| 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
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)
- Cheers, everybody! Here's hoping that 2021 goes better than 2020. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:20, 1 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:
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)
- Why is this here? Does it appear in a movie, TV show, anime or VG? Then it doesn't belong on the site. We have random gun images because a variant of them appears in something. But this is NOT a gun encyclopedia. It's a MOVIE firearms database. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
- It appears on someone's sandbox page. Not meaning this snarky, but you can click on an image and it lists all pages that it appears on.--AgentGumby (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
- For a project page, probably okay, It seems like the mobile app (though I'm not sure if Mobile APP games have been approved on this site yet). I"m just warning folks NOT to make special categories or gun pages for anything that doesn't have a presence in established media. The acceptance of Mobile App VGs was still an unknown situation to me. Sorry for the confusion. I was rolling up OTHER issues with OTHER images that didn't fit the criterion and sloppily mixed the two issues together in one paragraph. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2021 (EDT)
- No problem, happens to the best of us. As far as I'm aware, the general consensus is that mobile apps don't meet general distribution requirements, but are okay to have as unofficial personal project/sandbox pages. At any rate, we're probably gonna wind up needing this image (and some of the other ones I've uploaded for the page) anyway, since the game that it appears in is getting a show later this year (which I am DEFINITELY gonna make a page for, time permitting). Besides, I still think that the AMR category idea has some merit - if nothing else, it would mean that we don't have to keep the AT rifles in the Sniper Rifle category, where they don't really belong. BrandonColeford1992 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2021 (EDT)
- For a project page, probably okay, It seems like the mobile app (though I'm not sure if Mobile APP games have been approved on this site yet). I"m just warning folks NOT to make special categories or gun pages for anything that doesn't have a presence in established media. The acceptance of Mobile App VGs was still an unknown situation to me. Sorry for the confusion. I was rolling up OTHER issues with OTHER images that didn't fit the criterion and sloppily mixed the two issues together in one paragraph. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2021 (EDT)
- It appears on someone's sandbox page. Not meaning this snarky, but you can click on an image and it lists all pages that it appears on.--AgentGumby (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
- Why is this here? Does it appear in a movie, TV show, anime or VG? Then it doesn't belong on the site. We have random gun images because a variant of them appears in something. But this is NOT a gun encyclopedia. It's a MOVIE firearms database. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
- Fair enough. Still think that the AMR category idea holds some water, though. BrandonColeford1992 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2021 (EST)
- Then just put it in the machine gun category.--Wuzh (talk) 00:07, 7 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Bumping for interest.--AgentGumby (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2021 (EDT)
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))
- 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)
- Would you guys be willing to consider this one? (Theakker3 (talk) 15:17, 28 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)
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))
- Inspired by Remington 1875. --Greg-Z (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2021 (EST)
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))
- 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.
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))
- Modern Trigger discipline was FIRST introduced during the Vietnam War (late 1960s to early 1970s). Though most soldiers still didn't use it, you will see SOME combat photos of them with the 'new training'. It didn't become a thing until the 1970s when police departments really started pushing it in their standardized training. So NOT seeing trigger discipline in any film or project before the 1970s is historically accurate. As for actors using modern holding techniques, many times it's just how they let the weapon fall in their hands. I was trained that during WW2 and other wars, GUNS were seen as tools. You carried it like you were carrying a SHOVEL or PICKAXE until you were set up in position to fire. It was only during the 1970s did the doctrine come about that you should have the guns ready at ALL times because of possible ambush. But you can clearly see in historical footage of soldiers just grabbing the gun like it's a stick or tool and not paying attention to it unless they were patrolling and 'anticipating' enemy contact. Even during battles, soldiers just ran, while holding their guns as random 'items' until they were actually firing and 'using the weapon'.
- Constantly griping about actors holding their guns in 'safe mode' or modern patrol mode is silly though. TONS of actors on set have current military training and it's HARD to keep them from doing that, even if the director tells them to. You're not going to spend the money RESHOOTING a scene because some actor FORGOT and slipped into holding his rifle 'modern style' in the shot. Just let it go. Guys who constantly criticize it sound like douchbags. This coming from a movie ARMORER.... (and yes, we tell the actors what to do, and tons of times, they FORGET while filming. Can't do anything about it. ) MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
- 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
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)
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)
An uncommon Thompson front sight
A Thompson M1928A1 with hooded (!) front sight is seen in Soldier of Fortune (1955).
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 stonesto 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)
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)
- 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)
Yes, mo-cap and voicework is not eligible, but FMV is. --Funkychinaman (talk) 01:30, 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.
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)
- 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)
- I think the pistol is a IWI Masada 9x19mm. If you look closely, the CZ P-10C is got a portruding section in the trigger guard: Masada doesn't. Also check for the rear sight consistent with Masada. The "black dot" seems to be a screw, used in the Optics Ready version with 4.1" barrel.
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)
Please help with identification
An air pistol in 1988 season of British TV series Bergerac:
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:
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)
Valtro was Atis back then, and PM2 was only introduced in 88, not to mention that it should have in common. Besides, this is clearly a cousin of this. --Slon95 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
Push. --Slon95 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
- https://i.imgur.com/iEzIsQU.png
- https://img.redbull.com/images/q_auto,f_auto/redbullcom/2018/09/25/643a893c-a455-4026-9735-ec993c1008e4/spider-man-ps4-villain-with-weapon
Assault rifle
Seems to have some AK influence with a G36 carry handle/accessory rail.
- https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/773981410544063832/ECCA71EF6037A9A512702BFC5453448AE69CB4AF/?imw=512&&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false
- https://img5.goodfon.com/wallpaper/nbig/9/d8/spider-man-ps4-spider-man-ps4-chelovek-pauk-soldaty-oruzhie.jpg
Sniper rifle
It's bolt action and likely a .50 cal.
Minigun
A handheld minigun. Big enough to be considered a M61 Vulcan.
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)
- 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)
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)- Leave just the title and pictures, and that's it. I also think that technical data columns are also useless as they don't carry any payload. Weapon lists for armies... who even needs it here? If someone wants to find out something himself, then let him collect information in other places. --Slon95 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
- Forgive me if this comes off as rude but... what? We're the Internet Movie Firearms Database, and a database is, by definition, a repository of information. I hardly see how additional information pertaining to the topic of the database is a bad thing. Like I said, it can help people spot errors if nothing else - the country-specific military weapon list pages actually outright state that they're there to help people determine whether a given depiction of something in media is correct or not. Sure, someone could check that info elsewhere, but why should we go out of our way to make it harder for them to find potentially-useful information that was originally cobbled together from several sources, some of which might not even be in a language they can read? Sure, you can certainly go too far and include irrelevant or pointless information, but I hardly think that most of the information being discussed here is irrelevant or pointless. Pyr0m4n14c (talk)
- We are a database, not an encyclopedia. Arguably, anything other than a list of appearances of a firearm in qualifying media is outside of the scope of the database. However, there is certain information that is useful and worth including. A brief description of the gun is useful especially if it is something obscure. A little bit of development history is fine as it helps with knowing if it is anachronistic in a piece of media and if it is the correct version for the time. Not all specifications are strictly necessary but some stuff like fire modes, calibers, feed systems and barrel lengths are good as it helps to ID if something is an accurate portrayal (especially in games). The Federov article as was went way over the line however, as it was a wall of text including stuff like what other equipment the units who were issued the gun were also issued with with which is not needed. There has been discussion about the weapon lists for armed forces before, however I do believe they are somewhat useful as it allows somebody to check in a single place to know whether the weapons used in a piece of media are accurate without having every page on the wiki have a list of who uses a particular gun and when. --commando552 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
- Yeah, looking back on it, I suppose that some of the stuff on the Fedorov page was a bit much. Still, when in doubt, I think it's better to err on the side of too much information than too little - too little can cause mistakes and errors, while too much loses you nothing but time. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
- A lot of people use this website as a reference source to learn a little bit more about guns. I know I do. Some of y'all may have noticed that I write a lot of little information blurbs for gun pages. I enjoy doing that sort of thing and do it because I think it's a useful thing to include. The Fedorov page, as you have all stated, was a whole different beast. I try to keep things short. I think going forward it is good to keep things as concise as possible, which I feel the users here as a whole are pretty good at doing. The write-up on the Fedorov was an exception to the rule. --PyramidHead (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
- Yeah, looking back on it, I suppose that some of the stuff on the Fedorov page was a bit much. Still, when in doubt, I think it's better to err on the side of too much information than too little - too little can cause mistakes and errors, while too much loses you nothing but time. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
- We are a database, not an encyclopedia. Arguably, anything other than a list of appearances of a firearm in qualifying media is outside of the scope of the database. However, there is certain information that is useful and worth including. A brief description of the gun is useful especially if it is something obscure. A little bit of development history is fine as it helps with knowing if it is anachronistic in a piece of media and if it is the correct version for the time. Not all specifications are strictly necessary but some stuff like fire modes, calibers, feed systems and barrel lengths are good as it helps to ID if something is an accurate portrayal (especially in games). The Federov article as was went way over the line however, as it was a wall of text including stuff like what other equipment the units who were issued the gun were also issued with with which is not needed. There has been discussion about the weapon lists for armed forces before, however I do believe they are somewhat useful as it allows somebody to check in a single place to know whether the weapons used in a piece of media are accurate without having every page on the wiki have a list of who uses a particular gun and when. --commando552 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
- Forgive me if this comes off as rude but... what? We're the Internet Movie Firearms Database, and a database is, by definition, a repository of information. I hardly see how additional information pertaining to the topic of the database is a bad thing. Like I said, it can help people spot errors if nothing else - the country-specific military weapon list pages actually outright state that they're there to help people determine whether a given depiction of something in media is correct or not. Sure, someone could check that info elsewhere, but why should we go out of our way to make it harder for them to find potentially-useful information that was originally cobbled together from several sources, some of which might not even be in a language they can read? Sure, you can certainly go too far and include irrelevant or pointless information, but I hardly think that most of the information being discussed here is irrelevant or pointless. Pyr0m4n14c (talk)
- Leave just the title and pictures, and that's it. I also think that technical data columns are also useless as they don't carry any payload. Weapon lists for armies... who even needs it here? If someone wants to find out something himself, then let him collect information in other places. --Slon95 (talk) 22:42, 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.
File size limits?
The "Upload file" page says that the limit for image sizes is 2 MB. But when I try to upload a 1.5 MB image, it gives me an error saying "request entity too large". So, what's the actual limit? And could whoever has the power to change the page to accurately reflect said limit, or is it stuck like that? BrandonColeford1992 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2021 (EDT) EDIT: Fixed the problem; Windows was apparently making the files bigger for no reason, and re-sizing them to the exact same size at 100% quality somehow resulted in a file a third the size. Still, the misleading limit should probably be addressed.
Why isn't there a listing for the movie "Run Hide Fight" ?
I have looked for the page for this movie, and have been unable to find it. Does it exist (perhaps misplaced because of commas added to the title?) I'd like to know the make and model of the rifle that Todd Hull (Thomas Jane) used in that scene.
- First of all, sign your posts. The pencil symbol on the edit tab thing. Second, the page doesn't exist because no one else on the site has felt like making the page, probably because they'd never heard of it. If you're wondering why somebody hasn't made a page yet, the answer is "Do it yourself".--Mandolin (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2021 (EDT)
- Also, it's a school shooting movie, so other members might have skipped it because it's in incredibly poor taste.--Mandolin (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2021 (EDT)
- Nope, that's a dumb reason to avoid the movie. It's just that it's hard to see and get. I want to see it myself. It's supposedly a REALLY GOOD MOVIE. It's also PRO GUN and the anti gun Hollywood elites HATE that. So it deserves a page on this site. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
- Also, it's a school shooting movie, so other members might have skipped it because it's in incredibly poor taste.--Mandolin (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2021 (EDT)
For some actual answers, IMFDB is an entirely volunteer-based project; if a page on a notable work doesn't exist, it probably means that none of our editors have watched the movie and thought about documenting it. --Wuzh (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2021 (EDT)
Stop adding firearms that don't appear in anything
I'm seeing members trying to add photos and categories of firearms that are prototypes or one-offs or weird obscure items, which would be FINE if they actually appear in ONE of the following: A movie, A TV Show, Anime or Video Game. (All must be moving images/visual media, no BOOKS allowed) None of these obscure firearms that don't appear in anything BELONG on this site. IMFDB is not a gun encyclopedia of all guns ever made. I as a MOD will start deleting entries that violate that rule. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2021 (EDT)
Redirecting
How do you redirect again, trying to redirect a gun page, but I forgot how to again despite the fact that I have done it before, now I forgot. I'mallaboutguns.1 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2021 (EDT)
- The button "Redirect" in Edit menu (second from the right icon). Or just type: #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]
--Greg-Z (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2021 (EDT)
- Thanks Greg. I'mallaboutguns.1 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2021 (EDT)
FNH on Main Page
It seems like an advert to me. Is there a reason why it's on the main page? --JackalUnderscore (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2021 (EDT)
- Yeah, this always struck me as odd. And also that pages with "FN" or "Browning" in the title won't have those autoplaying video ads. TheExplodingBarrel (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2021 (EDT)
Weapons pages titles - capitalized or not?
Since I am not a native speaker (I'm trying to use correct English but still sometimes fail), please explain to me how to correctly write weapons pages titles - capitalized or lowercase letters? I thought it is right to capitalized all words, but maybe I'm wrong? Specifically, the question arose because of the renaming of Type 11 Light Machine Gun to Type 11 light machine gun. I think we need unification of the titles, right? Thanks! --Greg-Z (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
- If it's actually part of the weapon's name/designation, then I'd figure that it'd be capitalized; otherwise, it should be lowercase, to make sure nobody thinks that it's part of the gun's actual name. Really, whenever possible you shouldn't have the weapon "type" as part of the page name at all (I've been renaming several pages set up like this, such as the RPD); it's only necessary when there's more than one gun with that name (e.g. the M1941 Johnson rifle and M1941 Johnson machine gun). Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
Did some edits on the mainstream FBI (2018) page
Did a little edit. Nothing much since I'm not planning to follow it, even with the fourth season out. Ominae (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2021 (EDT)
Kate (2021) file names
So, I'm trying to do a page for Kate, the 2021 Netflix movie. Issue is, I keep getting the "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/0/0a"" error when I try to upload images. I've changed the names several times and nothing seems to work. Any ideas? I got three images uploaded before I started getting the error.--Mandolin (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
- Mostly this problem is solved by changing or removing or adding at least one character in the file name. But if in this case the method does not help, maybe try renaming the files radically - to something like "1111xxxx". If you manage to download, rename them to normal names. If this also does not help, send me one or two of these files to "gereint at gmail com", I'll try to see what can be done. --Greg-Z (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
Works canceled before release?
Has there ever been an instance where an IMFDB page was created for a work based on previews, then that work was canceled? I'm guessing it would be deleted, but I'm kinda curious. --VladVladson (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2021 (EDT)
- There was a page for Rainbow Six Patriots but it appears to be long gone now. I've found that Six Days in Fallujah still has a talk page.--AgentGumby (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (EDT)
- I used to routinely check games in the upcoming category to see if they were still upcoming. Six Days in Fallujah was cancelled, but is back on again. There was also a page for a page called The Grinder, which looks like it was a horror game for the Wii, which was cancelled. We had a page for The Bureau: XCOM Declassified, but was deleted since it went from an FPS to third person, and the screenshots were useless. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2021 (EST)
Duplicate images of the Japanese and Czech flags
I came across the fact that we use two different images of the flag of Japan in infoboxes:
Error creating thumbnail: File missing (JAP.jpg, uploaded in 2012) and Error creating thumbnail: File missing (Japan.jpg, uploaded in 2013)
Both are used in almost the same amount (149 and 145 pages, respectively). Of course, these are the same flag, and I think we should leave only one of these images. Which option is more correct in color? --Greg-Z (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
And same thing with Czech flag:
Error creating thumbnail: File missing (CZE.jpg, uploaded in 2012, used on 84 pages) and Error creating thumbnail: File missing (Czech-republic-flag.jpg, uploaded in 2012, used on 81 pages)
Note: these are not different flags for Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic as both images can be seen on pages for both pre- and post-1993 productions. --Greg-Z (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
- I believe the Japanese flag on the right (less bright red) and the Czech flag on the right (brighter red) are more accurate. Correcting each of the pages that have the wrong flags shouldn't take too long I hope. --Dan San (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
- Thanks. Since there are no other opinions, I'll wait for a day or two and then replace the duplicate flags. --Greg-Z (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- My guess would be that the left Cech flag is thge more accurate, as that one is a closer match to the wikipedia one. I would assume that they use the correct one or there would have already been an argument about it to solve it. --commando552 (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Thanks, You are right, this is a reasonable argument. I don't even know why it didn't occur to me myself. :) --Greg-Z (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- I also noticed that there are two Polish flags. TheExplodingBarrel (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Error creating thumbnail: File missing Poland.jpg; 20/05/2012; 8 pages Error creating thumbnail: File missing POL.jpg; 14/08/2012; 66 pages
- Thank you, I'll handle that too. --Greg-Z (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- I've deleted the less correct duplicates and put in file redirects so nobody has to go through hundreds of pages to just change the flags. --commando552 (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- It's really a better way. So the issue is fixed. --Greg-Z (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the different color of the Japanese flag actually an official difference? I've seen posts/jokes about how they "redesigned" the flag at one point by essentially just changing the red to a slightly different shade. Actually, wait, why am I asking this when I can just look it up... okay, so it's a bit tricky, but it seems like they slightly redesigned/clarified the requirements for the flag in 1999, by changing the size/shape ratios a bit and clarifying what exact shade of red to use. It's probably not a big deal either way, though, and I doubt most people would notice. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Really, the color was altered in 1999. Didn't know about it. Anyway it would be better to omit such minor differences, as otherwise we'll have to use, for example, 48-star Stars and Stripes for 1912-1959 filmes (at least, I remember such discussion in past, and different variants of the US flag was the main argument to ignore the minor differences). We are not Internet Heraldic Database after all :) --Greg-Z (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the different color of the Japanese flag actually an official difference? I've seen posts/jokes about how they "redesigned" the flag at one point by essentially just changing the red to a slightly different shade. Actually, wait, why am I asking this when I can just look it up... okay, so it's a bit tricky, but it seems like they slightly redesigned/clarified the requirements for the flag in 1999, by changing the size/shape ratios a bit and clarifying what exact shade of red to use. It's probably not a big deal either way, though, and I doubt most people would notice. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- It's really a better way. So the issue is fixed. --Greg-Z (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- I've deleted the less correct duplicates and put in file redirects so nobody has to go through hundreds of pages to just change the flags. --commando552 (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Thank you, I'll handle that too. --Greg-Z (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Thanks, You are right, this is a reasonable argument. I don't even know why it didn't occur to me myself. :) --Greg-Z (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- My guess would be that the left Cech flag is thge more accurate, as that one is a closer match to the wikipedia one. I would assume that they use the correct one or there would have already been an argument about it to solve it. --commando552 (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
- Thanks. Since there are no other opinions, I'll wait for a day or two and then replace the duplicate flags. --Greg-Z (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
Correcting screenshots in Photoshop
Just sending feelers out for what the policy (or general consensus) is on modifying screenshots to allow better identification or just overall appearance? For instance some scenes are so incredibly dark that it's hard to make out distinguishing details on firearms or other times they just look like blobs. For what it's worth I'm only talking about brightness or contrast, and in such a way that the image does not look heavily manipulated or "Photoshopped." --aswiftverdict (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2021 (EST)
- First off, you don't necessarily need Photoshop specifically - the Fast Stone Viewer program (as noted in the IMFDB Screencapping Guide) has color and brightness/contrast correction/modification along with general sharpness adjustment. I assume the VLC player does as well. That said, we indeed do 'enhance' images we post up, but generally as minimally as possible. However in cases like you said where the only decent shot is in darkness/poorly lit or what-have-you, I'd say its ok to more heavily tweak the adjustments for the purpose of actually showing the the gun(s) in the image well enough to have detail and/or make IDs. Given it has been done here and there throughout, I don't think it's an issue for the most part. I might suggest uploading a duplicate screencap showing the shot as-is to cover your bases, but that's just me. StanTheMan (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2021 (EST)
- VLC doesn't.; it just has a button to take screenshots in the Video drop-down menu. The most you can really configure it is changing the file format. TheExplodingBarrel (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (EST)
- What Stan said - generally, touch-ups for the sake of visibility are okay, as long as you make it clear in the image's caption that the image has been altered, and preferably include a shot of the original above/below it (unless the modification is just an arrow/circle to draw attention to one gun in particular, in which case just the modified version is fine). Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2021 (EST)