Talk:Banished

Rename to "The Banished"
Should we rename this page to "The Banished", since the "The" is almost always capitalized? -- Topal the Pilot ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:33, 14 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Bungie also used this style from time to time (e.g. The Covenant, The Flood...), but we had decided not to respect it as it would look awkward. The page's title can be "The Banished", though. (see the Covenant article) Imrane-117 (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Right, I can see that now. Thanks Imrane. -- Topal the Pilot Blueteam.png ( Talk | Contribs ) 08:13, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

The inclusion of the sentence "as such, the Banished were not involved in the Sangheili-Jiralhanae feud"
Editorguy, you can present your argument here instead of edit warring. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 04:13, 14 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Update: simplified my wordy response.


 * They fought against the Covenant prior to the Human-Covenant war and the Great Schism. And They are not Covenant.


 * The Brutes and Elites in this faction did not get involved in the Sangheili-Jiralhanae feud as The Banished were not The Covenant at the time of the Great Schism. They were their own faction.


 * It is an important thing to note on the article, it provides a lot of clarity as to why the Brutes and Elites are able to coexist in this faction post-war. Editorguy (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2016 (EDT)


 * I think we should simply drop the mention of the Great Schism in the article. The original comment from the making of simply said the Banished had fought against the Covenant before humanity beat them. Starting to guess what position the Banished had during the Schism is not good. We don't have enough precision on the topic. Imrane-117 (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2016 (EDT)


 * It explains why Brutes and Elites are in the same faction post-war despite their rivalry, because this faction existed prior to the conflict, it wasn't involved in it. The Great Schism was an intra-Covenant conflict, and the Banished is not the Covenant. And GrimBrotherOne has acknowledged this here: http://www.haloarchive.com/forum/topic/1107-halo-wars-2/?page=67 This discussion was about me having an extra sentence to say "as such, the Banished were not involved in the Sangheili-Jiralhane feued" anyway. That's what this whole discussion is about, me putting in that extra sentence. Let's not have it backfire where we remove the important detail that they are pre-Great Schism entirely. The fact that they are pre-Great Schism shows that they are not a Covenant Remnant, and also explains why Brutes and Elites have no qualms in this faction.Editorguy (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2016 (EDT)


 * I don't see the relevant comment from Grim in your link, the only thing he says is about Cutter looking younger due to cryosleep. Also, how do we know if the Banished were involved or not in the feud following the Great Schism? I don't think they played a huge part in this, but such a mention is mostly off topic. The only thing the developers talked about was, as I said above, that the Banished had fought against the Covenant before the latter's defeat against humanity. Also, do notice how the developers said now the Banished have all sorts of Covenant equipment, since the alliance's collapse, and their faction has expanded. This means they have stolen that during the Covenant's fall, thus making them a potential participant in the post-Covenant feud, though this doesn't make them a "Covenant Remnant" (you're bringing this in the discussion, I'm not). Imrane-117 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

Faction image
The faction's insignia can be found here. In the article's gallery, it is the insignia alongside Atriox, similar to how the Spirit of Fire emblem is alongside Cutter. If anyone can find a higher quality version of it, we can use it as the infobox pic. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (EDT)