Talk:Covenant/Archive 1

Factual Content Disupted + More...

• I'm disputing who knows the location of the Covenant? Also I propose removal of the first picture in the article. I strongly suspect it's a fan creation. Sorry if I'm pissing off a lot of you. =) Cheers, RelentlessRogue 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The top picture looks like it came from the website http://www.covenant-clan.co.uk/ i think. There's a lot of good pictures and infomation on it. --Climax Viod 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture needs to go but with what should it be replaced? Is there some kind of Covenant logo or banner we could use? Cause Covenant is a bunch of Aliens putting up a cool picture of a bunch of Elites doesn't really cover it cause that's just one race. --210.174.41.209 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

High Charity? --Dragonclaws 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Weapons out

The weapons section should be moved to Covenant Weapons with a main article here type link. That way this page won't be so crazy. --210.174.41.209 13:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

History

• Should the 'age of expansion' be deleted from the history section? It doesn't appear in the table found in the articles about the ages -J.f
• Also the tables in the other articles about covenant history place the age of reconciliation after the age of doubt. Shouldn't it come after the age of discovery? J.f
• I think we should create a whole new article for the Age of Expainsion. It is part of the Covenant's history, because I think just removing it from the main Covenant article is just lazy --Black Mercy 21:45, 30 September 2006

'age of expansion' is another name for "Age of Conversion". That is why it isn't on the Template:Ages table. -- John117 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Note: Now that the pages have been moved, the conversation below has been moved to this thread from the Talk: Main Page --Esemono 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the articles for the Covenant species be moved to their real names (Grunt to Unggoy)? My fear is that people would have trouble understanding, but Bungie is increasing their usage of the names. Thoughts? --Dragonclaws 06:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is, a great man once said the Japanese call themselves the Nihongin yet we still call them the Japanese.--220.99.144.216 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. I would think it to be most "correct" to put information about Grunts on the "Unggoy" page because that is their official name, but anyone who doesnt get that deep into Halo wouldnt understand it. Maybe we should consider naming their pages with both- such as Grunts (The Unggoy) or Unggoy "Grunts" or something like that. -ED 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the one with brackets, Grunts (The Unggoy)--Esemono 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote marks don't seem appropriate, and I see no reason to use "the" in one race name and not the other. "Unggoy (Grunts)" or "Grunts (Unggoy)" sounds good to me. --Dragonclaws 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Grunts (Unggoy)! --Esemono 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

PIcture under Society...

Shouldnt be there....--JohnSpartan117 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone changed it.--JohnSpartan117 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)