes. Galacticdominator 00:00, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

I think that a Reproduction section should only be added to a species article in cases where canonical information regarding the topic has been released. Speculation about such matters can only lead to spam, trouble, and (if anyone should be foolish enough to post "diagrams") an eyebleach shortage.

I further think that this article is a very easy target for spammers as well as well-intentioned -- if misguided and psychologically damaged -- Halo fans... There is some sick stuff out there -- trust me. (Of all the things for people to apply Rule 34 to... Why Pokemon?!! @_@)

So if we keep this article, we should quickly set up some very specific guidelines when editing it -- perpetual status as a protected page may be warranted, given the nature of the subject and the page's resulting value to spammers and trolls. If we remove this article, we should add Reproduction sections to each species article, as Subtank suggested. DavidJCobb  00:24, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Good Idea, I think that we should carry out Cobb's solution. for what little weight my opinion carries. Galacticdominator 09:05, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Due to the all inclusion policy, we include everything no matter how insignificant or tabooed it may be. For example Milk, and Sexual assault, respectively. Surely if we have random articles that normally would have no mention, then we can have one that is viewed as potentially liable to be vandalized? ~Now You Know, ~ That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere.~ 10:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

lets give it three stirkes. if it is abused by three members. we should get an admin to protect it. but I think mentioning it on the speicies main page may be the best (and safest) alternitive Galactic 10:45, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion policy is all well and good, but Halopedia is taking inclusiveness way too far. (I would fully support the deletion of Milk, Sexual assault, Apple, 20, and many others.) At the same time, I am aware that the chances of the policy being repealed are exceedingly low. As such, I support Galactic's solution. DavidJCobb  19:04, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Fix ups

Well despite how perverted I will probably be seen after doing this, I am trying to the best of my ability to expand this to a reasonable length. Here is what I have been compiling from my works so far:

• San 'Shyuum - I believe that it is mentioned in contact harvest that young males have the balls on their chin pierced as a fashion when they have no mate. The Prophetess of Obligation is also female and bears a child, but that does not give off enough information.

• Unggoy: I am not sure if gender at all is mentioned in regards to grunts. Information here is something I can not even assume.

• Jiralhanae: They share a very similar autonomy to that of modern day apes, and as such it could be hypothesized that they reproduce in the same way. They are bigamists with their wives having significantly less power than the husbands, proving at least two distinct genders.

• Sangheili: Not sure what could really be done here. I stuffed up my earlier edit a fair while ago, and called them asexual on grounds of the biology definition (to not have a gender), but in retrospect it looked like I said they had no sexuality. My current intended thoughts are that they could have internal sex organs (based from the physical appearance of the arbiter) or may even spawn in the same way as fish.

• Legekolo: My writing is already fully noted in the article. They are worms, and as such would most likely be asexual. (No gender)

• Yan'mae: I know little to nothing to the reproduction of bugs. I think it is already covered enough in the article though.

That is my notes so far. Not putting in Humans cause kids could read it, and I think I forgot two races. This is garnered from my knowledges in biology, and much is obviously up for debate. Any notes or help you could provide would be appreciated. ~Now You Know, ~ That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere.~ 10:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

CH?

Should I add Contact Harvest as an era? Cause Johnson and that ONI chick do it at the end of that book. Just curious....Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 03:12, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you could use them as an example of Human sexuality not solely limited to reproduction.-- Forerunner 15:01, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Forunner reproduction?

Would it be possible to add Forunners to this article or do we not have enough info? Or are they similar enough to humans to have reproduction like humans? Can anyone elaborate on this?