| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
IMFDB talk:Rules, Standards and Principles: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Regarding "direct fire role": new section) |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
I think now that the main page has been changed to show what articles are being discussed, more are using them. Before someone could post something in a talk page and be forgotten for months.--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | I think now that the main page has been changed to show what articles are being discussed, more are using them. Before someone could post something in a talk page and be forgotten for months.--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Regarding "direct fire role" == | |||
As far as I'm aware, both the German 88mm FlaKs and the Soviet B4 203mm howitzer were used in the direct fire role during WW2 (there's archive footage of B4s firing with the barrels level during the Battle of Berlin in ''Call of Duty: World at War''). Does that mean they'd qualify for gun pages? I know MPM has said before that German prop houses own real 88s, and there's quite a few interesting notes I could make about them (eg how you can tell a FlaK 18 / 36 / 37 / 41 apart). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:48, 21 April 2011 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:48, 21 April 2011
I'm thinking rules should be one sentence codes of conduct, standards should be an article writing primer, and principles should be more overarching imfdb themes or goals. btw have any other admins seen the District 9 page? The layout seems to do a better job of making the guns the stars of the page. Thoughts? FYI I've protected this page for sysops only. bunni 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- How about a FAQ? It could be useful.--Oliveira 12:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Bunni, I definitely think the District 9 page is a great format, and I think that's the format we should continue to use for future pages. -Gunman69 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that necessary to separate the gun types handgun, rifle, shotgun etc, unless there is an extremely large amount of different guns like you see on a TV show. --Predator20 19:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- To add to the discussion, there should be some clarification about the ordering of guns- as it stands, some pages are organized in terms of the gun's chronological appearance, other pages are based on the gun's prominence, and some simply don't have any order at all. Thanks for all the positive comments on the District 9 layout- I think it should be applied to all the large pages, especially the ones that are featured. --Markit 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that necessary to separate the gun types handgun, rifle, shotgun etc, unless there is an extremely large amount of different guns like you see on a TV show. --Predator20 19:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Bunni, I definitely think the District 9 page is a great format, and I think that's the format we should continue to use for future pages. -Gunman69 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: since this was written, AdAstra2009 has decided that the layout in question was "unorthodox" and re-ordered everything so the weapons are in chronological order and without sub-categories. I can't say this is an improvement. Compare: District 9 to this version. Vangelis 18:04, 6 March 2011 (MSK)
Thanks
Thanks so much for this page. I am looking at some of our ramblings on the Forums as to what rules we think should be on here. I will start a search (probably later, it's late) and try to compile a rules list taken from the best suggestions by the mods and members. MoviePropMaster2008 07:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Pic types, # of pics
Should there be something about .jpeg's being the preferred pic type because of the size the others take up? The number of pics per gun is a big issue too. I think in some movies like war films where you have a number of actors handling the same type of gun. One pic of each actor isn't that bad. But in other films were it's just one actor it gets overblown when there is more than 4 or 5 pics. There should also be something about wide screen pics being preferred, but the black bars should be cropped off. As Oliveira said a FAQ is needed, I think something like a tutorial would be excellent. When I first discovered this site. I had no idea on how to upload pics, put them on a page etc. So I screencapped Extreme Prejudice and asked GM45 if he would help. So he uploaded my pics and put them on the page. Then told me to write the text. After doing that I saw how it was done and was able to do it myself. So there are tons of users out there that want to contribute, but don't want to screw up. --Predator20 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I also think there should be something about page formats.--Oliveira 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Some thoughts and suggestions
This is such a good idea. I’m a pretty new member and made a fair amount of mistakes. A lot of new members probably copy what they see other people doing, so if they see someone do something wrong, they may think that it is alright to do the same. Here are some points that you guys can consider when writing this page. 1. Like predator20 said a standard for how many screen caps are acceptable without becoming excessive. 2. If you believe something is wrong or misidentified and want to say something about it, don’t edit your comment onto the page but into the discussion area for the page. 3. Maybe don’t edit a page without entering what you want to do into the discussion area first. 4. A link to tutorials on how to build pages, screen cap, et cetera. I know they are not done yet, but this could be so useful to answering question and problems. 5. FAQ a definite. I cant find an image for a Lusa A2 sub machinegun what do I do?(You get the point). A lot of FAQs could probably be answered by a link to a tutorial. 6. What a page needs to contain in order to fit the standard (like what Oliveira was saying). Simple things like category photos should line up vertically, spelling, et cetera. 7. Appreciation of others members work. Don’t go on an edit rampage and kill someone’s page to fit your own liking. Instead mention how maybe they should bring up what’s on there mind in the discussion session of the page. 8. Keep your opinions humble, and on your own user page. No ranting on how such a gun is the best/worst ever on movie/weapon page. 9. Explain that text, just like images, can not be just copied and pasted from IMDB or such sites. 10. Explain that if they frequently disobey the rules they will face consequences.
p.s. Sorry this is so long lol. --Mauser 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- 7. Appreciation of others members work. Don’t go on an edit rampage and kill someone’s page to fit your own liking. Instead mention how maybe they should bring up what’s on there mind in the discussion session of the page.
- Good point, but look at both sides of it. One one hand, at IMFDB, we've been too lenient for too long regarding bizarre formatting. We all know members have put in a lot of hard work on a page. But being a wiki we get tons and tons and TONS of new edits and new pages by new members (many of them anonymous) all the time. Alot of their edits are BS. (I had to remove a ton of MANGA images and butt heads with members who thought that IMFDB should include appearances of guns in Manga). I think that a temporary note at the top of the page, eliciting input will be well received. On the other hand, I completely agree that it is outrageous that newbies or anonymous members roll in, radically change the format of an established page, especially when it is NOT conforming to the standard as established by IMFDB, and then roll out again, never to be heard from again. What we must all remember is that pages conform to the standard as set by the mainstream of IMFDB, not some weird little experimental page. I mean, Wikipedia has a page format standard. I used to NOT be so bugged by 'what I considered to be' irrelevant screenshots (like goofy shots that don't clearly show the gun, but allows the page maker to make some 'pithy' remark as to how bad some actors' shooting stance is). It wasn't an issue, until Bunni had to change servers AGAIN to keep up with the crushing transfer of data. That was when we should have gotten a clue that we must be efficient in our bandwidth heavy images. An FAQ is definitely going to be helpful here. Good points. MoviePropMaster2008 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I was kinda thinking the samething when I wrote that. Someone is probably going to go off on how its not fair because it is a wiki. Two sides to every coin I guess. --Mauser 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys
I'm very busy with work tonight, but I thought I'd point you to this topic in the forum, where we discussed possible rules: http://www.imfdb.org/forum/showthread.php?t=41 I'm glad to see we're finally getting some rules on the front page. -MT2008 02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice Job
Its coming together very nicely. Good Job to everyone who worked on it. --Mauser 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussions in the main wiki pages
Add something about this. Nothing makes a page look amatuer like this example from Punisher War Zone
Alcatrazz 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
So technically this is more of a CQB-R than an M4. Excalibur01 17:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- CQB-R has a 10.3-inch barrel, but basically yeah. Spartan198 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks more like an HK416 to me, but that's just me, I could be way off. --The Specialist 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not an HK416; note the hole size and shape on the rail system. --Res0290 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok people. After watching the behind the scenes footage. This IS an M4, just with a 10 in barrel. Excalibur01 05:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Discussions are okay as long as they are TEMPORARY. They should NOT be on a page long, and certainly once a weapon has been 100% identified, all discussion should be removed. But sometimes discussion help remind people to try to help ID a specific weapon. Personally there are TONS more irritating and amateurish things about bad pages than discussions. Also, why don't members do their duty and if they see discussions that seem outdated and are no longer relevant, just move it to the discussions page. That's what it is for. MoviePropMaster2008 02:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- We really need something about disscussions.--Oliveira 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind discussions soo much, it's just when they linger there for so long without an answer, or when the gun has been identified, and they're still there for months, although I'd prefer talk pages be used more often. One more thing, can you include something about how crappy images shouldn't overwrite high quality images such as yours, I think it would be good to clarify the importance of the highest quality images.--Alienqueen11 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think now that the main page has been changed to show what articles are being discussed, more are using them. Before someone could post something in a talk page and be forgotten for months.--Predator20 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "direct fire role"
As far as I'm aware, both the German 88mm FlaKs and the Soviet B4 203mm howitzer were used in the direct fire role during WW2 (there's archive footage of B4s firing with the barrels level during the Battle of Berlin in Call of Duty: World at War). Does that mean they'd qualify for gun pages? I know MPM has said before that German prop houses own real 88s, and there's quite a few interesting notes I could make about them (eg how you can tell a FlaK 18 / 36 / 37 / 41 apart). Evil Tim 01:48, 21 April 2011 (CDT)