Talk:Main Page

Jiralhanae Civil War
Should there be a page on the armed conflict between the Jiralhanae that took place before they joined the Covenant?--光环的家伙 (H1234-NET) 14:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)


 * I'm not sure; virtually all we know about this war is that the Jiralhanae were heavily scarred, technology-wise. It probably wasn't a civil war, either - the species was culturally divided into clan-based systems, even into their service under the Covenant.--  Fore  run  ner '' 15:49, 8 October 2011 (EDT)


 * In Stomping on the Heels of a Fuss, the Jiralhanae continuously refer to it as "the great civil war" (p62 and 63). "Civil war" in this context may have a broader meaning, referring to a civil war amongst their entire species or civilization, as opposed to one within a single nation. Within the Covenant, species and culture are largely synonymous, as evidenced by the fact the names of Covenant species are capitalized without exception, while "human" isn't. Despite the fact the Jiralhanae tribes have differences, it's rather easy to find enough unifying similarities to group them as a single civilization. In addition, it's not entirely impossible the Jiralhanae had a united government of some kind before the war and the current tribal system is a result of regression caused by the war, much like most post-apocalyptic fiction deals with the collapse of human civilization and the re-emergence of smaller, tribal societies.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 08:44, 20 October 2011 (EDT)


 * Considering their entire species was until recently united together in an empire. I suppose you could consider it like the 1948 war between Israel and Palestine - the two were one nation that plunged into a civil war, with Israel seceeding. The US civil war was between the United States and the territories that had recently seceeded from them. So, a civil war isn't just defined by "one nation goes to war with itself"; it can include warfare with territory recently seceeded from them.--  Fore  run  ner '' 14:40, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Landing page update 2011
So, what do you think? :) — subtank  15:15, 18 October 2011 (EDT)


 * A Bit of reformatting is necassary, but its definitely better than the clusterf*ck that was the old page. User:Infernal-Blaze


 * Mind taking a screenshot? :) — subtank  15:58, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for using the logo I made. It's really cool to see it on the front page!--Soul reaper 21:27, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Well I like it. Now we just need that background... pestilence  Phil,  pestilence!  21:33, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

I kinda miss the pictures. Also the real world button isn't very good.--Ben Traeger is King 22:21, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * What if we changed the Real World button to an image of Mister Chief? :D pestilence   Phil,  pestilence! 
 * Create a good image and we'll see. :) — subtank  09:47, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Usage of the New Content template
I've noticed that people often tend to remove the New Content template the moment the "new content" comes out, without updating the page with the said new content. To me, this seems counterproductive; it negates the whole purpose of the template, which is to point out the page needs to be updated. It seems more appropriate to remove the template only after the content's some months old or already updated; otherwise there isn't much point to it in the first place. We could immediately replace it with Template:Outofdate, but that doesn't make much sense either, given the content is still very new. I think the New Content template should be kept in articles for a certain amount of time, perhaps two months, after which it would be replaced by the out of date template if the content hasn't been updated by that point. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree, 2 months seems like a fair amount of time. Col.  Snipes  4  50  14:09, 26 October 2011 (EDT)