Be sure to add categories to you pages. I've added categories to your gun brand pages i.e. Category:Gun and Category:General Information. I also categorized the Smith & Wesson Model 442 page. If you're unsure go to the special pages feature in the toolbox and click on uncategorized pages. I'm big on making sure pages are categorized. --Jcordell 10:41, 13 January 2012 (CST)
Yes but I think putting them in the Gun category is close enough for now. Later it can be changed. I do think that the general information category works as well. The category is just that. General and serves as a nice catch all. Actually anyone can build a category. I'm not sure what we're waiting for, but if your waiting on Bunni he must have his reasons. So it goes. --Jcordell 10:55, 13 January 2012 (CST)
So you went and made the category. Good idea. I think it's a good category to have here on imfdb. --Jcordell 20:17, 13 January 2012 (CST)
MythBusters Page
Nice job with this page, it was always one of IMFDB's worst pages for such a big show. If you don't mind, I can help out with the layout of the page and removing italics if I know that the gun was used.----JazzBlackBelt-- 18:01, 4 December 2011 (CST)
For sure! Yea I finally decided to join and revamp the page. Once I'm done here I'm gna try and fix up Top Shot. --Zackmann08 18:05, 4 December 2011 (CST)
I just found them via google. I found them while searching for extra images while the griffin was still unidentified, but forgot about them till now. Have a couple more promo images of guns that don't have entries yet, such as a Barrett M82 and a Colt Dragoon, will up them later. --commando552 13:07, 9 December 2011 (CST)
I believe the unknown Barrett is what Barrett currently markets as the M82A1. This is available in .50 BMG and .416 Barrett, and I believe the most visible difference between the two is the flash hider (.50 is an arrowhead shaped one whereas the .416 is cylindrical with 3 holes on each side). The .416 seems to be the one used on the show judging by the caption along with the flash hider.
Problem is though, that this site refers to this variant as the M107 (full length top rail and grip on bottom of butt are main differences from M82A1). This would be the correct name for the variant, but Barrett seems to sell it as the M82A1 as it is the more recognised name. I would call it an M82A1 as that is what Barrett currently sells it as, but I need to ask a question on the M82 page to clarify how we name these guns. --commando552 20:03, 11 December 2011 (CST)
I asked the question on the M82 page and after a bit of back and forth came to the conclusion that it was best to call it an M107 as that is what the variant was originally called, and it distinguishes it from the original M82A1. I'm going to wait and see if anyone else wants to give an opinion before changing it though. --commando552 18:43, 12 December 2011 (CST)
Do you ever see the muzzle of the unknown AR-15 from "MythBusters Revisited" (S03E14)? It is either a Sporter HBAR competition, a Match Target Competition or a Match Target Competition Compensated depending on whether it has a flash hider, blank barrel, or built in compensator (will look a bit like a flash hider but is longer with three ports in the top). --commando552 17:29, 16 December 2011 (CST)
Thanks, that helps. It is a Match Target Competition, will add it now. --commando552 20:04, 16 December 2011 (CST)
gun brand pages
Looks good, the H&K logo looks a bit big. Good luck with Smith & Wesson! --Predator20 23:36, 23 December 2011 (CST)
Thank you for the reply, and sorry I misjudged you (to be honest, I didn't notice the discussion, so I did think you were some foolish n00b who was changing things without consulting admins). I thought that I was simply upholding a decision that the rest of the staff had agreed to a long time ago. At the very least, I guess we should discuss the matter again in the topic - and clearly, the forum's not such a good place, since we have too many problems with spammers. And Happy Holidays to you, too. -MT2008 10:01, 24 December 2011 (CST)
Looks good. I'm a mod here. I really like the Colt page. The S&W page is going to be an intensive piece of labor for you. I agree with bunni. We need a category for these new pages. --Jcordell 16:30, 27 December 2011 (CST)
I've been collecting S&W revolvers for several years. S&W has always been a very organized company with outstanding records. Better organized company in so many aspects. In the past couple of years I've gotten into Colt revolvers and I've learned that getting information about the various Colt handguns is very challenging. For most of it's history Colt was rather scatter-shot in it's approach. For example they would have different models use the same serial number range (Official Police and .38 spl Officer Model Target pre-WWII), but the Pre-WWII Officer Model Target .22LR had it's own serial numbers.Why? Who knows? Other models (such as the Theur derringer) would be made for decades and Colt has little to no written records about the models. For example the serial numbers will not tell you what year an individual derringer was made. And then you have the Official Police model and it's variants. Over 700,000 made over a seventy year period. Very challenging. I like the colt double action revolvers, but I can see why colt has almost gone out of business and S&W is still prospering. Hopefully Colt's fairly new management can fix things. --Jcordell 17:37, 27 December 2011 (CST)
No I'm sorry. Not as knowledgable about Taurus. But I do have a couple books that might be helpful. I'll look through them.--Jcordell 19:00, 19 January 2012 (CST)
Okay stop changing the gun titles
Sorry if I did not address this sooner, but the reason why people sometimes put seemingly redundant titles is for clarity. Grenade Launcher is appropriate since the HK Series is not in the common lexicon and personally I like to be reminded, at a glance, that a certain model type IS a Grenade Launcher and not a firearm. Heavy Machine gun is needed IF the name is similar or identical to other weapons or weapons systems which are NOT heavy machine guns. Identical names of weapons are addressed in the "disambiguation" pages, but the additional title is there to help people find the item. I have not been following this issue, but which MOD approved this, out of curiosity? Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 01:30, 28 December 2011 (CST)
Making Gun Brand pages
Since there hasn't been a consensus to make the gun brand pages, I would recommend that you refrain from creating any more until this is resolved (wouldn't want you to have done all this work and find that it will be deleted). Also, I would recommend that you change the titles of the manufacturers to include their full name ("Colt Firearms" instead of just "Colt", for example). This will help to avoid confusion about what that particular title is referring to. --Ben41 01:56, 28 December 2011 (CST)
Go with the actual name of the company. --Ben41 17:43, 28 December 2011 (CST)
Disambiguation pages like The Untouchables (disambiguation) aren't bad things; they're pages that don't have category tags on the bottom of pages that link to them. --Ben41 20:39, 28 December 2011 (CST)
I'm sorry to say that I'm still opposed, but I will defer to consensus if you have the backing of other admins. I still just don't see it as a useful pursuit. -MT2008 14:20, 4 January 2012 (CST)
Bunni is the owner. I think most of the other mods are okay with it. So you should be okay. But don't hold me to it.--Predator20 16:00, 4 January 2012 (CST)
Go with Ben41's suggestion of using the complete and accurate name of the firearms manufacturer. I fully support the gun brand pages and think they're a great addition to the site - they won't be deleted unless they violate one of the other rules, ie. incomplete pages. I'm thinking Manufacturer is a good name for the category of these pages unless someone else has a more accurate title. bunni 01:38, 5 January 2012 (CST)
Yes, I would go ahead with it, but I would prefer that you would continue your cleanup of the original gun pages. --Ben41 01:49, 5 January 2012 (CST)
I would go with their full name but drop Inc, LLC, LTD etc. eg. Colt's Manufacturing Company, LLC becomes Colt's Manufacturing Company bunni 19:02, 6 January 2012 (CST)
I addedd Manufacturer as a category to the sidebar and added the Catgeory:Manufacturer tag to the pages you've created. bunni 12:34, 13 January 2012 (CST)
Hey
I'm just converting info into tables, fixing glaring formatting errors and adding some biographical info. The gun pages are the hardest because a lot of users leave out info, and I have to hunt it down. I took a look at some of the company pages, and the only criticism I have is that perhaps they should be category pages. (Check out Category:Michael_Mann, for example. There's a lot of info there, but as it is stated in the Rules and Standards, "...we're not a gun encyclopedia..." But they're very well done. --Funkychinaman 16:45, 28 December 2011 (CST)
Some users had tried to make a category page for guns, but it proved to be too unwieldy. These pages appear to more like disambiguation pages. --Ben41 17:46, 28 December 2011 (CST)
Maybe just paring down the company pages a bit for category pages maybe? The Tarantino category page is pretty big. Like is it necessarily to list the different calibers? (Has a 9mm SP101 ever appeared in a film?) It just feels a bit encyclopedic and maybe a bit... corporate? (I'm having difficulty coming up with the right term.) --Funkychinaman 23:47, 28 December 2011 (CST)
Not really sure what you mean... The point is to have an easy way to go through the guns from a certain company. Sometimes it is easy to identify a gun as a S&W but harder to know which model. This way you wouldn't have to go through one page at a time. I'm thinking it might also be night to eventually have something similar for the different 1911s and M16/AR-15s. --Zackmann08 00:06, 29 December 2011 (CST)
I've made a table to identify Colt made AR-15 variants and put it on my user page. IMO it is helpful for identifying variants particularly with the sortable columns. There are quite a few more guns that Colt make that I haven't listed, as have only done the ones that have so far appeared in media (with maybe a couple of exceptions, such as the low profile M16A1 sniper, but as the picture is already here and used on a few pages I included it). I might try to add in a date column later, but for the majority I don't know so probably won't bother as would look stupid with all the blanks. I don't really know what to do with it though, as it would look out of place on the Colt page compared to other gun maker pages. I suppose it could go in the discussion of the Colt page and be linked to from the "variants" column of the M16. --commando552 04:08, 29 December 2011 (CST)
Ruger page
Well, the wikipedia page said Baby Nambu and only noted a resemblance to the Luger. The wikipedia page for the Ruger Mk II also cited the Baby Nambu. I think an episode of Tales of the Gun said so as well. I also own a Ruger Mk II, and I can tell you that is NOT a toggle-lock action. --Funkychinaman 00:32, 29 December 2011 (CST)
I'm also a guy who cited two wikipedia sources, so uh, yeah. Let's just say I'm pretty sure, but I could be wrong. But if you compare it to the Luger and the Baby Nambu, you can tell. --Funkychinaman 00:41, 29 December 2011 (CST)
The Ruger page here used to say it was based on a Luger, I was the one who changed it to Nambu. Bill Ruger made two different prototype pistols which he patented as "Baby Nambus" based on a pistol brought back by a US Marines from the Pacific after WW2. He chose not to market this pistol as was, and introduced some Luger-like aesthetic changes before releasing it as the Ruger Pistol in 1949 (renamed as the Ruger Standard a couple of years later). I believe these two prototype "Baby Nambus" still exist and are in the Ruger factory museum in Southport, Connecticut. --commando552 04:32, 29 December 2011 (CST)
Changing pages
I didn't accuse you of changing any page. I just noted that fresh out of the gate your predilection for changing the overall structure of the pages, versus smaller endeavors like just adding info or making new pages. Not necessarily a bad thing. You can always ask the question, but I suppose in the wiki universe, it seems less brash only after you have made achieved some tenure by having a history of making new and awesome pages and contributing heavily to existing gun and movie/et. al pages. That's all. It's more of a 'tenure thing'. Usually it is advisable to be around for a while to see how things work, how pages work before thinking about fundamental changes to the pages themselves. We DO need to think hard about a restructure of the S&W revolver pages. Do we keep Stainless models on the same base model page? Or do Model 629s deserve their own page, apart from the Model 29. S&W of all gun manufacturers makes it hard by NOT having a consistent naming nomenclature. Yes, I know we have some clean up to do (there are some MESSY pages), but I think we should bring it up to the forum and get input so that we don't make changes that we will eventually have to undo. Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 17:49, 29 December 2011 (CST)
92FS
Hi. The truth is I just simply love the design of the 92FS. I cannot really recommend it, as I haven't fired the 92FS, only the 92A1 (about 100 bullets, not much at all). If you want a Beretta, you should definitely get the updated 92A1, which now has a bigger mag (17 rnds instead of 15), UB rail, and ambi mag release. Plus it retains the badass look of the other Beretta 92 series guns. I am thinking of buying myself a 96A1 too. (.40 S&W version of the 92A1.) Hope this helped. Happy New Year to you too. - bozitojugg3rn4ut 11:51, 2 January 2012 (CST)
NCIS LA
Yes, I'm still working on finishing these pages. If you wanted to add gun images for those entries missing them, that's fine. --Ben41 16:01, 3 January 2012 (CST)
Tables
Hey, I see you're converting pages to tables as well. I did confirm with Ben however that the tables should have the earliest titles first, and the most recent should be at the bottom. It looks like you're doing the most recent first. --Funkychinaman 16:59, 3 January 2012 (CST)
I wanted to make sure in case I was doing it wrong. You might as well leave them be and move on, it's better that they be in some order than none at all. --Funkychinaman 18:17, 3 January 2012 (CST)
Dead links
I saw your message to Tim. I've been leaving them be unless the link is for a page that's ineligible or unlikely to be made. --Funkychinaman 15:59, 4 January 2012 (CST)
As above. The wiki has a function (Special:WantedPages) which you can use to see where dead links go. This could be useful if someone wants to contribute but can't think of something we don't already have. Only remove them if the page is very unlikely to be made (even then, you might want to just remove the brackets and turn them into plain text) or you know the weapon doesn't actually appear. Evil Tim 22:02, 4 January 2012 (CST)
Apology
I'm very sorry for that mess you cleaned up after me i am a bit new to this website so i will try harder not to mess up.
Wiki tables
What do you think about slowly but surely changed the category "Gun" to "Firearm" for the wiki tables on the actor pages. Technically "Gun" is an colloquial phrase for all projectile weapons (like BB and Paintball guns) but technically it is used historically for larger weapons, like an assault gun or main gun on a military vehicle or ship. Just my prior training, we were told to eschew the phrase 'gun' when referring to any firearm. Remember the jody from Full Metal Jacket? ;) "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun". Anyway, since we are the movie FIREARMS database, I figured all wiki tables should list the segment as 'firearms'. MoviePropMaster2008 00:59, 6 January 2012 (CST)
Removing Gun images
Please be careful when removing gun images from gun pages. Many times, what appears to be an extra image like the S&W 4566 you removed is actually featured on a movie page. You can double-click the image and then look at the bottom of the page to see if it's used in any other pages. The 5943 Short Barrel Variant that you removed actually was in the film Ransom. If a gun is seen on a gun page and it's confirmed that it wasn't seen used in any media, please move to the discussion (in case it is used later). --Ben41 01:57, 6 January 2012 (CST)
WHOA. That image is also of a movie blank gun from motion picture armorer inventory, which you usually don't touch. That gun is also 'screen used' though we don't list the movies unless we have paperwork proof as to what film it was in, but you can guarantee, a well 'used' gun in movie armormer inventory has been in things (titles yet to be determined of course). I fear you're treading too close to 'overzealous' again. You're new, but it still looks like you're sweeping through IMFDB and making tons of massive changes, which makes veteran users and mods nervous :( MoviePropMaster2008 12:56, 6 January 2012 (CST)
Just make sure you double-click the image in the future to see where it's used. Also, I would recommend that you change the gun brand pages to the proper full title of the manufacturer before doing any more "See Also" changes. In the upper right of the page, there's an arrow to the right of the "View History" box, when you click the arrow you see the "Move" box. Click that "Move Box" and it will let you know how to move a page over to a new name. --Ben41 14:56, 6 January 2012 (CST)
Dividing Gun Pages
If you're going to divide these pages, please make sure that you put in the explanation that the revolvers are basically the same except for the differences as specified on the original page. Also make sure that the redirects are correct as well. --Ben41 19:08, 7 January 2012 (CST)
Again, if you're going to change these pages, you need to place an explanation at the top of each new page that the revolver used to be called the centennial and that the 642 is the stainless model. Make sure you link properly. --Ben41 20:23, 7 January 2012 (CST)
Splitting up S&W pages
Personally I'm torn on the split. I actually LIKE having separate pages from the standpoint that if you want to see what films the particular gun YOU are interested in, has appear in, then you would first search by TYPE. Having a table of contents that lists numerically is very helpful. But I can see how handy it is to list the SS version (with diff model number) on the same page as the original gun, in order to see the genesis and progeny of that particular model. But I will probably (tomorrow) write up a proposal to the other mods to get a consensus on breakup/not breakup on the S&W pages and post it on the forum along with PMs. If you can, please continue the cleanup but don't break up anything until then. :) regards MoviePropMaster2008 20:58, 7 January 2012 (CST)
Centennial
In regards to the Centennial page, I thought you were going to give a more thorough explanation for dropping the "Centennial" from the page before going to to change every entry. Before you make a major change like dropping "Centennial" from the S&W page, you need to explain more clearly why you're doing this. Just putting "also called Centennial" isn't enough information for the change and some of the other users might be wondering what the reason is. It would have been better to fix the 642 page and put an explanation about why the revolver is NOT called the Centennial. I know I gave you some leeway, but you're making wholesale changes to a lot of entries that's making some of the admins a little nervous about giving you permission to do anything. I appreciate you wanting to help out with the site, but you already received a message from MPM2008 about holding off on splitting off pages. I would suggest holding off on splitting any more pages until this is resolved. --Ben41 23:57, 7 January 2012 (CST)
I had asked that you provide an adequate explanation at the top of the page about why "Centennial" is not the proper nomenclature. Perhaps a couple of sentences regarding how the revolver is often referred to as the name because it's based on the frame but it's not the official given to it as seen on the S&W website. You had written a lot of this in the discussion, and it should have been placed at the top of the gun page. Take a look at how the Smith & Wesson Model 29 explanation is worded. Because you were already making changes on movie pages to remove the centennial name, the perception was that you weren't making any more changes to the gun page. Anyway, you don't have to undo your changes, but please do provide a more detailed background of the 442 and 642. --Ben41 01:25, 8 January 2012 (CST)
S&W Model 460
Noticed you were looking for info on 460 variants and barrel lengths. This page has them all listed along with pictures of them. --commando552 07:38, 9 January 2012 (CST)
Remington 870
If you're planning on tackling the Remington 870 page, it makes more sense to divide the page by different models, similar to the format seen on the Glock page. There are so many entries for the police magnum version alone that it doesn't make sense to just put a reference in the "Notes" column. I would NOT recommend dividing it up into completely separate pages. --Ben41 14:21, 11 January 2012 (CST)
I'll change it. --Ben41 14:59, 11 January 2012 (CST)
Formal request
You're doing a great job on the tables and general clean up. I am formally asking you to stop renaming the gun pages. You're still jumping the gun. More than one admin has to discuss the naming protocols and we are considering going in the opposite direction for clarity. Also don't create a new page and cut and paste the info. Just move the page that way anyone who types in the old name in a search won't end up with nothing. I'm asking for this MORATORIUM on renaming entire pages. Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 18:04, 12 January 2012 (CST)
Copyrights
The copyrights link only ever went to a blank page (before that it went to a misplaced part of a discussion). You could certainly redirect it, though. Evil Tim 10:35, 16 January 2012 (CST)
Whoops, sorry, I didn't see this. I already created the redirect. --Funkychinaman 10:41, 16 January 2012 (CST)
RE: Gun Brand Pages
Thanks for the heads up, I was not aware that we were only doing firearms that have pages here. Also, if the format you described is true, you need to check the Heckler & Koch page. Specifically, the "Introduced" column. For the variants needing to link to the specific location, SIG-Sauer variants are not like, say, a USP which has the P8, compact, tactical, etc. The P226 was produced in a number of variations, i.e. railed, Navy, E2, which are all individual pictures under the P226 section on the P220 page, so I can't link to them. The ones that I can, however, I will. Oh, and the links will be getting fixed shortly.----JazzBlackBelt-- 20:32, 16 January 2012 (CST)
Good job making a page just for the template, that will help anyone who wants to make a gun brand page. The SIG page looks pretty much the same as the template, aside from the Introduced column and the not so brief history (both will be fixed soon), as I just copied and pasted the script for the HK page and changed it accordingly.----JazzBlackBelt-- 16:07, 19 January 2012 (CST)
Thanks
Thanks. Keep it up with cleaning up the gun pages as well. --Ben41 03:04, 17 January 2012 (CST)
re:Manufacturer Template
Looks good to me. --Predator20 16:40, 19 January 2012 (CST)
IMHO, I'm not thrilled with the separation of About and Specifications. I think it adds unnecessary sections to the TOC. My preference (and it is only MY preference and opinion) is that the history and background of the company just be a paragraph at the top of the page. The only TOC segments should be the guns that they make. Thanks for the hard work. That's just my input. :) MoviePropMaster2008 23:02, 22 January 2012 (CST)
Brigadier
"Brigadier - Egyptian licensed copy of Beretta Model 951." I actually cannot see how you have problems understanding this :/ The photo (which I'll probably replace with a LARGER and watermarked image) is of a Helwan Brigadier. The Brigadier is an Egyptian built pistol and is a licensed copy of Beretta Model 951. It is identical to the Model 951 in every aspect other than the markings on the slide. I'm confused as to how that is unclear. Personally the Beretta FEELS better made. The Helwan Brigadier feels 'cheaper', not as smooth, not as finely machined. Even the sound as the slide is racked forward sounds different, even though it is identical parts wise to the 951. That photos of the Original Beretta 951 is from the inventory of Cinema Weaponry/Stembridge Gun Rentals. I took the photo but it is their gun. I am pretty sure that is a screen used gun, however, we have no record verification of that, so it is not listed as such. The Brigadier is from my inventory. I took the photo and it is in my own business' inventory. It is also a blank adapted movie pistol. MoviePropMaster2008 22:59, 22 January 2012 (CST)
Unit Converter
I'll work on the unit converter on Thursday bunni 23:43, 24 January 2012 (CST)
CZ
Hi. I don't wist to intervene while you make edits to pages (I hate it when someone edits a page while I do), so I am sending a message instead. The CZ-G2000 was not made by CZ, but Arms Moravia, another Czech company. Also, the page title should be "Česká zbrojovka". (In Czech language, only the first word is in capitals in a title, unless it is a person's/place's name.) Also, the one you are writing about is "Česká zbrojovka Uherský Brod", "Česká zbrojovka Strakonice" makes only motorcycles nowadays, and as far as I know it has no entries on imfdb. bozitojugg3rn4ut 10:02, 25 January 2012 (CST)
