Talk:Sangheili Major

Halo: Reach Picture

Are we sure that's a Major Domo picture from Halo: Reach? Bungie stated it was a "Sangheili Officer" not a "Major Domo"... are they the same? EDIT: Good, somebody changed it.--Fluffball Gato 18:48, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Name

Once again not trying to cause controversy, just using simple logic. First off if you are going to stick with sangheili, it should be the second word, as the correct term would be "Major Sangheili", because only grunts have their rank second.

Second, why are we mixing english with the sangheili language? Major is an english word, and this wiki is all over the place on so called "correct terms" and whatnot. We have an article called "Special Operations Elite", and "Sangheili Major". We need some sort of unity. And mixing english with elitish makes no sense, so I suggest naming the article "Major Elite". --Justin Time 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think all Elite articles must be moved to Sangheili (whatever you spell it), since Elite is not their "real" name, but are formally addressed as the Sangheili. BTW, at least name it the Elite Major Domo. --Blemo

Half Commander?

What the hell they're not called that. Justin Time 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In the very beginning of Halo:The Flood, "half-commander" is mentioned. --ED_(talk)^(gaming) 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, what an odd name for them... --Justin Time 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense though, if an Ultra is considered a Commander, then a Major should be a Half-Commander. --ED_(talk)^(gaming) 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes yes, I wouldve expected something more like subcommander, but half commander makes sense I guess. --Justin Time 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Domo

That name makes me think of Domo-kun. Not very flattering to the Covenant. --Dragonclaws 11:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

hehe...=D Cheers, 49 Proximal Secant^[oracle]File:H3 Monitor.PNG|25px]] 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What does the domo mean? All I know is that it was mentioned in Ghost's of Onyx.--Fragg3d 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Where in the book does it say that minors and majors are actually minor domos and major homos I mean domos? I would like to know exactly what it says, and in any case the page numbers would be useful. -- Justin Time 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Major Domos are called that only a few times in the books. Since they are universally recognized as "Major" and "Major Domo" is used just as uncommonly as "Half-Commander" the page is moved to Major Elite. --ED_(talk)^(gaming) 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking but I didnt think it was a big deal so I didnt say anything. :-) --Justin Time 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

shields

in the artical it says there shields are equal to zealots this is a lie zealots shields are higher rank and ultras shields are tougher than majors but ultras are lower in rank than zealots so this should be removed. User:Kami-Sama

With all due respect, the article is correct. The major and zealot elites of halo 2 have identical shielding. In halo:CE, yes, zealot shields are EXTREMELY strong, being twice as powerful as a major's, and capable of absorbing a direct rocket hit (legendary). Quakeomaniac 05:13, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, from 2 onwards, even playing on Legendary, I've never seen a Major survive against "an entire squad or UNSC Marines," ever. In fact, fire teams of 1-3 Marines usually defeat much larger units of Covenant, Majors included. Some people really need to play through these games again, or read.--HellJump04 10:33, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

specops red

why when all your team are dead in the level Quarantine Zone and half jaw drops off his finest team why is there a red elite is it a normal major elite or is it some kind of commando major. tar

In Halo 3 there is only one Red guy who seems to be shipmaster's (half Jaw) second in Cammand mabe thats him he is seen in 2 Cutscenes talks in one and in the level Floodgate were he speaks with the Arbiter and and is seen later but I forgot the level.

Do Red Elites Actually Throw Plasma Grenades in Halo 2

I know they dont in Halo CE but I dont own Halo 2. Can someone enlighten me (do other elites, like minors, ultras, zealots, or honor guards use them too?)

Simple enough question. In every single halo game, the ONLY elite rank to utilize the plasma grenade is the SpecOps. Why, who in the world knows. But to my knowledge, while other elites carry plenty of grenades, particularly some zealots in halo:ce, they never use them. Quakeomaniac 05:15, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Majors only apear on flood gates???

the artical says that majors only appear on Flood gates but that is not true there are a few randomly generated Majors and minor's on the level Covenant. User:Captain-One

• I'm going to change this.

pic

Hope no body minds but i've added a picture of an H3 major elite to the artical User:Captain-One

H3 Shield strength

I was playin the level the covenant and i was wondering how strong the major and minor shields were, so i wiped out my human pistol and started shooting and it took 5 shots with the pistol to take down the minors shield and 8 for the major, i did the same thing again but this time with a assult rifle and i counted the littel bullets on my hood to see how many shots it took me to take down the shield (i know i', sad) any way it took 13 shots with a Assult Rifle to take down the minors shield and 16 for the major (16 shots being half a round of amo, so heres my question, are the majors shields weaker in H3 compared to the last two games. User:Captain-One

I'm like you, I will do all kinds of obscure testing in the game like this as well. If I remember correctly from my experiences playing on my friend's Xbox, on legendary, a major's shield will drop after 16 successive covenant carbine shots. In halo 2, legendary requires 14 shots for majors. So, it appears they are stronger in H3. As for halo 1's majors... not sure I can say, all weapons in halo 1 were incredibly strong compared to the next 2 games. Quakeomaniac 05:11, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ark Cutscene Elite

The bright-red armored Elite in the Ark cutscene (the one informing the Shipmaster that their forces are outnumbered) appears to have the Mark of Shame on his armor, along with some Covenant symbols. If someone could post a screenshot, that's be great. Perhaps we could translate the text?

The odd thing is, rather than being branded, á la Arbiter, it's actually a neat design on the armor itself. Kurai-sama 11:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another article mentioned that all elites have the mark of shame on the back of their armor in Halo:CE. Perhaps before the schism all elites bore the mark of shame to remind themselves or had to earn its removal. After the schism mayhaps they all kept it in defiance of the prophets.

SpecOps

Who put the part saying that they were higher than SpecOps Elites? --Karzhani 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. If anyone sees this, please change it. -Blemo

They are higher than SpecOps. And they do hold the right to bear Energy Swords. As scene on the level Floodgate where he has it as his secondary weapon. Also Majors have been scene leading SpecOps twice. Once in Quarantine Zone to lead the reinforcements described as Vadum's "Best troops." The second in Floodgate when he briefs the Arbiter. Councilor 'Rumilee 02:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the Elite ranks were a little....jumbled after they defected from the Covenant? The Prophets were no longer in command of them, they had to follow standard UNSC laws. Also, I shot down a minor on the Covenant, on easy difficulty, and he dropped a sword with 81 charge. So having swords doesn't prove anything. SpecOps are also more effecient at greande throwing, better with PR and swords, and also have stronger shields. Karzhani 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark of shame????

on the cutscene during the begining of the level. the ark if you look at the elite majors chest he has 2 marks of shame across it so can some 1 up load a pic because i cant its the elite that says

"Brute ships! Staggered line! Shipmaster. They outnumber us, three to one!"

"Then it is an even fight. All cruisers fire at-will. Burn their mongrel hides!"

Ranks within the rank?

In the Halo 3 level "The Covenant", with the Thunderstorm Skull on, two brown and 3 crimson elites are dropped with the arbiter at the 3rd tower, I read that majors don't get upgraded, so are the brown ones higher ranks than the two SpecOps, another type of rank aside major, or just a random colour change?

I am sooooooooooooooo sick of spam

First a page with the title and content of "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!", then a note saying that Councillors have "huge heads" and now the word "dude" in the middle of the template, what is with this spam? --Sergeant Grunties

Shields

It should be noted that in halo 2, a major elite requires two headshots from a sniper rifle/beam rifle to kill it on ANY difficulty, even easy. In halo:CE though oddly enough that is only the case on legendary, any other difficulty it is only 1. Quakeomaniac 22:07, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? If my memory serves me well, it took me one headshot to kill a major elite on Heroic on Halo 2.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken, headshots are a one-hit KO, regardless of difficulty. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 22:13, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

If it takes you more than one shot to kill it after you have dropped its shields, you are not shooting it in the head. However, with the shielding, it takes two shots to kill it on Legendary. Because my Halo 2 and XBox are FUBAR, I cannot verify it on my own. Smoke^{Sound off!} 00:34, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I've been playing Halo 2 on Legendary recently and Major Elites definitely take two sniper headshots to kill, one to take down their shields and one to actually kill them. -TheLostJedi 16:23, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making is that Majors in the second game take two headshots, if their shields are fully charged, to kill them on every difficulty including easy. In halo:CE, they only take 1 headshot regardless of shields up through heroic. Note I own the PC versions of both games, so I can't verify if the Xbox is different. Also, in response to the one hit KO regardless of difficulty, I assume you mean if there are no shields? Quakeomaniac 05:04, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Energy Sword in Combat

I know in canon it makes little sense for an Elite Major to wield an Energy Sword... I was under the impression at least that higher ranking elites only had this privilage, but I make no mistake... I was playing Outskirts on Legendary, firing at an Elite Major... and at near defeat, it drew an Energy Sword and began to charge at me. I don't ever remember seeing an elite with a rank lower than Ultra draw an Energy Sword at me before, so I'm surprised by it. -TheLostJedi 12:28, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... WHAT?? A major actually pulled a sword out and charged Ulta style?? That is surprising. To my knowledge, the ONLY elites capable of doing this are Councilors and Ultras (as for halo 3 I think any elite can do this). Quakeomaniac 05:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article Split

"Major Domo" is different to a "Major". In Ghosts of Onyx, 'Mantakree refers to some Elites, the leaders of units, as Major Domo only in the sense that they are "a person who speaks, makes arrangements, or takes charge for another." I would say that the position Major Domo is analogous to a US Army Command Sergeant Major, rather than being the name for all Major Elites, and that the two positions exist separately. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 00:59, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I know this post is old, but I would also like to add my support to the split or renaming of the article to "Major Sangheili" as per above and this: Majordomo, which seems to be a term either used out of context (or with a different intent) by the author, or by us at Halopedia confusing it with the rank, as they both have the word major in them. Just like how a Mongoose is not a kind of goose. Also, "Major Domo" sounds really out of place in the Covenant rank structure: Minor, Major Domo, Stealth, Ranger, Spec Ops, Ultra, Zealot... Alex T Snow 07:49, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this - I'm pretty sure Major domo was either a misprint / refers to a different rank or type of Elite. Otherwise, if major domo were the official Covenant rank designation, we should have Grunt major domos, Jackal major domos... etc. SPARTAN-347 00:00, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Agreed. "Domo" sounds like a higher position than regular Majors. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 10:13, 18 January 2011 (EST)

rank equivalent

Why are the major elites equivalent to lieutenants but their name sake is major which sounds better because it obviously says MAJOR. Did Bungie say that's their equivalent or some random guess on here. I personally think they are actual majors76.94.173.73 00:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Major doesn't mean Major in the human sense, there's Minors, and Majors = lower, and higher. Alex T Snow 15:05, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

What?

Why is the Sangheili Officer image on the Sangheili Major page? Legoace342

Because they're the same rank. They're just called Officers in Reach. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:02, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Probably slightly wrong place to say this but... Did it occur to anyone that Officer might be the UNSC designation for Major Domos? Same with General and Field Marshall, both of which seem to be higher or more specialized Zealot ranks. Field Marshall could be same as Field Master though i have no idea what a General would be. T51b 23:51, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why not combine the pages?Oh that's already been done. Legoace342

Unknown Color

Does Anybody know the actual color of the Officer Armor Permutation in Halo:Reach?

It can be any color you choose, but actual Officers are always red and orange.SPARTAN-347 14:45, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Ossoona

Since the Anniversary Library feature (seen in the new ViDoc) states that Ossoonas are a Stealth Sangheili subgroup, I'm suggesting we remove the mention that Ossoonas are picked from Majors' ranks. I'm aware the Encyclopedia specifically states the title of Ossoona is given to Majors; though it doesn't specify "Major" further, it's safe to assume it refers to ordinary Majors instead of those serving in the Stealth group. However, as with a large portion of the book's content, this was obviously lifted from Halopedia and as such its canonical value is nebulous, not to mention it appears to have been overridden by the Anniversary Library.

It always struck me as odd why it was assumed Ossoonas were picked from normal Majors - all The Flood mentioned was "experienced officers" which could mean a broad range of groups and ranks. With that in mind, it would seem more natural for such intelligence specialists to be picked from the Stealth group, not normal troops who wouldn't even the have to proper training for the task. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 01:35, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Majors are officers.

First off why would you use a picture of a multiplayer Elite for this? Also according to Anniversary Majors and officers have the same armor, the only difference between the Reach officers and the Anniversary Majors is that in Anniversary they have the classic red armor, I think this makes it pretty obvious that they are the same thing. I think we need to get rid of those multiplayer pictures and put the Officer back as the main picture until we can get a render from Anniversary.-ArchedThunder

You are mistaken to a certain extent: The Elite officers are essentially a byproduct of the Elite Major role with no real substantial differences save for their marginally more ornamental armor Halo encyclopedia 2011 edition page 135. There are substantial differences in armor but the rank is the same. That means the traditional Major that we've seen in halo 2 and halo 3 as well as Legends still exists and is still valid. As to why I used a customs Elite, well considering there is no regular major in Reach I recreated it, it isn't hard and it looks exactly as it should. Zero liberties were taken.

All we are seeing in Halo Anniversary is officers. Durandal-217 11:32, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

No, According to Halo Anniversary they are Majors. The article isn't accurate to current information. Also it doesn't matter if zero liberties were taken, we don't use multiplayer elites for the articles, otherwise we would have already replaced the Halo CE and 2 only ranks back when Halo 3 came out and again when Reach came out.—This unsigned comment was made by ArchedThunder (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Well, we do, otherwise you would have to remove every armor permutation image for the MJOLNIR armor. And practically half the images on this site. We do use stuff when it makes the most sense if it didn't it would have been removed the second it was placed there. As for our second point using one game as a definitive proof of anything is not sufficient, the canon policy states that anything you see in the games novels comics and etc, unless otherwise specify is canon. The encyclopedia states that while the officer is essentially a major they are called officers. Also this claim that it isn't up to current information is flat out wrong. It was updated almost a month ago and we cannot go ahead and add stuff from something that isn't even out yet and have no real verification. Durandal-217 00:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Well Anniversary is out and what I said is now confirmed. ArchedThunder 08:55, 16 November 2011 (EST)

The color differentiation between all classes is still present, as it is seen in the terminal. Therefore the standard red coloration of the standard combat harness still exists. Durandal-217 23:27, 16 November 2011 (EST)

And the terminal shows the Halo with the original design, Halo 3 Marines and the Trilogy Banshee. We shouldn't go off of the Terminals since they were obviously made with Halo 3 in mind. Also what terminal had an Elite Major in it?ArchedThunder 10:42, 17 November 2011 (EST)

If that's the case than we cannot credit anniversary for anything then with that ideology, considering the pilot in the bumblebee cutscene is wearing the halo 3 marine BDU. You cannot discredit one thing and credit another within the same circumstance just because one particular style of something is shown. Durandal-217 12:22, 17 November 2011 (EST)

What I am saying is that visually the terminals were created with the Halo 3 art style, Since Reach armor sets have been changed. Visually the terminals are not accurate to the current canon, the creators took artistic license and were probably under the impression that all the assets from Halo CE would be remade. And yes I know about the Pilot, and that pisses me off because there is no reason for it. Majors and Officers have the same armor, it's just an artistic change since the trilogy.ArchedThunder 18:12, 17 November 2011 (EST)

The whole game is like that honestly, its just a mish-mash of everything from every game except Halo 2, is it right to say one thing outshines, out weighs another? No. Sure we see officers who are classified as majors but that doesn't invalidate that the regular Majors still exist, the terminals are faithful, its just like everything else in the game, a mish-mash of everything as to show that nothing is invalid.

Whether you want to throw something out is beside the point, we can't throw out the hellspartan BS because it could be canon, when personally I know damn well it isn't, yet its gotta stay. So if that's the approach being taken, then for the sake of fairness the same has to be said for the elite major. The terminal on T&R shows a regular elite major it still exist until something comes out and says otherwise. I am working on a small fix for the article, it may not be the best but its the best I can possibly do.Durandal-217 19:46, 17 November 2011 (EST)

To back up Durandal-217: the revised Encyclopedia confirms that Officers are specialized members of the Major class; the visual differences between the two types are canon, not artistic license. On a related note, the fact that the Bumblebee pilot and the Marines in the terminals - as well as some of the Marines in the Mona Lisa motion comic, seen when Foucault is reviewing the Battle of Installation 04 - wear Halo 3-style BDUs is not an example of artistic license either. The fact that most Marines on Installation 04 wore the Reach-style BDU doesn't mean that everyone did; both versions were used contemporaneously, so it shouldn't be surprising at all. --Courage never dies. 22:40, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Anniversary is newer than the newest Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia's are notorious for their inaccurate information. Until we see a Major with the Minor armor and a Major with the Officer armor standing next to each other, I think it's safe to say they are one and the same. ArchedThunder 13:00, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Anniversary came out less than two months after the revised Encyclopedia; it's not like the idea that the two classes are distinct was abandoned a long time ago. The Encyclopedia explicitly states that the Officers are a distinct subclass of the Majors, so they are. We don't dispute canon just because we don't like the source. Besides, the new content in the revised Encyclopedia doesn't contradict anything, so there's no reason to question its credibility. --Courage never dies. 13:15, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Anniversary

Do we know for sure that the Majors seen in Anniversary represent a different class than the Officers in Reach? I was under the impression that the visual difference was just due to artistic license, seeing as the red-armored "minor"-type Elites are closer to the appearance of the original Majors in Halo: CE SPARTAN-347 22:58, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

We don't know for 100% certainty, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that the regular Elite Majors are in Anniversary, considering the fact the that original Grunt Major appears along with the Reach version of the Grunt Major. Durandal-217 23:40, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

I think the Grunt variance is to accommodate for the "curl-back" and standard Grunt models in the original game, so it might not necessarily carry over for Elites. Test by the switching the graphics to see. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (EST)

The original grunt Major was an early build, in the final game all grunt majors have the pronged tank and all Elite majors wear the Officer armor. ArchedThunder 10:43, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Separate page for majors and officers

If the general consensus around halopedia is that officers and majors are separate, then they also should have separate pages.

We know for a fact that they are two sets of the same rank. The real thing we are debating is why are the Majors in CEA wearing Officer armor.ArchedThunder 14:41, 21 November 2011 (EST)

It obviously just means that there were officers and majors fighting along side each other during the events of CEA...

They are all Majors in CEA, and they all have Officer ArmorArchedThunder 02:18, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Main Image

The main image is inaccurate. Change it to a Major from CEA.--210.56.88.109 01:12, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Nope, Halopedia has a policy of using the most recent canonical image of something. Therefore the most recent canonical image of this would from Halo 3.--Commander Halofan1234 (I say the cabal does not exist) 11:01, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Halo: Reach.--Commander Halofan1234 (I say the cabal does not exist) 11:04, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Wong again. We use the best picture for article picture. A good example of this are the SPARTANs. So yes, we would still use Halo: Reach, in this case, because Halo: Reach looks the best. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Well despite that whole debate of which game came first, even if Halo: Reach is the newest, Majors in Minor harness do not appear in-game and unless there is proof of them in the campaign then there is still a problem. Since the 'Officer' armor is the main and most distinct instance of a Major then the Officer image should be the main article picture. --RadicalEdward2 18:19, 11 December 2011 (EST)

I would have to agree with the OP. It's not like there is a general consensus on which looks better anyway. If anyone has a capture card and is able to take screencaps of the Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary Majors and Zealots, it would be much appreciated. Plus, I personally think CEA elites look much better. As they should, considering it is the newest version.--Xzan Tamasee 20:38, 11 December 2011 (EST)

I'm not signed in right now, but i've been a longtime editor of the wiki since way back during halo 2 days. I'm of the opinion that we should be using reach images for the main image. The models and textures have to still fit into the hitbox of the old halo CE models, so the actual shape of the objects and entities in game are still contrianed.

Anyways, I see no references on the page that gives direct citeings to the differentiation of the officer subclass compared to major. 69.132.69.87

Those are some good points. But please, if you're not logged in and have an account, could you at least sign so we know who you are?--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:33 11 March 2012

I would vote in favour of either the Anniversary model or the Halo: Reach one. Either would suffice. Or perhaps both? The red (Minor) is inaccurate for two reasons. One, it's simply outdated. Two, it's from multiplayer. And correct me if I'm wrong, but do the multiplayer elites even have eyes? o.O -TheLostJedi 04:28, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

We are using the most recent in the timeline. That's why we are using the Halo 3-era Brute Minor as its article's main image. Similarly, the most "recent" sighting of a Major Elite in the Halo universe is in Halo 3, where all they are wear the classic Elite armor. With the new Officer sub-class, we assume both of them exist as of 2552, so we have both of them. The reason why we use the multiplayer Elite to create the classic armor red Elite is because they look very similar to the most recent version, and has better graphics. It's complicated. See here for a more detailed explanation. :) —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 05:56, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Looks like you guys didn't reach a definitive conclusion in that discussion. But I can understand the various reasoning. I'm just not too keen on advocating models which have no eyes. I don't exactly have an Xbox next to me these days to look into this further. But I'll be content with your decision. ;) -TheLostJedi 14:30, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

In response to spartan331, based on your logic, we should have a picture of a white Reach Minor on the Ultra page, a gold Reach Minor on the Zealot page, etc. Let's just use the picture that's from the game. I mean, seriously, guys, I thought this was supposed to be accurate. What if someone hasn't played Reach, and just assumes that Majors appear like they do in the other games. Before you know it, someone gets in a flamewar with someone who has played the game, and it all goes downhill from there.--One who survived 21:44, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Probably. But I don't think there would be anyone obnoxious enough to think they know everything about Halo even though they haven't seen the newest canon. Keep in mind that Majors themselves were never seen in Reach, only their sub-class was seen. Take this to Durandal-217, who placed the images there. —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 04:14, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The Halo Encyclopedia makes it official that the Officer sub-class exists. So now I have to consider the defining aspects of this class. The Anniversary Majors are wearing the Officer armour however. So would I be correct to say that the only defining aspect between regular Majors and the Officer sub-class is the slightly tinted orange colour of the Officer elites? -TheLostJedi 04:32, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Yes. —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 05:56, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Cool. Nice concise answer. xD -TheLostJedi 14:03, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

XD Yes, it would be correct for you to say that the only defining aspect between regular Majors and the Officer sub-class is the slightly tinted orange colour of the Officer elites. Just look at the last paragraph in the section labelled "Background".—S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 04:14, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Retcons: inaccurate information

When Reach was released we were introduced to the Officers, a sub-class of Majors. The article reflects this, what it does not reflect are more recent retcons (CEA) that showed us that Majors all wear the Officer armour. When the appearance of other things were modified they were changed but this article clings to the past and describes Majors as wearing the same armour as Minors. Evidence indicates that this is no longer true. No Majors in Reach or CEA wore Minor armour, in fact, all Majors in CEA wore Officer armour. The Reach images of Majors in Minor style armour are therefore not official and should be removed.--Soul reaper 08:18, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Previously discussed. CEA is not a reliable visual source. Heck, is CEA even a retcon? —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 09:02, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

How is that an example of it being unreliable? It makes sense that the PR would be consistent between Reach and CEA. The Majors have never appeared in the Minor armour in Reach or CEA. When people added Gold Zealot images in Halo 3 graphics they were removed due to them never appearing in those graphics. This is akin to that. What we have is the Officers from Reach and the Majors from CEA, also supported by the Library from CEA, the same one that confirms the existence of both gold and crimson Zealots.--Soul reaper 09:36, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Read this. I still don't understand your point. —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 19:48, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

The point is that it is inaccurate. The Library feature in CEA shows Majors wearing darker Officer armour. At no point has a Major been seen in Reach/CEA graphics wearing MInor style armour. This issue happened once before with the Zealots and the Halo 3 graphics. It was decided that using a multiplayer image of a "Zealot" was inaccurate and so the page features no Halo 3 images. All evidence points to the Majors wearing Officer armour and the page should reflect this.--Soul reaper 23:08, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Okay, so we should remove the Major with red Minor armor because we removed the Halo 3 Zealot armor, yes? —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 00:06, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Pretty much, yeah.--Soul reaper 00:20, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Finally someone sees my point!--One who survived 22:29, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Anyone else? I'd like to make the page more accurate but I'd like to make sure it's something agreed upon first.--Soul reaper 05:04, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

I would just like to point out that the reason Zealots did not show any Halo 3 images is because we have no description of what their appearance would be in Halo 3. With the advent of the new armor permutation system in that game, we would think that they would receive their own armor configuration and not rely on the traditional "combat-harness + gold/yellow color" scheme; this stems from what we saw with the SpecOps which received their own armor configuration. In other words, the reason is because there is no information to back those Halo 3 images up for the Zealot group.

This is quite different with the Major rank which can be supported with the text from Halo Encyclopedia. Because of this text, it can be assumed that Officer is a sub-class. Since the text does not contradict anything, it is considered as expanding the Major rank with a sub-class. Now, simply because they do not make an appearance in the game does not preclude them from ever appearing in canon. In addition, whereas enemy variants is possible in HCE (i.e. curl-back and standard model Grunts, Elites with randomised aesthetics), this feature was not used in HCEA. If the feature was used in HCEA, then the situation would be very different. — subtank 07:11, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

But with CEA we saw the majors in the Officer armour. They were even described in the Library with a Officer style Elite model to accompany the text. The changes in Reach altered almost everythings appearance in some way. Presenting the Majors in red Reach Minor armour is inaccurate at best. At the very least I feel that for the sake of accuracy, the Minor harness images should be changed to Halo 3 images until we have more information. With the upcoming release of Halo 4 and other media (such as Forward Unto the Dawn) we may find further clarification but at this point I simply don't believe that showing something in a game it did not appear is not right.--Soul reaper 07:55, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

And I am fully aware of that (and the Library feature). You should probably contact Durandal-217 since he created and added the image in. I couldn't possibly give a proper comment as I do not own the Encyclopedia (even if I try, it might be based on the outdated version or riddled with errors).

Do note that the reason I reply is simply to clarify matters. As for the proposal, I will simply stay out of it and see what others would say.— subtank 12:00, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

I thought it important to note that the Major in Officer armor picture is inaccurate too. It looks like someone just went on Halo: Reach, put on the Officer armor and colored it maroon and white. The true Major (in Officer armor) in CEA is a crimson, rather than maroon, and has a few differences in armor coloring (I.E. the two large armor plates in the middle of the shoulder pauldrons of the Officer armor are always grey in Reach, no matter what armor colors you use. However, in CEA, that same armor piece is crimson.--One who survived 10:12, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

Relaunching the debate

So it's been a few years now that this main image has been used on the Sangheili Major article. It has always been bugging me, and there is a significant discussion about that on this talk page. I don't think I ever made my case thus far, so here it is. First I'd like to make a recap of everything, pros, cons, etc.

What kind of image does Halopedia usually prefer? The general rule, from what I've understood, is that Halopedia prefers the most recent image in the Halo chronology. Simply put, this means that for example we use the Jiralhanae Chieftain from Halo 3 instead of the one from Halo: Reach, because it's more recent in the Halo chronology, despite the fact that Reach offers more detailed images and is more recent in the real world. However, this "policy" is also often disregarded, and there is a variety of such situations:

- It can depend on the image's quality. For example, the Activation index we use is the one from Halo 2 instead of Halo 3, because the one from Halo 3 sucks too much, or at least that was the consensus. I think it's fair enough to not be too rigid and it was indeed a good decision.

- It can also depend on the developers' "vision". An example I found: the Sangheili Ranger. Today, the page has changed because of Halo 4, but back in the Reach days, we had actually chosen to prefer the Reach armor over the Halo 2 armor. The reason is simple, the armor from Reach represented a more "definitive" version of Bungie's vision for the Sangheili Ranger. The same could apply to the Special Operations Sangheili, whose Reach version is canonically old when compared to the main trilogy, but it definitevely represents a more accurate vision of what Bungie wants the Spec Ops Sangheili to look like. This armor has recently been discarded in Halo 2 Anniversary, but I think it's mainly due to the fact that Elites have a prominent role in the campaign and thus it is more "human" to represent them with their face uncovered. We should take this into account: it often depends on what the developers want something to look like, no matter when it is situated in the Halo canon. Elites in Halo 1/2 all looked the same because Bungie couldn't exactly give them their own identity, either because they didn't have the technology or hadn't even thought of many designs yet. So the whole Reach thing is still very consistent. Reach/CEA and H2A SpecOps are thus both canon, but Reach/CEA represent a more representative form of the SpecOps than H2A, the latter trying to show and emphasize the SpecOps as "human-like" and thus not bothering with the helmeted armor and staying faithful to the good old Halo 2 armor.

- Finally, there's the use of images that have EXCELLENT graphics. Like Regret, Miranda, Hood, Johnson, etc, who all have images from CGI cutscenes. At this point, we disregard the chronology or whatever criteria that exist.

So, what's exactly our view on the Sangheili Major/Officer issue? Basically, the Sangheili Major is represented with a standard red harness (A few examples are the ones from Halo 3 or Halo 2 Anniversary). The Officer is a subclass of the Major rank, so Officers are Majors but Majors are not necessarily Officers. (A bit like, say, ODSTs are Marines, but not all Marines are ODSTs.) Officers can wear either red or orange armors, and are distinguished by their helmet which has some kind of ornamental spike on it (A few examples are the ones from Halo: Reach and CEA).

What sources clarify all that stuff? That's when it becomes interesting. The Library feature from Halo CEA describes its variant as a Major. This confirms that there are many looks for the Major rank, so despite the ornamental helmet of the Officer, this Elite is still a Major. The Halo: Encyclopedia (2011 edition) elaborates on that, saying that the distinction between a regular Major and a Major belonging to the Officer subclass can be made thanks to their helmet. Thus, a regular helmet implies a regular Major, and an ornamental helmet implies an Officer. We can infer that the Elite Major in CEA is a Major belonging to the Officer subclass.

So what's wrong with our current main image? The problem is not exactly what it represents. It's the whole thing of "making up" an image with unofficial images. These Elites are from multiplayer. Their combinations of armor and color, although they somehow mirror official materials, have never been officially used. This particular Minor armor has never been seen in red, and this Officer armor has never been seen in this kind of red either. The justification behind it (according to what its author said) is that it's supposed to reflect what was said in the Encyclopedia (According to Subtank, it seems okay to make these images as long as they can match what was written in the Encyclopedia). Normal helmet = regular Major, ornamental helmet = Officer. But it's based off multiplayer Elites with slightly different armors and especially different colors than what we usually see in official materials. The whole idea of adapting "a general knowledge" of what something looks like and portraying it with what's at your disposal... is something that I think should be discouraged. The whole golden Zealot counter-example from Halo 3 is kind of dead due to Subtank pointing out that nowadays we don't use golden Zealots from the H3 multiplayer only because they don't match anymore with the more elaborated Zealot armor. This implies that we don't use H3 Zealots anymore just because their armors aren't ornamental enough, not because it would be unoffical anyway since they were never exactly represented this way in these graphics. But there's still much to learn from the Zealot. Do you see this page? That's the Zealot page, shortly before Halo 4, in 2012. It used to display the Reach Zealot. Yet, we could have used the Reach multiplayer armor to show this particular Zealot in a golden armor, much like it was portrayed in CEA. Since we didn't have a good render from Anniversary and it would have been crazy to use multiplayer to "invent" our own render, we sticked to the Reach official armor. And yet, if we had invented this golden Zealot in Reach's multiplayer, it could have still fitted in the Halo canon. But it would have been... a bit too much unofficial. Similarly, anyone could go right now in Halo 4's multiplayer, create a golden Recruit Spartan-IV, and say, look, we now have good pictures of Edward Davis. But it wouldn't be for real. So my point is, nah, let's drop those images. This is not a Major... officially it's a Minor painted in red. This is not a character reference of a Major from Reach... it's a made-up Major based off a Minor in the game's multiplayer. And those two... have never been seen anywhere in official sources; just multiplayer stuff loosely adapted to illustrate something the Encyclopedia said in written form. (Supreme source of canon, *cough cough*) My point is, we don't have to delete everything. Just leave them in their respective gallery. But don't keep'em on the page. We should sort out something with more official depictions of the Major/Officer, for example this, this or that. Taking better screenshots/renders from Halo 3 in Halo: The Master Chief Collection (if that's even still possible) might be another solution. Or getting a slightly better render from the Library feature in CEA. Imrane-117 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2014 (EST)

I've never been a fan of using the current image (for the reasons you quite exhaustively explained) and I've occasionally considered addressing this very matter. Removing the MP-derived image(s) is fine by me. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 09:26, 23 November 2014 (EST)

A good summary of the wiki's approaches. And yes, the general rule is that the image in the infobox should be the most recent image in the Halo chronology.

To clarify about H2/H3's Activation Index, the consensus is basically what Jugus said in that talk page: "The latest image of the Index in its actual, physical form is from Halo 2. The Halo 3 version is merely its holographic representation." The quality bit is one of many factors to be taken into consideration. Just because it's graphically prettier does not mean that we should always use the prettier one over the dated image.

But yeah, removing or replacing the multiplayer images is fine by me as well. — subtank 09:56, 23 November 2014 (EST)

Ground Command

Not sure what to do with this: Link. Are officers and majors no different from each other whatsoever? Should the page be renamed?Japeth555 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)Japeth555

I think the current title is fine, for the sake of standardization with the other Covenant ranks, though the new info should obviously be included in the article. As for the Officer/Major distinction, I don't think there's any reason to ignore the information from the 2011 Encyclopedia; the Ground Command description is likely just for simplification's sake. --Jugus (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2016 (EST)