| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Pyr0m4n14c (talk | contribs) (→Creative Commons: new section) |
(→Female users: new section) |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
So, I was asking a member of another wiki (the Fallout Wiki, Nukapedia) if I could use some of their screenshots, as I'm unable to get my own. Well, he asked me this: "One quick question: I checked you site, and while its run on mediawiki, i could not find any creative commons license like wikia here has. Do younfolks operate under any of the creative commons licenses, or any other lisence for copyright and reuse?" Now, I'm not entirely sure what most of that means, so... how should I respond? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 02:08, 6 May 2017 (EDT) | So, I was asking a member of another wiki (the Fallout Wiki, Nukapedia) if I could use some of their screenshots, as I'm unable to get my own. Well, he asked me this: "One quick question: I checked you site, and while its run on mediawiki, i could not find any creative commons license like wikia here has. Do younfolks operate under any of the creative commons licenses, or any other lisence for copyright and reuse?" Now, I'm not entirely sure what most of that means, so... how should I respond? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 02:08, 6 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
== Female users == | |||
There are anyone here? --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 12:16, 6 May 2017 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:16, 6 May 2017
See Talk:Main_Page/Archive_1, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_2, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_3 Talk:Main_Page/Archive_4 Talk:Main_Page/Archive_5, and Talk:Main_Page/Archive_6 for older discussions
2017
A Happy New Year to all! --Ben41 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2016 (EST)
- Damn, looks like somebody beat me to it. Oh well. Here's to another year of letting people know about the guns they're seeing in popular media. It'll sure be fun for me (even if I did get my wisdom teeth removed last Friday), and I hope it will be for all of you, too. May your 2017 be free of Lyme Disease and Communism. Cheers! Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2016 (EST)
Some question of rare gun in movie
Hello! I'm sorry, I have some question: I know, that pages about media, that contain only tanegashima matchlock are ineligible. But, the movie Azumi contain not only standart arquebuse, but also contain very rare, but realy historical exist Japanese matchlock revolver 1, 2, 3, like this. So, may I upload screenshots on discussion page to view it for Administrators.
Azumi page on imdb. Pyramid Silent (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2017 (EST)
- I added screenshots to disscussion page: Talk:Azumi. What do you think about eligibility of this page? Pyramid Silent (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2017 (EST)
- I vote for eligibility as the exact version of the gun is identified now. Greg-Z (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2017 (EST)
- Thank you very much! What will be the decision of other admins? Pyramid Silent (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2017 (EST)
- I vote for eligibility as the exact version of the gun is identified now. Greg-Z (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2017 (EST)
Excess Gun Image(s)
Most recent example - http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Remington_870_with_Hogue_pistol_grip.jpeg
Straight-up, I'm not sure this is a worthy image for inclusion. It's clearly a jacked one of someone's personal gun and not even that good a pic, either. I've seen quite a few excess gun images of this speed around actually, many only used on just one particular page (if that). Forgive me but I'm of the strong opinion that just because one particular show or movie has a gun in a particular configuration doesn't mean we absolutely have to have an image - in this case, *any* image - of said gun in said particular configuration. As stated we're not a gun encyclopedia, and I think this kind of thing leans a bit too far that way, frankly. I'd start marking some of these for deletion review but before I do I wanted some additional input on this. StanTheMan (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- Makes sense to me. What page was that image used on btw?--AnActualAK47 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- "The following page links to this file: Talk:Remington Model 870" --Slon95 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- It was uploaded by Ominae I believe for the Gotham S3 page, now it looks like on that page it's been replaced with what I still think is a superfluous but admittedly much better image by Ben. I had put it on the talk page before deciding on posting about it here - I'll take it off there and nuke-tag it. That aside, I still think we have quite a load more of one-off gun pics and I wonder if they're really necessary in many cases.. I doubt it, but again, I wanted some extra input before I started nuke-tagging anything much more. StanTheMan (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- I've deleted the original image, but I think it is worth keeping the newer one that Ben uploaded. It is different to all of the other pistol gripped 870 images we have, as all of them either have a shorter barrel or an extended tube. I wouldn't be surprised if there are actually other pages already that would benefit from this image, where this one is a closer match but people have used other images as there wasn't one like this available. As for the wider issue of when to stop adding gun images, my opinion on it is that we do not need pictures of every gun with every accessory that has been used. For example, we do not need a picture of an M4 with an Aimpoint T1 because it appears in one film. However, in this case it is actually the configuration of the gun itself that is unique rather than accessories attached to it, so I think that it is worth the image. Also, it isn't like this is some weird and esoteric custom build, it is a vanilla 870 that has had the stock replaced with a pistol grip, so a pretty common gun I would imagine. --commando552 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- Well most of the problem here was the chump image originally put up, which has been dealt with (thanks BTW, Ben). That said, I agree there are other some pages that could use this one and that's all right, great, even - If it can be spread out some, and/or is needed for reference or something I've no problem, but I still think there is something about some gun images again that are only used/meant for one particular page - To have a gun image for one page because it 'matches' in every respect seems a bit ridiculous (that's even if it's used on a page) - Yet people seem to do that quite a bit lately and there are already a fair number images like that it seems. StanTheMan (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (EST)
- We used to have a serious problem with some users (and some mods) who had this weird fascination with putting as many screencaps as possible. This led to a change in the Rules and regulations. I remember one page that had 30 (!!!) screenshots of the same character firing or brandishing the same gun in nearly identical poses. It was silly, and thankfully, we don't have that problem any more. Many pages that were created a while ago, might still not be updated. Don't be alarmed if you see a ton of weird page formatting and photo discipline. Check the dates and they're usually OLDER pages, back when IMFDB was more of a 'wild west' ;) MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
- Well most of the problem here was the chump image originally put up, which has been dealt with (thanks BTW, Ben). That said, I agree there are other some pages that could use this one and that's all right, great, even - If it can be spread out some, and/or is needed for reference or something I've no problem, but I still think there is something about some gun images again that are only used/meant for one particular page - To have a gun image for one page because it 'matches' in every respect seems a bit ridiculous (that's even if it's used on a page) - Yet people seem to do that quite a bit lately and there are already a fair number images like that it seems. StanTheMan (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (EST)
- I've deleted the original image, but I think it is worth keeping the newer one that Ben uploaded. It is different to all of the other pistol gripped 870 images we have, as all of them either have a shorter barrel or an extended tube. I wouldn't be surprised if there are actually other pages already that would benefit from this image, where this one is a closer match but people have used other images as there wasn't one like this available. As for the wider issue of when to stop adding gun images, my opinion on it is that we do not need pictures of every gun with every accessory that has been used. For example, we do not need a picture of an M4 with an Aimpoint T1 because it appears in one film. However, in this case it is actually the configuration of the gun itself that is unique rather than accessories attached to it, so I think that it is worth the image. Also, it isn't like this is some weird and esoteric custom build, it is a vanilla 870 that has had the stock replaced with a pistol grip, so a pretty common gun I would imagine. --commando552 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- It was uploaded by Ominae I believe for the Gotham S3 page, now it looks like on that page it's been replaced with what I still think is a superfluous but admittedly much better image by Ben. I had put it on the talk page before deciding on posting about it here - I'll take it off there and nuke-tag it. That aside, I still think we have quite a load more of one-off gun pics and I wonder if they're really necessary in many cases.. I doubt it, but again, I wanted some extra input before I started nuke-tagging anything much more. StanTheMan (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2017 (EST)
- "The following page links to this file: Talk:Remington Model 870" --Slon95 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2017 (EST)
One Gun Pages
I somehow confused. Do correspond pages with only one gun (which there was a lot lately) to IMFDB standards, or not? --Slon95 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- Rules, Standards and Principles say in what case such page qualify: "1) the firearm is identifiable, well seen and important to the story. A film where 'some character' wields an 'unknown revolver' means nothing. 2) it has enough screen time for any viewer to wonder what make or model it is. 3) it must drive the plot forward and not be an 'incidental' prop (like something hanging on the wall in the background).". Greg-Z (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- I was actually wondering about that. There's a really cool game called "Receiver" that only has two guns, a commander sized 1911 and a snub-nosed revolver (really bad at IDing revolvers). I was thinking about making a page for it, but since there's only two guns, it would feel a little bit unnecessary.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- Movies and games are quite different things. At least movies show real guns, not something drawn on computer. Greg-Z (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- Well that guns are "real" in that they are based of actual firearms that exist (and function) in the real world.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- No, that's not always true. There are tons of Anime and VG examples where the gun is a fanciful part of some designer or artists' imagination. At least in Movies and TV, you KNOW that the item actually physically exists, even if it was built from scratch by some prop department. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
- Well that guns are "real" in that they are based of actual firearms that exist (and function) in the real world.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- Movies and games are quite different things. At least movies show real guns, not something drawn on computer. Greg-Z (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2017 (EST)
- I was actually wondering about that. There's a really cool game called "Receiver" that only has two guns, a commander sized 1911 and a snub-nosed revolver (really bad at IDing revolvers). I was thinking about making a page for it, but since there's only two guns, it would feel a little bit unnecessary.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2017 (EST)
Requesting a page for Mine (2016)
So i recently watched the new Armie Hammer's movie and i think it would be neat to include that movie, there are G3s and AK derivatives used by the insurgents as well as M4s, berettas and Armie's sniper rifle which i think its a McMillan Tac .338 but not so sure:https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OkOcVIR0CL4/maxresdefault.jpg
You can see the rifle very well and with better view in its movie trailer that you guys can watch though.--Death Shadow20 (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2017 (EST)
- Once it's out, you're more than welcome to complete the page. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2017 (EST)
Assessment
Having doubts that this is qualified, but need another set of eyes for this.
http://postimg.org/image/45ppbm3sd/
http://postimg.org/image/dea42nz0f/
Ominae (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2017 (EST)
- Looks like a slightly crudely modeled Glock 19 to me. StanTheMan (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2017 (EST)
- Thought so too. I assume it's a no go? Ominae (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (EST)
- There are a lot of better pages you can be working on. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2017 (EST)
- Thought so too. I assume it's a no go? Ominae (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (EST)
Adjustments
I made some necessary changes to the Assault Rifles category. For some reason, it doesn't show up on the Main Page, so I'm posting here to let you know about it. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
- I've been tempted to do a joke page for April Fools, like a page for Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings, but I didn't want to set a bad example. Although I suppose the best prank would be to just restore the page for that porno someone created last year. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
- Okay, I know that it probably exists on the Internet (believe me, I've made more than a few poorly worded Google searches that I came to regret), but what kind of professionally/officially released porno has an eligible amount of guns in it? Actually, scratch that, I don't want to know... Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
- Honestly can't remember if it was an 'original' piece or some parody (probably the latter), but there's at least one more recently where in just embedded ad clips I've seen there were several firearms well displayed that, other elements notwithstanding, would make it quite worthy of inclusion. Technically I would think it would be possible to do films of that sort if the firearms are shown in SFW spots, but as pornographic titles have a non-explicitly stated but quite implied unilateral ban, well that's pretty much that. Would make for a good joke though, I agree. StanTheMan (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
- They just have to start making parodies of the right films. This isn't Black Hawk Down, or John Wick: A Porn Parody. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
- You also need to bear in mind that in a lot of countries there are laws that prohibit "violent" pornography. Even if you made a porno with gunfights that were in SFW portions, I am not 100% sure how the law works with this and I doubt that companies would want to take the risk. As for whether we ban them or not, we don't explicitly (no pun intended) do so, and personally (assuming that the page could be made relatively tastefully) I would not necessarily be against including them. However I don not think that there are many made that would fit our current inclusion criteria in the RSP. Mainly, we state that "the title must be available to the general public through recognized channels of commerce (Amazon, Blockbuster, Netflix, etc.). Self distribution via Amazon, home distribution or micro distribution websites do not qualify". Although pornography is available on Amazon, I believe that it is only through other stores where Amazon handles the transaction so it is arguably inelligible. However, if there was a "pornographic" film which somehow got a wide theatrical release (the most recent example of this sort of thing that springs to mind is stuff like Nymphomaniac) and it featured guns to our inclusion criteria, I would not have a problem with it getting a page. All thing considered though, it is unlikely to happen too much if at all. --commando552 (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
- They just have to start making parodies of the right films. This isn't Black Hawk Down, or John Wick: A Porn Parody. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
- Honestly can't remember if it was an 'original' piece or some parody (probably the latter), but there's at least one more recently where in just embedded ad clips I've seen there were several firearms well displayed that, other elements notwithstanding, would make it quite worthy of inclusion. Technically I would think it would be possible to do films of that sort if the firearms are shown in SFW spots, but as pornographic titles have a non-explicitly stated but quite implied unilateral ban, well that's pretty much that. Would make for a good joke though, I agree. StanTheMan (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
- Okay, I know that it probably exists on the Internet (believe me, I've made more than a few poorly worded Google searches that I came to regret), but what kind of professionally/officially released porno has an eligible amount of guns in it? Actually, scratch that, I don't want to know... Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
Am I the only one...
...who is getting sick of seeing the The Fast and the Furious series in the Featured Article section?--Jake Stuckey (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
- Every once and awhile, the featured articles have a theme. To commemorate the new F&F movie, it's currently all F&F movies. It'll change soon. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
Call Of Duty: WWII Announced
Well, Activision just confirmed the WW2 setting for this years COD. At least that means it'll be easier to make a page for now! Also, just simple hopes, but I HOPE they have the Battle For Castle Itter in this game.--SeanWolf (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
- Was the original title Call of Duty: We've Run Out of Ideas? Since it's Sledgehammer, it looks like Advanced Warfare will joining Ghosts on the Island of Unresolved Storylines. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
- Well, given how those two games you mentioned were so hilariously unpopular, I think that it's pretty clear that they won't be getting a sequel, largely due to the reputation built up by their predecessors. Also, Sean, we all have our hopes and dreams. I, for one, just hope that they throw in some more obscure weapons (preferably those actually used, but I'm down for prototypes, too), and finally pick up on some of the age-old errors (like holding Stens by the magazines and whatnot). Not likely, but hey, a man can dream. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
- Regarding the Sten part, Sledgehammer Games did it correctly in Advanced Warfare, so ya can sleep well. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
- Well, folks, get ready. The trailer's coming out this Wednesday. Prepare thine anus. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
- What I do actually hope (but wouldn't be more than dreaming) is that they finally learn to only pump the shotguns when empty. Still can't believe that it was done correctly in the 10-year old CoD3 but not in any of the later ones. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- Well, folks, get ready. The trailer's coming out this Wednesday. Prepare thine anus. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
- Regarding the Sten part, Sledgehammer Games did it correctly in Advanced Warfare, so ya can sleep well. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
- Well, given how those two games you mentioned were so hilariously unpopular, I think that it's pretty clear that they won't be getting a sequel, largely due to the reputation built up by their predecessors. Also, Sean, we all have our hopes and dreams. I, for one, just hope that they throw in some more obscure weapons (preferably those actually used, but I'm down for prototypes, too), and finally pick up on some of the age-old errors (like holding Stens by the magazines and whatnot). Not likely, but hey, a man can dream. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
Rifle IDs
I can use some assistance with IDing a few commercial bolt-action rifles. The last one should be easy, with a very nice hsot of the bolt, but I just can't find anything that matches it. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- I am fairly sure that the last one is a Mauser 98 Sporter of some sort, compare it to this image at a similar angle and you will see the resemblance of the shape of the bolt. Not sure about the rest, but is the rifle on the right of this image also a Savage 99? --commando552 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- Yup, that looks like a Mauser 98. And nice catch with the other Savage 98. Thanks! --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
CoD:WW2 again
Here's the trailerfor the new CoD. Let's hope it's not only the European theatre with Americans and Germans, because that would be boring as hell.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
- Looks like they are going to mention the Holocaust. Curious to see how this pans out.--SeanWolf (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
- Oh man, that article is a disgrace. But this isn't the place for politics...--AgentGumby (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
They should add more exotic WW2 guns like K-Pattern,Czech guns,Błyskawizas,Berettas...alongside all the repeating seen classic guns... --Dannyguns (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2017 (EDT)
Creative Commons
So, I was asking a member of another wiki (the Fallout Wiki, Nukapedia) if I could use some of their screenshots, as I'm unable to get my own. Well, he asked me this: "One quick question: I checked you site, and while its run on mediawiki, i could not find any creative commons license like wikia here has. Do younfolks operate under any of the creative commons licenses, or any other lisence for copyright and reuse?" Now, I'm not entirely sure what most of that means, so... how should I respond? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
Female users
There are anyone here? --Dannyguns (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2017 (EDT)