Delete this page

[predator20]

Originally Posted by zackmann08

Any chance we could get an admin to scroll through the 50 or so pages marked for Delition? I know I marked a number of them myself and I do have an "itchy trigger finger" for these things but a number of them really should go....

-Z

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I've had a bit of an itchy trigger finger as well, and since I AM one of those members with free time who fixes pages, I base my decisions on how likely another member would finish these pages. I've used the noeffort tag more than the nuke tag.

There's an incomplete tag use it! Just because there's no screencaps doesn't mean there's no effort. If there's a description of who uses what and at least a stock gun image. That's what I would consider minimum effort. Take http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Kung_Fu:_The_Legend_Continues I've never watched the show but I have an idea of who uses what from reading the page.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by predator20

There's an incomplete tag use it! Just because there's no screencaps doesn't mean there's no effort. If there's a description of who uses what and at least a stock gun image. That's what I would consider minimum effort. Take http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Kung_Fu:_The_Legend_Continues I've never watched the show but I have an idea of who uses what from reading the page.

I've been quite liberal with the incomplete tag as well. But there's a huge difference between a page that otherwise complete except for a few screencaps, and a page that's only a third of the guns from a film, with several mis-IDs. It happens, those pages are out there, I've seen it. Ultimately, without screencaps, we're just taking somebody's word for it. At least with the Kung Fu page, it's a MT2008, so we can be pretty sure he's right about the IDs, but what about Sergeant Preston of the Yukon, by some guy who swooped in for two months and hasn't contributed in over a year.

I admit, I'm using a very strict interpretation of the "Quality, not quantity" clause in the rules, but there are only so many ways to interpret "We will wait until someone is ready to make a complete and professional page." If we're going to use Kung Fu as an example, we've waited for 3.5 years already.

[zackmann08]

I get what you are saying but pages like the Taurus PT915, S&W Revolving Rifle, S&W Baby Russian, etc. need to go. There is nothing on the page except for an image. These guns have never been used. There are no specs. The pages are just placeholders incase the gun is eventually used... That DIRECTLY violates the "Rules, Standards and Principles".

Add to that:

• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_619
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_657
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Baby_Russian
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_908S
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Fokker_Leimberger
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Smith_%26_...evolving_Rifle
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Colt_New_L...liber_Revolver

These pages need to go... I really don't get why you un-nuked them. I won't just re-nuke them but they clearly violate the Rules and I would appeal to the other admins to remove them.

[commando552]

Just to add, the S&W Model 620 hasn't appeared in antyhing either, as the one appearance it has is a 6 round cylinder as opposed to the 7 round on the 620. TBH though I understand keeping pages like the S&W 619 and 620 (although I would combine them as the latter is just the former with adjustable sights) as they could appear, and in fact I would guess that there may actually be one already pictured on the site misidentified as something else. However, the chances of a Fokker Leimberger turning up in something seem pretty slim to me, so I think pages for rare/crazy guns could be deleted.

I would say the PT915 could definitely be deleted as well, as firstly it is pretty much identical to the PT911 (it was an early version produced for a short time before being very slightly improved and renamed) so you would basically never be able to tell the difference between the two on screen, and secondly the image is actually of a PT945.

[zackmann08]

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Tactical_Force

This HAS to be a joke....

And another that should def go...

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Barbara_Stanwyck

[commando552]

What's wrong with the Tactical Force one, it is a real film isn't it? At worst I'd put an incomplete tag on it as it doesn't have caps for the SG 552 or 92FS Inox, but all the rest of the guns have pics along with cross-linked descriptions.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by commando552

What's wrong with the Tactical Force one, it is a real film isn't it? At worst I'd put an incomplete tag on it as it doesn't have caps for the SG 552 or 92FS Inox, but all the rest of the guns have pics along with cross-linked descriptions.

He's talking about the deleted version, which looked like this:

[funkychinaman]

It's weird that the guy didn't know enough to actually put up gun images, but knew enough to use the incomplete tag.

[zackmann08]

Evil Tim is correct.