Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: I Declare Halo: Reach Non-Canon Due to Inconsistancies. Arguments pl0x
  • Subject: I Declare Halo: Reach Non-Canon Due to Inconsistancies. Arguments pl0x
Subject: I Declare Halo: Reach Non-Canon Due to Inconsistancies. Arguments pl0x


Posted by: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: Silor101
I don't care what u guys say but i think the Halo Wiki is true canon


That's just incredibly stupid logic considering that anyone in this thread (or anywhere else) can go and change anything in the wiki and bend the mindless sheep into believing anything about Halo.


Just because anyone can edit it doesn't make it completely unreliable. I agree that everything it says shouldn't be taken at face value, but I really don't get all completely negative comments about Wikis >_>

  • 07.04.2011 8:41 AM PDT
Subject: I Declare Halo: Reach Non-Canon. If you don't agree... Why?

yeah teh supermacs are huuuge and there's like 37 or something in the book so im pretty sure we should've seen one, they do show you an orbital mac strike but not the actual gun, and in my opinion the game was a tiny bit of a let-down, the game spreads out over like a month or a few weeks? -blam!-, in TFoR, Reach is surprised attacked and destroyed in mere days unfact if i remember its just one day. in a few weeks im pretty sure the UNSC could send EVERYTHING even the few cruisers left.. this campaign was good, not stunning as i originally hoped for

  • 07.04.2011 8:50 AM PDT
Subject: I Declare Halo: Reach Non-Canon Due to Inconsistancies. Arguments pl0x


Posted by: OrderedComa
3. Those booster tugs were actually pretty damn big, I'd guess them to be at least twice the size of a Pelican. And do you even know how much force they generate? I don't think you do. And those thrusters were only to get it up off the ground, breaking atmosphere was handled by the Autumn itself. In case you didn't notice it was angled upward at a slight angle where its own thrusters would push it out of Reach's atmosphere.


I'd have to say those things are super-massive, especially compared to a pelican. a pelican can fit into a launch bay on the side of the PoA, and it was tiny compared to the ship. So I'd have to say those things might be as big, if not bigger then a frigate's engines? (the the main body of the frigate between the engines.)

  • 07.04.2011 8:59 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: OrderedComa
3. Those booster tugs were actually pretty damn big, I'd guess them to be at least twice the size of a Pelican. And do you even know how much force they generate? I don't think you do. And those thrusters were only to get it up off the ground, breaking atmosphere was handled by the Autumn itself. In case you didn't notice it was angled upward at a slight angle where its own thrusters would push it out of Reach's atmosphere.


I'd have to say those things are super-massive, especially compared to a pelican. a pelican can fit into a launch bay on the side of the PoA, and it was tiny compared to the ship. So I'd have to say those things might be as big, if not bigger then a frigate's engines? (the the main body of the frigate between the engines.)


Mhm, they're definitely not tiny little things and yeah, they might be around the size you suggested...I don't think I've ever seen a size comparison of a Frigat and a Halcyon Cruiser though :/ It sounds right anyway.

  • 07.04.2011 9:03 AM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: Silor101
I don't care what u guys say but i think the Halo Wiki is true canon


That's just incredibly stupid logic considering that anyone in this thread (or anywhere else) can go and change anything in the wiki and bend the mindless sheep into believing anything about Halo.


Just because anyone can edit it doesn't make it completely unreliable. I agree that everything it says shouldn't be taken at face value, but I really don't get all completely negative comments about Wikis >_>


You haven't had to deal with a great many fools who do take the various Halo wikis at face value, use false or completely unconfirmed information from said wikis as fact, and then proceed to spread said information in the forum leading others to believe it as fact then automatically refute any actual facts you might have just because the wiki link has a citation at the bottom.

Hell just last week someone tried using Halopedian alone to prove that the Prophecy from Halo Wars was a Marathon Cruiser in the UNSC fleet based off of one picture from Halo Genesis that Halopedian links, but completely misses out on all the text references to it to being a Destroyer that outweigh the one appearance of it looking like a Cruiser (not to mention conflicting appearance within the graphic novel itself with a Halcyon class cruiser). Week before that I had another guy that insisted that the Mk VI had built in thrusters and cited Halopedian and its source of the Halo 4 Teaser trailer, then went on to post a picture from Halopedian of a panel from the Mk VI testing story in the HGN that has absolutely nothing to do with confirming the fact.

Point is, as a quick reference, Halopedian does work well, but only for the people who already know the material from its source. People already familiar with the information first hand can easily discern when the articles go from being solely fact based to a piece that weaves in assumptions as fact without making that assumption clear to the reader. Which leads to the less savvy canon members of the community who turn to them being at a disadvantage when participating in discussions here because they don't have that ability to discern what is or isn't legitimate and will take everything up there as legitimate so long as there's a citation regardless of whether or not said citation is relevant to the statement made for an article. Which in turn, leads to some of the most pointless discussions fueled by misinformation or complete lack of burning up space here. My favorite one has to be the one in which a member tried to argue about the re-entry pack deploying like armor lock (the emp shield based one, not the gel layer one) based off a Halopedian article that said exactly that which cites Halo:Reach as a source.

And comparatively speaking, at least in my experience, it has only been Halo wikis I've had problems with. While one could cite the problem being how canon is inconsistent as it stands, it does not explain away outright errors or fabrications. Nor do other wikis, like Fallout for example, suffer from canon holding it back. Others such as Wookipedia for Star Wars along with other gaming wikis like Mass Effect and Call of Duty don't have an issue with putting up hard articles or making it clear whenever information is assumed in general compared to the Halo wikis.

  • 07.04.2011 9:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

Don't even get us started when halopedian had that the LP planet could be reach and raged at us everytime we removed it

  • 07.04.2011 9:15 AM PDT