What's this...

My opinion would be to treat this as legitimate until we know otherwise. - Ghost Sangheili [iTalk] [iWork]

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. -5ub7ank(7alk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I always thought Halopedia was lacking in regards to our Multiplayer and Campaign articles. —Kougermasters 07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(no subject)

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)

(no subject)

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

(no subject)

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 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)

(no subject)

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 --—This unsigned comment is made by (talkcontribs) at 20:48, October 16, 2009.. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

(no subject)

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?--<SCROTE> 23:40, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


--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.- 5əb'7aŋk(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)
In the prowler section, they have a section that reads (I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but here goes) that the prowler's sled protects from bumps that would flip a Banshee or Warthog-- 01:17, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
I have four mistakes that I have found: Kelly's service number being incorrectly labled as 058 when it should be 087, the Truth and Reconciliation's image being an CAS-class assault carrier when it should've been a CCS-class battlecruiser and even it's data file says that it is a CCS-class battlecruiser, the Reverence having two of the same fact file, the Covenant Light Cruiser's image being the same as the CCS-class battlecruiser's image. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

(no subject)

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)

(no subject)

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 'Ribal 21:19, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

(no subject)

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)

You say that the Halo encyclapedia has retrieved much of its information from Halopedia, then this is a very good reason to keep Halopedia as accurate as possible in case anything similar to this happens in the future.(Drone232 19:16, October 30, 2009 (UTC))

Deluxe edition

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

Jabberwockxeno 19:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC) 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 'Ribal 19:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
heh, it's funamation's remasterd DBZ boxed 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)
I don't know, the only thing I found about it was the amazon page, so it could be anything. Jabberwockxeno 19:44, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


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.--Emblem 1Rusty-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.--Emblem 1Rusty-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'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.- 5əb'7aŋk(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 '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'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'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?- 5əb'7aŋk(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 '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'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.- 5əb'7aŋk(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.--Emblem 1Rusty-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'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? DavidJCobb Emblem 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. DavidJCobb Emblem 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 1Rusty-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? - Ghost Sangheili [iTalk] [iWork]

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.- 5əb'7aŋk(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.- 5əb'7aŋk(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.- 5əb'7aŋk(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)
Listen guys, i have seen some of the errors and you guys are taking this way too seriously, calm down. --User:Chris10023 9:45, November 08, 2009 (UTC)
Not enough of them. I have began tagging them in my book and there are pretty much always two mistakes a page. I'm only a third through, but I have found about 200 errors. No joke. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 02:28, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


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. - Ghost Sangheili [iTalk] [iWork]

Thank you! I'm planning on finding all the mistakes I can before I do, though. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 02:29, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


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)
Another error. Palamok is the Drone's homeworld in the main Encyclopedia --Devil Mingy 15:57, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I can not beieve they got something such as an entire species homeworld wrong! Are they planning on creating a CORRECT version of this book because that would be much better than what we have now.(Drone232 19:23, October 30, 2009 (UTC))

A solution

Okay, so we all have our own opinions about this book, and certain members of the Halopedia community obviously feel more strongly about this than others (You know who you are). A few even wanted reclassified as a non-canon source. We can't do that, because it's effectively saying that we know better than the guys who are in charge of the series. Furthermore, not all of the information is false. As for the worst errors, I suggest we employ what is known as the "Common Sense Rule". Could the Scarab's main cannon be detached? Quite possibly, therefore we'll accept that as canon. Could a Covenant soldier lift it and wield it unaided? Of course not, it's far too big and heavy! It's obviously referring to the three mounted plasma cannons, which can be detached and carried. As for the "Drones coming from Balaho" error that has inflamed you so, if a piece of information is contradicted by the vast majority of canon, and this one is, then we discount it as an error. Any piece of information that is new to us, such as the new information on the Colonial Military Administration and the Unified Ground Command, and is not contradicted by the vast majority of canon, we include as canon. Problem solved.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:20, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Haha I WISH that was problem solved. I see that you don't understand... It's NOT obviously talking about the Scarab's portable plasma cannons, it's REALLY talking about the main canon. Pg. 331 and I quote: "SCARAB GUN - Able to destroy a bunker in one blast [not to mention infantry and most vehicles], this gun makes any Scarab more than capable of decimating an entire city by itself. The Scarab Gun can also be fired on its own in a portable form when removed." So I'm sorry. As much as I really (Really, Really, Really, Really, Really) hate to agree with Sangheili Commando Fluffball Gato or whatever, this book really (really, really, really) sucks on a level that can't be comprehended by anyone not familiar with the book AND intricacies of the Halo universe. Not to say its all bad, I enjoyed much of the art and newer info. It just did a terrible job mashing up known canon. We wouldn't be having a problem if it didn't destroy said known canon. But on the other hand, it clearly did a poor job setting up sensible NEW canon as well. Oh well.--Nerfherder1428 21:01, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
You, sir, have no common sense. There, I said it.--Lol@Phailure 20:41, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Wait what? You don't think I have common sense because I don't believe a ten foot tall giant-ass canon can be carried around by an Elite on steroids? How does THAT make sense?--Nerfherder1428 21:01, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
"The Scarab Gun can also be fired on its own in a portable form when removed" - If this is all it states about it, while it seems to imply so, it doesn't directly state it could be carried around by an elite or so. Maybe "portable" in this case, just means that it can be attached to another vehicle or a fixed platform? --Jugus 21:08, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
This is true. You bring up a very valid point. However, the implication is laid on pretty heavily, and why wouldn't they give the weapon a name better than "Scarab Gun", something we call the hand held easter egg rifle with Scarab-level destructiveness in Halo 2? In fact, why do nearly ALL the names in the Encyclopedia come straight from ours. Even the vague, general names for articles that we have collected over the years are presented as official in this book. Hell, even some of the names we assumed and made up ourselves are slapped on some of the Encyclopedia's articles. As much as I LOVE halopedia, it's NOT the best source to pull your information from when making a definitive guide to Halo.-- 21:23, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I'm rather annoyed the book has so many errors that I had no idea bout, but I agree with Sithari. Any information that has not been established already as canon should be added while the contradictory material should be put the side and we should contact them about the mistakes. I still feel that the info on the Forerunners was by far some of the greatest tidbits of info, but their was a contradiction. Apparently, the Forerunners are dead, or at least that's what we are meant to believe in the games. However, the Encyclopedia states that some actually survived the initial firing of the Halo arrays inside their various defense options (i.e., shield worlds). So it's very iffy at this point. I mean, I love the book, but reading it and knowing I might be reading something wrong really isn't fair. BTW, I created the pages for the CMA and UniCom :) GHOST R3V0LV3R 20:50, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they are referring to the Hunter's assault cannon. I mean they are both similar in many ways, and controlled by the Lekgolo. SNOR{3} 20:43, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Yet they're not referring to the assault cannon. That's covered in a separate box titled Assault Cannon. This is a distinct min-article on the Scarab Gun and they are indeed referring to the gun on the Scarab. Trust me, I KNOW it makes absolutely no sense. But it's in the encyclopedia and there is NO WAY AROUND labeling it as canon unless we choose to disregard these kinds of inconsistencies--Nerfherder1428 21:01, October 27, 2009 (UTC).

GHOST R3V0LV3R, thank you, and you did a good job on those two articles. I also agree with Jugus: so what if the implication is that the "Scarab Gun" can be carried by a single soldier? It doesn't say that the Scarab's main gun can be carried by a single person, so therefore should we not accept the logical explanation, which is that it can be detached from the Scarab and attached to another vehicle or a fixed platform and fired independently? Admittedly I don't have the book, but I've read enough here to know that its consistency with known canon is pretty shocking, but it does contain some new gems - we need to recognise that before we throw this away as a non-canon source, which a certain person has tried to do.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 21:37, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Oh make no mistake, I do think the Encyclopedia has a variety of information waiting for people to write about. It just takes a while to sift through the other stuff though. :D And yes I see that point that it could be fired from a mounted emplacement perhaps? It's still a VERY big gun... Finally, I agree that Sangheili Commander Fluffball Gato is exceedingly overzealous in his attempts to rid the world of the scourge he calls the Encyclopedia. So much so that he fails to see much of the valid points some people are bringing up. Oh well. Some people can't be dissuaded of some things.--Nerfherder1428 21:55, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Glad we've got this settled. The Scarab Gun conjecture is a perfect example of the Common Sense Rule in effect, just in a different way to how I had originally perceived it.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 22:17, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I see the valid points that people are making, but none of them are valid enough. It is true that I hate this book and pretty much hate the idiots who made it, but I am zealous over the Halo story which I thought all of you people were. Maybe I am the only one in this wikia who cares that much (which is probably way too much) about the Halo story... --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:24, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
If you hate this stupid book so much, write a review at and express your hatred. Or, write a blog about the book and hopefully that will get 343 Industries attention. Seriously, just keep your hatred to yourself.--Lol@Phailure 22:28, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. What you're trying to do is make us deny what is officially a canon source. You think you know better than the guys at 343 Industries? The guys who now run the Halo series? Well, if you think that, you should tell them that you, a mad, unpleasable fanboy, could do a lot better than them at running the series, and see what happens. Good luck.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 22:43, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I would've loved to tell them that. I'm sure you, too could've done a better job. And Phail, you just recommended that I write a blog and complain on Amazon, and then asked me to keep my hate of this book to myself. Which one do you want me to do? --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 22:59, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
If you hate this book so much, do all of them. Seriously, do you really want me to tell you what to do? *grins* I has slave!--Lol@Phailure 23:03, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I kind of want to do all of them...--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 23:20, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see we've reached some semblance of consensus. I will soon be adding uncontested new materials from the Encyclopedia to Halopedia in accordance with the Canon Policy. Anyone who doesn't like it... tough.--Emblem 1Rusty-112 23:31, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's fine, but be ready to delete it all if we get 343 to admit they're all idiots who didn't know crap about Halo, okay? I'd like that...--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 23:35, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
The day 343 admits that is also the day I sprout a pair of wings and fly to the moon to prove conclusively that it is, in fact made of green cheese. In other words, it's never going to happen, and if I see anything in your contributions list that so much sniffs of you removing content from articles, I'll have you down for vandalism.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 12:54, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to come by and say, if I may, that this book is not a bad book, but it is far from what I was expecting and the errors are, at times very cringe worthy. However I really cannot view this as an encyclopedia, but more as a collective reference guide to everything. And in that respect it is actually a very good book...Just with a lot of errors. However every error that I've come across I've personally been able to find a solution to what it actually meant, or to just dismiss it for already knowing the established fact. So for me the errors are not a problem, but it does degrade the quality and accuracy.
As for the people who wish to dismiss this book as non-canon I have to say you're looking at it from the wrong angle and trying to dismiss the book altogether is like trying to dismiss Halo: Combat Evolved as not being canon. And I mean that in no disrespect. While there are things in the book that I personally do not embrace or acknowledge as canon, as in, I just skipped over everything pertaining to Halo Wars with the exception of the Locust and the Destroyer, along with the Hayabusa Armor, the book is still good. As for the errors yes, there are things I just shook my head in shame about - two notable examples is the picture of a Covenant light cruiser, which is the same as the CCS class cruiser with absolutely no difference at all. That I just dismissed. The next was the Covenant Automated Plasma Turret - the picture associated with it shows the big artillery gun seen in the Halo 2 E3 2003 demo and in Old Mombasa. The corresponding text says its 6 feet tall, which is bullshit because all you have to do is stand next to it and it becomes apparent that it isn't 6 feet tall. Again I just dismissed it.
As for new information, a lot of people say it doesn't have too much, I didn't find that to be the case - while some, well most, of the new information is really small nuggets, the book does contain a couple of bombshell pieces of information that were not known at all which I plan to add sometime soon. Which comes to the next part I've seen people debating which is the inclusion of both ILoveBees and the Believe campaign as canon. First of all it is important to keep in mind a quote that came from Joe Staten back in 06. "The Halo story has as many loose threads as influences. And we do our best to sew the former into canon as we find them - are reminded of their potential. The Cortana Letters are an excellent example of this phenomenon. For all sorts of reasons, they lingered in canonical purgatory for years. But when we needed some compelling dialog to remind folks what's at stake in Halo3: Bam! Newfound utility!" [2] The same applies to I love bees and the believe campaign. Now we know that the entire believe campaign is not canon, and we know this because when we look at it we see things that don't add up, however things like the soldiers testimony, or the museum of humanity, are things that don't fit into this context of not being canon, they can be added without thudding against established canon. And the same with I love bees, the inconsistent parts in I love bees are discarded and what can actually fit into the canon, is.
As for all the mistakes, its hard to place real blame, but the editors, including Tobias Buckell, share some blame in it. However I personally don't believe that 343 gets off the hook either, now if they didn't have a dedicated team or person to proof cheek the book because of projects, constraints, not available, is understandable but if they just want off and did their own thing without cheeking then they do deserve some blame for the books mistakes. Durandal-217 21:49, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Well said, Durandal! I personally look forward to recieving my copy, if Amazon would hurry up!--The All-knowing Sith'ari 21:58, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I got mine from Amazon the day after it came out.(the first and I hope the only time ill ever do 2 day shipping) The one thing you will not be prepared for is how HEAVY and thick this book is though. Durandal-217 22:28, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
--The All-Knowing Sith'ari said: "and if I see anything in your contributions list that so much sniffs of you removing content from articles, I'll have you down for vandalism."--
Come on, don't do that. I think that the admins hate seeing backseat moderators and that is way more of an overreaction than mine was to this book. I don't like threats, and I was joking when I stated that they would admit they are idiots. Of course they wouldn't. Anyway, I may remove content from articles that is incorrect, as I hope you would. Say, someone puts down that Yanme'e come from Balaho. I'm deleting that, it isn't true. But I won't delete facts that are uncontested, like people were saying. Even if it seems illogical, such as the Scarab's cannon being used as a handgun, I won't delete it. It just disturbs me that you will be watching my contributions for the slightest thing you do not agree with to report me of vandalism. That's pushing things way too far. Have mercy on the user with "Fluffball Gato" in his name!--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 23:18, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Calm down, mate! It's a joke!--The All-knowing Sith'ari 23:28, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Phew, that's good news. You kinda scared me there... No offense, but for a joke that wasn't very funny... It was scary...--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 23:33, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the screw-up with the Covenant artillery picture, one could just see it as a technically non-canon design having been retconned into a model of automated plasma turret. I personally wouldn't consider the E3 demo a canon source anyway.--Darth Oblivion 04:31, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Are we alowed to copy stuff down word for word from this Encyclopedia or is that against copyright restrictions? Do we have to put it in "references" or whats the deal here? ~ ~ ~ ~ 19:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Um, everything we copy down at this site is from the copyrighted game, Halo. If it's against the law, we're breaking it. --Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 23:11, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Relax. The way copyright law works is that if you copy someone's words or ideas, directly or indirectly, you have to give credit through a proper citation so everyone know's that it's not your intellectual property. If you want to copy something, just make sure to put a proper citation at the end. Even if you don't nobody's going to sue because there's no profit involved in Halopedia.--Emblem 1Rusty-112 23:17, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but half the content of the Encyclopedia is already here... because we wrote it... CarpeJugulum 16:37, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I love bees

Melissa was mentioned on the AI page of the encyclopedia. Does this Canonize I love bees? ~ ~ ~ ~ 23:21, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

It was already established. -- Forerunner 23:27, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

are you sure I keep sing the non canon template o those pages? ~ ~ ~ ~ 22:25, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Galactic, stop phailing. First, your sig phails. Second, read this.--Lol@Phailure 00:41, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't hear you over the 1247 edit difference in our editcounts. Try getting a little more experiance before you criticize you fellow Halopedians ~ ~ ~ ~ 02:48, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Note, having more editcounts doesn't mean you're an experienced editor. It's more of quality than quantity. So, before you criticise others, assess yourself first. Perform proper research and make your edits and summary of those edits clear or users will misinterpret it as useless edit... which is what I accidentally did when I saw yours contributions.--Lol@Phailure 02:54, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Just clarifying. It does mean I am more experianced, unless you are abuseing multiple accounts or contributing most of your edits while not logged in. It does not neccisarily mean I am more skilled. ~ ~ ~ ~ 10:41, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

If you are not discussing how to better this article, you are not here. You might want to cut the crap and get the hell out of here right now or I'll get rid of you. Consider this your last warning. SmokeSound off! 16:06, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
LOL the human race is overran with shits and douchebags. The Covenant need to pwn our sad asses. 23:11, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Content List

Could someone who has this place a list of contents on the page? --Lord of SPARTANsLOMI HQI here your criesMay your works be honorable
21:15, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Black Mesa Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 16:52, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Halo Encyclopedia discontinuity poll

I just want to see a show of hands of the people who think the Halo Encyclopedia is an error-riddled text book that the creators probably should have proofread first and those who think it's just fine and dandy and think the rest of us are being to critical of it. My apologies if this is not the place for such a thing.--Zervziel 18:25, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. We can nitpick and bitch all we want, but it's still a canon source and we have to reconcile its material with other canon, even if we don't like it.--Emblem 1Rusty-112 18:31, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Rusty says it all. - Black Mesa Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 18:32, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Rusty. If we start deciding the canonicity of sources, where does that end? I know people who want to abandon Halo Wars as a part of Halo canon altogether. Are there errors and flaws? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore it and everything in it? No. Likewise, others would try to discontinue Halo: The Flood, another important part - it introduced fans to the ODST's and gave us the first Covenant perspective, but it was let down by its depiction of the Master Chief. We ignore what we cannot reconcile with established, incontrovertible fact, and accomodate everything else. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 21:29, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I admit I screwed that up and the title doesn't help. I meant I wanted to see a show of hands of people that thought the Encyclopedia had a bunch of mistakes in it. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was disputing if it was canon.--Zervziel 05:53, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
If that's all you're asking, then I don't think there are many who can dispute that. It was just the way you phrased it. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 06:12, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

I own the Halo Encyclopedia and I honestly don't see any errors other than claiming that John Forge is 40. I would like an idea of all its flaws 23:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Make a List of Inconsistencies?

I must ask, should we begin making a list of inconsistencies that the Encyclopedia has, or should we go put that on the List of Inconsistencies in Halo page? --Lord of SPARTANsLOMI HQI here your criesMay your works be honorable
21:29, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

To the List of Inconsistencies page.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 21:37, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Really not to bad..

I think people are overreacting about this. I was lucky enough to pick up a copy of it today, and there it really isn't bad. It provides a great deal of information. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 02:55, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, it provides some good information... but they could've done better.(7alk) 03:01, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
That is true, it did repeat a lot of information and I have feeling that a lot of the info provided by the encyclopedia will be retconned.--Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 03:38, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Unlucky enough you mean? It's a 2kg piece of lying, useless filth. {{SUBST:The Halfblood}} 14:27, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


on the part about counciloors it has a picture of the honor guard councillor hybrid glitchFootcandy 19:11, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but is that the only mistake you found?! I have been going page-to-page with a pad of sticky notes and the average two-page spread has about 3.5 inconsistencies on it. That one is relatively minor. God, I can't believe Frankie accepted this. I'm not sure I like him... at all anymore. --Fluffball Gato 23:56, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Unless this is just a hint that in the future they are going to retconn it's glitch status and introduce it as a proper rank. Though that's probably me being optimistic. 16:24, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.