Talk:Main Page

See Talk:Main_Page/Archive_1, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_2 and Talk:Main_Page/Archive_3 for older discussions

Tank guns

Why haven't tank guns been added to any articles? I've noticed this and I'd kinda like to know why. (Sorry if I sound nosey)--TW6464 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

In general tanks are only equipped with the gun they're actually designed to be equipped with; you're never going to see, for example, a Royal Ordinance L11A5 on an Abrams. Simply saying it's an Abrams in the caption means you've identified the gun (M256 Smoothbore unless it's an M1A-nothing, in which case Royal Ordinance L7). Also you can just say what the tank's coaxial gun is to identify the main gun with it. Evil Tim (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

alright, thank you. I was somewhat confused, considering we have the Bushmaster Chainguns and not MBT guns.--TW6464 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

There is a bit of inconsistency with which tank and aircraft weapons have their own pages and which don't. The actual site rules state that a gun must be an "individual or crew served weapon that fires in a DIRECT FIRE role" to have its own page, but some gun pages have been added despite this. Technically I think the Bushmaster qualifies as it is a crew served weapon on US Navy ships, but there are some weapons that don't qualify that have their own pages, mostly aerial cannons. I believe the reasoning behind this rule is that generally if you ever see these heavy weapons in films or TV they will generally be mock ups, de-milled weapons that are essentially just a barrel or CG, as opposed to small arms where they are genuinely appearing. --commando552 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

- Actually I believe some of the 'aircraft' weapons like the M61 Vulcan are not only available in a crew-served form but are also actually in movie armories (MPM has mentioned this), so some may also be eligible on that basis as well. StanTheMan (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

I agree that the Vulcan is eligible for its own page as it has physically appeared in some movies and is in the posession of at least one armourer. However this is by far the exception to the rule. Also slightly off topic, but has the M61 ever been crew served? The stock answer would be in a Spectre but I don't think they are trainable, they are fixed (even if they were trainable they are not aimed by a gunner at the weapon, but remotely aimed by a gunner looking down the FLIR). The actual aiming is done by the pilot who is nowhere near the things. The closest they come to being crew served is that a gunner has to shovel the spent brass out of the way. --commando552 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

- Strictly crew-served/employed I'm not sure but it was mounted on a trainable turret with a special radar/homing setup in a variant of the M113 APC, classified as the M220(?) "VADS" (Vulcan Air-Defense System). As for the 'allowable' question, I believe the general idea was that each piece of that sort would be judged whether it was allowed or not individually on a case-by-case basis. Which I think is doable without much trouble - it's not like there are a whole lot of larger-class of guns like that, unlike the small-arms. For the most part, I agree that larger tank or naval guns shouldn't be included - they're always fake (except in documentary footage, which is minimal), usually not prominent, and as Tim said, not modified/changed to make them something they're not. I think the other stuff has been seen a lot and/or up-close in some media, enough for people to wonder what it may be. I could be wrong though, just a thought. StanTheMan (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

but tanks guns are crew served, technically, right?--TW6464 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

It depends on what definition you use, but not really. A crew served weapon is generally standalone or on a carriage, if a tank gun was taken out and fitted to a carriage it would be a crew served weapon. --commando552 (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

- Indeed, a crew-served weapon by my understanding is just a weapon system served/employed by a crew of personnel. The weapon may be towed for transport/set-up or even put on a vehicle perhaps, but like commando said, it's still capable of use as a standalone unit - it isn't solely or even mostly mounted on a vehicle from which it is used like big guns on tanks and ships. In that regard, the vehicle is the central piece - not the weapon itself, and the vehicle isn't simply considered a 'mount' from which the weapon can be used. In a way you are right that it is served by a crew, but the crew serving the tank's main gun isn't serving the weapon so much as serving part of the vehicle - it's a tank crew, not a M256-gun-mounted-on-an-armored-self-propelled-chassis crew. As said, some of the automatic cannons that are listed are capable of being employed as independent standalone pieces as I understand, and not strictly only part of a particular vehicle or mount. And as I also stated, some of those other weapons have been or are in movie armories, tank guns not so as far as I know. StanTheMan (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

alright thank you for the clarification.--TW6464 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

- What, you read all that crap? I was just trying to sound impressive! ;) StanTheMan (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Main Page Changes

So the featured templates (article, quotes, trivia) are discontinued? Will there be a tutorial on how the automatic updating will work? --Ben41 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

There is a little demo here of how pages will work after the update. This is only a mock up/demo but you can get a vague idea of how it will work. I have another question about the update, I can see that it makes doing a simple standard page with easy entries simpler and will help a load with standardisation, but will it still be possible to do slightly more complicated things or will the template system restrict it? For example will the size of the gun images be set to a standard width meaning that images in a different aspect ratio like grenades will be huge, or will there be a way to manually set it? Also, will you be able to do more complicated gun links using the templates, and by that I mean links to sections within pages or having the link use different text (like a link saying "Springfield Armory XD9 V10" taking you to the "Springfield Armory XD" page)? --commando552 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

@Ben41 - As explained on the forum, this is only temporary.

@Commando552 - all good questions. Let's just say there is a reason it has taken us so long to get the software to this point, and why it will take us longer to get it up and running. The short answer is yes. The templates will account for the defaults, but there will be ways around it when necessary.

--Zackmann08 IMFDB Chief of Operations (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

I am excited and totally supportive of the suggested revisions, but I have an obvious question. I don't participate in the forum and the above demo on YouTube seems to be protected so I am still a bit 'in the dark' if there are any changes regarding page creation from now. Can I still use the 'infobox' format or do I need to run my text through a different format? I just finished coding a movie and I want to get it on IMFDB in a future-proof format. Thanks for any suggestion (will make financial contribution tomorrow!), PeeWee055 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

@PeeWee Not sure what the heck is going on with the YouTube video. It is the same video that is on the RocketHub page. We are looking into the issue right now. For now, continue to use the site exactly as you have been. The reason we need funding is that we haven't actually developed the complete back-end yet. We have been tinkering with it for a few months now in our free time. The video is a proof of concept that shows what we plan to do. In the video you see it working with a shotgun. At the moment, we ONLY have it for a shotgun. In other words, if you tried that for a pistol, it wouldn't work (and its not on imfdb, we are working on a sandbox server so as not to mess up what works on here). You would not believe how complicated some of this backend stuff is. Anyway, assuming we get funding and are able to impliment this stuff, we will talk more about the process of converting the site over the new format. It is something we have thought a lot about and are still figuring out. Bottom line: for now, just keep using the site as you always have and keep up the good work, everyone!

--Zackmann08 IMFDB Chief of Operations (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2013 (EDT)