Talk:Halo Encyclopedia

What's this...
My opinion would be to treat this as legitimate until we know otherwise.

There was a hawtymcbloggy blog about this, so I went on google, found out it was true and then I made this article. FishType1 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, this Encyclopaedia will only cover the Trilogy and not the novel series? That's what I perceive after reading the article . It will be a great boost for our multiplayer-related articles. - 5 ub7 ank (7alk ) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I always thought Halopedia was lacking in regards to our Multiplayer and Campaign articles. — K o  u  g  e  r  m  a  s  t  e  r  s  07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Only 352 pages!??! Halopedia has over 5000 articles. I think it should be at least the size of a single volume of a real world encyclpaedia. --MuteNRS


 * Don't forget, we have articles devoted to, for example, apple and doors. I doubt the Encyclopedia will be quite so pedantic. --  Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek   Honour Light Your Way!  07:25, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Released 5 days after my birthday...Hey mom!!! Blade bane 12:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

Strange... I went to Xbox's halo website and they said this encyclopedia was coming out November 9th 2009, not October 19th 2009. Go to http://halo.xbox.com/ and go to news, you'll find it. - Annonmous 10:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Opps... sorry, my bad, It says November' 09, not November 9th. Sorry about that, it was how it was typed that I got it wroug. But they changed the release date to October 19th, and again, sorry for the confusen. - Annonmous 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Only 352 pages? That's a quick ref guide, not an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia --Lord of SPARTANsLOMI HQI here your criesMay your works be honorable 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My best guess is that the book will go more in-depth about stuff that we don't already know. For example, we have dozens of articles about the Covenant, but very little on their religion. The same goes for the history of the Forerunners, or the UNSC's colonisation efforts. It would give us a look at stuff we haven't seen before - hopefully from an in-universe perspective, but that's not a prerequisite for me. --  Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek   Honour Light Your Way!  05:27, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I got the encyclopedia today, and i must say that from reading the articles so far, there isnt any NEW things in it (but i've only dug in to about 20 pages or so)

the majority of the first bit of the encyclopedia has the timeline of the entire halo series (even dating back to the forerunners), but they are quite brief and not very detailed.

oh, and for those wondering (like did before getting the book), every page is colored

Hey I recently went to my local libary to pre order my copy of the encyclopedia. But the release date here in England is November 2. Is this noteworthy?--&lt;SCROTE&gt; 23:40, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes
--Ugh! I just read quickly through the book and... Oh, wow. This book has more mistakes than it has truths! Why does the Brute Major look exactly like the Minor? Why does the Scout and Rogue show exactly the same armor? Why the heck does it say John Forge is married and has a daughter!? These were just a few mistakes I found quickly reading through it. Going back again makes me nearly vomit. Who checked this book? Why are there some incomplete sentences such as, "needed them for"... and just stop? This book is going to give Halo newbies a false perspective of the game! I think we need to petition for a TOTAL RECALL so they can fix this inaccurate piece of encyclopedia. What happened during the development process that made all these drastically unacceptable mistakes? I am really quite mad at the publishers for caring so vastly little about the Halo universe that thy thought they could publish this piece of crap of a book for some money. What happened?! This is horrible! --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato


 * From what i've heard, yeah, it's got a lot of inaccuracies. Also, it refers to "first" and "second" Battle of Earth, while newer sources (GoO, ODST) have confirmed there's no distinction between them. I think a lot of the stuff in the book was probably taken from Halopedia while the battles were still divided.


 * It even gets most of the dates wrong, like placing the Battle of Installation 00 a day after Regret jumps, the so-called "First battle of Earth". It also states that the "Second battle of Earth" - John's arrival, takes place on Nov. 4, while it's commonly known it's supposed to be Nov. 17. It even puts the Battle of Installation 00 taking place on the same day. So, it's not very reliable. Problem is, how do we differentiate actual canon and the bogus stuff? --Jugus 16:06, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, we have a policy on this issue. Also, apply the "unless it contradicts the previous established canon" test when deciding if it is canon.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 16:10, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * --Then there is practically no canon. How did they publish this?--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 16:11, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

"Why the heck does it say John Forge is married and has a daughter!?"

- Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato

That part, at least, is not wrong. Forge does have a daughter, which we knew already, because he was busted for defending her honour from a lecherous lieutenant. Why is her existence, and that of her mother, a detriment to the books quality? As for the other issues - The Brute Minor/Major and Scout/Rogue image issue isn't anything new. The Engineer was in the Halo: Combat Evolved Strategy Guide in place of the Infection Form. Likewise, the inaccuracy of the dates are simple typos. I would support a reissue in future, with the mistakes corrected, but I don't think that's enough to automatically say "worst thing evar." --  Administrator  Specops306  -   Qur'a 'Morhek   20:35, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

The mistakes get to me as well. Couple other examples I found:
 * - On the pages covering the Hunters. One paragraph said the worms were 2-feet long.  In another paragraph it said they were nearly 5-long.  Which is it?
 * - Rtas 'Vadumee. In the encyclopedia it stated he became SpecOps Commmander after the Infinate Succor mission.  How can that be when it is clear he is both SpecOps and refered to as commander throughout that story in the HGN(not to mention Sub-Commander Kusovai is subservent to him).

And they changed the avg Sangheili height again to 7'4". I am starting to wonder if Bungie had any control over what was put in this thing, and if they did, if they bothered to do any QC on it.  Zeno &#39;Ribal 21:19, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I too am extremely angry about the quality of this book. Besides the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, I was very upset to see not only a lacking of new material, but a TON of WRONG material. An entire page is devoted to the Truth and Reconciliation yet the ship is depicted as an Assault Carrier. Tags for the Rocket Hog and Gauss Hog are switched. The existence of an extensively seen naval ranking structure including the ranks of Captain, Admiral, and even Master Chief is completely denied. H3 equipment is labeled with H2 names. The list goes on and on.

Though I am glad to see that our community has clearly had an impact on the Encyclopedia (a few sections are word for word, two that I even wrote), it's discouraging to see that some of the erroneous information was pulled as well. A good example for me (thanks to being involved with the article from beginning onwards) is the Cobra's Rail Guns. These were renamed by Halo Wars VERY early on in development from M66 Guass cannons to LRG Rail Guns. After that time, we at Halopedia were the ONLY ones that referred to the guns as M66 with no existing source anymore (besides I think one outdated concept art piece). Upon receiving the HW Strategy Guide, I was quick to comment on the needed change. As I was new to editing the wiki however, I was unwilling to change the name myself. Months went by and only weeks ago did I finally grow disgusted enough to change the name myself. Unfortunately, somewhere in that time, the Encyclopedia article regarding the Cobra was written with the older, wrong name, clear evidence that the book had leached of information from our beloved Halopedia. In this case, it just happened to be wrong info.

This name had been seen for a very short time window, maybe a month, before HW cleared the info and gave it a new name so it's doubtful that the Encyclopedia got information from HW executives. So why would a so called encyclopedia pull info from a website that ANYONE can edit? Beats me. But it was probably a lot easier. I'm about sick of this book. Not worth $40, that's for sure.--Nerfherder1428 23:31, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

--It's horrible, it really is... Oh yeah, and with the John Forge thing, they mention he was 40... twice. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 05:00, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I was actually going to buy this but after reading the mess they made of it, I doubt I will. --Jaguartalon 07:37, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, but it's so good for a laugh, though! Okay, I'm kidding. Don't give them any money for this trash. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:20, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

DELUXE EDITION?
hey, amazon shows a page for a deluxe edition, anyone know about this?

http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Encyclopedia-DK-Publishing/dp/1405348879

Jabberwockxeno 19:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh...so a potential 'deluxe 'this-is-the-one-we-didn't-fuck-up' edition'? Lovely...if this is true, I'll wait until a bit after it is released to see what is different....Zeno &#39;Ribal 19:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * heh, it's funamation's remasterd DBZ booxed sets all over agian. Jabberwockxeno 12:52, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that really the purpose of the "Deluxe Edition", though? To fix all the stupidity in it? I don't know. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:21, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Canon
Okay, so I can see we've all noticed some inaccuracies. That's honestly not a huge issue for me. The big thing that did catch my eye was the inclusion of materials which are currently debated in terms of canon. For example we see elements from I Love Bees and the Believe marketing campaign. So where does this leave us? Do these things count as canon now? What does everyone else think? This is something we really need to figure out.--Rusty - 112 23:57, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Given how messed up that book is, I say we don't even count it as a resource. We keep on believing what we have been, no matter what this book-shaped piece o' poop says in it. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 01:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * What is and is not canon is not for to us to decide - its for whoever owns the IP, and 343 Industries and Frankie have said this is. If there are insurmountable discrepencies, ie; it says the Master Chief is a three-foot-nothing wimp, we ignore it. If there are mistakes, we disregard them and use the correct figures. The rest we try to accomodate. Exactly what from the Believe ads is incorporated? --  Administrator  Specops306  -   Qur'a 'Morhek   02:39, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the quotes are, from the golden oldies who talk about the Chief. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 04:53, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Thank you Specops306. If we decide that what is written in this Encyclopedia is non-canon when the authors and editors say it is, then we're essentially saying we know better than 343 Industries, the group put in charge of the Halo series. Halo is their job. It's what they do for a living. We're a bunch of fans who over-analyze everything they say because we love their product. Who are we to say we know better than them? Is it not possible that there is material that has not yet been released that will reconcile the differences? This is something that requires a serious discussion. Attitudes such as that expressed by Sangheili Commando 021 are not helpful and not appreciated. Likewise, mindless acceptance will not help either. On a side note, the Believe ad portions are specifically quotes from soldiers, taken (at least) from the "Museum" and "Grave Site" videos.--Rusty - 112 05:59, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * -I'm still not convinced. Given the amount of mistakes that can be proven from the games and the novels and everything else, I'd say that they are really bad at their job. I think from the amount of obvious errors we can deduce that we do know quite a bit more than them... Or if they do know more than us this book does not prove it. Sangheili are 7'4? Forge is 40? First and Second Battles of Earth? The Jiralhanae Major and Minor both show majors? The Rogue armor sports a picture of the Scout armor? Half completed sentences? Guilty Spark's size? John was 14/15 during augmentation? Believe? I Love Bees? It goes on and on and on and on... Those are the ones I found reading quickly through it the first time... And I probably forgot a bunch. This unacceptable list of mistakes proves they do not know more than us and seem to know less than the common Halo newbie.  I don't know if I am being "unhelpful", but if I am I am certainly also being realistic. I think, to a point, we have to decide what's canon or not... Or are we going to now post a picture of the Scout armor in Rogue's place? --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 16:36, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I Love Bees always was canon. As for the other mistakes, please read Specops' comment above: "If there are insurmountable discrepencies, ie; it says the Master Chief is a three-foot-nothing wimp, we ignore it. If there are mistakes, we disregard them and use the correct figures." Thank you.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 18:20, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * -But where on the canon chain does it go? What disproves what? If it says John is three feet, how do we disprove it? It says so in the games and novels, obviously. But does that mean the Encyclopedia has less canon power than the games and books? Since his argument is saying it does, I'd say he is agreeing with me without realizing it. I'm saying this book should be at the bottom of the canon chain because of the unacceptable mistakes.  Do you understand my point? --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 18:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, ILB is not entirely canon. The debate about its canonicity still goes on.-  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:29, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with many of the above statements. One thing that is positive, however, is that the book did not live up to its potential. But we have to remember that whether we like it or not, this book must be regarded as canon. Not all of it of course--there is more crap packed into that book than a twenty year old septic tank--but the majority of the information must be accepted as facts.


 * I propose that we perhaps update the guidelines a little bit regarding our policy on canon altogether. I earlier ran into the question of whether third-party games or third-party literature is more canonical (this of course pertaining to the above-mentioned Cobra Railguns). Deciding on conflicting canon is one of the worst jobs for us at Halopedia and though it isn't ours to decide what we like best, we must address the issue of the Encyclopedia's rejection of solid canon so that we may set precedence for later problems which are BOUND to come up.


 * It's clear that the Encyclopedia is WRONG on some counts, but our current canon policy has no room to work around these things. Because of that policy, we may be forced to display facts that we all know are truly erroneous. Once again, I see no way to fix this than perhaps an amendment. I wish only that a few administrators would put forth their own opinions. Of course I would expect them to have read this so called Encyclopedia first but it would be interesting to hear a third-party approach as well.--Nerfherder1428 19:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, how I am going to look at it is this way: if the nugget of information has no other source, such as Thel's newly revealed 'official' height, I consider it accurate. Offical information that keeps changing, such as the Sangheili offical height (8'6" in H1(?), 7'2" in H2/3(?), 7'4" in encyclopedia), take on a case by case basis (Personally I am still using the 8'6" figure as the base for my OCs, though Thel's new height kind of throws a wrench in that). In relation to the last point, information that is contradictory between sources, use the info from the 'higher' source canon (e.g. Rtas' rank in the HGN: HGN trumps Encyclopedia in this case). Zeno &#39;Ribal 19:09, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more, Zeno. Would anyone else like to second the opinion?--Nerfherder1428 19:21, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which I believe was the policy all along.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 20:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * But where on the canon line does it go? It seems to be the bottom of the barrel to me. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 20:31, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * By the rings, read Halopedia:Canon Policy! There's a list of levels of canon there! You should be able to tell just by reading.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 20:55, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read that, and it is unhelpful. So the Encyclopedia is just as reliable as all the novels? I would not agree. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 21:34, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Halo Encyclopaedia is in the same area like ILoveBees where the author(s) of the Encyclopaedia has some degree of freedom to add what he thinks should be added to the Halo Universe? You could also argue that the author(s) did not receive any guidance on to how the Encyclopaedia should be written or he was not given the Halo Bible as a reference? Also, if Microsoft own the IP, does that mean they have the holy Halo Bible?- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 21:43, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * They said that some information was taken from the Bible, but if that is true, the Halo Bible is a big phony. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 21:47, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It would depend on what info was taken from the 'Bible'.  However, we have no way of knowing what exactly 'was' taken from the 'Bible'....Zeno &#39;Ribal 21:55, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * --Yeah, you're right. I was more saying if the vast majority of the info came from the Bible. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:08, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we make this simple and ask our Lords and Masters to clear this up?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 22:38, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Administrators don't know everything, they just help upkeep the Halopedia. They know just as much as we do. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:59, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

it was made by frank o conor so as far as im concerned its all true cause he makes the games.
 * --Frank O'Connor did NOT make this book, he just made the foreword. And if you think it's all true then you are a huge newb of Halo.--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:06, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Frank O'Connor only oversees the franchise but he might not have a final word on the final product. Note, he is only a Content Manager.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 22:08, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * --You're correct. I doubt he had much to do with this book's creation. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:12, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Possible Solution" Wow, so I can see by some of the comments this is a very contentious issue. I am however suggesting a potential solution. It's very simple. When it comes to what are clearly mistakes, that which is unintentional, it is to be ignored (ie, showing a picture of Scout in place of Rogue). When it comes to other issues, such as the inclusion of some of the Believe materials, we should accept them as canon unless specifically refuted by a superior canon source. This is completely in line with the Halopedia:Canon Policy. Thus I Love Bees materials which are included will be considered canon unless explicitly contradicted elsewhere, in accordance with the policy illustrated here. Does everyone think they can support this solution to the canon question? Considering I've basically just repeated the Halopedia Canon Policy, I don't think anyone should have a problem with this.--<font color="Blue">Rusty <font color="Red">- <font color="Blue">112 04:18, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * --Almost, Rusty. But the Encyclopedia needs to have its own place in the canon chain, below the literature and media section I would suggest. Where it is now it is just as reliable as The Fall of Reach, which has far more truths. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 05:09, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvioulsy below the novels, buts it's also above anything the novels are also above, which to me makes perfect sense.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 11:50, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * --So we just make either the Encyclopedia at the bottom of the literature chain, or do we make a whole new directory? --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 15:36, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to be random or anything, but referring to the above-stated policy (via Subtank) that we should accept new things as canon as long as they don't conflict with prior canon, I have a question. The Encyclopedia actually states that the main canon on a Scarab assault walker can be dismounted and used as a portable handgun (much like H2s Scarab Gun easter egg). This is CLEARLY not canon and doesn't even match common sense. Forget that the mounted Scarab cannon is bigger than many people combined, we're supposed to believe that it can be CARRIED and FIRED by a person?!?! Does anybody realize how ludicrous that sounds? Why on earth doesn't every Covenant soldier have this anti-everything gun? It would sure make things simple! Yet thanks to the many clarifications and rewordings of the Canon Policy, we have to accept this as fact!!!--Nerfherder1428 02:10, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * The Canon Policy obviously needs reworking. Nobody suspected that Bungie could publish a trashy book of mistakes. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:23, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

New Information
Well we seem to have agreed on the canon quagmire and to further the debate would be akin to whipping a dead horse. So, its glaring errors aside, is there anything NEW in this book? ProphetofTurth 16:43, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, no. They said there was some but I haven't seen anything I didn't already know. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 17:48, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

While reading these comments, I can understand the problems with the encyclopedia; I have a copy of the book myself. Numerous typos; yes. Many mistakes and questionable information; absolutely. If anything, I found that a considerable problem is that of contradictions even though at least some of the information is correct.

However, the flaws in the book are present mainly in certain sections, such as the time-line, the sections on the Humans, Covenant, vehicles, and weapons. But the sections on the Forerunner and the Flood, for instance, were very good. In fact, I thought that they were the best parts of the encyclopedia, because not only did they give facts that make things clearer, but the consistency was superb compared to the other parts.

And even in the problem parts, there was a large amount of factual and even dare I say valid information. Just because something has a even a significant number of errors does not make absolutely, irrevocably, and irrefutably worthless.

That said, I am frankly disappointed with how the book is being treated. Though I am displeased with the mistakes in the book, not every single little bit of information in it is incorrect. A lot of this anger against it seems to me anyway to be an unrealistic expectation of absolute perfection in every single niggling little detail combined with great narrow-mindedness and anger-triggered emotional snap judgements.

For goodness sakes, lets be rational. Having high standards is not only good, but should be applauded. Having such standards to the point that if anything short of absolute perfection is equal to irredeemable failure is simply irrational and unbecoming. This is meant to be an encyclopedia for and by the fans, a vibrant and intelligent community that involves people of all viewpoints and backgrounds, is it not?

This encyclopedia is meant to be a codifier of facts, helping the community put things together for the enjoyment of all, so why don't we take a deep breath, and do just that.

As for the canon debate on this, what Rusty-112 has suggested seems to me to be a very rational and generally good decision. If anything, the valid information should be included, while the invalid information should be put aside. And for those who think 343 Industries is undeserving of their job and that they won't correct their mistakes, heres some news that should at least put some of your concerns at ease;



Of course, he could simply be lying, and their efforts to correct their mistakes will amount to nothing, and all the people at 343 Industries are all incompetent dopes who don't deserve to have their jobs.

But that would be extreme and unlikely, wouldn't it?

Time will tell, so let us address this problem in a cool and level-headed fashion without belching rage at them, and see how it all turns out.

Live long and prosper.

--Exalted Obliteration 01:52, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * The post you linked to is part of a reply that begins with a link to a review that says that the Halo Encyclopedia says that the Halo Array uses a harmonic frequency to kill. "Harmonic" doesn't appear in Halo Array. I don't have the Encyclopedia, so I'd recommend that someone read the book and just blob everything in it onto some random web page. Then we as a whole wiki can go through each fact and detail, check it against what we already know, and if there are no contradictions, add it to the appropriate articles.
 * Or something like that. On a side note, I wonder if Microsoft'd be willing to put at least a partial preview up on Google Books? <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:09, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm about to go to sleep, and I'm a little tired. So chances are, what I just said probably sounded out-there. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:09, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm about to go to sleep, and I'm a little tired. So chances are, what I just said probably sounded out-there. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:09, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

There IS a large amount of new info, but it's just hard to find, and a good number of it we already had assumed, such as it stating that grunts are anthropods. but the issue is, as stated before, weather the less obvious new info is canon or not. can we put something akin to: "this was gleaned from a disputable source" after a addition that was from this book? Jabberwockxeno 17:16, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth is, I don't think we can consider any of the new information true. Given the amount of stuff we already know that's in the book, at least 25% of it is unquestionably inaccurate. Maybe there are answers. Maybe Kevin is completely stupid or just mentally retarded and never looked at the Halo Bible to check the veracity of any information he put in the book. The thing that makes me the most mad is that I, a random Halo player who happens to be like Subtank and addicted to the story of Halo, could make a much better version of this book out of memory than 343 Industries could from pouring over the Halo Bible.  I know how to work Photoshop! That's all I need. As I said, the amount of mistakes in this book leads me to believe that we cannot trust any of the new information as accurate. As for the stuff that we were speculating and they proved, I don't believe it. I can guess with 95% certainty that they pulled that information out of our site. So, this entire book in my opinion is not to be trusted under any circumstances when referring to new information. Maybe when they correct the entire book my opinion will be changed, but  until then this book cannot be considered correct. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:39, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato, we get what you're trying to say already. You hate this book and you don't want it to count as canon. Repeating the same thing over and over is not productive. Please refrain from making additional comments unless you have something new to say.--Emblem 1.jpg<font color="Blue">Rusty <font color="Red">- <font color="Blue">112 23:09, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just that I cannot accept that this book is considered canon by so many people. I need to keep repeating myself before we put a ton of false information in our Halopedia.--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 02:56, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Error Section
Perhaps we should mention in the article itself that we as a community have picked up the fact that it utterly fails?


 * We should. We can just add a list of errors in it. We should really do that. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 17:48, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * That is just a fan review, thus should not be awarded a section. Unless you can find an official review stating that the Encyclopaedia fails, the article stays as it is.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 17:57, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. But we should still put a list of errors in it. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 18:02, October 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * No. We need verification to why Halo Encyclopedia has so many errors. That's how we did with the list of errors with Halo: Ghost of Onyx, by contacting the author. Just because you are enraged with the contents of the encyclopedia doesn't mean you have to express them out.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:05, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I am "enraged" but it is true that I do not like the amount of mistakes in this book. So are we supposed to contact the authors and just ask why the book fails so much? I'm sure they won't appreciate the note. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 18:07, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, write it in a polite and mature manner and I'm sure they will help out.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:25, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I just can't get that response about the Covenant ships out of my mind. I hate that. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:17, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes
I have sent an e-mail to both the publishing company and the editor of the book, I hoping for a response. If I get anything, I'll be sure to copy paste both my original query and the response and make it available for all of you.

Balaho
i know erlier i said it should be condidered canon but now that ive finished it i retract that statement for various reasons for example in the glossary it says dronesare from balaho the grunt homeworld


 * It said Yanme'e were from Balaho?! That is so... unacceptable in my mind. I think they should have gotten somebody who wasn't an idiot to write this book. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:19, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that the Drones are from Balaho? I've looked on page 115 (the main Covenant race index), pages 148-149 (Drones main article), and page 296 (Balaho) and there was no mention. In fact, the only mention in the Encyclopedia that I found was on page 297, on the description of Palamok. --Devil Mingy 15:45, October 27, 2009 (UTC)