Revision as of 01:04, 26 June 2021

Talk:Main_PageSee 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, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_6, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_7, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_8 or Talk:Main_Page/Archive_9 or Talk:Main_Page/Archive_10 for older discussions:

Happy New Year!

Say hello to 2021!--Ben41 (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2021 (EST)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Cheers, everybody! Here's hoping that 2021 goes better than 2020. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2021 (EST)

Same to you. Fingers crossed. --Jcordell (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2021 (EST)

Amen to that. --Dan San (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2021 (EST)

Need help classifying something

So, I've been working on a side-project for a while, and in the process, I've added a fair few new gun images to the site. Normally, I'd just put them on the appropriate gun page, or on the relevant category page if it doesn't have a page of its own. Problem, is, I just added this:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

6P62 - 12.7x108mm

This here is, as the caption suggests, a 6P62. It's a Russian prototype, it's chambered in 12.7x108mm, and it's full-auto. It was never meant for long-range use (you can't find an image of this thing online with a scope, and it'd probably beat one to death if you tried), so it can't go under Sniper Rifles; it's full-auto, so it can't go with the Semi-Auto Rifles, it fires a round too big to be an Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, or Light Machine Gun, and it's a man-portable, non-fixed-mounted gun, so it can't be a Heavy Machine Gun either. Where should I put this thing? BrandonColeford1992 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (EST)

Miscellaneous section of the rifle category maybe?--Aidoru (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2021 (EST)

It was originally intended as a "Ручной крупнокалиберный пулемёт 6П62" (Handheld Large-Caliber Machine Gun 6P62), so we can specify it as a machine gun Pustelga7 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2021 (EST)

At some point, I had a discussion with someone else here regarding this gun. It can go to the machine gun category. It seems to be rare case of a heavy machine gun that is actually man-portable. Sometimes it's also referred to as an anti-materiel rifle; if we choose this one, we can simply list it under the general "Rifles" category. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2021 (EST)

See, I don't really think we can put it in "Rifles", since there's no subcategory for full-auto rifles, and creating one would just result in a big mish-mash of all the assault rifles and select-fire battle rifles. I could get behind calling it an HMG, but I'd still call it a bit strange given that it's a gun one person can (ostensibly) pick up and fire. Maybe we could create a dedicated Anti-Materiel Rifle category? Sure, it would contain a bunch of guns that are already in the Sniper Rifle category, but then again, we have separate categories for Grenade Launchers and UBGLs, so it's not like it'd be unprecedented. Plus, this way we could remove the AT rifles from the Sniper Rifle category, since they really don't fit the bill. Oh, and speaking of AT, I have another discussion to write in. BrandonColeford1992 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2021 (EST)

Then just put it in the machine gun category.--Wuzh (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2021 (EST)

Fair enough. Still think that the AMR category idea holds some water, though. BrandonColeford1992 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2021 (EST)

Category Proposals

How about a category for films in the US National Film Registry? As iconic films, these are likely among the first articles a newcomer would check, and their cultural importance makes documenting them of particular note. Of lesser note, we have at least four films (Operation Kid Brother, Per Aspera Ad Astra, Diabolik, Invasion USA) that have been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and there are many, many more films it featured that could have an article in the future. Should a category for one or both be added? --VladVladson (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2021 (EST)

National Film Registry. --Greg-Z (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2021 (EST)

Discord

I've made one. Feel free to float any suggestions/improvements by me; if you're a moderator here, let me know on my talk page and I'll set you up as one there (should you so desire). Rules aren't that much of an issue; generally speaking, if it wouldn't fly here, it won't fly there.

So, if you so desire, hop on in.

Lemme know what you guys think - like I said, I'm open to suggestions. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2021 (EST)

To Catch A Predator page

Would anyone be opposed to a page for To Catch A Predator with Chris Hansen? Strange idea but the show did feature a lot of firearms, mostly used by police, but also in the cars of some predators. (Theakker3 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2021 (EST))

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Before we begin, why don't you have a seat right over there? But, anyway, there's a rule against pages for documentaries on this site, but we'll have to see if an admin is okay on allowing a TCAP page.

On another note, I do remember trying to identify the guns used on this show. The police mostly carried full-sized Glocks, one predator had a compact Glock of some sort found in his car, another one had what looks like a Mossberg 500 found in his car, a picture of which you included here. And then there was that guy who had several guns in his car (also seen here). I think it would be a cool page to have, but again, up to the admins. --PyramidHead (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2021 (EST)

Docs and reality-type shows and the like are unilaterally disallowed as far as I'm aware. StanTheMan (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2021 (EST)

Would you guys be willing to consider this one? (Theakker3 (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2021 (EST))

No, this would not be eligible. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2021 (EST)

Grandpa Simpson's gun

I know we don't do pages for cartoons but I was watching The Simpsons, 'Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part 1' and there is a scene that depicts a fairly detailed revolver (as far as Simpsons animation goes) that looks like it might have been copied from an actual gun. While Bart helps Grandpa unpack, he opens a cigar box that contains an old revolver that Grandpa refers to as his "old Smith and Wesson". Does this resemble any Smith & Wesson model? (Theakker3 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2021 (EST))

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Bart finds Grandpa's "old Smith & Wesson".

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

"If you're going to play with it, be careful, because it's loaded."

Inspired by Remington 1875. --Greg-Z (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Remington 1875 - .45 Long Colt.

Weapons Handling

Are notes regarding the way actors and extras are handling their weapons welcome on certain images? I have noticed a lot of WWII movies where the actors incorrectly hold or move with their weapons like they are a modern-day soldier securing a room with an M4. Soldiers were not trained to move that way during WWII. Without shinning too much light on it, is it ok to point this out in certain images where it is very noticeable? (Theakker3 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2021 (EST))

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Captain Glover (Sam Worthington) in Hacksaw Ridge with his M1 Carbine. He holds it in the low-ready stance, which was not practiced during WWII.

I made a note on 1917 about trigger discipline in WWI, so I think it's worth mentioning; just don't come off as overly critical though. This image from HBO's Chernobyl portrays a similar issue as these Soviet guards should have held their rifles muzzle-up, not down.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

I think though that actors are instructed to use modern techniques for safety reasons on set, and that probably takes precedence over historical accuracy.--AgentGumby (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2021 (EST)

Interesting. On that note, when did trigger discipline become a thing? (Theakker3 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2021 (EST))

I think that the bigger reason for modern techniques is the fact that the military consultants training the actors wiil themselves have been trained in modern techniques, so that is how they train others. There aren't too many WWII veterens curently in the military consulting game that can share their period correct training. I imagine that there is a slight safety element to the trigger discipline thing on set, but to be frank actors are not to be trusted so if there is a situation that relies on their trigger discipline for the safety of the cast and crew you are asking for trouble. As for when trigger discipline started to really become a thing, I think you could point to the mid 70s when Jeff Cooper started to teach his modern technique with the four rules of safety. I think that it still took a decade to make its way firmly into standard military practice though. --commando552 (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)

Can't ID the taser used

Right here in this page. Having trouble. Ominae (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2021 (EST)

X26P I think. --commando552 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2021 (EST)

Doesn't look as big as an X2/X3 from the front. I concur it is more like a X26P. StanTheMan (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2021 (EST)

pistol ID

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

it is never unholstered, so i can't get any better image

TheExplodingBarrel (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2021 (EST)

anyone? TheExplodingBarrel (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (EDT)

I think it is too vague and under-detailed for a positive ID, wouldn't lose any sleep over it.--AgentGumby (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (EDT)

Stechkin? --Slon95 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (EDT)

M1 bayonets wrongly identified?

Hey folks.

Posting the stuff here (M7) and here (WWII M1 Bayonet). Not sure if they're IDed right. Ominae (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2021 (EST)

For the proper identification of bayonets, I recommend worldbayonets.com, a good reference source. Hope it would be useful. --Greg-Z (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2021 (EDT)

Opinion on something

Sorry I have to keep it short as I need to sleep now. I noted that Pustelga7 gives actor credits for characters from shows (at least) in an IMFDB page who doesn’t use a gun at all. I’m of the opinion that this is not needed and I made such edits in the Falcon and Winter Soldier page. I’m happy to be proven wrong though. Ominae (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

Why not give such credits? Of course, red links are unnecessary until there is a possibility that the page for an actor can be created, but mentioning the actors isn't a bad thing. I think so. --Greg-Z (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

Yes, hello again. I will immediately outline my point of view: I think it would be more correct if we indicate all the actors, regardless of their role and importance. However, there should not be a separate page for such actors. I always try to identify the actor if he is known. You can see that on the Fear the Walking Dead and partially WandaVision pages. Pustelga7 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, crediting the relevant actors is totally fine (it's been commonly done anyway), there is absolutely no reason to remove them. Just leave them without hyperlinks if they haven't held a gun yet. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

I guess if the mods say so, even if I haven’t seen that done in other pages. Not that it’ll change how I write stuff here. Ominae (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

An uncommon Thompson front sight

A Thompson M1928A1 with hooded (!) front sight is seen in Soldier of Fortune (1955).

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

The hooded front sight of a Thompson is seen.

I couldn't find anything like it. Can anyone tell me if this is some kind of serial modification or something homemade? The movie was mostly filmed in Hong Kong, if this could help. Thanks! --Greg-Z (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

Hong Kong? Weren't copies produced in large quantity in China a bit before that? Might not be an "authentic" American made example. A slight change in sight style is nothing compared to the other oddities (pistols with bayonet lugs) that came out of China in that era. --VladVladson (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

Possibly. I couldn't find any image of Chinese Thompson with such sights. All variants that are seen in both reference books and in internet are accurate copies of M1921/M1928 with only markings that reveal the manufacturer, or the 7.62mm convertion that has a distinct curved magazine. The screen gun, as it seems to me, has the front sight taken from MP40. So it's most likely a single piece rather than some serial version. Just my opinion. --Greg-Z (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

Update on nuked images

Just wanna holler it out there. Ominae (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

There is a time ~~to throw away stones~~ to delete nuked images. But nobody knows when this time will come. Wait and hope. --Greg-Z (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

"Prototype" category?

We've got a lot prototypes that never entered mass production (or did yet have a prototype design appear everywhere) with a large number of appearances, some to the point they've made more media appearances than there were units produced. How about a category? Alternatively title could be something like "No Mass Production", which would include things like China Lake Launcher and Walther WA 2000 (which were past prototype, but had very limited runs) and make Fictional Firearm into a subcategory of that (since almost all of them are physical props made in limited number, many functional enough to fire blanks). --VladVladson (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

Eh, I could see that becoming a bit of a problem - "No Mass Production" would be pretty arbitrary, since you'd have to define some exact number as "mass production", and even "prototype" is a bit of a gray area (since some prototypes saw actual combat use in field trials (or, in some cases like the French Resistance and some last-ditch Imperial Japanese efforts, simply saw use because guns of any sort were needed), with some prototypes being produced in larger numbers than some "production" guns for trials. Not to mention that we'd wind up including half of the gun articles on the site anyway, since there are many instances where a prototype version of a full-production gun gets an appearance - take, for example, the video game appearances of the Magpul Masada, or the MPX Copperhead prototype in JW3. It's a neat idea, but would be worth neither the effort nor the semantical debates in practice. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

What's the point of such category? Categories for guns by type are useful in purpose of identification, but hardly anybody would specially search for prototypes. --Greg-Z (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

Actor page having video game credits

For reference, it's in the Takeshi Kitano page as an example since he's been mocapped/voiced by the guy in Yakuza 6. Not sure if it's okay to leave by itself. This kind of acting credit is kinda limited in the sense that it's a mixed bag. Other instances that I can think of is Quantum Break where the actors are mocapped and voiced by the same person. Ominae (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

The text of the Actor Title template is the following: "Actor can be seen using the following weapons in the following films (and television series)". So strictly speaking, the voicing of VGs or animations doesn't fall within the meaning of the actor's page. However, the case where the actor works for motion capture is possibly suitable for inclusion. This is my personal opinion, not an interpretation of the rules. --Greg-Z (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

I think 'XXXX can be seen ' is pretty unambiguous - If the actor him/herself is actually seen handling a gun, it counts. If not, then it don't. I don't think we need to nor should start expanding actor page credits beyond anything they don't visually portray. StanTheMan (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

On this subject, I previously included Andrew Bicknell's role in Agent Under Fire on his page since he already had a page at the time and he was on (or at least model for) the cover. "Can be seen" gets a bit odd with characters that are explicitly and officially modeled after a real person as well as voiced by them. If we're going to talk about how it should be, I'd propose (emphasis) making it so it's fine to include mocap, (official) face sculpt model, and maybe voice acting if an actor already has a page for fully live action roles, but not to create a new page if the actor doesn't have one already. The issue with that would be how to credit video game characters that can wind up using all kinds of different guns, but something like "Various" would be sufficient. --VladVladson (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

I can agree with all but the last one. A distinct physical/aesthetic likeness is one thing, but voice-only credits don't merit inclusion, plain and simple. Existing page or no. Again, the actor him- or her-self needs to actually be seen with a firearm. I'm not seeing where this is open for interpretation, frankly. StanTheMan (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

So you'd be okay with it if the character uses the actor's likeness, such as the cases of Sam Witwer in Days Gone and Jim Pirri in Days Gone and Red Dead Redemption II? Spartan198 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

And as for the matter of listing which guns are used by them, I suggest we list any default ones (such as those seen wielded by them in cutscenes) first, then for the rest just use "Player's choice" like I've seen some other wikis do. Spartan198 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

I recall that mocaps have been disallowed on actors/actresses pages (regarding video games and 3D animated films). And it makes sense, since technically the actors didn't hold the actual guns; it honestly doesn't matter whether their likeness and/or voice were used or not. That said, actor pages can have a video game entry if the game features live-action cutscenes with the actor physically holding a real weapon (such as in Need for Speed: Undercover). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Yes, mo-cap and voicework is not eligible, but FMV is. --Funkychinaman (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Guess I can make the edit on Takeshi Kitano's page. Ominae (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Unknown Pistol from FaWS

I decided to make a discussion here as well. We have an unknown pistol that no one can identify yet. There are some nice screenshots showing all the details clearly, but that doesn't help. And yes, this is not HK pistol (such as P30, HK45 or VP9). If anyone has ideas, please write. Additionally, if I do manage to attract attention, I will take a moment to ask more about this rifle.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Pustelga7 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

I think the pistol is a Arex Delta, and the rifle is a SIG SG 556 DMR with a French AC58 rifle grenade that is used with the FAMAS/HK416F.--AgentGumby (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

Actually, the pistol in the second image is a CZ P-10C, I haven't seen the show but I assume it is a different scene from the first.--AgentGumby (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

Oh yes, you are right. The second screen is really CZ. This means that character used two pistols during the gunfight. I checked the AREX pistol and I think it doesn't look like it. Yes, there are some similar parts, but these are different pistols. Now for the rifle. I think you are right and this is a SIG, but modified, since the forend and barrel are very different from the basic version. Many many thanks for the help. Pustelga7 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

The rifle is just the 556 DMR with a different railed handguard, like this one. The barrel just looks like it was digitally manipulated for the rifle grenade.--AgentGumby (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks again. Pustelga7 (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

When to put release years on titles

Genuine question: when is it appropriate or necessary to put release dates on titles of pages? Specifically on titles of pages of movies? Is it just when there are titles that are identical or similar (e.g. Predator (1987) and Predators (2010)) or also when they're too generic (e.g. 1917 (2019))? --Dan San (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2021 (EDT)

Definitely when there's more than one piece of media with that title. With your above example, it can be argued that it's not necessary, since there's only one film titled Predator, but in that case Predator goes to the disambiguation page. --Funkychinaman (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2021 (EDT)

Blacklist (S8) Colt LEs?

Not sure if the unknown rifles I took snapshots of are Colt LE based here. Ominae (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

The handguard is a 12" Hera Arms IRS like on this upper. Technically it could be built from a a Colt LE carbine, or it could be a total custom, or it could be a complete upper fitted to a different lower. Based on the finish I am more inclined to think the latter. I don't think there is a particular name for this rifle, I would probably just call it a "Hera Arms AR-15" or something like that. I think this is the first rifle that is called an LE carbine on the season 7 page also. I'll try and go through the seasons later as there are a fair few mis-id'd AR-15s on these pages, mostly with 516s in the LE carbine section. --commando552 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

Nice find. Ominae (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2021 (EDT)

Please help with identification

An air pistol in 1988 season of British TV series Bergerac:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

If I'm not mistaken, it is fitted with Singlepoint OEG. The plot describes the pistol shooting darts (also seen on the screenshot), but in reality the pistol may be a more common .177 gun.

And a slightly uncommon issue - a toy shotgun:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

The gun lies on its box that allows to say this is a toy. The gun lies on its box that allows to say this is a toy. In my opinion this toy shotgun resembles Valtro PM5 that was possibly the inspiration for the toy.

Thanks in advance --Greg-Z (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2021 (EDT)

Air gun looks like a FAS 6004 with a fake gas tank added ahead of the trigger guard. The real gun is a single stroke pneumatic so doesn't have a precharged tank. --commando552 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (EDT)

Many thanks! FAS 6004 is too modern gun for 1980s but its direct predecessor FAS AP 604 existed at the right time. --Greg-Z (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2021 (EDT)

Phantom Forces page?

Could we get a page for Phantom Forces? I think it counts under user-created mods, as it's a Roblox game. It's got at least 200 firearms, including some really weird and unique ones, like the M231 FPW or the North Korean Type 88, a 5.45mm Bizon AK hybrid. --JackalUnderscore (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2021 (EDT)

If you're willing to put in the effort (which, from my understanding, will be a considerable amount), I don't see why not. Then again, I'm not an authority on the matter. Mods? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2021 (EDT)

I'm more than willing to make this page. I don't have much else to do after exams due to the lockdown. --JackalUnderscore (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2021 (EDT)

It might be an interesting precedent considering we have no pages for, well, games-in-a-game like Roblox. We do allow user-made mods for retail games, which is a similar idea, so I don't see why not. But, yeah, we'll see what the admins have to say. --PyramidHead (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (EDT)

So, uh, do we have a verdict on this? It's been a few days since the question was asked. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

The rules regarding mods state: "Self made, user created or free online games do not qualify even if they manage to acquire some sort of internet distribution. The only exception to this rule is Mods for legitimate game titles that already qualify as a professionally distributed item (i.e. sold to the general public through recognized channels of commerce)." It looks like Roblox is a professionally distributed item, available in the Xbox and Microsoft stores (and Apple, Google and Amazon app stores, but those don't count). So you should be good to go. Please don't leave it incomplete. Thanks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2021 (EDT)

Awesome, thanks! --JackalUnderscore (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2021 (EDT)

Photo of a suppressed Kimber Warrior

Been wondering if there are photos online that show a suppressed Kimber Warrior. Ominae (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2021 (EDT)

Searching "kimber warrior suppressed" on Google Images gave me plenty of results. --Dan San (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2021 (EDT)

Can't seem to find one wiht a suppressor though. Ominae (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2021 (EDT)

AMR Category?

So, someone already proposed this earlier, but do you think an anti-materiel rifle category would be a good idea? It seems like a better solution than shoehorning the AT rifles into Sniper Rifles. Sure, some of the entries would be doubled up in AMRs and Sniper Rifles (like, say, the McMillan TAC-50), but that's hardly anything new - we have plenty of guns in multiple categories, the Grenade Launcher/UBGL category overlap being a prime example. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2021 (EDT)

Spider-Man PS4

Here I go again asking if a game is proper for inclusion. This time it's Spider-Man (2018) for the PS4, which has quite a few guns featured in it, but I couldn't identify them at all. They may be amalgamations of several guns or entirely fictional. Here are some screenshots:

Pistol
Can't put my finger on what model it could be, honestly.

Assault rifle
Seems to have some AK influence with a G36 carry handle/accessory rail.

Sniper rifle
It's bolt action and likely a .50 cal.

Minigun
A handheld minigun. Big enough to be considered a M61 Vulcan.

https://i.redd.it/f2jqsjg7cry11.png

There's also the M84 stun grenade, a rocket launcher that appears to be the MATADOR and some other fictional energy guns in the game. I'd really like some help with this. --Dan San (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2021 (EDT)

AKMSU with 7.62 bakelite mag?

How rare is it that you can see an AKMSU that's used in TV shows/movies/etc with a 7.62 bakelite magazine? Ominae (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2021 (EDT)

Weapons pages getting too long?

This is just one of several weapon pages I've seen over the last couple years get overly lengthy in the descriptions and history of the weapon, nevermind adding some peripheral history that really has little to do with the gun itself.

I guess maybe I'm out of touch with things these days but I recall there was something clearly stated about this place not meant to be a gun encyclopedia. Yet it seems we're getting very much encyclopedic with describing many of these weapons, going into detail about exactly what armed force units were meant to be assigned them, exact procedures on how to fire them.. I mean do we REALLY need all of that? We're here to ID the weapons used in media and so anything past info that would aid in identifying them (which I suppose includes pointing out inaccuracies in their portrayal of use but even then these should be obvious or blatant) just seems like veering off into territory that isn't our domain. There's just a point where it's too damn much, simple as that.

PS - I now realize this might have been better poised on the forum and maybe I'll get to that but I just wrote all this shit here so, yeah. StanTheMan (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2021 (EDT)

I guess it's a situation that will involve other members weighing in. I don't see where having the history of a firearm model on it's specific page to be an issue. Yes I've built a few weapons pages that provide the history of the model. To name just a few: Remington Model 721, Gevarm Type D4 and Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series. I've always gotten positive feedback and I like a bit of history.--Jcordell (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

I, for one, welcome the historical stuff - it's interesting, and provides useful information for pointing out errors and/or misconceptions regarding certain guns. Take, for instance, the Fedorov page that just got cut back - the info there was helpful, as it pointed out some of the common misconceptions regarding the weapon that could easily translate into errors in its depiction (e.g. showing the M1919 or M1922 versions in common use during WWI). Removing that info could lead to inaccuracies in a gun's depiction being missed, or even correct depictions being marked wrong due to the truth being different from the common perception. And, again, historical info is neat. Just my two cents, though. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

These super-long pages are definitely not the new norm. Only a few gun pages go into such extreme details on history like that. We can just clean up anything that goes overboard with historical descriptions to refocus them on model descriptions.--Wuzh (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with details that aid in pointing out proper portrayals (or not) and I also enjoy the historical background.. but like I said, there's a point where it just gets extraneous and I guess I'm just wanting to head it off a tad here. The Fedorov piece was just the latest example. But there's others, mainly some of the missile launcher pages, and a couple other odds and ends. JCordell, your stuff really can't compare as it's all a lot more concise.

Having said that, I've done a few ridiculously lengthy bits myself and I would always say those, though considerable, make points that DO serve our purpose. And.. I must agree that still is the case here and elsewhere, mostly anyway. It can be overdone but I suppose that's subjective, with that line still mostly up to those actually putting the work in, which I'm not trying to snub either. So hypocrisy aside maybe I'm the one bitching about nothing here this time, heh. Still I just felt I should make a note about it going forward. I think Wuzh said it best.. we can always trim some of the larger writeups to keep focus. Which end of the day is pretty much all I'm going for/getting at. StanTheMan (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

@@ Line 216: / Line 216: @@
 :::I, for one, welcome the historical stuff - it's interesting, and provides useful information for pointing out errors and/or misconceptions regarding certain guns. Take, for instance, the Fedorov page that just got cut back - the info there was helpful, as it pointed out some of the common misconceptions regarding the weapon that could easily translate into errors in its depiction (e.g. showing the M1919 or M1922 versions in common use during WWI). Removing that info could lead to inaccuracies in a gun's depiction being missed, or even correct depictions being marked wrong due to the truth being different from the common perception. And, again, historical info is neat. Just my two cents, though. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 12:41, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
 These super-long pages are definitely not the new norm. Only a few gun pages go into such extreme details on history like that. We can just clean up anything that goes overboard with historical descriptions to refocus them on model descriptions.--[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 04:56, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
-:::: Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with details that aid in pointing out proper portrayals (or not) and I also enjoy the historical background.. ''but'' like I said, there's a point where it just gets extraneous and I guess I'm just wanting to head it off a tad here. The Fedorov piece was just the latest example. But there's others, mainly some of the missile launcher pages, and a couple other odds and ends. JCordell, your stuff really can't compare as it's all a lot more concise.  <br> <br> Having said that, I've done a few ridiculously lengthy bits myself and I would always say those, though considerable, make points that DO serve our purpose. And.. I must agree that still is the case here and elsewhere, mostly anyway. It can be overdone but I suppose that's subjective, with that line still mostly up to those actually putting the work in, which I'm not trying to snub either. So hypocrisy aside maybe I'm the one bitching about nothing here this time, heh. Still I just felt I should make a note about it going forward. I think Wuzh said it best.. we can always trim some of the larger writeups to keep focus. Which end of the day is pretty much what I'm going for. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 21:04, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
+:::: Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with details that aid in pointing out proper portrayals (or not) and I also enjoy the historical background.. ''but'' like I said, there's a point where it just gets extraneous and I guess I'm just wanting to head it off a tad here. The Fedorov piece was just the latest example. But there's others, mainly some of the missile launcher pages, and a couple other odds and ends. JCordell, your stuff really can't compare as it's all a lot more concise.  <br> <br> Having said that, I've done a few ridiculously lengthy bits myself and I would always say those, though considerable, make points that DO serve our purpose. And.. I must agree that still is the case here and elsewhere, mostly anyway. It can be overdone but I suppose that's subjective, with that line still mostly up to those actually putting the work in, which I'm not trying to snub either. So hypocrisy aside maybe I'm the one bitching about nothing here this time, heh. Still I just felt I should make a note about it going forward. I think Wuzh said it best.. we can always trim some of the larger writeups to keep focus. Which end of the day is pretty much all I'm going for/getting at. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 21:04, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:04, 26 June 2021

Contents

Happy New Year!

Need help classifying something

Category Proposals

Discord

To Catch A Predator page

Grandpa Simpson's gun

Weapons Handling

Can't ID the taser used

pistol ID

M1 bayonets wrongly identified?

Opinion on something

An uncommon Thompson front sight

Update on nuked images

"Prototype" category?

Actor page having video game credits

Unknown Pistol from FaWS

When to put release years on titles

Blacklist (S8) Colt LEs?

Please help with identification

Phantom Forces page?

Photo of a suppressed Kimber Warrior

AMR Category?

Spider-Man PS4

AKMSU with 7.62 bakelite mag?

Weapons pages getting too long?

Navigation menu