Recent Weapon Page Descriptions

[StanTheMan]

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter

I'm pretty sure it's in the rules that Tim can do whatever he wants

Must have missed that section.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

Oh, the Paul Verhoeven rule, yes.

(Famous behind-the-scenes quote from Basic Instinct, directed at Joe Eszterhas: "Joe, I am the director and you are the writer. Which means that I am right and you are wrong, ja?")

As a RoboCop nut I am quite aware of that Verhoeven fellow. That said, to paraphrase a John Goodman character, the Dutchman is not the issue here..

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by StanTheMan

Must have missed that section.



As a RoboCop nut I am quite aware of that Verhoeven fellow. That said, to paraphrase a John Goodman character, the Dutchman is not the issue here..

Well, I'd point out large gun descriptions aren't without precedent and there's ones I didn't write too. My interpretation is some of the standards (which you'll note is separate from the "rules" at the top) is they're not inviolable laws: if there's a decent reason to have more text, there should be more text (much like there might be a good reason to have 11 images of something, but you shouldn't try to have more than 10). If you look at pages like the one for the TEC-9 (which MPM wrote), there's six large paragraphs of description text which include basically the entire history of the weapon, and there's a lot of pages like MG42 and StG44 which have had more than two paragraphs up top for ages.

[StanTheMan]

Indeed, in fact I'm sure there's other pages around as well I either forgot to mention or just plain forgot.. Minimi/SAW has a good bit of stuff, I think some shotguns also.. no doubt others - all told, fair enough there. In the case of the TEC-9 page I have to point out it's not a entirely apples-to-apples comparison -It has what would otherwise be a essay of info spread out the page in multiple sections whcih makes it subsequently look a lot cleaner - but that said no way to do that on a page with only one weapon variant/type so there it is there.

Appearance aside, I suppose the only other issue is that with many other pages looking quite sparse next to these there will be a push to build up these other weapon pages with info (that in fairness can be almost as easily found elsewhere) and thus take away attention at listing and IDing weapons on the media - that is, the point of the site. Even then though.. perhaps that's being a bit much. I and others have bitched about that kinda thing elsewhere and it seems to not end up being that big a deal. I still think there's something to the whole KISS concept to be said here, but end of the day, not like I can't live with it. Indeed like I said I enjoy the info.

Was hoping to get some other admin input on this but perhaps Tim does run everything and the others just pop in and out for fun.

[Jcordell]

I'm guilty of creating a few weapons pages with lots of historical information. However that's okay because it's interesting and I just know that everyone wants to read that information.

However, in all seriousness, over the past few years I've become more judicious in what I put on the weapons page. As was pointed out I've moved much of the neat to know stuff to the discussion page.