#41
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Vangelis; 08-26-2009 at 07:41 AM. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by Vangelis; 08-27-2009 at 03:05 PM. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by Vangelis; 08-28-2009 at 09:17 AM. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Wolfenstein
Two CG fake weapons, last time I deleted this it was advised I should discuss in the forum before I take any action. |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life." Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle Psalm 144:1 “It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.” |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
|
|
|