Talk:M66 light railgun

No longer existing
Since the Cobra's page in HW site has been updated, this weapon no longer has any appereances in Halo Universe... The Warthog with Gauss gun in Halo Wars is same as H2/H3, M68, not M66... So should this page be deleted or the weapon treated as existing weapon but without known uses? EDIT, Or the page should be turned to Rail Gun page... 88.115.124.211 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Cobra uses the M66, which uses a heavier slug but apparently has a slower rate of fire. The M12G1 Warthog uses the M68, which seems to use a lighter slug but which, I believe, has a better rate of fire. --&quot;A government strong enough to give you everything you want...is strong enough to take everything you have.&quot; -Thomas Jefferson 13:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CHANGE NAME
I can't seem to find where the two smaller cannons on the Cobra are listed as M66s. On the Halo Wars website AND in the strategy guide, they're listed as Rail cannons (16MJ LRG Rail Guns) which is TOTALLY different from a Gauss cannon. THIS NEEDS TO BE RENAMED. As does the larger 8MJ LRG Rail Gun mounted on the Cobra which is currently under the article name "105mm Rail Gun".

Nerfherder1428 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Name Still Isn't Changed?
Wow. So Halo Wars has been out for how long now and we still haven't done anything to this article. Let's explain what happened here. Early in Halo Wars' production, concept art and the website facts labeled the Cobra's guns incorrectly. A few months before the game's release, the information was changed. All references to the M66 gauss cannon disappeared. And righteously so. The Cobra cannons look NOTHING like the M68 cannon on the Warthog. They were (more accurately) relabeled as 16 MJ LRG Rail Guns by the strategy guide and just as Rail Guns on the website. I didn't want to have to do this myself but as NOBODY has been willing to fix this, I'm going to have to change the name of the article myself.--Nerfherder1428 20:02, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'd say go ahead and change it.--CR8ZY-ArAB  20:12, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Rename
Thanks to common sense, I have reasons to believe that this article should be renamed to LRG Rail Gun. The  and   refers to the energy required to operate the rail gun.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 22:57, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Yet I'm the one that first made the energy connection on the trivia section. It was specifically placed on the trivia section because it certainly doesn't seem like common sense to anybody that the 16 MJ would refer to the weaker gun and the 8 MJ as the stronger one. Why is the larger gun that shoots projectiles twice as big as the weaker one only have HALF of the energy intake (that's your Mega Joules). That makes no scientific sense and shouldn't be assumed to be fact.

Also, if people still want to argue that route, why on earth wouldn't you assume LRG meant "large"? You want to cut that out of the title too and just put Rail Gun? We were given an official canon name for two weapons (yes they were actually labeled "16MJ LRG Rail Gun" and "8MJ LRG Rail Gun" in the guide) and even though you proposed a vote, SpecOps already had taken it upon himself to combine and rename the article based solely on your assumption (which honestly may or may not be right or wrong).

The second problem I have is that in the merge, there's a few left out tidbits of information. Not a lot though; mostly just further detail and explanation that will probably be added later. Also, I went to great lengths to ensure that my renaming of the two articles was clean by simultaneously changing all the links that referenced them. Thanks to this new edit however, there are now a few sloppy links and redirects hanging around. I went through "105mm Rail gun" to "8 MJ LRG Rail Gun" and was finally redirected to this page. As a closing note, the 16 MJ guns don't combine to form a "more powerful one". I fixed that edit to represent that they are in fact separate weapons from the 8 MJ and do nothing resembling a combination. --Nerfherder1428 20:38, October 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't have the Halo Wars guide, but I would have thought the 8/16 MJ would have been obvious. As I understood it, LRG would have stood for Light Rail Gun - they certainly come a lot bigger. With the issue of energy, I would assume that the smaller railguns use more Mega Joules than the larger one because there's two of them, and thus require more energy to keep firing. And while the 8MJ and 16MJ railguns are different weapons, they are part of the same weapon system - just responding to some of your points.
 * I know there's a lot missing - my merge was a hasty one, and I'm kicking myself for some of the msitakes I didn't manage to find. Especially the spelling - geez, I read at a level years above most of the people I know, you'd think I'd be able to do better. Sorry. --  Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek   Honour Light Your Way!  22:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha so I cede some defeat. The newly released Halo Encyclopedia, on top of being a massive canonical wreck, does in fact name the guns M66 Gauss Cannons, in complete contrast to the now established title of Rail Guns and Halo Wars' current information. I tell you, it's getting harder and harder to live like this. :D. So what do we do? They're not the same guns (totally different methods of operation. I've BUILT gauss guns and I've BUILT railguns and I can tell you that they are NOT the same) and with conflicting information, I'm not sure about the policy. I would like to think that Halo Wars has the ultimate say being that it's their game and they themselves are the ones who proposed and then redacted the M66 name. I know that there are those that favor more towards the Encyclopedia but fail to remember that it too is developed independent from Bungie as well. I have lots of problems with the new guide but those are mentioned on its discussion page. For now, does anybody have ideas on how to handle the situation?--Nerfherder1428 22:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * According to our policy, Bungie's Game trumps over other games, so, we will have to return to the M66 Gauss Cannon.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 23:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Woah, Woah, Woah, Sir Madam Subtank! Bungie never made a game referring to the M66! Ensemble made Halo Wars with the LRG Rail Gun though. Accoriding to the policy, I'm pretty sure third-party games trumps associate literature. The encyclopedia is NOT straight from Bungie.
 * I seemed to misread your previous comment... :S -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 23:43, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I apologize MADAM Subtank. Forgive my chauvinistic nature. :D Before we make any changes, what do YOU personally think holds more value, the Halo Wars game, website, and strategy guide? Or the Encyclopedia (that has more canonical errors than the results of a five-year-old editing a page on Quantum Mechanics)?
 * *looks at the options* Then it would seem Halo Wars is of superior canon. So, the name stays. Just wondering, is Halo Encyclopedia that bad?-  5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 23:54, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * I do believe that I concur. Well, I was very excited about the Encyclopedia's arrival and hoped to find a variety of new information but was a tad disappointed. I did learn that Sub-commander Kusovai's (from Graphic Novel fame) first name is Bero, which I have regrettably not added yet. Other than that and probably less than ten other random facts, the Encyclopdia is a poorly edited, poorly researched, conglomeration of Halopedia articles each shortened to four or five sentences. I would say that yes, it's pretty bad. With this website up and running it's unnecessary, but at least it's got some pretty pictures. And to be fair, it does clear up some previously debated topics and give us a wider look at some dark spots in the universe. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it makes up for the bad things it subjects readers to. So yeah. There's my review. --Nerfherder1428 00:09, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Voting (closed - merge already complete)

 * 1) - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 22:57, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) - We must all trust Subtank's common sense. --  Administrator   Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek   Honour Light Your Way!  03:56, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) - Makes sense--<span style="background:Brown;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%"><font color="Tan">CR8ZY-ArAB   20:53, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) - Do it.http://images.wikia.com/common/releases_200912.2/skins/common/images/button_headline.png -- T   3   2  8 Bouncy Wiki Logo.gif 21:00, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Complication
In a recent Waypoint article detailing Gauss technology, it is clearly stated that the Cobra's guns are designated "M66 Gauss Cannons". So, should these be split again, or perhaps renamed? The Waypoint page makes it perfectly clear that the Cobra's weapons are titled "M66" and are gauss guns instead of railguns. Also, if it matters, the people who write this stuff for Waypoint are Vociferous and Cocopjojo, who are by no means ignorant of the canon, being former AJ staff. --Jugus 15:07, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it seems we have a predicament. While the cannons seem to operate as railguns and look nothing like their M68 cousins, we must make a decision based on canon alone. On one side we have Waypoint, and the other we have Halo Wars. As much as I hate to say it, if Waypoint info comes DIRECTLY from Bungie, I suppose our canon policy holds that in higher regard. But maybe we can still make a compromise. Does the Waypoint article mention at all the main cannon or talk just about the standard dual cannons? Maybe we could keep the LRG Cannon name for the 105mm big gun and rename the dual cannons as M66 Gauss Cannons.


 * On the other hand, the Waypoint authors seem to have gotten their info from the concepts Ensemble had deleted before introducing the game to the public. The guns were named LRG Railguns AFTER Halo Wars and its strategy guide were released.If that's the case, Waypoint authors could have simply gotten their information from a source that had the most info...even a source that was later claimed erroneous and almost completely erased (this would also cancel out the M66's higher canon status). A simple mistake to be true, but one that shouldn't be reflected on our Wiki.


 * So Jugus, I'd like to know your opinion since I did not see the Waypoint article. Did the article make significant contributions to information about Cobras and their supposed Gauss cannons or did it instead spoonfeed us the same information we had gotten from the Halo Wars site before the info-wipe? I think that should probably be the deciding factor.--Nerfherder1428 22:00, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

A completely useless fact
Alltough we do not know the exact structural details of the railgun in the Halo universe, I must point out that the railgun prototypes constructed today have, in contrast, shown that they can have an extremely high rate of fire, as there is no need for a removal mechanism for the used shell. Naturally, the slow fire rate has been defined by the design team possibly to stop the unit from becoming too overpowering. --Jones-250 12:41, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy
I noticed that while reading through the article that the LRG in the title is quite redundant in some aspect. Wouldn't the LRG stand for Light Rail Gun? I didn't see anywhere in the information sections explaining what the "LRG" stood for. I know Subtank is a trusted member of the website, but the common sense here didn't quite kick in soon. No offense Subs, I was just addressing a point of redundancy. Tetrapex 02:03, 7 July 2011 (EDT)


 * That "common sense" is, unfortunately, flawed by now. However, wouldn't saying so make the formal title even more redundant? i.e. LRG Rail Gun for Light Rail Gun Rail Gun. It's like the common mistake used by many, "MAC cannon" instead of "the MAC". :P — subtank  20:38, 7 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Well, why put LRG in the title if knowing the LRG stood for Light Rail Gun? Tetrapex 03:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)