User talk:Subtank

Archive

....

In the Spartan-III program you removed all the equipment, they arent just equipped with SPI armor...—This unsigned comment was made by Blongee (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

But it is the equipment they are known for. It would be redundant to list every weapon a S-III got hold off; if such thing were to happen, why not just put every known UNSC weapon inside the infobox.....- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 21:34, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Which Noble Team has Mark V B armor, and some of the spartans used those carbines, and marksmenrifles.—This unsigned comment was made by Blongee (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

The SPI is there because it was specialised for the S-IIIs. The Mark V[B] was an armour designed for SPARTANs in general. It's just only used by Noble Team members because the manufacturer was a private company that would only be able to make limited models.-- Forerunner 00:29, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

The M6G debate

I'm getting tired of your disregard for other opinions. In the M6G page, you keep putting up unofficial info. Then when I remove it, you put it back up saying that the M6G not having variants is unofficial info. You need to get your rules straight. Bungie confirms it as an "M6G Personal Defense Weapon System", nothing more. They did not name the sub-variant seen in Halo: Reach. It is not our deciding to name this variant, especially if we name it based on what is seen on the sides of the gun. If we are to name a weapon, we must name it according to what Bungie states it to be. Just as you said Bungie canon trumps Halopedia canon, you must follow that. The M6G variants are not Bungie canon.--FluffyEmoPenguin 17:09, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

The printed texts support the fact that they are variants. That's sufficient evidence to support my claim that they are indeed variants. What might counter this? Bungie's statement that they made a mistake or Bungie fixed the so-called typos either by announcing through BWU or all other forms of announcement media. As such, this is treated as Bungie canon (the fact that the bitmap was produced by Bungie made it so). The same applies to the MA37 merge argument (which has been closed).

You argued that they are indeed errors made by Bungie and that they are evident by the past games produced/developed by them. However, the one that don't make sense is why such minuscule error manage to be carried over throughout the entire titles. Let's focus on Halo 3's M6G. If they were indeed typos, why didn't Bungie removed them during the development phase from the Beta? Why didn't Bungie replaced the typos with a new bitmap using the title updates? Bungie could've easily done so, but they didn't. This imply that they were intentional and that Bungie intended them to be different models, or at the very least variants. If you wish to counter this with H2's Rocket Launcher case, that will fail easily as Bungie seemingly admitted publicly that they made an error in labelling the rocket launcher through the HCE and H2 manual booklets. However, it should be noted that this is the only case where Bungie admits they made an error. Other than that, they seem intent on having those weapons to be labelled as so, incorrectly in the eyes of the public.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:42, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going through your mind when you think that "Model 6B" refers to a sub-variant of the M6G. There is no doubt that it refers to a variant of the M6. There are many reasons as to why these bitmaps would be incorrectly labelled, as well as continously mislabelled. There could have been a name change after the bitmap was created, or the design team might not have been very close to the canon directors. Who knows for sure? The point is that the labelling "Model 6B" refers to the M6B. Since Bungie has stated it is an M6G, the labelling is therefore considered a mistake. It does not need a direct statement from Bungie like "We mislabelled this weapon as such and such..." because the fact that Bungie named it in a weekly update, on the Ordnance page, on carnage reports, and even Halo Waypoint, proves that it was a misprint. To make such a bold assumption as to name these weapons' sub-variants requires much more information than a stamping on a bitmap. Another thing, your ideas are inconsistent. The M6C in Halo 2 says "Model 6C" on the side. Does that mean that it is an M6C-C? The ODST M6C/SOCOM says "Model 6C" on the side. Does that mean that it is an M6C/SOCOM-C? The only way for your theory to fit is if the weapons said "Model C" or "Model B", which they don't. --FluffyEmoPenguin 03:53, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Since I believe it is necessary, I will explain my base beliefs in full on this issue. The M6G in Halo 3 is the "true" M6G. The original, not a sub-variant. The M6G in Halo: Reach is a sub-variant of the M6G. Although, this sub-variant is not called the M6G Model 6B. It has no known name as of now.--FluffyEmoPenguin 04:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Odd that some of my sentences did not appear as it did in the edit form. Anyway, the M6G in Halo 3 Beta had the same issue as we're having right now; it had a Model6 C imprinted on it but was designated as M6G by Bungie. This was ignored by the previous community as a simple mistake. However, the same problem arise in Halo: Reach's Beta. So, what does this imply? Bungie, a professional game developer, could make such a minuscule mistake in a bitmap and ignored fixing it... twice for over 3 years of development? A simply oversight and they didn't bother fixing it? I think not. It is strongly suggested that it is intentionally. Why such odd designation, you ask? Well, it's the future and designation system changes, who knows. Bungie created the universe and revamped the entire known political, social, military, etc system. 500 years into the future and changes to the system are bound to happen. - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:04, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding H2's M6C; as absurd and ridiculous as it sounds, that might be true. However, we don't know other possible sub-variants of the M6C, so that could be ignored. The fact of the matter is that we have two M6Gs of two different imprints of two different games of two different timeline. It could be entirely possible that the M6G in Reach is indeed a B variant but was upgraded to C variant by the events of Halo 3. that would be the most logical sense in terms of timeline-wise.

Again, if this is fixed in the released game, I would love to redact all known information on the sub-variants and apologise. But as of now, it's legit info. It would be a waste of time arguing over a spilled milk and it wouldn't be productive to the wiki regardless of where this discussion is heading..- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 14:04, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

"Bungie, a professional game developer, could make such a minuscule mistake in a bitmap and ignored fixing it... twice for over 3 years of development?" Exactly. It is such a miniscule mistake that they repeated it. Miniscule mistakes are the ones that are repeated most often. You're throwing logic out the window. The absolute most logical assumption is that it was a misprint. Even if it is 500 years in the future, designation systems may have been changed, but clustered, inefficient designations like "Model 6G Model 6B" would never exist purposefully. No company in their right mind would do that, regardless of era. Think clearly for a second: if Bungie were to make available such important information like the full name of a weapon (including sub-variant), would they include it on the tiny bitmap stamping that hardly anyone notices, or would they state themselves? I understand your motives to differentiate between these two weapons canonically, but it cannot be done as of now. There is not enough information. Even if it were 50/50 in regards to probability of being a misprint or a true designation, niether can be proven yet. We cannot say they are the "Model 6G Model 6B" and "Model 6G Model 6C", nor can we say it is a misprint. Therefore, in the style of Halopedia, we should not post either information.--FluffyEmoPenguin 00:46, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Re: I herd you liek mudkips

You herd rite. I duz liek mudkipz, and I duz haz some proposals. I am very short on time right now (my free time doesn't start until next week!), so to see the proposals for yourself, here are some links with relevant information. I understand General5 7 may have already filled you in, but if not, or if you want more information, here it is.

• Smoke's Talk Page
• My Talk Page
• General5 7's Draft

Basically, I want to revive the usergroups because I feel that if, used correctly, they could be a huge help to Halopedia. To quote myself, "Halopedia has A LOT of articles to maintain. It may look shiny and perfect on the outside, but it's rotten to the core with bad articles." If something could possibly be arranged, I'd be more than happy to co-lead the Covenant of Halopedia, the Standards Council of Halopedia, and the Gamers of Halopedia, the latter of whom is severely underrated. The gaming articles (eg. maps, gametypes, etc.) are absolutely terrible, and as an avid Halo gamer myself, I'm very interested in fixing them. My interest in the Covenant of Halopedia stems back from last year, when I was intensely involved, as does my interest in the Standards Council, which I am also eager to have revived, for obvious reasons.

If the usergroups could make a comeback, I am very sure that with the involvement of a few dedicated leaders to motivate members, and General5 7's proposed requirements to join, and with a little organization, the usergroups could help Halopedia in such a huge way that every single one of those "rotten articles" become cleansed and unspoiled.

Sincerely, File:Commander Silver Leaf.PNG Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 18:42, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

And to add, the group involved (Kouger, General, Smoke and myself, to the best of my knowledge anyway) are composing the revival forum as a group here, to give an you an idea of the aims of the revival. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 19:17, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

PS: If you agree, then please sign below on the draft. Kouger specially reserved that spot for you XD --File:Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   02:11, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Sign below Smoke please, if you agree. Then General5 7 will publish the proposal tomorrow evening. File:Commander Silver Leaf.PNG Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 03:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

S/he is called "Noble Six", and is continuously referred to as "Six" in campaign, so I made the redirect for that reason. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 11:59, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

I guess so... but that would create multiple unnecessary redirect such as One, Two, etc.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 12:03, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since "Six" is the main character and the others aren't really referred to by their numbers. I'd say we should make it. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:06, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm alright as long as you're ready for the future flood of unnecessary redirects.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 12:08, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Never try, never know :) - File:Major.png Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 12:10, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hehee... ;P - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 12:11, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Noble Five, Noble Two, Noble Three... etc. Redirects

I just made the page Noble Five which redirects to Jorge-052 but before I do it with the rest of the Noble Team members I want to ask you if I can make the other redirects because I do not have permission. If not then delete the page I created. If the answer is yes then we can create those redirects. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

Go ahead... but, is it true that Noble Five is Jorge-052? All that I know is that Noble One is Carter, Two is Kat and Six is B312... how sure are you that Four is Jun and Five is Jorge? It could be the other way...- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:43, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

It was either GameInformer or Bungie.net that revealed the Noble team numbers, I can't remember which, could be both. But yes, the numbers are correct. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 19:53, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ok.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:59, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Warning for multiple edits

OOPS, sorry, I was using the preview feature though, but I kept editing the section only, instead of going to "edit this page," my bad ^^ and when I previewed the changes it wouldn't just change the reference...when I did what you did, that

<ref thingy>File:DJC-mismatch pic</ref thingy>

It always showed a picture of the actual image...o_O thanks for warning me though, didn't know about that multiple edits thing, I'll TRY not to do that again ;) ~~~~