Personally, I didn't want the EM-1 to have its own page, either, I would rather have confined it to the "Eraser" page only. I don't remember why I was ignored, or who did.

Anyway, we can't set the precedent that we allow these kinds of pages just because somebody put work into them. But like I said, if anyone can find info that the BFG in the "Doom" movie had real gun parts, then it's acceptable.

But the thing is, Doom is a movie full of real weapons with extremely heavy visual modifications, including an M1919 turned into a portable gatling gun. The idea that the BFG prop is another one is hardly left-field given what it's surrounded by. And, as I said before, what a movie weapon is shown firing is no indicator of whether it's real or not, just whether it's really firing.

The point is, the BFG article elborates on the history of the prop and the things it's based on, in a manner that wouldn't be appropriate in the main article. It can't be argued that it's potentially misleading, since the others are clearly not real weapons nor based on real weapons, and it says the BFG is fictional in the opening paragraph. It is perhaps a unique case of an utterly fictional videogame weapon ending up as a semi-believable prop [I can't offhandedly think of another, certainly] but that's all the more reason to include such information.

What it actually fired was an obviously fake trail of swirly...stuff. See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHoIMBXKSos

Worth watching just for Arnie's 'well, who needs physics anyway' moment at the end.

But according to MPM, that is the precident as per Einhander, and such a change in precident would also require the deletion of some extremely interesting movie trivia not directly related to real firearms, such as the bonus section on non-weapon special effects in the Terminator 2 article.

Well you just killed your point right there, they were all real weapons that fired blanks and the BFG is a complete prop that fired plasma rays.

Personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the BFG could be real.

I have not seen the Movie Eraser and based on the clip you showed me here I do not think the EM-1 Railgun deserves its own page.

IMO it Doesn't matter, the trivia section is on the same page as the firearms section of a film anyways so it's not like there is a full page of non gun trivia.

But that wasn't my point. My point was, when it's surrounded by extremely heavily modified firearms, there is going to be natural curiousity as to whether it is also one.

You're ignoring what I'm actually saying. I'm not suggesting the BFG is the world's first blank-firing plasma gun, just that there's potential, especially given what it's surrounded by, to think it may be a non-firing prop built on top of a real gun. You seem to be ignoring the idea that a non-firing prop gun could be made to appear to be firing anything; that just means it's not really firing, the conclusion that it therefore isn't built on a real gun is a non sequitur.

Well, MPM seems to disagree with you over that; according to him, he has been questioned as to whether it's real. It's certainly ridiculous to think they constructed a man-portable railgun for a movie, but people are fond of believing incredibly stupid things.

You're splitting hairs here. Either trivia is allowed or it isn't, putting it on a seperate page is an issue of organisation, not content.

Heh once again when they see what the weapon does it should be very obvious to the viewer that it is fake.

Why would it be built on top of a real gun if it doesn't fire blanks?


I don't know if I'm quoting him correctly but he also thinks those people are idiots.

Well trivia of that matter is not a big deal as it relates to a film that has real guns in it and is not the focus of the article but just a small piece.

I think I'll move the T2 trivia to the discussion page, like I did for Punisher '04 and Transformers, because it takes up too much space on the main page.

Largely because it's quicker to slap together a bunch of existing components and then put your fake parts on top than to make the whole thing from scratch, same reason that the Star Wars Jawa Sandcrawler has running gear from a model Sherman and the Death Star's surface in close-up is made from model kits of real-life warships. Another possibility that would result in a non-firing prop with real parts would be the prop parts not being able to handle the stresses of discharging real ammunition.

The way I see it, the BFG article is a background piece for the movie; it's much too big to append to the movie page, but gives the background of what the thing is, why it's in the movie, and what it's been in before. If you click it wondering what a BFG is and why it's in the movie, you will be educated as to these things.

I understand where you're coming from with your objections to this, and I'd object to any standard that allowed large numbers of totally made-up weapons to have their own pages, but the present standard for fictional weapon pages makes for pages that just duplicate the information on the movie's own page; there's not much point to most of them even being there. I think it's more useful if they go in more detail about how they're supposed to work, what they're based on, and what legacy they've had; for example, that you can get hold of versions of the M41 pulse rifle and Auto-9 scaled for Lego figures, or that a videogame weapon has a series of real revolvers named after it, or how the Eraser gun compares to real experimental railguns.

I'd see it as a better standard to have a fictional gun article when there's a lot to say about the fictional gun, which would disqualify almost all sci-fi weapons instantly; making it clear that in-fiction background doesn't count as something to say would avoid any of the potential pitfalls, since 'This is the rifle from Halo it is what would happen if the FN F2000 was designed by blind idiots' is hardly going to qualify.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Wolfenstein

http://www.imfdb.org/images/c/cb/Wolf01.jpg
http://www.imfdb.org/images/1/1b/Wolf7.jpg

Two CG fake weapons, last time I deleted this it was advised I should discuss in the forum before I take any action.

I say ID the REAL guns and forget the energy weapons. They don't need IDing. If people want to know, they'll look it up

IMO, as the main contributor to the page, he has the right to note fictional weapons, as long as the page isn't fully composed of nothing but them. And the other gun has the basic receiver of an M60 machine gun, and I'm not just assuming that based on similarities. It IS an M60 receiver. So if anyone came by the page wondering what obvious machine gun part was used to build the particle cannon, it could be of some use.