User talk:AdAstra2009 - Revision history

Evil Tim: /* Chronological order */

2012-04-20T18:39:01Z

Chronological order

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 20 April 2012
Line 210:		Line 210:

	MPM told me directly to ''not'' use chronological order and group weapons by increasing size when I was re-working the page for the movie ''Stealth'' (largely because the first two weapons in that movie are a 40mm Bofors gun and an M167 VADS). While there's no rule that states it directly, this is the current article standard. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 10:17, 20 April 2012 (CDT)		MPM told me directly to ''not'' use chronological order and group weapons by increasing size when I was re-working the page for the movie ''Stealth'' (largely because the first two weapons in that movie are a 40mm Bofors gun and an M167 VADS). While there's no rule that states it directly, this is the current article standard. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 10:17, 20 April 2012 (CDT)

			:Well, here's a copy-paste of what MPM told me.

			::''The standard format for IMFDB is to start with the smallest weapons first and move towards bigger ones. The page as it is now is really jarring since the GUN PLATFORMS and CREW SERVED weapons are first. That's the opposite of how IMFDB pages have been traditionally. MoviePropMaster2008 02:48, 12 July 2011 (CDT)''

			:I'd guess that would supercede something that happened a couple of years back. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 13:39, 20 April 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Chronological order */ new section

2012-04-20T15:17:32Z

Chronological order: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 20 April 2012
Line 206:		Line 206:
	:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.		:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.
	: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)		: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)

			== Chronological order ==

			MPM told me directly to ''not'' use chronological order and group weapons by increasing size when I was re-working the page for the movie ''Stealth'' (largely because the first two weapons in that movie are a 40mm Bofors gun and an M167 VADS). While there's no rule that states it directly, this is the current article standard. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 10:17, 20 April 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Nuke tag */

2012-03-31T10:07:07Z

Nuke tag

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:07, 31 March 2012
Line 203:		Line 203:

	When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)		When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
	:Um...''Doom's'' weapons, as noted on the page, are not just drawings, the animations are made from digital photographs of physical objects. That part is actually pretty well known, the part that none of the weapons were real, even the reasonably real-looking shotguns and pistol, is much less well known; even the guy who made the page apparently wasn't aware the devs have stated the pistol was a replica. I believe the last ''Doom'' article was deleted because (a) it didn't point this out, (b) it contained all of the other weapons as well and all the really scifish weapons from ''Doom 3'', and (c) it was terrible in terms of formatting and quality. While, as said, it's a borderline case and at present a weak article, I think with some work on my part it could end up as something worthwhile. I'd ask you at least wait until I take the inprogress tag off it before ~~deciding~~.		:Um...''Doom's'' weapons, as noted on the page, are not just drawings, the animations are made from digital photographs of physical objects. That part is actually pretty well known, the part that none of the weapons were real, even the reasonably real-looking shotguns and pistol, is much less well known; even the guy who made the page apparently wasn't aware the devs have stated the pistol was a replica. I believe the last ''Doom'' article was deleted because (a) it didn't point this out, (b) it contained all of the other weapons as well and all the really scifish weapons from ''Doom 3'', and (c) it was terrible in terms of formatting and quality. While, as said, it's a borderline case and at present a weak article, I think with some work on my part it could end up as something worthwhile. I'd ask you at least wait until I take the inprogress tag off it before any further discussion.
	:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.		:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.
	: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)		: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Nuke tag */

2012-03-31T08:26:47Z

Nuke tag

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:26, 31 March 2012
Line 203:		Line 203:

	When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)		When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
	:Um...''Doom's'' weapons, as noted on the page, are not just drawings, the animations are made from digital photographs of physical objects. That part is actually pretty well known, the part that none of the weapons were real, even the reasonably real-looking shotguns and pistol, is much less well known; even the guy who made the page apparently wasn't aware the devs have stated the pistol was a replica. I believe the last ''Doom'' article was deleted because (a) it didn't point this out, (b) it contained all of the other weapons as well, and (c) it was terrible in terms of formatting and quality. While, as said, it's a borderline case and at present a weak article, I think with some work on my part it could end up as something worthwhile. I'd ask you at least wait until I take the inprogress tag off it before deciding.		:Um...''Doom's'' weapons, as noted on the page, are not just drawings, the animations are made from digital photographs of physical objects. That part is actually pretty well known, the part that none of the weapons were real, even the reasonably real-looking shotguns and pistol, is much less well known; even the guy who made the page apparently wasn't aware the devs have stated the pistol was a replica. I believe the last ''Doom'' article was deleted because (a) it didn't point this out, (b) it contained all of the other weapons as well and all the really scifish weapons from ''Doom 3'', and (c) it was terrible in terms of formatting and quality. While, as said, it's a borderline case and at present a weak article, I think with some work on my part it could end up as something worthwhile. I'd ask you at least wait until I take the inprogress tag off it before deciding.
	:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.		:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.
	: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)		: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Nuke tag */

2012-03-31T08:17:52Z

Nuke tag

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:17, 31 March 2012
Line 203:		Line 203:

	When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)		When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
			:Um...''Doom's'' weapons, as noted on the page, are not just drawings, the animations are made from digital photographs of physical objects. That part is actually pretty well known, the part that none of the weapons were real, even the reasonably real-looking shotguns and pistol, is much less well known; even the guy who made the page apparently wasn't aware the devs have stated the pistol was a replica. I believe the last ''Doom'' article was deleted because (a) it didn't point this out, (b) it contained all of the other weapons as well, and (c) it was terrible in terms of formatting and quality. While, as said, it's a borderline case and at present a weak article, I think with some work on my part it could end up as something worthwhile. I'd ask you at least wait until I take the inprogress tag off it before deciding.
			:If you mean ''The Punisher'', I see your point regarding the in-game "M1911," though that's worth showing because it's supposed to be the same weapon as in the cutscenes. Weapons like the Thompson and the M16 muzzles shown, however, go way above the kind of "Elmer Fudd" no-detail gun that rule is supposed to prevent.
			: The statement on resolution in the anime rules, given the context (ie, saying the images will be ''replaced''), is about uploading images which are of much lower resolution than the source, not about images which are natively low-res. [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/LPat/1051885333-00.gif This] is a low-res image (source 640x255, 6bpp, from an old game called ''The Lost Patrol''), but I don't think anyone could argue it's impossible or even difficult to identify the weapon in it. Sure, we might have to reconsider if we suddenly get a very large number of old games screencapped with dubious images, but we'll deal with that if it ever actually happens. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 03:17, 31 March 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Nuke tag */

2012-03-29T20:47:46Z

Nuke tag

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 29 March 2012
Line 202:		Line 202:
	== Nuke tag ==		== Nuke tag ==

	When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien ~~Resurtection~~ is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)		When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurrection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Nuke tag */ new section

2012-03-29T20:46:37Z

Nuke tag: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 29 March 2012
Line 199:		Line 199:

	The rule says minimum, not maximum. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 05:41, 6 November 2011 (CST)		The rule says minimum, not maximum. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 05:41, 6 November 2011 (CST)

			== Nuke tag ==

			When I've said something qualifies for inclusion on the forums, the correct response is not to add a tag to the page saying it doesn't. Doom is borderline and needs work, but Alien Resurtection is clear precedent that "things that can be confused for guns" should be ID'd as not guns. Punisher has a bunch of stuff that needs removing, but that's no good reason to delete the entire page. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 15:46, 29 March 2012 (CDT)

Evil Tim: /* Specifications */

2011-11-06T11:41:39Z

Specifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 6 November 2011
Line 196:		Line 196:
	But I finally acquired the ARMY manual for the MICH helmet and yes, the flap is in the back for COMM cables, though I am not sure exactly WHAT comm cables would be used. Everyone I've seen with a radio headset doesn't attach the cables through their helmet covers so it must something new. From what I can find out there are THREE distinct MICH helmet covers, the first pattern (which was the plain one) when the helmet first came out in 2006, the 2nd model with a small hole for NVG and goggle retention flaps, and the new current model which has this big flap (for comm cables), three IR square Identification tabs (with velcro covers to hide them) and holes for the Goggle retention straps. Thanks for the update. Thanks for the help with updating the page. I yield to your expertise on this :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008\|MoviePropMaster2008]] 14:51, 30 July 2011 (CDT)		But I finally acquired the ARMY manual for the MICH helmet and yes, the flap is in the back for COMM cables, though I am not sure exactly WHAT comm cables would be used. Everyone I've seen with a radio headset doesn't attach the cables through their helmet covers so it must something new. From what I can find out there are THREE distinct MICH helmet covers, the first pattern (which was the plain one) when the helmet first came out in 2006, the 2nd model with a small hole for NVG and goggle retention flaps, and the new current model which has this big flap (for comm cables), three IR square Identification tabs (with velcro covers to hide them) and holes for the Goggle retention straps. Thanks for the update. Thanks for the help with updating the page. I yield to your expertise on this :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008\|MoviePropMaster2008]] 14:51, 30 July 2011 (CDT)

	== Specifications ==		== Specifications (2) ==

	The rule says minimum, not maximum. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 05:41, 6 November 2011 (CST)		The rule says minimum, not maximum. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 05:41, 6 November 2011 (CST)

Evil Tim: /* Specifications */ new section

2011-11-06T11:41:08Z

Specifications: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 6 November 2011
Line 195:		Line 195:
	[[File:ACU MIch Cover.jpg\|thumb\|none\|300px\|]]		[[File:ACU MIch Cover.jpg\|thumb\|none\|300px\|]]
	But I finally acquired the ARMY manual for the MICH helmet and yes, the flap is in the back for COMM cables, though I am not sure exactly WHAT comm cables would be used. Everyone I've seen with a radio headset doesn't attach the cables through their helmet covers so it must something new. From what I can find out there are THREE distinct MICH helmet covers, the first pattern (which was the plain one) when the helmet first came out in 2006, the 2nd model with a small hole for NVG and goggle retention flaps, and the new current model which has this big flap (for comm cables), three IR square Identification tabs (with velcro covers to hide them) and holes for the Goggle retention straps. Thanks for the update. Thanks for the help with updating the page. I yield to your expertise on this :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008\|MoviePropMaster2008]] 14:51, 30 July 2011 (CDT)		But I finally acquired the ARMY manual for the MICH helmet and yes, the flap is in the back for COMM cables, though I am not sure exactly WHAT comm cables would be used. Everyone I've seen with a radio headset doesn't attach the cables through their helmet covers so it must something new. From what I can find out there are THREE distinct MICH helmet covers, the first pattern (which was the plain one) when the helmet first came out in 2006, the 2nd model with a small hole for NVG and goggle retention flaps, and the new current model which has this big flap (for comm cables), three IR square Identification tabs (with velcro covers to hide them) and holes for the Goggle retention straps. Thanks for the update. Thanks for the help with updating the page. I yield to your expertise on this :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008\|MoviePropMaster2008]] 14:51, 30 July 2011 (CDT)

			== Specifications ==

			The rule says minimum, not maximum. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 05:41, 6 November 2011 (CST)

MoviePropMaster2008 at 19:51, 30 July 2011

2011-07-30T19:51:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 30 July 2011
Line 190:		Line 190:

	Please ignore my above comment. I learned from another user (protoAuthor) that Olly Steele has actually reviewed the District 9 page and thus the gun in question will have been correctly identified by him as an 92FS. Sorry to have bothered you --[[User:PeeWee055\|PeeWee055]] 03:43, 20 July 2011 (CDT)		Please ignore my above comment. I learned from another user (protoAuthor) that Olly Steele has actually reviewed the District 9 page and thus the gun in question will have been correctly identified by him as an 92FS. Sorry to have bothered you --[[User:PeeWee055\|PeeWee055]] 03:43, 20 July 2011 (CDT)

			==MICH helmet flap==
			Now I see. The reason for the confusion is that so many vendors SELL the mich helmet covers with the flap on the front. Like other older vets, I get conflicting info from other vets who 'claim' to know what these are about, but I left when we still had the Fritz. So now I have to look up everything. Kinda confusing when the companies themselves pitch the product like this!:
			[[File:ACU MIch Cover.jpg\|thumb\|none\|300px\|]]
			But I finally acquired the ARMY manual for the MICH helmet and yes, the flap is in the back for COMM cables, though I am not sure exactly WHAT comm cables would be used. Everyone I've seen with a radio headset doesn't attach the cables through their helmet covers so it must something new. From what I can find out there are THREE distinct MICH helmet covers, the first pattern (which was the plain one) when the helmet first came out in 2006, the 2nd model with a small hole for NVG and goggle retention flaps, and the new current model which has this big flap (for comm cables), three IR square Identification tabs (with velcro covers to hide them) and holes for the Goggle retention straps. Thanks for the update. Thanks for the help with updating the page. I yield to your expertise on this :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008\|MoviePropMaster2008]] 14:51, 30 July 2011 (CDT)