6,257
edits
Talk:Sangheili Zealot: Difference between revisions
→Change of Default picture
Shazamikaze (talk | contribs) |
Imrane-117 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
Never the less a note of it should still be made of it. [[User:Councilor 'Rumilee|Councilor 'Rumilee]] ([[User talk:Councilor 'Rumilee|talk]]) 01:01, 28 June 2013 (EDT) | Never the less a note of it should still be made of it. [[User:Councilor 'Rumilee|Councilor 'Rumilee]] ([[User talk:Councilor 'Rumilee|talk]]) 01:01, 28 June 2013 (EDT) | ||
==About the color gold== | |||
So I've been doing some research on this subject as of late, and I've just found something interesting regarding [[Sangheili Zealot#Note|the first note]]. It says ''Halo: The Great Journey: The Art of Building Worlds'' (2011) was the first source to reveal that the color gold was for field commanders, and not specifically for Zealots. Supposedly, before that, we were supposed to believe that gold meant the Elite was Zealot (and I certainly did, like most people here). However I've unearthed a long-forgotten book, ''[[Halo: Combat Evolved: Prima's Official Strategy Guide]]'', which I believe was the first ''Halo'' reference book in existence. It was released in November 2001. In this guide, there is no mention of the rank 'Zealot' whatsoever. Instead, '''it says golden Elites are 'Commanders'.''' It's not just a descriptor, it's a rank/title as much as Minor, Major, etc. 'Commander Elite' is the name used throughout the book. Then ''[[Halo 2: The Official Strategy Guide]]'' says: "The Zealot is a hugely experienced warrior. '''His golden armor does not signify rank alone:''' it indicates that he has killed countless enemies in battle. The Arbiter himself was a Zealot before he received his 'calling'." | |||
So there had been a number of sources about the color gold representing a position of Commander rather than the Zealot rank simply. I think the note talking about "the long-held misconception" has become obsolete now. It doesn't matter whether older wiki users held a misconception for a long time, as long as it did not have any impact on the ''Halo'' universe itself (as it did with the URF). Does it bother anyone if I erase that part of Halopedia's dark ages from the notes? Or does it still matter in some way to point out the "long-held misconception"? [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (EST) | |||