FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • What in the world "Bad Tone" means?

    Is the only article, that I know, that has that thing

      Loading editor
  • On the Lee Enfield page there is a picture labeled "Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1 Telescopic (Rifle)" (As you may have seen, the name was incomplete before so I corrected it), however there is a two year old comment about it being the wrong picture.  The weapon in the picture IS an Enfield sniper, but he said it was a No.1 and someone else said some of them used parts from old models to be built, but it is simply a No.1 with a scope on it.  I'd love to change it to the PROPER No.4 Mk1 Telescopic, however I don't really know how to add or edit pictures yet.  Any insight on that one?

      Loading editor
  • I am not really sure if the XM16E1 should be mentioned in the M16 variants, the XM16E1 is a modified version of the original M16 and it features a forward assist from most M16A1, M16A2, M16A3 and M16A4 rifles.

    M16

    M16

    XM16E1

    XM16E1

    M16A1

    M16A1

      Loading editor
    • Just let it be for now. We're still hammering out the details over on the discord.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Maybe I should have clarified: for images of individual weapons it's fine, but when people copy-paste a multitude non-essential images from Wikipedia, for example that M16 picture with literally the same assortment of weapons (especially that it's clearly in the intro infobox of the relevant WP article), or images of literally the same soldiers operating the weapons, that's not an appropriate action. We're spending enough time cleaning up articles made by some users who've been constantly adding plagiarizing info, and having such images (in addition to the plagiarized articles that are still around) will make us look like we're copying everything from Wikipedia, and that's the last thing we want, especially that the Wikipedia part is directly mentioned in the relevant rule. Besides, it's relatively common knowledge that just because something isn't explicitly stated in the rules doesn't automatically make it right, nor does it mean that one can abuse it and start doing it multiple times.

    Also, how on earth do you think that me pointing out that's it's preferable not to do something means that I'm "picking on the newbie"? Firstly, that accusation is ironic coming from you, considering the blunt message that you posted on his wall. And secondly, the fact that even until now he's still making some bad/clumsy edits and receiving multiple warnings by other admins clearly shows that I'm not the problem.

      Loading editor
    Grunty89
    Grunty89 closed this thread because:
    Let us not continue further. This is getting ridiculous.
    08:32, September 24, 2019
    • View all 10 replies
    • Alright, this is getting a bit ridiculous. Most of this is just petty spillover drama from IMFDB.

        Loading editor
    • Ultimate94ninja wrote: Please take all this as constructive criticism, as a way of improving your behavior like you're already trying to do.

      I understand now. I hope we can work together some more in the future. Let's end this on a positive note.

        Loading editor
  • I'm sorry, i got this idea from the July 2010 Left 4 Dead main page. I thought this was a good idea but it is still considered vandalism.

    https://left4dead.fandom.com/wiki/Left_4_Dead_Wiki?diff=prev&oldid=96026

      Loading editor
    • Treat this as your final warning. Do not attempt such a stunt again or you will be blocked for an appropriate amount of time.

        Loading editor
    • Absolutely, i won't make any more mistakes again.

        Loading editor
    • This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I saw that you deleted your message to me, but I figured I'd answer it anyway.

    Do what you will if you think that's the right way to go. I only ask that you maintain the integrity of the information provided.

    The reason i had combined all of those articles is because all of those variants are the same rifle at the heart - most of the differences are cosmetic, and the ones that aren't are detailed in the more technical sections of the article (which is why it's so lengthy, as it takes a bit of explaining to get the point across). Same deal with the AK article, and a few others as well.

      Loading editor
    • I understand your point. The way I am planning for things to go is that the major technical information will go back onto the central AR-15 page.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Had an edit conflict there and only saw Grunty's changes.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I still don't think it's quite right calling it a prototype machine pistol since that part of the weapon wasn't a prototype or even theirs, it was the thing you stick on the machine pistol that was the prototype.

      Loading editor
    • In my line of thinking, Magpul wasn't try to design a carbine kit when they designed the FMG-9. They were trying to design a foldable SMG. Their final prototype design just so happened to be a modified Glock 18 in a foldable carbine stock-like thing.

      I think it is misleading to call it a carbine kit when Magpul designed the modifications for the Glock so that it will work with the stock. In a sense, Magpul designed the whole thing as one, not "just" the stock.

        Loading editor
    • Eh, they still didn't design a weapon per se, they redesigned the grip and trigger group of an existing one. That's what that note about them never designing their own weapon to go in it was getting at.

        Loading editor
    • The problem I see with the way you wrote the page was that it suggested that the FMG-9 was designed to be separate from the Glock 18 inside it; from what we've seen in the prototype model, it isn't. The FMG-9 prototype model was developed on top of a Glock 18, and the entire definition of a FMG-9 includes the modified Glock 18 inside it. It is true that Magpul didn't design the Glock, but that doesn't change the fact that the FMG-9 includes the Glock.

      Frankly speaking, I think it is better to think that the FMG-9 refers to the whole thing rather than just the exterior; saying that the FMG-9 exclusively refers to its exterior goes against what popular consensus agrees to be the FMG-9, and what Magpul themselves suggest the FMG-9 to be; the whole prototype with the Glock 18.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • You seem to be active on IMFDB (I don't have an account there), so I was wondering if you could set a few things straight on the CoD: WW2 page. Just a few small notes.

    - The Sterling submachine gun added in the latest update is, in fact, based on the Patchett Mk.1 and Patchett Carbinette. Its appearance in CoD: WW2 is actually not anachronistic or inaccurate, since the Patchett gun did see service with the British 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions during Operation Market Garden (Arnhem) and Operation Neptune (D-Day) respectively. The weapon did not evolve into the Sterling L2 until after the war. I believe the in-game 30-round magazine capacity may be correct for the Patchett as it used different magazines from the Sterling.

    There is one small issue regarding the in-game model: it uses a canted cocking slot. The Patchett Mk.1's cocking slot initially ran straight along the right side of the receiver; this was amended in gun No.62, which introduced the canted cocking slot. The Patchett Carbinette, however, had the canted cocking slot from the start. I have not been able to get a good look at the in-game model yet so I can't tell whether it's based on the regular Mk.1 or the Carbinette.

    - The IMFDB page currently claims the OSS-designed suppressor for the M3 Grease Gun was integral and non-detachable; this is actually false - it was screwed on to a specially-designed threaded barrel. The in-game model does not use this barrel so the in-game deptiction is still inaccurate. It is also worth noting that the in-game suppressor also resembles the version used by the SOE, designed independently by RSAF Enfield. This would make sense since it is used in the campaign mission in which the player collaborates with the SOE. The SOE suppressor was not the same as the OSS one.

    - The "Devil's Piano" variant of the MG-42 in multiplayer is based on the experimental MG-39Rh machine gun.

    Oh, and unrelated: "Villar Perosa" is not hyphenated, so that page should probably be remedied.

    Patchett Carbinette
    Patchett Mk.I
      Loading editor
    • View all 11 replies
    • I'm gonna try to boil down some of the points and post this to IMFDB.

        Loading editor
    • Another thing: the IMFDB page currently claims this gun is based on the Armaguerra OG-44, when it's clearly a MAS-48.

      http://www.imfdb.org/images/6/62/Codwwii_irishm38.jpg

      MAS 48: https://78.media.tumblr.com/f7e1074492c6911d01ca6d46c4f3098e/tumblr_inline_okgggqG5Kj1rtqa20_500.png

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I'm not sure that he even wants to curb his enthusiasm! But then again, he did admit to having ADHD.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.