Talk:Human-Covenant War

The Covenant Sepratists (All the Elites left the Covenant during the Schism) were not Swords of Sanghelios
Wasn't Swords of Sangheilios founded after the Human-Covenant war. The Elites that left the Covenant (all of them) and the ones that helped out humanity were just known as Covenant-Sepratists at the time and didn't officially form Swords of Sangheilios yet.

I think it would be better to replace Swords of Sanghelios with Covenant Remnants, since it is unclear which Elites sided with humanity and if some didn't end up joining the Swords after the war ended. All we know is that every single Elite left the Covenant during the Great Schism, and the majority of them sided with humanity.Editorguy (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2016 (EST)

The Swords of Sangheilios was founded in November 2552, when the war was still going on and during the Battle of Earth, before the Battle of the Ark.--Paulhalo121 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Forerunner constructs as a 4th belligerent (side)
In the infobox, surely the Forerunner constructs should be shown as a 4th side because they were against every side of the war for almost all of its entirety, except for a few battles that i will say below. So for this reason the Forerunner constructs should be a 4th side in the infobox.

Remember, the only time the Forerunner constructs were on the UNSC side was a very small part of Battle of Installation 04 in Halo CE (The Library and 343 Guilty Spark levels), just the control room of Installation 05 at the end of Halo 2, and only the Battle of Installation 00 and the 1st part of the Raid on Installation 04B in Halo 3. Apart from during these battles, the Forerunner constructs were against every other side in the war, and not allied with any one side. For this reason, Forerunner constructs should be placed as a sub-side on the UNSC side, separate from the UNEG/SoS, as well as a 4th side. Would it be ok for me to do this? Thoughts? --Paulhalo121 (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2016 (EDT)


 * Only a handful of Forerunner constructs were involved in the war, barely. While the Flood were also involved for a fairly short time too, they had a much larger impact with the size of their forces and the final battles having to prioritize dealing with the Flood as well. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:50, 15 April 2016 (EDT)


 * Ok, i have added a note next to the 'Forerunner Constructs' part to address the Forerunner constructs involvement during the war in regards to side taking.--Paulhalo121 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Banished Inclusion
Should the Banished be included in the Covy war? I have not seen any something saying that they fought against humanity. But I have no yet read the entirety of the new Canon Fodder. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 13:51, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Nevermind, in the Atriox trailer one of the places look like a devastated human city. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (EST)

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/news/canon-fodder-surface-features Quote from Kevin Grace: "These guys are mean, grizzled veterans who are used to fighting both humanity and the Covenant" I suppose that could simply mean they fought humans after the war, though. Hmmm. Japeth555 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2016 (EST)Japeth555


 * Or future members of the Banished could've fought humans while they were still part of the Covenant; in fact many of them very likely did. I don't think there's enough info to assume the Banished, as in the faction itself, was an active party in the war. --Jugus (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2016 (EST)


 * I think the Banished-Covenant conflict should be a separate article, as the Unggoy Rebellion is.Editorguy (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * Until we get more information about the conflict than "it was a thing", mentions in the Covenant's and Banished's respective articles should be enough. --Jugus (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2016 (EST)

Pyrrhic pyrrhic pyrrhic
Why is every battle and war on this site described as a pyrrhic victory? Do the people using this not know what it is and think it just means "costly victory"? You can't have 10 pyrrhic victories in a row, that's the point of it being pyrrhic. It's not something you can maintain. It always has a citation but I really really doubt the Halo books use the word "pyrrhic" every 2 pages or so, because that's how often it is used on this site lol
 * Agreed, old halopedia editors had a real thing for stuff like this or "strategic/tactical X victory" etc. I tend to stick to how Wikipedia prefers this be done. I agree this should be removed.BaconShelf - The Inners Will Never See Them Coming (talk) 15:56, January 14, 2021 (EST)