|
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. |
M1927 (history - links - logs)
I don't see why the M1927 needs to have its own page, when its simply a variant of the Thompson, with statistical and aesthetic differences. There's certain weapon pages, particularly the CoDO weapons, where they are put in the same article as the weapon it derives from, yet is still distinguished from the original, such as the MK1911, and the Tavor-21 from CoDO. I don't think that the M1927 is worthy of having as a standalone article; therefore, I think it'd be better to just merge it with the Thompson article instead of keeping the M1927 from Zombies as a relatively short (in terms of a weapon page), standalone article. Didikins (talk) 21:50, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
Delete
Keep
Keep — As per the many reasons stated before in the previous AfD about this. 
Argorrath おしゃべり
22:50, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- So, would that mean that weapons like the MK1911 and the Tavor-21 should have their own pages, too, instead of being merged onto the M1911 pages and MTAR pages, respectfully?
- And if I may add on, the reasoning of statistical differences being the reason of splitting articles is absurd. Would that warrant the separation of the three Vector's, simply because all three of them have different names and largely differentiating statistics from one another? Didikins (talk) 23:00, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- tbh, I never got the best looks at the CoDO weapons, but if they do fall under this rule then it would be best to split them. I'll take looks throughout the pages to see what follows this and what is more of just a rename. Argorrath おしゃべり23:12, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- BI'm not sure if I can make a valid statement as Sam can for the Vectors. Different variant of weapons have been used to break other articles. But sometimes we have to decided if the rename of a Vector CRB (?) or the K10 makes a huge difference to the main model. Argorrath おしゃべり23:47, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- tbh, I never got the best looks at the CoDO weapons, but if they do fall under this rule then it would be best to split them. I'll take looks throughout the pages to see what follows this and what is more of just a rename.
Keep — Basically the same reasoning as having separate pages like M60/M60E4 and M16/M16A1. 
Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 23:49, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
Keep — In spite of my edits and past arguments over the subject, in which I stipulated that the articles should be merged, I have now through research reversed my opinion. Reasons why are stated below.
- The Pack-A-Punched names of the Thompson and M1927 aren't the same. The former is known as the Gibs-O'Matic and the latter as the Speakeasy.
- There is no evidence IN-GAME of the two weapons being related.
- Even though IRL they are essentially the same weapon, the M1927 uses a completely different model and has very different statistics. Although this point is questionable in its contribution to my argument, I cite the different pages for the M16 and the M16A4. While these two weapons share almost the same model, they each have different statistics in their own right. (I did not consider the Colt M16A1 as a potential candidate for this argument as it is almost exactly the same as the M16, even sharing the same campaign statistics and Pack-A-Punched name.) MC Sandman (talk) 05:27, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Keep — Per all. User:RainingPain17 - talk 12:03, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Keep — per mc sandman. 
RisingSun2024 
(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity) 00:47, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
Split/Merge
Merge — As nominator. Didikins (talk) 21:50, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
Comments/Questions
Closed - The articles will remain seperated. Argorrath おしゃべり23:26, July 8, 2015 (UTC)