| 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:I Know Who Killed Me
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Marked for deletion
I went ahead and did so because per the RSP Section regarding the single firearm exceptions, I don't think this page comes even close to meeting any of the requirements of said exceptions to the 'more than one firearm' rule. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Apologies if I'm wrong in this instance (though I doubt I am). StanTheMan (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2015 (EST)
- The exceptions can be subjective, and if it's a decently formatted page, I tend to be more lenient. --Funkychinaman (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2015 (EST)
- I do agree the page is well-made. But that alone has not saved pages from deletion in the past. My issue here is this feels more like a case of documenting the film more than it is documenting the firearm(s) - The site, as I've always understood, is more to document firearms in films, rather than films that happen to have firearms. Which is why there are stipulations such as 'more than one firearm' and why there are particular exceptions to that stipulation and so on. If that makes any sense.
I just don't feel (or at least, aren't sure) that this page meets the standard(s) expected of the site as stated - The Glocks on this page are stated to be G17s but we really can't positively verify that with the images given (They seem to be full-size Glocks though, so the 17 is a good bet, I grant you). And again, as I've pointed out, it's the only listed firearm and that one listed firearm doesn't appear to be shown well enough for a viewer to ponder or even make real note of it nor seems to important or notable in regards to the film itself.
I'm only going by what is clearly stated, though I understand the RSP isn't written in stone and can be applied however you guys see fit. Ultimately it makes no huge difference to me whether it stays or goes, but all-told, this page is certainly worth marking for deletion if only to bring it to you guys' attention to decide accordingly. Just expressing my concerns, as always I'll defer to you guys however this goes. Apologies again if I'm in the wrong here. StanTheMan (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (EST)
- I do agree the page is well-made. But that alone has not saved pages from deletion in the past. My issue here is this feels more like a case of documenting the film more than it is documenting the firearm(s) - The site, as I've always understood, is more to document firearms in films, rather than films that happen to have firearms. Which is why there are stipulations such as 'more than one firearm' and why there are particular exceptions to that stipulation and so on. If that makes any sense.
- Let's break it down:
- 1) the firearm is identifiable, well seen and important to the story. A film where 'some character' wields an 'unknown revolver' means nothing. Yes, yes, not sure, since I haven't seen the film. The actors, their characters, and the firearm are identifed.
- 2) it has enough screen time for any viewer to wonder what make or model it is. Not having seen the film, not sure.
- 3) it must drive the plot forward and not be an 'incidental' prop (like something hanging on the wall in the background).
- (a) If it is in the background, it must be 'interesting enough' to merit someone asking the question 'what is that?' Thus if it has enough screen time and it is identifiable, it qualifies. If it is a random 'set dressing' or a 'shape' held by a extra, then it does not qualify. Again, not having seen the film, not sure.
- 4) the single firearm rule only applies if the firearm is real. If it is an obvious toy or airsoft gun, then it does not qualify. Having a lone character wave around an 'orange plug' airsoft toy does not merit a page. If the film is filled with various replica or high quality airsoft weapons than can fool the casual viewer, then it qualifies, if only to shine light upon the fact that the guns are fakes. They do not look like obvious fakes.
- Someone who has actually seen the movie should chime in as to the importance of the firearms to the story. Do they kill the antagonist? OP? --Funkychinaman (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- Well my concern was all those same 'not sures'. And while I'm trying not to be negative, I have a feeling those 'not sures' will turn out to be 'nos'. But I could certainly be wrong, we shall see. I'd be more than happy to find out for sure - Hell, I'd watch the film myself to find out if I could. StanTheMan (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- This Agents carries their Glocks throughout the movie, but when it were into their holsters, it cant be ID, so I show moment, when their pulled it. At those moment they failed to kill antagonist, due the some mystical elements. At this moment antagonist was invulnerable to firearm. Pyramid Silent (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- Hmm, well, doesn't sound like they're shown much, but they do seem to be part of a notable piece of the film. That said, perhaps I'm a bit off-base here and this might have just enough to it to be kept. If so, my mistake, then. I do think, though, that some of what you described should be noted on the page for emphasis (despite the spoiler-ish nature of it). Just a thought. StanTheMan (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- Agreed. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- Hmm, well, doesn't sound like they're shown much, but they do seem to be part of a notable piece of the film. That said, perhaps I'm a bit off-base here and this might have just enough to it to be kept. If so, my mistake, then. I do think, though, that some of what you described should be noted on the page for emphasis (despite the spoiler-ish nature of it). Just a thought. StanTheMan (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- This Agents carries their Glocks throughout the movie, but when it were into their holsters, it cant be ID, so I show moment, when their pulled it. At those moment they failed to kill antagonist, due the some mystical elements. At this moment antagonist was invulnerable to firearm. Pyramid Silent (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2015 (EST)
- Well my concern was all those same 'not sures'. And while I'm trying not to be negative, I have a feeling those 'not sures' will turn out to be 'nos'. But I could certainly be wrong, we shall see. I'd be more than happy to find out for sure - Hell, I'd watch the film myself to find out if I could. StanTheMan (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (EST)