Should Indirect fire weapons be allowed?

[Excalibur]

So RPGs and other types of rocket and missile launchers do count?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

So RPGs and other types of rocket and missile launchers do count?

Those would be "direct fire" weapons, so of course they count. MPM is talking about weapons that intended to cause (mostly) indiscriminate damage to large areas.

[Phoenixent]

So are we talking about 60mm and 81mm Mortars? In the military a Small arm in any weapon that is less than 20mm. Do we really have a page issue on this site? How much space are you going to make removing grenades and mortars? Again I am bringing up the fact of games if we are shy of space. After all this in Internet Movie Firearms Data Base we should than limit the site to Live Action Movie and Television.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Phoenixent

So are we talking about 60mm and 81mm Mortars? In the military a Small arm in any weapon that is less than 20mm. Do we really have a page issue on this site? How much space are you going to make removing grenades and mortars? Again I am bringing up the fact of games if we are shy of space. After all this in Internet Movie Firearms Data Base we should than limit the site to Live Action Movie and Television.

You get no argument with me about Video Games. LOL. I've been pushing that mantra for years. Its a lost cause. But that is not for just one or two mods to decide. Despite my wishes ... hahaha. I can't impose my will on the rest of the membership since there are obviously a lot of members who like creating Video game pages (despite the fact that so many of the pages are of poor quality).

It's NOT ABOUT SPACE, though. It's about clutter and the user experience. I'm torn on Mortars. Both you and I know that armories have mortars for film, but it still seems to be edging closer and closer to artillery, which I certainly DON'T want to have their own gun pages (note that I do identify artillery pieces on their own movie pages).

But I repeatedly rail about quality, NOT Quantity and yet so many members are obsessed with listing or categorizing every single possible weapon or category or combination or whatever they can think of. I think the term 'Quality not quantity' is lost on many contributors.

[predator20]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

You get no argument with me about Video Games. LOL. I've been pushing that mantra for years. Its a lost cause. But that is not for just one or two mods to decide. Despite my wishes ... hahaha. I can't impose my will on the rest of the membership since there are obviously a lot of members who like creating Video game pages (despite the fact that so many of the pages are of poor quality).

Make that three. I don't care for them.

[MT2008]

I don't care for a lot of video game pages, but I don't agree that they need to be removed in their entirety. It would also be unfair to the people who do make good video game pages.

I'm also surprised to hear this from the armorers. I realize you guys make your living working on movies and TV shows, but Steve, I know you've worked with video game dev teams at least a few times in your career. So I have to ask: Do you want VGs off the site because you don't respect them as art, or simply because many of the IMFDB users who make the pages are incompetent?

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I don't care for a lot of video game pages, but I don't agree that they need to be removed in their entirety. It would also be unfair to the people who do make good video game pages.

I'm also surprised to hear this from the armorers. I realize you guys make your living working on movies and TV shows, but Steve, I know you've worked with video game dev teams at least a few times in your career. So I have to ask: Do you want VGs off the site because you don't respect them as art, or simply because many of the IMFDB users who make the pages are incompetent?

Well if we banished them EARLY it would have been easier. Now it's been years and people have put work into all those stupid VG pages

I can't speak for Steve, but the guns in any game are an avatar. They're not real. Also so many of them are BS (franken guns, made from lazy artists who morph several weapons together) and yet people spend HOURS trying to stretch the realm of logic and declare them to be ONE real world gun or another ... or worse two people arguing just 'what that blurry rectangle is supposed to be'.

Also there is NO information for posterity here. We're not collecting nor logging Hollywood facts and figures. The fact that SOME artist drew SOME picture of a gun merits a big "So What"? in my mind. If it were REAL (like the first instance of a P226 or the first appearance of an SP1, now that MEANS something).

Also I don't like how Videogame artists depict weapons which NO ONE EVER USED IN THE REAL WORLD, like all those prototype Russian weapons, which no one has and no one uses, but because they appear in a Video game, we have to have a gun page for them here. Tons of those obscure Russian prototype and limited prod run weapons would be GONE and I would be glad. If they appeared in REAL Russian cinema (with good screencaps) I would be glad, but they don't.

Note how there are more Pancor Jackhammers in Video games then there EVER WERE MADE in real life.

Any way, you know the mantra. I like others are also tired of running into a FRESH bunch of ten year olds who make mistakes on pages, created lame or inappropriate pages or argue with us. Sure adults can be poor contributors as well, but the sheer WAVE of kids (and not the smart ones who know about real world guns) that hit with a regular cycle, gets tiresome fast.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by Phoenixent

we should than limit the site to Live Action Movie and Television.

I strongly agree, that would completely simplify things for us on the site. It would also cure the website's "too many 10 year olds because they wanna see call of duty page" syndrome. Like I said before, the videogame section draws children and other indesirable folk to IMFDB like flies to a turd.

As for indirect fire weapons I think MT2008's suggestion for determining appropriateness could work. Or that we could decide on a case by case basis until we come up with an appropriate policy.''
I'd suggest if the weapon is primarily meant as a vehicle armament and has no dismounted version at all should be a primary deciding factor. That appears to be the difference between the BGM-71 TOW & the AGM-114 Hellfire.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

I strongly agree, that would completely simplify things for us on the site. It would also cure the website's "too many 10 year olds because they wanna see call of duty page" syndrome. Like I said before, the videogame section draws children and other indesirable folk to IMFDB like flies to a turd.

I believe it should be something considered as games and even anime are at the far edge of the scope. We should lock it down to live action film and television so we can preserve that history.

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

As for indirect fire weapons I think MT2008's suggestion for determining appropriateness could work. Or that we could decide on a case by case basis until we come up with an appropriate policy.''
I'd suggest if the weapon is primarily meant as a vehicle armament and has no dismounted version at all should be a primary deciding factor. That appears to be the difference between the BGM-71 TOW & the AGM-114 Hellfire.

I am not so sure on how to do this. We have weapon systems like the M-61 Vulcan and the 20mm Oerlikon both of those systems require a motion picture armorer as do some of the rocket systems. I really don't see a ton of these systems being posted as they are not on film. But they are on video games as you can use anything gaming. It goes back to the same issue if indirect weapons are using up space than get rid of the games.

Or it could be we do have anything to do so we start to come up with ways to remove stuff like Indirect Weapons or films with one gun in it.

[MT2008]

In spite of the (well known) problems with the kinds of users who tend to create video game pages, I think it's HIGHLY unrealistic to expect that we're going to remove video games from the scope of media on this site. I also think it's unfair to do so. But regardless of how one views them, they're not going anywhere from here.

I think my idea is the closest thing to a workable definition of what sorts of "firearms" should be allowed on this site.