Talk:Fall of Arcadia

Name change?--Jack Black 07:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? And what to? This is what the Halo Wars timeline actually calls the event. --Councillor Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 08:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see "Second fall of Arcadia" in the timeline area. And the name seem too ridiculous. But if it official then never mind. --Jack Black 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Not only is there no evidence to prove that the UNSC was fighting in the battle, but there is evidence to suggest that the UNSC wasn't even there at all. Arcadia is an outer colony with a small population of farmers; a thousand at max. There is no UNSC support and the place has become lawless; also suggesting it has lost ties with the UEG. By 2549, all nearby outer colonies would have been destroyed, isolating Arcadia as an exclave. To defend Arcadia, the UNSC would need to send ships there, taking perhaps days. With no UNSC support already at the planet, there would be nothing to stop the Covenant from glassing the world.-- Forerunner 18:48, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the UNSC would have put up a resistance regardless of what has or hasn't been said about the battle. There would have been some form of a fight for the planet's survival.76.119.65.146 19:25, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Do not delete this page! And it is a key point in the Human-Covenant War because it is mentioned in the Halo Wars timeline making this article legitimate. So why would you delete this page?. Also it should be called Fall of Arcadia because it did fall to the Covenant and it is not actually a battle so it should be renamed. SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

If you really oppose, please provide some "valid" reasoning. Just saying "Don't Delete This Page" doesn't help.- 5əb'7aŋk^{(Σάπτανκ)} 16:31, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even if there was no battle (which is indeed quite possible), there is still a "conflict" which could be a raid, a massacre, or as above, the fall of Arcadia. So, better rename it, not delete it. - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 16:34, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per above. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 17:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think renaming it to Fall of Arcadia is a fairly good solution since we don't know if there were any UNSC forces to oppose the Covenant. The same could be done with Battle of Eridanus II.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:12, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Can we make a rename proposal? SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

• Oppose Why delete this page when we know the Covenant attacked Arcadia again? Renaming it makes more sense until more information is released. -- Lord Hyren 17:18, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per above.--  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   19:39, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Fall of Arcadia

The UNSC did not really take part in the battle making it very minor but there was a conflict and it did fall to the Covenant so it should be renamed.

Support

1. Support - As per above. —This unsigned comment is made by Cally99117 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Oppose

1. Oppose - There was a conflict, as you just pointed out, so its name should remain as it is, even if the UNSC didn't take part.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 15:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
   1. Really!? But the Battle of Reach page was renamed to Fall of Reach when it had a much larger conflict. —This unsigned comment is made by Cally99117 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
      1. The Battle of Reach was moved to "Fall of Reach" because that is its official name as per the UNSC. You are simply requesting it to be moved because you prefer to use "Fall". Remember that a "Fall" is still a battle, just a more precise description of it. "Fall" is used to refer to where a militarily important asset is lost - ie. Fall of France; Fall of Rome; Fall of Reach. Soldiers vs. Civilians does not count as a battle, which is why I would prefer this article to be deleted. All of the information is on the Arcadia page anyway, and this is just a duplicate of it.-- Forerunner 16:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
   2. I too think it should be deleted. If I recall correctly, they never reffered to a battle in the timeline anyway. --Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, UNSC Marine Corps 16:59, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose - as I said above.-- Forerunner 16:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
   1. Excuse me you are saying that the UNSC did not take part in the battle and you are not wanting to have a rename proposal when there is another way around it. I think you just don't accept the facts. —This unsigned comment is made by Cally99117 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
3. Oppose - As per above. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 17:27, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   19:39, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

You people are ruining my reputation. And Forerunner just leave me alone! WTF is wrong I have done nothing to harm anyone! —This unsigned comment is made by Cally99117 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Actually, you're doing that yourself. ^{And it's all in the head!} - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 17:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about?-- Forerunner 17:22, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should start thinking about your own actions before you start accusing people. He did not attack nor harass you in any way. Take that as a fact to accept for starters. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 17:27, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

You're screwing yourself with the constant whining. Seriously, if you have an idea no one agrees with, don't get your panties in a bunch and start whining like a little sissy. Either discuss it or shut up. Smoke^{Sound off!} 17:31, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

First things first.

1.I always try to be kind but as soon as I made the comment everyone started to get angry at me for no reason.

2.Forerunner starts saying that I am using line breaks and such in my signature when I never used them.

3.I tried saying that I did not use those violations but he ignored me.

4.You people start saying that everything I am doing is wrong.

5.All of you start opposing pure facts.

6.Nicmavr you are not helping by saying all that because the whole community hates me.

7.Seriously you just say it is me who doing it when everything in my head is what is fact so stop making it worse for me.

If all of you hate me then I will hate Halopedia because it never uses facts properely and I will start only using Bungie's information to gain information because I am fed up of seeing pure information getting deleted and seeing speculations. —This unsigned comment is made by Cally99117 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

First of all, it's all in your head for thinking you're doing something wrong. If you really did do something wrong, you would have receive some warning or advice in your talk page. Secondly, please provide some sources/evidences that claims the battle was referred as the Fall of Arcadia. The reason as to why Battle of Reach was renamed to Fall of Reach was because it was listed officially (See here). If you have some kind of evidence that says the battle is indeed referred to Fall of Arcadia, I see no reason why someone would oppose it. Lastly, your signature can be added to Wikia preferences settings automatically and generated via ~~~~. You don't need an actual template to generate your signature. If you need any help with the signatures, I am available.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 18:32, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

... you claim that the whole community hates you. If that's the case, why not think about the why behind it?

Second, we've explained why we're opposing the so-called "pure facts". If you want to hate Halopedia and stop using it, go ahead. We're not going to lose sleep over it because frankly, its not of our business/problems. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 18:47, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

I don't hate you. I am not going to speak for anyone else, but I am starting to get tired of your whining. Forerunner was trying to help you. You just went off and had a fit for whatever reason. This "<br/>" is a line break. If it is in your signature, it might be screwing up a page. He was advising you, that was it. No reason for you to flip out and claim that we're trying to "ruin" your "reputation" here (seriously, you are making your OWN reputation here, and it ain't good so far). Don't try to pin that on anyone else. We are not going around slandering you; YOUR actions, and YOUR actions only, are helping/hurting your reputation. Behave like a little whiny 12-year-old, we will treat you as such. Got it? Smoke^{Sound off!} 18:51, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

And if you have any more comments, Cally, you will move this conversation to your own talk page. No need for people to see you overreacting here. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   19:39, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Just rename it the "Glassing of Arcadia". <_< -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson^Chatter 22:14, May 15, 2010 (UTC)