Myself and Spartan-091 were talking about this last night, and we realized something.
Bungie and 343 Industries have named *every* SPARTAN-II that has ever existed (Class one, of course). Even though Bungie started the franchise, Microsoft owns it, meaning that anything made by 343 is canon, and should be held on the same scale as Bungie.
This means that the entire Necrosverse is now NCF, and that all of your S-IIs are NCF as well. Have a nice day.
Time to break out the Alternate Template.--Bobzombie 12:43, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
- I've avoided that train ride too and constructed another.- 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 16:13, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
- You all know you could use Template:Contradict if your SPARTAN existed long before
HaloFail Legends was released...Sketchist 01:44, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, a minimal part of it is trolling, but most of it is a serious concern. What you said is right, Bungie never said how many SPARTAN-IIs there were in Class I, it was just Nylund's writing, which is canon until contradicted - no one has said anything contrary to the 75 enlisted, 30 killed, 12 wounded, 33 active, meaning that it remains as the set canon until it is contradicted at a further time, which it hasn't. We were talking about this on the IRC; I had gone through the roster on Hpedia, and all 33 active SPARTANs were accounted for - all featured in Nylund's canon, all featured in the official Bungie games, and all of the ones featured in 343 Industries' canon - which does count until contradicted at a further time. This isn't akin to yelling "fire" in a theater when there isn't one, this is akin to "there is a fire in the theater, and what the hell are we going to do to get out of this?". That's what the purpose of this forum is. If you wish to ignore 343 Industries' canon, sure, go ahead - just re-write the canon policy before you do so. Hell, the thing with Necros is that most of the SPARTAN-IIs featured (aside from the Leonidans) cannot fit into any active spot given, even with ignoring 343's canon - it's an issue of numbers vs. slots, really. That's my concern - not to troll, not to incite flaming, but rather to identify a problem and work with the other users here on how to rectify said problem. Thanks for misunderstanding my intentions, 091. -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 20:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
- AJ raises an important issue and that issue can be resolved simply with the Contradict template as pointed out by Ascension. The Contradict template allows the author to continue to ignore newly-revealed information but the author should do his/her best to try to follow the new canon info. With that said, Ajax can continue his Necros project but he should also try to update every known information revealed by Bungie/343 Industries. There... solved. The Canon Policy still needs to be codified; I assume what I've proposed in the other forum is approved? - 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 15:42, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Canon Policy
- Perhaps the most infamous debate that has been sparked by 343's caretaking of the series is the canonical nature of Halo Legends. Many have raged against its rather loose interpretation of Halo canon, and the many errors it made in its development, and in most cases, they are correct. Unfortunately, it is actual canon material, and should be accepted as such. However, there is a nice and easy way to reconcile the differences, and that is this: Legends is just that, legends and stories passed around by UNSC and Covenant troops to their fellows over days and weeks or even years. Such tales, getting more and more wild with each telling, obviously lend themselves to exaggeration and inaccuracy, and are therefore not quite reliable sources. That is how the Administration of this site feels Halo Legends should be viewed, as a dramatic interpretation of historic events, the sort of mythos of rumor and scuttlebutt that is spread around a combat unit or passed down through generations.