Talk:Covenant/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Dragonclaws (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
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 -[[User:J.f|J.f]] | 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 -[[User:J.f|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? [[User:J.f|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? [[User:J.f|J.f]] | ||
==Naming Convention== | |||
:'''Note:''' Now that they've been moved conversation moved to this thread from the [[Talk: Main Page]] | |||
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? --[[User:Dragonclaws|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.--[[User:220.99.144.216|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. -[[User:ED|ED]] 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I like the one with brackets,'' Grunts (The Unggoy)''--[[User:Esemono|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. --[[User:Dragonclaws|Dragonclaws]] 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::: I vote for [[Grunts (Unggoy)]]! --[[User:Esemono|Esemono]] 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:36, September 14, 2006
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 why this page won't be to 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
Naming Convention
- Note: Now that they've been moved conversation moved to this thread from the Talk: Main Page
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)
- 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 like the one with brackets, Grunts (The Unggoy)--Esemono 02:41, 10 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)