| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
User talk:Wuzh: Difference between revisions
(→RG-14: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| (86 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
I see that you splitted the page into RG-14 and RG-14/30. The problem is that both versions look the same (the only difference is another explosive). Even the existance of fragmentation sleeve isn't a reliable proof of 14/30 as it technically could be fitted to original 14 also. We can identify original 14 quite sure only for movies of 1920 and early 1930s. In such movies as ''Shchors'' and ''Parkhomenko'' I identified grenades as 14 only presumably, they could be 14/30s, as well as a grenade in ''Gvozd v sapoge'' (1932) could be original 14. So I don't think that splitting this page in two is a good idea. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 03:00, 4 October 2018 (EDT) | I see that you splitted the page into RG-14 and RG-14/30. The problem is that both versions look the same (the only difference is another explosive). Even the existance of fragmentation sleeve isn't a reliable proof of 14/30 as it technically could be fitted to original 14 also. We can identify original 14 quite sure only for movies of 1920 and early 1930s. In such movies as ''Shchors'' and ''Parkhomenko'' I identified grenades as 14 only presumably, they could be 14/30s, as well as a grenade in ''Gvozd v sapoge'' (1932) could be original 14. So I don't think that splitting this page in two is a good idea. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 03:00, 4 October 2018 (EDT) | ||
== Honestly I have no idea == | |||
It looks like some kind of frankenstein job, a Striker-12 shouldn't have a drum advance lever on it, but is has a Striker-12 thumb tab. Is it maybe an Airsoft gun? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:17, 20 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
:Ok so it looks like what's going on here is there's another variant: you have the Sentinel Strikers which were marketed by Penn Arms, and it seems there's a variant that gets called the "Penn Arms Striker-12" that has the drum advance lever on the back. The Sentinel ones don't. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:25, 20 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Yeah, I've rolled back those rollbacks to make it easier for you, quicker than you undoing them. Probably need to add an extra section for the Penn Arms Striker on the Armsel Striker page, though. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:32, 20 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Enfield SA80A2 and HK AG-SA80 == | |||
Hey man, I was wondering if it was ok for me to change the titles for the above entries in the ''Squad'' page back to what they were? I know it probably feels inconsistent when you have other weapons titled stuff like "L22A2" and "L129A1", but those weapons are unique and only ever have that designation. On the other hand the SA80A2 and AG-SA80 are actual names, and it would be even more consistent to have them follow the "[manufacturer] [weapon model] naming system we use for the other weapons (think of how weird it would be if we renamed the Glock 17 entry to "L131A1". | |||
I think we also covered this before in the Recent Changes topic of Talk:Squad - [[User:OngYingGao|OngYingGao]] ([[User talk:OngYingGao|talk]]) 22:10, 10 November 2018 (EST) | |||
:The page itself states that L85A2 and L123A2 UGL are more common than their real names. I think that using the more commonly used designations would be easier for the readers than the [manufacturer] [weapon model] naming system. Glock 17 for instance should stay as Glock 17 because Glock 17 is the better known name. | |||
:In addition, I believe that with a hardcore equipment simulator like Squad, using military designations instead of manufacturer names would actually be more consistent with the game itself. So I argue that L85A2 and L123A2 UGL should use their designations instead of names. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 22:34, 10 November 2018 (EST) | |||
::Gotcha, I've also taken the liberty to split the assault rifles/battle rifles/carbines category to be more consistent with the category changes you rolled out in the machine gun and explosives category. --[[User:OngYingGao|OngYingGao]] ([[User talk:OngYingGao|talk]]) 23:39, 10 November 2018 (EST) | |||
:::I personally believe that the assault rifles/battle rifles/carbines category should be more mixed together since my other category splits have a level of correspondence to categories is seen in-game (LMGs and MMGs being used by different kits for example), while these three categories are all intertwined due to being used by different kits all the time across different factions. But I guess it's alright. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (EST) | |||
== AK image == | |||
Sorry, I can't tell the difference. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 17:40, 19 November 2018 (EST) | |||
: I just cropped the previous image. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 22:38, 19 November 2018 (EST) | |||
== Type 88 on Norinco page == | |||
Just courious but the Type 88 isn't North Korean made? Why is on Norinco page? You got serious sources which prove that is Chinese?--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 08:00, 29 November 2018 (EST) | |||
I meant the Type 88 Assault Rifle inspired by the [[AK-74]]. I know that the [[QJY-88]] MG is another weapon (and very cool) but I called it with the QJY-88 designation. On various internet resources states that the Type 88 is the standard issue rifle of KPA. --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 02:01, 30 November 2018 (EST) | |||
Thanks you. The 3rd link is a bit weird, (it called the Type 88 a copy of a Khyber Pass AKS) but apart from it, the sources looks serious.--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 02:37, 30 November 2018 (EST) | |||
== On that subject == | |||
I was about to edit that to | |||
"Look, I am the director, ja? And you are the writer. So I am right and you are wrong, ja?" - Paul Verhoeven, to Joe Eszterhaus | |||
But thought better of it. :P [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 23:14, 30 November 2018 (EST) | |||
== RE Stan == | |||
First off appreciate the response and the explanation and apology. That's quite big of you. I myself apologize for being rather harsh, I get that way at times. Anyway not much to say except well.. just remember you can't assume because no one said anything that a major edit's ok. And by major I mean a massive change to the site, or a big part of it anyway. Eh you get what I mean. I get waiting for a response can be tough but as I stated elsewhere (though after reading this again perhaps too harshly) this is all volunteer and not all of us have got a lot of free time to check everything, admins included. Again my apologies for the harshness there. <BR> | |||
Now for some of these proposals you can always message one or more of them directly like you've done here and well go from there. That being said, I sent messages to them and they'll likely read my own talk page (or the recent edits) and see maybe this has now chilled a bit. (To you guys, well, it's chilled a bit :P). What's more they should now be more aware of the relevant pages and discussions and perhaps address them a bit quicker. Anyway again, very much appreciate the response, it's cool. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:Yeah, just give us a poke before you do anything large-scale. And please note that I would rather have a user who acts too rashy than a user who doesn't act at all. You are a valuable contributor to this site, don't ever forget that. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:59, 13 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:: Well met. And I also have to agree with Tim - for your flubs you also do a lot of good stuff around here, especially the more tedious and numbing work like categorizing images and the like that almost nobody cares to do nevermind has time for. All told if what I bitched about is your worst, you're doing alright. ;) [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (EST) | |||
==M16A4 from Battle: Los Angeles== | |||
[[File:BattleLA M16A4.jpg|thumb|none|550px|M16A4 (5.56x45mm) with ACOG scope, RIS foregrip, Magpul MBUS rear sight, and AN/PEQ-15 IR designator as seen in ''[[Battle: Los Angeles]]'']] | |||
I saw that you added this rifle to the [[Talk:M16 rifle series#Other Images#Screen Used Rifles|Screen Used Rifles]] section of the Talk Page for our M16 rifle series. Just to be clear: This is not a screen-used rifle from ''[[Battle: Los Angeles]]''. I asked MPM2008 (who took the picture) the same question myself, and he clarified that it's not one of the screen-used rifles from the film; rather, it is an M16A4 from his own inventory that he configured to look like the M16A4s that were in the movie. (And his company didn't provide any weapons for that production.) -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 17:14, 15 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== Um == | |||
I'd rather just have a picture of a weapon with the part rather than the part on its own. It looks kind of silly to just have a detached magazine on the page unless you're making some specific point about the magazine being wrong that requires an illustration. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 08:04, 20 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:I do think it's kind of useful if only because the caption helps with correcting the commonly held belief that the G36 LSW is the MG36. If you can work that into the text, I suppose you could remove it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== New BM-37 image == | |||
New image of BM-37 mortar that you uploaded is of a different version of this weapon than the old one. Your image represents an early BM-37 that lacked the muzzle device, preventing double loading. The image that I uploaded long ago is of late version that appeared in 1943. Most BM-37 in movies are of this late version. So I think that we'll better keep both samples and use one or another in various cases. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (EST) | |||
== Re:GSN-19 == | |||
Sorry, I cannot help. I don't take any of these sources as trustworthy, and cannot say which of them is right or wrong. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (EST) | |||
== Weapon Categories for Squad Page == | |||
Hey dude, if we're gonna split the machine guns up, where should we place the PKT? Should we consider it a MMG or dump it with the other mounted weapons? The NSVT is obviously a HMG since it's in .50, but the PKT isn't. --[[User:OngYingGao|OngYingGao]] ([[User talk:OngYingGao|talk]]) 08:54, 11 January 2019 (EST) | |||
::in that case shall I also put the NSVT and KPVT in that category too? They're both mounted versions of their respective HMGs after all. --[[User:OngYingGao|OngYingGao]] ([[User talk:OngYingGao|talk]]) 08:14, 14 January 2019 (EST) | |||
== Idle question == | |||
In some of your edits, you change .jpg to .jpg in an image and this counts as a change. What exactly are you doing there? I'm just curious. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 14:49, 6 February 2019 (EST) | |||
:Huh... I don't know. It just happens sometimes when I edit. I had never edited the .jpg part of the file on any page (because why would that be necessary), and sometimes one some of the pages the .jpg just inexplicably registers a change after I publish my edits. I don't know what difference does it make and why it happened. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 15:06, 6 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== Changing Edits == | |||
The [[Colt XSE]] has been renamed the [[Colt Rail Gun]]. Don't change the edits. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 02:06, 13 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== Battlefield: 1918 == | |||
Unlocked. I can't believe I locked a page for that reason. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (EDT) | |||
== Asking for confirm about a probable Chinese gun == | |||
I'm sorry to bother you about a small issue, that is almost resolved. Well, the [[Far Cry 4#vz.61 Skorpion|Far Cry 4]]'s vz.61 Skorpion, have Chinese markings on it. Since I noted that you are the most expert about PRC's guns and have direct access of original language sources, I tought that you could confirm if is a Czech made Skorpion or a Chinese clone. I already asked a Hong Kong, some time ago and he confrmed that is used by Chinese government. Thank you in advance. --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 12:34, 9 April 2019 (EDT) | |||
== English proofreading == | |||
Hello! A great thanks for this site. Yes, I have many problems with English. Many thanks for the online correction site: it's actually a very useful site, because, my “word” program searches typos only in Russian language texts. Also, many thanks for the willingness to help. [[User:Pyramid Silent|Pyramid Silent]] ([[User talk:Pyramid Silent|talk]]) 14:11, 9 April 2019 (EDT) | |||
== RE: Notes on editing == | |||
As i can see, it has categories, and i dont see the text on the images like a mess, but maybe its just me , and i had to Add TOC because if i didint, it bugged for me, as the categories/weapon names/descriptions etc.... seemed all bugged to me without it, and i still dont know why because this didint happend to me before. i dont know whats causing this late problems that didin't happend before (with my old drive), im very sorry for causing trouble | |||
--[[User:MeilingSama|MeilingSama]] ([[User talk:MeilingSama|talk]]) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (EDT) | |||
== Smith & Wesson No.3 Russian Model == | |||
I don't think that renaming such long-established page without proper discussion is a good idea. Hereinafter please discuss such activities. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (EDT) | |||
== RE: CSGO Images == | |||
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll try to replace some of these when I can. A couple of concerns, though: | |||
*I was under the impression that weapon-on-ground/world-model screenshots were standard practice (especially since many games have 2 separate models for the weapon that the player sees and the weapon that everyone else sees, and since they were part of the original images). | |||
*While I get that the HUD can be a bit distracting if it's too big (for instance, I really should've remembered to turn off my FPS indicator), I thought that is was typical to leave the HUD there - I recall this being discussed before, and the general logic that I recall was that it makes the game look like it does during normal gameplay (plus there are some things, like the incorrect HUD icons and perhaps ammo capacities, that can be helpful/noteworthy). | |||
*As for the distractors thing, maybe I've just been looking at too many of the ''[[Far Cry]]''-series pages as of late, but I've often tried to make sure that there's something interesting going on in the screenshots, to avoid making them look boring and repetitive (mostly just because it lets me put in more interesting flavor text). I suppose having them in games without bots would let me take all of the caps in one place without getting shot (taking screencaps gives me major lag spikes for some reason), but again, it'd remove some opportunities for flavor text. | |||
And regarding the model inspection shots, I've been trying, but the game's normal F5 screenshot key doesn't work in the menus, and for some reason my full-screen capture keybind (Command-Shift-3) worked exactly once - I'll give it another go, and hopefully it'll actually work this time around. | |||
So, I'll probably be retaking some of these (you're right, some of those M249 shots are really hard to make out) without the FPS counter, and probably a better HUD setup, but I'd like to know whether the no-bots thing is a suggestion/preference or an absolute rule/strong recommendation - I'd be fine with doing either, but I'd like to know beforehand so I don't waste 3 hours getting a bunch of screenshots that I can't/shouldn't use. Cheers, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 09:49, 19 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Would it be alright if I took some of the caps of weapons with skins? Not all of them, mind you - just one or two for each section. I've seen some pages with weapon caps where the guns have camos/finishes applied to them, but I'd like to know if having a few extra caps with weapon skins would be alright. | |||
:Alrighty then, I'll get to it shortly. When exactly, I can't say for sure. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 16:15, 19 April 2019 (EDT) | |||
== LAW M72 page == | |||
==You moved the image of a MOVIE SCREEN USED LAW rocket to the discussion page == | |||
That's now how IMFDB works. There is a reason why shots of actual weapons used in films is on the primary page, if it's the most common and is correct as an archetype of the weapon. We usually start with first variants and move down to later variants, but if there is an image of a screen used version and it's a correct example of a variation, then it stays on the primary page :D | |||
Thanks. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] ([[User talk:MoviePropMaster2008|talk]]) 14:20, 17 June 2019 (EDT) | |||
== Star Wars == | |||
If you want to split them up, then that's ok. But I would ask that you use HD sources or higher. 1080p BluRay or higher. I don't think there's a need to ID the cannons mounted on the ships though. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 20:38, 1 December 2019 (EST) | |||
If you're not going to add any more screenshots, then I wouldn't split them up. You have to make each page more complete if you're going to split them up. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 20:47, 1 December 2019 (EST) | |||
:: It's been over two months, when are you going to split up the pages for the Original Trilogy and the Prequel trilogy? --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] ([[User talk:Ben41|talk]]) 17:14, 11 February 2020 (EST) | |||
== Watermarks == | |||
I would rather have a non-watermarked image and explain the differences in text than a watermarked image which is clearly not ours and used without permission, when there already is a reference image without a watermark. We should make do with what we have, and only use one with a watermark that isn't ours if we either have permission or there is literally no other choice. Don't ask don't tell on images with watermarks stripped off them, but if it's there in the file upload history I can't pretend it isn't. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 10:54, 22 December 2019 (EST) | |||
==Poseidon reference== | |||
[http://www.poseidon.co.jp/2F/2f.html This should come in handy]. [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 08:46, 21 April 2020 (EDT) | |||
== MW3 == | |||
I've unlocked it. We'll be watching. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 10:46, 5 May 2020 (EDT) | |||
==RE:Photoshopped AR-15 images== | |||
In that case the Photoshopped image is the top one with the 14.5" barrel. IIRC the reason it was photoshopped was that the previous image of a 653 was wrong as it had a 16" barrel, so I shortened it to 14.5" as in this case the "real" image was wrong despite the fact that it was physically a real gun photographed by MPM2008. This specific image used to be marked as a photoshop as I remember doing it but it has since been removed at some point clearly. Regardless, I don't think it is misleading not to mark it as a photoshop, as the image is accurate and appears real. The more misleading thing was that the non photoshop was a franken-gun with the wrong barrel length. I imagine that there are a lot of photoshopped images, as it never really used to be the rule that they were to be labelled, I specifically remember labelling this one as MPM2008 requested that images photoshopped from his photos be labelled as such. With the exception of giving a sporter carbine a solid stock which has already been labelled as a photoshop I can't remember any other images that I personally shopped to change the model of a gun. Something else to bear in mind is that the majority of firearm images from manufacturers or distrubutors are photopshopped anyway, either to pretty them up or create images of new models without taking a new photo. I can't remember which AR model it was, but I remember photoshopping back in a trigger one as the manufacturer had accidentally photoshopped it out in their promotional photo. I recall other examples where a company makes SA and FA variants and the images are clearly the some one just with photoshopped selector markings. | |||
Personally, I feel that it is only strictly necessary to mark something out as a photoshop if it is extensive, potentially inacurate or obviously not real, like [[Wild_Geese,_The#Custom_L1A1_Battle_Carbine|this]] SLR from The Wild Geese. The problem with labelling an otherwise "accurate" image as a photoshop is that it creates doubt about whether this is an accurate representation of a model of a gun, and might lead to people using a less correct image. Even worse, labelling image as "posibly photoshopped" or some such when you can't tell gives the impression that we have no idea whether it is an accurate image or not. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (EDT) | |||
==Regarding the FA:S MP5K== | |||
Yes, in short, the MP5 does have two mag releases. | |||
[[File:H&KMP5A2WideForearm.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Heckler & Koch MP5A2 - 9x19mm Parabellum. Chosen because it was the first right-side MP5 image on the page; the circle just above the paddle magazine release is the paddle's pivot pin; the larger circle above that one is the magazine release button.]] | |||
This is also how the HK94 can use standard MP5 mags; there, the button release is the only option, as shown below: | |||
[[File:H&K94Conversion.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Heckler & Koch HK94A3, chopped & converted - 9x19mm Parabellum. Note how this one only has the larger button, since the paddle and its pivot are gone.]] | |||
Hope this helps. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 23:50, 16 July 2020 (EDT) P.S.: Is it a faux pas to respond to a question somebody asked themselves on their talk page? I'm only trying to help, but somehow it just feels... I dunno, stalker-y. | |||
== RE: Question about Alexander Marchenko's shotgun == | |||
Some Russian-language sites. --[[User:Slon95|Slon95]] ([[User talk:Slon95|talk]]) 08:15, 8 August 2020 (EDT) | |||
:[http://1news.zp.ua/v-zaporozhskom-muzee-tehniki-predstavlena-unikalnaya-kollektsiya-oruzhiya-foto/] | |||
And yes, I've aware of so much obscure Russian shotgun weaponry trivia at this point, you have no idea. I'm probably know way more obscure stuff than what anyone has even discovered yet. In particular, there are some facts that literally the very first of [[MagTech MT 586#MT 586P.2|MagTech MT 586 Police]] (somewhere 1989-1990) were imported into the USSR, and in considerable quantities. --[[User:Slon95|Slon95]] ([[User talk:Slon95|talk]]) 08:36, 4 September 2020 (EDT) | |||
== Re: MGS2 FAMAS G1: Is this in-game or not? == | |||
The answer is eh.... kinda. | |||
Putting aside it's appearance being wielded by Mecha Genola in the Variety VR missions on the Substance version of MGS2 for a second (which is represented by an image that I'll look into replacing)... | |||
[[File:FAMASMGS2-1.jpg]] | |||
Whilst it never appears as an in-game model or in an in-engine cutscene, it does appear in a pre-rendered "flashback" scene which is actually a clip from one of the old trailers. The model used is available in a demo disc of MGS2 which shipped with Zone of The Enders and is represented by this image: | |||
[[File:FAMASMGS2.jpg]] | |||
So I would say it absolutely deserves recognition in the MGS2 page. | |||
[[User:Notriguez|Notriguez]] ([[User talk:Notriguez|talk]]) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (EDT) | |||
== SVD-M == | |||
I'm okay with it, but I will defer to Commando552 for firearms related decisions. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 12:27, 16 November 2020 (EST) | |||
== Re: Astra 900/C96 in Lenfilm productions == | |||
The supposed Astra was commonly discussed on forum.guns.ru, and I followed these identifications. Here is a discussion for ''Nachalnik Chukotki'': | |||
https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/85/240819-m51087135.html | |||
Sorry, I cannot create a direct link of the post; scroll for "AVSniff 07-11-2017 23:18", there is a lot of additional screenshots (all clickable) with details that allowed to identify the pistol as Astra. | |||
If you are sure that all these pistols are common C96, well, I cannot object. I'm personally not an expert of C96. --[[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 04:43, 15 December 2020 (EST) | |||
:BTW, [http://historypistols.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/552.jpg a good image of various versions of Astra 900: early, transitional and late], with different pins. Maybe it could be useful. --[[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 04:49, 15 December 2020 (EST) | |||
Sorry for delay, I wasn't able to visit imfdb for a month. Real-life problems, you know... Let's return to the issue. Speaking of additional images, those are only for ''Nachalnik Chukotki'', in other cases I used all screenshots for the supposed Astra. So no additional materials that can help. What I suggest: let's keep Astra in cases it's definitly this gun. I assume that these are ''Mandate'', ''Nachalnik Chukotki'', ''Makar-sledopyt'' and ''Strogovy''. In all these cases this is a "flat-side" Mauser with Astra 900-like "nose". There is a possibility of Mauser C96 "Flatside" aka Italian C99 that also appears in Lenfilm production (''[[20th_of_December_(20-e_dekabrya)#Mauser_C96_.22Flatside_.22|20-e dekabrya]]''); we may discuss in which cases the screen gun looks more similar to one or another model. ''Lyubov Yarovaya'' is a tricky case, I think that the pistol is rather Astra but maybe I'm wrong. And in ''Zhizn Klima Samgina'', as the pistol is seen not close enough, let's re-identify it as C96 (though I would rather keep the remark that it may be an Astra). And in ''Sedmoy sputnik'', you are right, I'll remove this film from Astra entry on C96 page. Hope we'll find the best desision on the case. --[[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 13:07, 16 January 2021 (EST) | |||
:OK, I made the corrections per discussion on films, actors and gun pages. --[[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 13:05, 21 January 2021 (EST) | |||
=="Łucznik"== | |||
In the pre-war period, there were two branches of the company. The first company was called (Zakłady Metalowe "Łucznik") producing bicycles and machines (sewing machines, etc.) for the civil market. The second branch of the company was the weapons factory (Fabryka Broni Radom). Radom is a city in Poland. After the war, both branches of the company were merged under a common name (Fabryka Broni "Łucznik" in Radom). The name archer simply won the poll. :)--[[User:Mateogala|Emto_PL]] ([[User talk:Mateogala|talk]]) 07:30, 15 April 2021 (EDT) | |||
== G3 Page == | |||
I wanted the page to look similar to the AK-47 and M16 so I separated the early and A3 variants to show their differences because the picture of the early G3 rifle was just put in the G3A3 section. | |||
Next time, I will write an explanation for major restructurings.--[[User:HighPhigh|HighPhigh]] ([[User talk:HighPhigh|talk]]) 05:42, 8 August 2021 (EDT) | |||
== Xtreme Props credits == | |||
It's just for credit's sake (at least in this case). Xtreme Props images aren't exclusively the ones to be captioned that way; various other images of screen-used guns (such as from Prop Store Ltd and Movie Armaments Group) had the attributions shown on the articles long ago. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja|talk]]) 15:28, 23 January 2022 (EST) | |||
== Warfighter == | |||
I was gonna move some of those old screenshots to the talk page eventually - there are a few worth saving for the main page though. As for attachments, the game really only lets you mix from the pre-set setups (and some guns have extra/unlockable attachments, usually like the iron sights) so there isn't a whole lot actually. None of the lasers or lights actually function in game. Battlelog still has images for the generic setups so you may be able to find some things there. I can try and work on an attachments section on the talk page eventually.--[[User:AgentGumby|AgentGumby]] ([[User talk:AgentGumby|talk]]) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (EST) | |||
:I already got the game on Origin years ago, but bought the kit shortcut for $20 (I guess it was on sale). I had all the unique unlocks (PKM parts, the AUG A1 scope) on the Xbox 360 but unfortunately it never got added to the backwards compatibility list on Xbox One for obvious reasons, though PC screencaps are obviously a lot higher quality. And yeah, there's a dearth of info on Warfighter probably since it wasn't a successful game. I think there was a really good weapons showcase on YouTube by LettuceWettuce but that creator unfortunately deleted his channel.--[[User:AgentGumby|AgentGumby]] ([[User talk:AgentGumby|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2022 (EST) | |||
== RE: == | |||
I didn't receive any reply regarding this matter. You could try posting a message on Bunni's talk page and see if you can receive any update. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja|talk]]) 08:35, 15 July 2022 (EDT) | |||
== Discord == | |||
Emto#8603 --[[User:Mateogala|Emto_PL]] ([[User talk:Mateogala|talk]]) 19:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
==M-10 image fix== | |||
Thanks for fixing that weird gap under the M-10 image on the ''Upotte!!'' page, how did you get rid of it? It was driving me insane, but I couldn't see anything that would explain why it was there, and the revision history says "-3" but doesn't seem to show anything having changed. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
==Red Dead Template== | |||
If my memory serves, I changed it to work as a series template that we only have to put {{}} tags on a page instead of copy-pasting the whole thing. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 00:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
If your way would be cleaner, that definitely works for me. And if "Made it proper" came off as disrespectful, I do sincerely apologize. I wasn't referring to the quality of yours or anyone else's work here. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 00:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
==Sicario: Day of the Soldado Beretta== | |||
[[File:Sic2_202.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A Beretta 92FS Centurion is wielded by Alejandro.]] | |||
Despite your recent update to the page, I'm not sure that this is a Beretta 92FS Centurion. While the edge of the barrel does not extend past the tip of the slide (like a Centurion), the slide itself extends further past the frame than a Centurion-style pistol. I think that this is just a regular Beretta 92F/FS which has been fitted with a flush-fit barrel (which are made by several after-market manufacturers, and similar guns have appeared in other media, such as Season 2 of ''[[Miami Vice]]''). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 16:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Acknowledge that I mis-understood the nature of your edits; I didn't look at the edit comparison closely enough. As for letting you know: I tend to take the attitude that before I roll back somebody's changes to a page, it's good etiquette to advise them why I'm changing the page. After all, it's been a pet peeve of mine when people repeatedly roll back changes that I make without telling me (especially when I know that they're wrong). Also, as an FYI: I still hold Admin status on this Wiki myself, so that has nothing to do with why I reached out to you. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 18:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Hellsinki == | |||
I figured it was technical. The page has been around for over a decade, it was time to go. I saved the code. If someone else wants to put in the time to finish it, they can. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 17:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
==Heat Type 56-1== | |||
The color of the wood finish is more consistent with the Norinco-built guns than Poly Techs. Also: We've traditionally referred to the Type 56 guns as "Norinco Type 56/Type 56-1/Type 56-2/etc." for many years now. Most of our pages refer to "Norinco Type 56-1", not just "Type 56-1." At this point, are you really prepared to go back and change all of those pages? I hate to say that we shouldn't do something because of a path dependency issue, but I also hate inconsistency even more. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 21:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, you are correct that we shouldn't perpetuate mis-information due to habits and tradition. I also think that your approach makes sense, given that with some other type of rifles, we eschew the brand-name when we know that there was more than one manufacturer (example: I would consider "Colt M16A2" incorrect for identifying an M16A2-pattern rifle, vs. just "M16A2"). With that being said, I think that almost any of the movie armorers on here would tell you that the vast, VAST majority of their Type 56-pattern AK rifles were likely Norinco-manufactured. That is certainly my impression from anecdotal evidence after seeing countless action movies over the years. But if you want to undertake the project of re-naming Type 56 entries across IMFDB (hundreds if not thousands of pages at this point), then that is your prerogative. | |||
:RE the difference between Norinco and Poly Tech AKs - my understanding is that Poly Techs will usually have both (1.) a glossier, higher-grain wood finish (and they were imported with both light blonde wood and dark oak finishes), and (2.) a deeper blue finish on the metal parts. If you want to see an example - here is my own Poly Tech-manufactured AK, which was imported by Golden State Arms in the mid-1980s: | |||
:[[Image:MyAK (2).jpg|thumb|none|500px|]] | |||
:Sorry that the resolution isn't great - I took this pic back in 2004 when I originally bought the gun. I also can't take new pics because the rifle still resides at my family's house in another state at this time. But hopefully, you can see the difference vs. the Norinco-made guns. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 13:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::So I missed your discussion over the [[Norinco]] group page, when you stripped that page of all the firearms believed (incorrectly) to have been manufactured by Norinco. I guess that I have somewhat mixed thoughts, though I see merits in your arguments. My take: | |||
::*You are correct that Norinco came into existence during the post-Maoism era reforms implemented by Deng Xiaopeng, as an arms export conglomerate that was meant to sell the products manufactured by PLA-owned state factories. Obviously, the company also did not exist when the Type 56 rifle was first manufactured - the original maker was State Factory 66. | |||
::*On the other hand, I do think it's also fair to say that Norinco was created to be essentially the brand name for the weapons that it has sold, and the difference between them and Poly Tech is that (usually), the two companies served as the export branch/international brand name for different factories. I don't know whether this is true, but at least one source I Googled suggests that Norinco guns are made by State Factory 66, while Poly Tech guns came from State Factory 326. Though it gets complicated - there were a lot of factory codes, and speculation is abound about what this means; common theory is that State Factory 66 was primary assembler, while parts came from other factories. This is also why the specs are slightly different between the guns sold in the West by Norinco vs. those sold by Poly Tech. So even if Norinco didn't own the manufacturing facilities themselves, it also isn't inaccurate to say that the PLA treated them as the "brand" for the guns that they sold. | |||
::*So, all this to say: I do think we have to be careful with the justification that we can't use a brand name for a weapon sold by a company if they are not also the manufacturer. As I am sure you know well, there are many firearm designs where the company that brands and sells the weapons is sourcing parts from another manufacturer. (Example: My Bravo Company Mfg AR-15 consists of parts manufactured mostly by Vltor, not BCM themselves, but I still call my rifle a "BCM" and not a "Vltor".) | |||
::*Philosophically, I do agree that when we're dealing with military weapons where the design is owned by a government entity, and more than one manufacturer exists, it's often a bad idea to use brand names. This is, of course, why I would generally discourage use of terms like "Colt M16A2" or "Colt M4A1" to describe recent U.S. military service rifles, where the TDP is owned by the USG (and nowadays, most of those guns are built by FN, anyway). Same logics applies in this situation. | |||
::-[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 00:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== "The" titles == | |||
Sorry, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:10, 23 December 2023
Welcome to IMFDB
Before you do any editing please take the time to read the Rules, Standards and Principles. This is a very important document that explains how this website is setup as well as telling you what is and isn't allowed. If it is determined by an admin that you have not read these rules, your account will be suspended. Continued non-compliance may result in a permanent ban. After that you should also read the IMFDB Screencapping Guide and the IMFDB Style Guide to familiarize yourself with the image and formatting requirements for pages you create.
There are a number of pages that desperately need your help. You can find these Incomplete pages here.
If you have any questions, feel free to post them here but make sure to sign your post by typing --~~~~.
Finally, IMFDB has a forum set up here that is only available to registered members. There is lots of good stuff to see there. If you would like to join the forum, please post HERE and an account will be created for you.
Now, HAPPY EDITING! bunni (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2017 (EST)
"Something is going wrong with the Iron Sights picture"
I assume you're getting a message that says "failed to create directory." This is a known issue with our software when people attempt to upload files with certain combinations of numbers in them, the software just doesn't like it for some reason. Try changing the name of the file a bit. Evil Tim (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2017 (EST)
VK-98
There were single shot VK-98s, here's one:
https://jamesdjulia.com/item/1370-369/
Note the bottom image. Evil Tim (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2018 (EST)
Dirty Bomb
Why is this page marked incomplete? --Funkychinaman (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2018 (EST)
- Yes,please mark as a work in progress. Thanks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2018 (EST)
CSGO
Oh, I understand, but in the case of the CSGO example you would never write it out that way when there are multiple types of 7.62mm rounds you might load into the magazine (pistol, intermediate and rifle, for a start). You don't typically need to inform soldiers how many rounds fit into a magazine because the follower has a habit of enforcing the correct number: even if you decided to do so, you'd put the "30" on its own line or write "30 rounds" and then the correct type of ammo to load it with.
I'd wager it's a typo by the texture artist, but there's no real way for it to be right, so we can say it's wrong.
Saying something is wrong isn't a condemnation of the work as a whole: we're certainly not saying we're angry at them for doing things this way just by saying it's not how things are in real life. And if it was never intended to be correct, then there's no problem with pointing out it isn't, surely?
If a creator decides to do something the real firearm doesn't do, that depiction is incorrect. That's not a value judgement, though: it might make for a really striking design to have parts a real weapon doesn't, or a really cool scene if a gunman fires fifteen shots from a six-shooter.
Besides, videogame developers are much too busy with fans threatening to murder them for nerfing their favourite gun to worry about us :P
As for chatting, there's the forum? Evil Tim (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2018 (EST)
FAMAS
Trying to work out what is and isn't the Felin system is a path to madness, even the French don't know. Evil Tim (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
The resources about gunworld
In actually,the website is can’t to visit,here is a new URL. Landwarrior(talk)
Uncharted 4 Galil/INSAS
Are you 100% sure is a Galil? Just because the Uncharted wikia show a Galil in their page doesn't mean that is a Galil in the game (beside the wikia is not very good for watching infos about the new games). So please make some photos of the rifles (and of the other guns if you can). If you read the IMFDB policy is that usually some pics of the guns IN THE MEDIA are required BEFORE id-ing a gun. No pics means that nobody can correctly identify them better. Shi she (hope is correct).--Dannyguns (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2018 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure it's a Galil. I looked up some gameplay footage of the INSAS in multiplayer and it's got the Galil 7.62 magazine, the Galil selector switch, and the Galil bolt handle (also try this thumbnail image). The charging handle on the INSAS is very different from that on the Galil, located ahead of the breech on the left side, and has been compared to a HK charging handle. Sadly I do not have a PS4 so I can't provide any images. Also it's "xie xie". Thanks!--Wuzh (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2018 (EDT)
WIP vs incomplete
Incomplete is unfinished. No work is being done. People purposely creating incomplete pages is a pet peeve for me. The Rules specifically state quality over quantity, so users coming in and dropping an incomplete page is a problem. A first day incomplete is on the short list for deletion. WIP means some work is being done. WIP means a user is accountable. --Funkychinaman (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, WIP is when you're currently building the page, and you or some specific users are planning to finish it. The appropriate instance to use the "Incomplete" template is when a page has been made for a while (as long as it meets the minimal IMFDB standards) but has some worthy content missing. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
Airsoft TAR-21
If you're curious, I believe that one exists if you want to show what the iron sights look like, since most pics of real TARs have them folded. Evil Tim (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
Changing "image" to "file"
Um, why are you doing that? It literally makes no difference at all. We don't have a standard and we don't need to change one to the other. Also could you discuss it on the Main Page talk page before you start doing something like that? Evil Tim (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
Luger
I have an idea why it's so dark, let me try something. Evil Tim (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
- OK my theory that it was interpolation was totally wrong and I ended up just taking a screenshot of it displaying correctly at full size and using that. Should start displaying properly on other pages when the server updates, but it's the right colour on the BF1 page now. Evil Tim (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
Re: Used file deleted
Sorry for delay, I was very busy the whole week and didn't visit imfdb. As I can see, file A280C.jpg is active, it is used on Talk:Star Wars Battlefront. And I don't see in file history that it was ever deleted. Greg-Z (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
LA-K12 Puma shotgun
Figured you might want this for your reference chart; it’s another shotgun housed in a QBZ-95 shell and seems to use Hawk magazines and might only be for export to the US and Canada. --AgentGumby (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
- In that regard, there are images of the OTs-38 Stechkin silent revolver and the Monolith Arms P-12. The RSA Kobalt, USFA ZiP Gun, Franchi SAS-12, Cosmi Lusso Deluxe, and Safir T-17 also have images, though they're not currently used in particular media pages so I don't know if you'd like to include them. The MG 39 Rh could also come in handy; it's currently on the MG 34 talk page, but if it makes an actual appearance it will probably have its own page. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2018 (EDT)
Block Page
You are correct, but the graphic also explains why the page is not allowed. --Funkychinaman (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
- You are hereby ordered to stop taking things so seriously, on pain of having sharks thrown at you by bears. Evil Tim (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
- Every time Bunni creates a new account, the user gets a message pointing to the RSP, Style Guide, and the Screencapping Guide (see above on your own page.) If people actually read through those pages, it'd make things a lot easier for admins. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
RG-14
I see that you splitted the page into RG-14 and RG-14/30. The problem is that both versions look the same (the only difference is another explosive). Even the existance of fragmentation sleeve isn't a reliable proof of 14/30 as it technically could be fitted to original 14 also. We can identify original 14 quite sure only for movies of 1920 and early 1930s. In such movies as Shchors and Parkhomenko I identified grenades as 14 only presumably, they could be 14/30s, as well as a grenade in Gvozd v sapoge (1932) could be original 14. So I don't think that splitting this page in two is a good idea. Greg-Z (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2018 (EDT)
Honestly I have no idea
It looks like some kind of frankenstein job, a Striker-12 shouldn't have a drum advance lever on it, but is has a Striker-12 thumb tab. Is it maybe an Airsoft gun? Evil Tim (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
- Ok so it looks like what's going on here is there's another variant: you have the Sentinel Strikers which were marketed by Penn Arms, and it seems there's a variant that gets called the "Penn Arms Striker-12" that has the drum advance lever on the back. The Sentinel ones don't. Evil Tim (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
Enfield SA80A2 and HK AG-SA80
Hey man, I was wondering if it was ok for me to change the titles for the above entries in the Squad page back to what they were? I know it probably feels inconsistent when you have other weapons titled stuff like "L22A2" and "L129A1", but those weapons are unique and only ever have that designation. On the other hand the SA80A2 and AG-SA80 are actual names, and it would be even more consistent to have them follow the "[manufacturer] [weapon model] naming system we use for the other weapons (think of how weird it would be if we renamed the Glock 17 entry to "L131A1".
I think we also covered this before in the Recent Changes topic of Talk:Squad - OngYingGao (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2018 (EST)
- The page itself states that L85A2 and L123A2 UGL are more common than their real names. I think that using the more commonly used designations would be easier for the readers than the [manufacturer] [weapon model] naming system. Glock 17 for instance should stay as Glock 17 because Glock 17 is the better known name.
- In addition, I believe that with a hardcore equipment simulator like Squad, using military designations instead of manufacturer names would actually be more consistent with the game itself. So I argue that L85A2 and L123A2 UGL should use their designations instead of names. --Wuzh (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2018 (EST)
- Gotcha, I've also taken the liberty to split the assault rifles/battle rifles/carbines category to be more consistent with the category changes you rolled out in the machine gun and explosives category. --OngYingGao (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2018 (EST)
- I personally believe that the assault rifles/battle rifles/carbines category should be more mixed together since my other category splits have a level of correspondence to categories is seen in-game (LMGs and MMGs being used by different kits for example), while these three categories are all intertwined due to being used by different kits all the time across different factions. But I guess it's alright. --Wuzh (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (EST)
- Gotcha, I've also taken the liberty to split the assault rifles/battle rifles/carbines category to be more consistent with the category changes you rolled out in the machine gun and explosives category. --OngYingGao (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2018 (EST)
AK image
Sorry, I can't tell the difference. --Ben41 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2018 (EST)
Type 88 on Norinco page
Just courious but the Type 88 isn't North Korean made? Why is on Norinco page? You got serious sources which prove that is Chinese?--Dannyguns (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2018 (EST)
I meant the Type 88 Assault Rifle inspired by the AK-74. I know that the QJY-88 MG is another weapon (and very cool) but I called it with the QJY-88 designation. On various internet resources states that the Type 88 is the standard issue rifle of KPA. --Dannyguns (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Thanks you. The 3rd link is a bit weird, (it called the Type 88 a copy of a Khyber Pass AKS) but apart from it, the sources looks serious.--Dannyguns (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2018 (EST)
On that subject
I was about to edit that to
"Look, I am the director, ja? And you are the writer. So I am right and you are wrong, ja?" - Paul Verhoeven, to Joe Eszterhaus
But thought better of it. :P Evil Tim (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2018 (EST)
RE Stan
First off appreciate the response and the explanation and apology. That's quite big of you. I myself apologize for being rather harsh, I get that way at times. Anyway not much to say except well.. just remember you can't assume because no one said anything that a major edit's ok. And by major I mean a massive change to the site, or a big part of it anyway. Eh you get what I mean. I get waiting for a response can be tough but as I stated elsewhere (though after reading this again perhaps too harshly) this is all volunteer and not all of us have got a lot of free time to check everything, admins included. Again my apologies for the harshness there.
Now for some of these proposals you can always message one or more of them directly like you've done here and well go from there. That being said, I sent messages to them and they'll likely read my own talk page (or the recent edits) and see maybe this has now chilled a bit. (To you guys, well, it's chilled a bit :P). What's more they should now be more aware of the relevant pages and discussions and perhaps address them a bit quicker. Anyway again, very much appreciate the response, it's cool. StanTheMan (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (EST)
- Yeah, just give us a poke before you do anything large-scale. And please note that I would rather have a user who acts too rashy than a user who doesn't act at all. You are a valuable contributor to this site, don't ever forget that. Evil Tim (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2018 (EST)
- Well met. And I also have to agree with Tim - for your flubs you also do a lot of good stuff around here, especially the more tedious and numbing work like categorizing images and the like that almost nobody cares to do nevermind has time for. All told if what I bitched about is your worst, you're doing alright. ;) StanTheMan (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (EST)
M16A4 from Battle: Los Angeles
I saw that you added this rifle to the Screen Used Rifles section of the Talk Page for our M16 rifle series. Just to be clear: This is not a screen-used rifle from Battle: Los Angeles. I asked MPM2008 (who took the picture) the same question myself, and he clarified that it's not one of the screen-used rifles from the film; rather, it is an M16A4 from his own inventory that he configured to look like the M16A4s that were in the movie. (And his company didn't provide any weapons for that production.) -MT2008 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2018 (EST)
Um
I'd rather just have a picture of a weapon with the part rather than the part on its own. It looks kind of silly to just have a detached magazine on the page unless you're making some specific point about the magazine being wrong that requires an illustration. Evil Tim (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2018 (EST)
- I do think it's kind of useful if only because the caption helps with correcting the commonly held belief that the G36 LSW is the MG36. If you can work that into the text, I suppose you could remove it. Evil Tim (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (EST)
New BM-37 image
New image of BM-37 mortar that you uploaded is of a different version of this weapon than the old one. Your image represents an early BM-37 that lacked the muzzle device, preventing double loading. The image that I uploaded long ago is of late version that appeared in 1943. Most BM-37 in movies are of this late version. So I think that we'll better keep both samples and use one or another in various cases. Greg-Z (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (EST)
Re:GSN-19
Sorry, I cannot help. I don't take any of these sources as trustworthy, and cannot say which of them is right or wrong. Greg-Z (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Weapon Categories for Squad Page
Hey dude, if we're gonna split the machine guns up, where should we place the PKT? Should we consider it a MMG or dump it with the other mounted weapons? The NSVT is obviously a HMG since it's in .50, but the PKT isn't. --OngYingGao (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2019 (EST)
- in that case shall I also put the NSVT and KPVT in that category too? They're both mounted versions of their respective HMGs after all. --OngYingGao (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Idle question
In some of your edits, you change .jpg to .jpg in an image and this counts as a change. What exactly are you doing there? I'm just curious. Evil Tim (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2019 (EST)
- Huh... I don't know. It just happens sometimes when I edit. I had never edited the .jpg part of the file on any page (because why would that be necessary), and sometimes one some of the pages the .jpg just inexplicably registers a change after I publish my edits. I don't know what difference does it make and why it happened. --Wuzh (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2019 (EST)
Changing Edits
The Colt XSE has been renamed the Colt Rail Gun. Don't change the edits. --Ben41 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2019 (EST)
Battlefield: 1918
Unlocked. I can't believe I locked a page for that reason. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (EDT)
Asking for confirm about a probable Chinese gun
I'm sorry to bother you about a small issue, that is almost resolved. Well, the Far Cry 4's vz.61 Skorpion, have Chinese markings on it. Since I noted that you are the most expert about PRC's guns and have direct access of original language sources, I tought that you could confirm if is a Czech made Skorpion or a Chinese clone. I already asked a Hong Kong, some time ago and he confrmed that is used by Chinese government. Thank you in advance. --Dannyguns (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
English proofreading
Hello! A great thanks for this site. Yes, I have many problems with English. Many thanks for the online correction site: it's actually a very useful site, because, my “word” program searches typos only in Russian language texts. Also, many thanks for the willingness to help. Pyramid Silent (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
RE: Notes on editing
As i can see, it has categories, and i dont see the text on the images like a mess, but maybe its just me , and i had to Add TOC because if i didint, it bugged for me, as the categories/weapon names/descriptions etc.... seemed all bugged to me without it, and i still dont know why because this didint happend to me before. i dont know whats causing this late problems that didin't happend before (with my old drive), im very sorry for causing trouble --MeilingSama (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
Smith & Wesson No.3 Russian Model
I don't think that renaming such long-established page without proper discussion is a good idea. Hereinafter please discuss such activities. Thanks for understanding. --Greg-Z (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (EDT)
RE: CSGO Images
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll try to replace some of these when I can. A couple of concerns, though:
- I was under the impression that weapon-on-ground/world-model screenshots were standard practice (especially since many games have 2 separate models for the weapon that the player sees and the weapon that everyone else sees, and since they were part of the original images).
- While I get that the HUD can be a bit distracting if it's too big (for instance, I really should've remembered to turn off my FPS indicator), I thought that is was typical to leave the HUD there - I recall this being discussed before, and the general logic that I recall was that it makes the game look like it does during normal gameplay (plus there are some things, like the incorrect HUD icons and perhaps ammo capacities, that can be helpful/noteworthy).
- As for the distractors thing, maybe I've just been looking at too many of the Far Cry-series pages as of late, but I've often tried to make sure that there's something interesting going on in the screenshots, to avoid making them look boring and repetitive (mostly just because it lets me put in more interesting flavor text). I suppose having them in games without bots would let me take all of the caps in one place without getting shot (taking screencaps gives me major lag spikes for some reason), but again, it'd remove some opportunities for flavor text.
And regarding the model inspection shots, I've been trying, but the game's normal F5 screenshot key doesn't work in the menus, and for some reason my full-screen capture keybind (Command-Shift-3) worked exactly once - I'll give it another go, and hopefully it'll actually work this time around.
So, I'll probably be retaking some of these (you're right, some of those M249 shots are really hard to make out) without the FPS counter, and probably a better HUD setup, but I'd like to know whether the no-bots thing is a suggestion/preference or an absolute rule/strong recommendation - I'd be fine with doing either, but I'd like to know beforehand so I don't waste 3 hours getting a bunch of screenshots that I can't/shouldn't use. Cheers, Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Would it be alright if I took some of the caps of weapons with skins? Not all of them, mind you - just one or two for each section. I've seen some pages with weapon caps where the guns have camos/finishes applied to them, but I'd like to know if having a few extra caps with weapon skins would be alright.
- Alrighty then, I'll get to it shortly. When exactly, I can't say for sure. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
LAW M72 page
You moved the image of a MOVIE SCREEN USED LAW rocket to the discussion page
That's now how IMFDB works. There is a reason why shots of actual weapons used in films is on the primary page, if it's the most common and is correct as an archetype of the weapon. We usually start with first variants and move down to later variants, but if there is an image of a screen used version and it's a correct example of a variation, then it stays on the primary page :D Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
Star Wars
If you want to split them up, then that's ok. But I would ask that you use HD sources or higher. 1080p BluRay or higher. I don't think there's a need to ID the cannons mounted on the ships though. --Ben41 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2019 (EST)
If you're not going to add any more screenshots, then I wouldn't split them up. You have to make each page more complete if you're going to split them up. --Ben41 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Watermarks
I would rather have a non-watermarked image and explain the differences in text than a watermarked image which is clearly not ours and used without permission, when there already is a reference image without a watermark. We should make do with what we have, and only use one with a watermark that isn't ours if we either have permission or there is literally no other choice. Don't ask don't tell on images with watermarks stripped off them, but if it's there in the file upload history I can't pretend it isn't. Evil Tim (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2019 (EST)
Poseidon reference
This should come in handy. Ominae (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2020 (EDT)
MW3
I've unlocked it. We'll be watching. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
RE:Photoshopped AR-15 images
In that case the Photoshopped image is the top one with the 14.5" barrel. IIRC the reason it was photoshopped was that the previous image of a 653 was wrong as it had a 16" barrel, so I shortened it to 14.5" as in this case the "real" image was wrong despite the fact that it was physically a real gun photographed by MPM2008. This specific image used to be marked as a photoshop as I remember doing it but it has since been removed at some point clearly. Regardless, I don't think it is misleading not to mark it as a photoshop, as the image is accurate and appears real. The more misleading thing was that the non photoshop was a franken-gun with the wrong barrel length. I imagine that there are a lot of photoshopped images, as it never really used to be the rule that they were to be labelled, I specifically remember labelling this one as MPM2008 requested that images photoshopped from his photos be labelled as such. With the exception of giving a sporter carbine a solid stock which has already been labelled as a photoshop I can't remember any other images that I personally shopped to change the model of a gun. Something else to bear in mind is that the majority of firearm images from manufacturers or distrubutors are photopshopped anyway, either to pretty them up or create images of new models without taking a new photo. I can't remember which AR model it was, but I remember photoshopping back in a trigger one as the manufacturer had accidentally photoshopped it out in their promotional photo. I recall other examples where a company makes SA and FA variants and the images are clearly the some one just with photoshopped selector markings.
Personally, I feel that it is only strictly necessary to mark something out as a photoshop if it is extensive, potentially inacurate or obviously not real, like this SLR from The Wild Geese. The problem with labelling an otherwise "accurate" image as a photoshop is that it creates doubt about whether this is an accurate representation of a model of a gun, and might lead to people using a less correct image. Even worse, labelling image as "posibly photoshopped" or some such when you can't tell gives the impression that we have no idea whether it is an accurate image or not. --commando552 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
Regarding the FA:S MP5K
Yes, in short, the MP5 does have two mag releases.
This is also how the HK94 can use standard MP5 mags; there, the button release is the only option, as shown below:
Hope this helps. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2020 (EDT) P.S.: Is it a faux pas to respond to a question somebody asked themselves on their talk page? I'm only trying to help, but somehow it just feels... I dunno, stalker-y.
RE: Question about Alexander Marchenko's shotgun
Some Russian-language sites. --Slon95 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
And yes, I've aware of so much obscure Russian shotgun weaponry trivia at this point, you have no idea. I'm probably know way more obscure stuff than what anyone has even discovered yet. In particular, there are some facts that literally the very first of MagTech MT 586 Police (somewhere 1989-1990) were imported into the USSR, and in considerable quantities. --Slon95 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Re: MGS2 FAMAS G1: Is this in-game or not?
The answer is eh.... kinda.
Putting aside it's appearance being wielded by Mecha Genola in the Variety VR missions on the Substance version of MGS2 for a second (which is represented by an image that I'll look into replacing)...
Whilst it never appears as an in-game model or in an in-engine cutscene, it does appear in a pre-rendered "flashback" scene which is actually a clip from one of the old trailers. The model used is available in a demo disc of MGS2 which shipped with Zone of The Enders and is represented by this image:
So I would say it absolutely deserves recognition in the MGS2 page. Notriguez (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
SVD-M
I'm okay with it, but I will defer to Commando552 for firearms related decisions. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2020 (EST)
Re: Astra 900/C96 in Lenfilm productions
The supposed Astra was commonly discussed on forum.guns.ru, and I followed these identifications. Here is a discussion for Nachalnik Chukotki: https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/85/240819-m51087135.html Sorry, I cannot create a direct link of the post; scroll for "AVSniff 07-11-2017 23:18", there is a lot of additional screenshots (all clickable) with details that allowed to identify the pistol as Astra.
If you are sure that all these pistols are common C96, well, I cannot object. I'm personally not an expert of C96. --Greg-Z (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2020 (EST)
- BTW, a good image of various versions of Astra 900: early, transitional and late, with different pins. Maybe it could be useful. --Greg-Z (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2020 (EST)
Sorry for delay, I wasn't able to visit imfdb for a month. Real-life problems, you know... Let's return to the issue. Speaking of additional images, those are only for Nachalnik Chukotki, in other cases I used all screenshots for the supposed Astra. So no additional materials that can help. What I suggest: let's keep Astra in cases it's definitly this gun. I assume that these are Mandate, Nachalnik Chukotki, Makar-sledopyt and Strogovy. In all these cases this is a "flat-side" Mauser with Astra 900-like "nose". There is a possibility of Mauser C96 "Flatside" aka Italian C99 that also appears in Lenfilm production (20-e dekabrya); we may discuss in which cases the screen gun looks more similar to one or another model. Lyubov Yarovaya is a tricky case, I think that the pistol is rather Astra but maybe I'm wrong. And in Zhizn Klima Samgina, as the pistol is seen not close enough, let's re-identify it as C96 (though I would rather keep the remark that it may be an Astra). And in Sedmoy sputnik, you are right, I'll remove this film from Astra entry on C96 page. Hope we'll find the best desision on the case. --Greg-Z (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2021 (EST)
- OK, I made the corrections per discussion on films, actors and gun pages. --Greg-Z (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2021 (EST)
"Łucznik"
In the pre-war period, there were two branches of the company. The first company was called (Zakłady Metalowe "Łucznik") producing bicycles and machines (sewing machines, etc.) for the civil market. The second branch of the company was the weapons factory (Fabryka Broni Radom). Radom is a city in Poland. After the war, both branches of the company were merged under a common name (Fabryka Broni "Łucznik" in Radom). The name archer simply won the poll. :)--Emto_PL (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2021 (EDT)
G3 Page
I wanted the page to look similar to the AK-47 and M16 so I separated the early and A3 variants to show their differences because the picture of the early G3 rifle was just put in the G3A3 section. Next time, I will write an explanation for major restructurings.--HighPhigh (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2021 (EDT)
Xtreme Props credits
It's just for credit's sake (at least in this case). Xtreme Props images aren't exclusively the ones to be captioned that way; various other images of screen-used guns (such as from Prop Store Ltd and Movie Armaments Group) had the attributions shown on the articles long ago. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2022 (EST)
Warfighter
I was gonna move some of those old screenshots to the talk page eventually - there are a few worth saving for the main page though. As for attachments, the game really only lets you mix from the pre-set setups (and some guns have extra/unlockable attachments, usually like the iron sights) so there isn't a whole lot actually. None of the lasers or lights actually function in game. Battlelog still has images for the generic setups so you may be able to find some things there. I can try and work on an attachments section on the talk page eventually.--AgentGumby (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (EST)
- I already got the game on Origin years ago, but bought the kit shortcut for $20 (I guess it was on sale). I had all the unique unlocks (PKM parts, the AUG A1 scope) on the Xbox 360 but unfortunately it never got added to the backwards compatibility list on Xbox One for obvious reasons, though PC screencaps are obviously a lot higher quality. And yeah, there's a dearth of info on Warfighter probably since it wasn't a successful game. I think there was a really good weapons showcase on YouTube by LettuceWettuce but that creator unfortunately deleted his channel.--AgentGumby (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2022 (EST)
RE:
I didn't receive any reply regarding this matter. You could try posting a message on Bunni's talk page and see if you can receive any update. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2022 (EDT)
Discord
Emto#8603 --Emto_PL (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
M-10 image fix
Thanks for fixing that weird gap under the M-10 image on the Upotte!! page, how did you get rid of it? It was driving me insane, but I couldn't see anything that would explain why it was there, and the revision history says "-3" but doesn't seem to show anything having changed. Alex T Snow (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Red Dead Template
If my memory serves, I changed it to work as a series template that we only have to put {{}} tags on a page instead of copy-pasting the whole thing. Spartan198 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
If your way would be cleaner, that definitely works for me. And if "Made it proper" came off as disrespectful, I do sincerely apologize. I wasn't referring to the quality of yours or anyone else's work here. Spartan198 (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Sicario: Day of the Soldado Beretta
Despite your recent update to the page, I'm not sure that this is a Beretta 92FS Centurion. While the edge of the barrel does not extend past the tip of the slide (like a Centurion), the slide itself extends further past the frame than a Centurion-style pistol. I think that this is just a regular Beretta 92F/FS which has been fitted with a flush-fit barrel (which are made by several after-market manufacturers, and similar guns have appeared in other media, such as Season 2 of Miami Vice). -MT2008 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Acknowledge that I mis-understood the nature of your edits; I didn't look at the edit comparison closely enough. As for letting you know: I tend to take the attitude that before I roll back somebody's changes to a page, it's good etiquette to advise them why I'm changing the page. After all, it's been a pet peeve of mine when people repeatedly roll back changes that I make without telling me (especially when I know that they're wrong). Also, as an FYI: I still hold Admin status on this Wiki myself, so that has nothing to do with why I reached out to you. -MT2008 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hellsinki
I figured it was technical. The page has been around for over a decade, it was time to go. I saved the code. If someone else wants to put in the time to finish it, they can. --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Heat Type 56-1
The color of the wood finish is more consistent with the Norinco-built guns than Poly Techs. Also: We've traditionally referred to the Type 56 guns as "Norinco Type 56/Type 56-1/Type 56-2/etc." for many years now. Most of our pages refer to "Norinco Type 56-1", not just "Type 56-1." At this point, are you really prepared to go back and change all of those pages? I hate to say that we shouldn't do something because of a path dependency issue, but I also hate inconsistency even more. -MT2008 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct that we shouldn't perpetuate mis-information due to habits and tradition. I also think that your approach makes sense, given that with some other type of rifles, we eschew the brand-name when we know that there was more than one manufacturer (example: I would consider "Colt M16A2" incorrect for identifying an M16A2-pattern rifle, vs. just "M16A2"). With that being said, I think that almost any of the movie armorers on here would tell you that the vast, VAST majority of their Type 56-pattern AK rifles were likely Norinco-manufactured. That is certainly my impression from anecdotal evidence after seeing countless action movies over the years. But if you want to undertake the project of re-naming Type 56 entries across IMFDB (hundreds if not thousands of pages at this point), then that is your prerogative.
- RE the difference between Norinco and Poly Tech AKs - my understanding is that Poly Techs will usually have both (1.) a glossier, higher-grain wood finish (and they were imported with both light blonde wood and dark oak finishes), and (2.) a deeper blue finish on the metal parts. If you want to see an example - here is my own Poly Tech-manufactured AK, which was imported by Golden State Arms in the mid-1980s:
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sorry that the resolution isn't great - I took this pic back in 2004 when I originally bought the gun. I also can't take new pics because the rifle still resides at my family's house in another state at this time. But hopefully, you can see the difference vs. the Norinco-made guns. -MT2008 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- So I missed your discussion over the Norinco group page, when you stripped that page of all the firearms believed (incorrectly) to have been manufactured by Norinco. I guess that I have somewhat mixed thoughts, though I see merits in your arguments. My take:
- You are correct that Norinco came into existence during the post-Maoism era reforms implemented by Deng Xiaopeng, as an arms export conglomerate that was meant to sell the products manufactured by PLA-owned state factories. Obviously, the company also did not exist when the Type 56 rifle was first manufactured - the original maker was State Factory 66.
- On the other hand, I do think it's also fair to say that Norinco was created to be essentially the brand name for the weapons that it has sold, and the difference between them and Poly Tech is that (usually), the two companies served as the export branch/international brand name for different factories. I don't know whether this is true, but at least one source I Googled suggests that Norinco guns are made by State Factory 66, while Poly Tech guns came from State Factory 326. Though it gets complicated - there were a lot of factory codes, and speculation is abound about what this means; common theory is that State Factory 66 was primary assembler, while parts came from other factories. This is also why the specs are slightly different between the guns sold in the West by Norinco vs. those sold by Poly Tech. So even if Norinco didn't own the manufacturing facilities themselves, it also isn't inaccurate to say that the PLA treated them as the "brand" for the guns that they sold.
- So, all this to say: I do think we have to be careful with the justification that we can't use a brand name for a weapon sold by a company if they are not also the manufacturer. As I am sure you know well, there are many firearm designs where the company that brands and sells the weapons is sourcing parts from another manufacturer. (Example: My Bravo Company Mfg AR-15 consists of parts manufactured mostly by Vltor, not BCM themselves, but I still call my rifle a "BCM" and not a "Vltor".)
- Philosophically, I do agree that when we're dealing with military weapons where the design is owned by a government entity, and more than one manufacturer exists, it's often a bad idea to use brand names. This is, of course, why I would generally discourage use of terms like "Colt M16A2" or "Colt M4A1" to describe recent U.S. military service rifles, where the TDP is owned by the USG (and nowadays, most of those guns are built by FN, anyway). Same logics applies in this situation.
"The" titles
Sorry, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Spartan198 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)