If it helps, this one is described as a snub-nosed .44
Not exactly a snub-nose, but given the unshrouded ejection rod and the front sight, maybe a Charter Arms Bulldog? The cylinder looks like it might hold five shots, and it would be a .44. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
The charter bulldog looks right. As for the other one, maybe the S & W 15 but I'm wondering if it might be a Smith & Wesson .32 Hand Ejector Third Model. It would fit into the time period (the scene is set in 1947). Also, the scene is about the Texarkana moonlight murders and the killer there used a .32. Or maybe a Colt Police Positive. Any thoughts? --Crackshot (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2013 (EST)
It looks too big to be a Smith & Wesson .32 Hand Ejector Third Model. (See the scale here.) It can't be a Colt, it's got a Smith & Wesson/Taurus/Charter Arms-style cylinder release. --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Alright, I'll got with a Model 15, thanks. Could it maybe be a Model 10? --Crackshot (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2013 (EST)
I think this one has adjustable sights. Model 10s have fixed sights. Any other shots? --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Also, in the above scene, he's firing eight rounds, not six. Might be a goof, might be a clue... --Crackshot (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2013 (EST)
Doing some digging I'm pretty sure it's an M1917 revolver with pearl grips. Anyone else think so? --Crackshot (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2013 (EST)
New AD space
Just letting you know that there are a few problems I've noticed with the new ad space in the upper right --Ben41 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2013 (EST):
1. When looking at differences in revisions, the edits seen on the right are blocked by the new ad space.
2. In pages that don't have infoboxes, the ad space pushes down the poster picture, making it appear that the ad is part of the movie page. This is noticeable in actor pages and non-infobox pages.
Thanks for informing. I did notice something odd on pages I created (both with and without infoboxes) but I could not figure out what. Should we do something or can will this be solved automatically? Cheers, --PeeWee055 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2013 (EST)
This is being tested, so if there are any other problems, please let us know. --Ben41 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2013 (EST)
Here are some examples of what happens with the non-infobox pages.
They redirect to the Main Page inexplicably. There was a third one I found but I can't remember which one it was now. I'm not sure what's up with them but I thought I'd let you guys know. Thanks in advance - --Taurus96 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2013 (EST)
The third was probably the claymore mine image, which I re-uploaded and it started working again. Might work with those two as well, I'll give it a try tomorrow if nobody else does it before me. Evil Tim (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2013 (EST)
This image is broken too. It appears on the image page, but when you open it as full size it redirects to the main page. I can't find that MP5KA1 image I uploaded again, so if it can't be fixed will have to settle for uploading the 400px thumbnail version which the server still has. --commando552 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (EST)
I wondered if there was a Trivia Page on IMFDB, or if there should be one? I'd like to know things like: "Most Common Firearm" "Youngest Actor/Actress To Hold A Firearm" "Most Firearms Used By An Actor/Actress" "Most Firearms Used In A Film". Obviously, the answers would be according to IMFDB's current pages. Thomas (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2013 (EST)
That kind of thing would be bit difficult to compile, and I don't know how many people would go out of their way to at a dedicated trivia page. The trivia section on the front page fulfills a similar purpose, in much more visible place. If you have any trivia to suggest, however, please let us know. --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2013 (EST)
Position of infobox on page
It's probably too simple for words, but I just cannot get my infoboxes positioned on the right side of the page. I have only started to use infoboxes for my last two movie pages (The Preacher & The Heineken Kidnapping) and even though I seem to be using the correct coding the infoboxes keep hanging somewhat in the middle of the page. Any suggestions for an infobox-rookie? Thanks in advance, --PeeWee055 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (EST)
It looks okay to me. Is there an ad pushing it towards the middle? --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
Yes, in both cases there are indeed local ads pushing the infobox towards the middle. Let me know if there's something I can do about that. Thanks, --PeeWee055 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2013 (EST)
New Game FPS TACTICAL INTERVECTION
weapons in trailer : P2000, G36CV, P90 and unknow sniper
It looks like a large caliber Flintlock Pistol. I don't recognize it as one used in other films but you can go through the films on that page to find a specific model. --bunni (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2013 (EST)
Thanks for the response, knowing it's large caliber is helpful. I looked through the pictures on Flintlock Pistol, but this (different grip) is the closest I could find via GIS. --JustanID (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2013 (EST)
I enlarged the best of those photos. You should also keep in mind the film was shot in Croatia, so it would be good to start with your search limited to what's available in Eastern Europe. --bunni (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2013 (EST)
Glock Experts?
Do we have any Glock experts in the house?? I am in the processes of doing seasons 3 & 4 of In Plain Sight and there are a LOT of Glocks used and there is a lot of confusion over whether they are 9mm (more common) or .40 cal (which is what the US Marshals use in real life). --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2013 (EST)
IMDB Links (again)
Man, it's been a long time since I've posted here! Awesome to see over the years that this fabulous site is still going strong.
Anyway, to the point, which was previously brought up last year, (now in archive page 2), and generally deemed to be a good idea, namely to have IMDB links on all of the actor/movie/game pages. And, I guess, Wikipedia links on every page.
I for one would find it an essential feature, my movie watching experience invariably includes the other Wiki, here and IMDB, although I usually come here first. :-) Without fail, something on one of your pages inspires me to follow up on IMDB or Wikipedia and I invariably spend several futile seconds looking for the links that aren't there. A fairly nasty oversized link to Amazon is all there is.
I'm afraid I'm no Wiki expert but isn't there a quick and easy way to generate IMDB links using Wiki code? Said other Wiki has an "IMDB" tag specifically for that effect, and code for linking to other Wikias, much as they do for linking back to "the master". Whether this can be done en masse or whether it would at best just be a cut/paste exercise I don't know, but if nothing else the template for new pages could be updated.
If all else fails, and if the code matched it might also be relatively straightforward to just lift the links directly from Wikipedia itself, saving time and effort.
Anyway, it's just a thought, given the frequency of references to Wiki and IMDB in the body of the articles here, it seems kinda crazy not to have an "External Links" section at the bottom of each page with the two links, easy to find and consistent. DamageW (talk)
I quite agree and actually I was going to post the same question on of these days. I take the freedom to think on IMFDB we should focus on gun-relevant matters and for details about actors/movie in general, refer to the experts of IMDB. We could thus possibly do away with story lines at the top (which most people ignore anyway) and personal details on the actor pages. Having clear links to IMDB movie/actor pages (if this has not been discussed earlier...) sounds like a great idea to me, further improving page quality on IMFDB and allowing contributors more time to focus on guns. Am interested to see what you guys think, --PeeWee055 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
PeeWee's suggestions are excellent. And with the utmost respect to MoviePropMaster, I'm not entirely sure that's a particularly balanced argument. Boycotting a site just because it's commercial or has adverts seems a bit, well, spiteful. It's a universally recognised resource, just like Wikipedia, who have no problem linking to IMDB, despite also receiving no sponsorship.
The entire concept of Wikias is about linking together relevant information from any and all sources, in the most comprehensive and accessible way possible. Many Wikias, both official and homegrown, have ads as well - including this one. Does this mean that other people shouldn't link to this site as a result? I dislike ads as much as the next man but if I refused to support sites that used them I'd never go anywhere.
And just because I don't find a link to IMDB or Wiki isn't going to stop me from going there. Restrict functionality out of some antipathy towards IMDB, however, and you're just as likely to put people off coming here in the first place. It's a slippery slope, and akin to much of the bad press Wikipedia editors get for their often exclusionary and elitist behaviour. It costs the other Wiki a lot of credibility despite not being representative of the whole site, and so I still continue to support it as best I can.
And while I admit that IMFDB is not obliged to help IMDB earn revenue, that doesn't mean it can't use them as a resource for its own benefit. They make enough money either way, and really, do we care that much about other companies' profits? It's not like IMFDB is in competition with them.
Like MPM himself says, it's a valuable resource, just like Wikipedia, and it'd be a shame to overlook either of them. DamageW (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
There is a difference between linking to the Wikipedia or IMDB article in order to prove something or because they have something relevant to say, and arbitrarily whacking a pair of links at the bottom of every single page. Whether it is via the use of a template or putting in raw links, it will take a hell of a lot of effort and time to put Wiki and IMDB links on every actor, television, film and video game page (particularly due to the fact that with IMDB links I don't think you can do it automatically, and have to actually go to the page and copy a numerical address), and without any incentive or financial reward for this site I really don't think it is worth it. That is just my opinion though. --commando552 (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
After discussing with Bunni (the site manager for those who don't know) a decision has been made. We are NOT going to link to IMDB on all pages by default. We have no issue with citing them and linking to them as a source, but we are NOT going to put links on every page just for the sake of information. There are a number of reasons for this but bottom line is that this is the decision. --Zackmann08IMFDB Chief of Operations (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
Please help ID this shotgun
I'm not sure what this shotgun is. It's been listed as a replica of Remington 870 Tactical, but the ejection port is different. This shotgun looks similar to ones seen in E.T. and The Devil's Own. Please help. --Ben41 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
Why does the ejection port remind me of a Winchester shotgun? --Ben41 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
It isn't the ejection port itself, but the slope at the rear of the bolt carrier that looks like a Winchester 1200. However, the bolt carrier of the Winchester has no visible extractor or that pin towards the rear, both of which match the Rem Mod 31. For some reason this bolt appears to have had some material machined away at the rear for some unknown reason. Possibly it is a clone made by a different manufacturer, it is a different variant or it is perhaps a deactivated shotgun (it is only broadly described as a "replica" and this is part of the process for this particular gun. Either way, I'm fairly sure the original gun is a Model 31 or derivative of some sort based on the shape of the trigger guard and bolt release, the scalloped part of the receiver at the front of the bottom edge, and the end of the magazine tube. The front position is wrong, but it looks odd to me as it is different to the rear one, so don't know what is going on with that. --commando552 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
I think I found it, looks like a replica manufactured by MGC:Error creating thumbnail: File missingNote the front pin position matches, it has the action bar on the right side, the longer front sight matches and the bolt is sloped at the back. From Googling around it also looks like they made versions of it with synthetic furniture folding stocks. --commando552 (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
German movie 'Schutzengel'
I am in the process of screencapping the latest action vehicle for German actor Til Schweiger, to the international audience better known as the MG42-toting Hugo Stiglitz from Inglourious Basterds. The movie came out in 2012 and is called ‘Schutzengel’ which is German for ‘Guardian Angel’. It appears on IMDB as ‘Schutzengel’ with no reference to foreign titles so the movie probably has not been marketed outside Germany. One notice in the 'Did You Know?' section says that this year the movie will be 'remade' (?) as 'The Guardians' but I could not find further details. I think the movie will make a valuable contribution to IMFDB but before I allocate more time to this project, I have two questions.
(1) Is this movie eligible to appear on IMFDB?
(2) If so, what would be the most appropriate title? ‘Schutzengel’, ‘Guardian Angel (2012)’ or ‘Guardian Angel (Schutzengel)’?
Thanks for your suggestions, --PeeWee055 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
IMDB says it's been distributed in Germany, Russia and Afghanistan (?) so it qualifies as distributed. I believe that "Guardian Angel (Schutzengel)" is correct for a title, but I'd accept any other admin weighing in on that. Evil Tim (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
Thanks for your comments, unless I get editor feedback to the contrary in the coming days I will go ahead with ´Guardian Angel (Schutzengel)'. I forgot to mention that the movie has English subtitles so it can be enjoyed by international audiences too. By the way, distribution to Afghanistan is easily explained by the facts that the movie, whose main characters are ex-special forces members, is sponsored by the German MoD. As part of the promotional activities, a special pre-release was done to German forces stationed at a base in Mazar-i-Sharif, a city in the north of Afghanistan. PeeWee055 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2013 (EDT)
Dynamic Article List 3/20/13
Temporarily disabled Dynamic Article List as it was causing Main Page load times in excess of 30 seconds. I believe it is a temporary issue. I will re-enable it in a few hours. --bunni (talk)
Latest updates are back but they've been moved off the main page. A link has been added to the sidebar. --bunni (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (EDT)
Little Problem
Can't add screenshot. Get the message "Could not create directory "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/0/0a"." Whats wrong? --Bednardos (talk) 18:57, 01 April 2013 (EET)
Just change the file name and try again. That always seemed to work for me. --Funkychinaman (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
Thanks. Indeed something wrong was with the filename Bednardos (talk) 19:01, 01 April 2013 (EET)
Anybody able to help me ID these guns?
Hi guys, any ideas about the below shotgun and assault rifle? The pics are from a movie with lots of German guns and but I just can’t get a good id. For the assault rifle I thought HK416 with 14.5” barrel and added (reversed!) front sight but I am not quite sure.
Your expert assistance is much appreciated, --PeeWee055 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2013 (EDT)
From the look of the tube cap, trigger guard and ejection port designs I would say that the shotgun is a Mossberg 500 with rifle sights. The white SAFE painted on the rifle tells me that it is probably airsoft. Are there casings flying in the scene? - bozitojugg3rn4ut (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2013 (EDT)
Thanks for the quick reaction, seems we have the shotgun covered. As far as the HK416-lookalike is concerned, the movie does show casings ejected, I checked several scenes (see below in white circle). The one thing that does have me wondering is the part of the handguard close to the receiver (see below in red circle, enlarge for better view). It seems to be completely circular and going around all picatinny rails. It's nothing like anything I can see on either airsoft or real HK416's...
Let's see if somebody else has any idea's, PeeWee055 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2013 (EDT)
Fairly sure the rifle is a Luvo Arms LA-16. Its a Czech gun so region isn't that far off, is available with a handguard with the big ring at the back, can have that railed gas block and they have painted selector markings. --commando552 (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2013 (EDT)
Thanks a lot Commando552, this is great! I send off an e-mail to Luvo yesterday and the same day I got a reply that it's indeed the LA-16. I asked for a picture (not having seen your one yet) and I was told that for IMFDB I could use freely anything that appears on the Luvo website, PeeWee055 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2013 (EDT)
The Son of Kong (Identifying revolver)
I'm trying to identify what revolver the character is holding. It was said it look like a Colt Single Action Army. But the extractor rod seem to be to short to be a Colt Single Action Army, don't you think so.
The OP initially identified this as a Taurus PT92. Square trigger guard, frame-mounted safety, okay. It looked a bit off to me, but oh well. But then...
...I ran across this production image on the web. If you zoom in, it clearly says "Beretta" on the slide. If you zoom in and squint on the first image, you can see the Beretta logo on the grips as well. It sort of looks like a Beretta Cheetah on steroids, a lot of steroids. Does anyone have any ideas? --Funkychinaman (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
I think I found it, Beretta 92 Steel I. --Funkychinaman (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
Never seen one of them before. By the look of it I think this is a mass produced version of the Beretta 92 Billennium which they only made 2000 of. Despite the rarity of these I met a USN EOD tech in Iraq who carried his personal Billenium rather than an M9, as he refused to use a pistol that he couldn't carry cocked and locked (Billennium is single-action only). He was a bit of an odd-ball to say the least. --commando552 (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
The Steel I appears to come in both SA and DA/SA. (And is the "I" supposed to be Roman numeral 1? If so, why put it there if there's no Steel II? And why "Steel?" Aren't all Berettas made of steel?) And apparently it's nickel-plated, rather than made of stainless steel. Like Beretta's other SA variants, this does not appear to have been produced for long either. The Steel I looks like it has a shorter, Centurion-length barrel rather than the full length barrel of the Billenium. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
I think Beretta 92s have an alloy frame, and this thing has a carbon steel slide and frame, which are nickel plated. Think it is a Roman numeral, but weird why they bothered. After looking into it I think both the Billenium and the Steel I are based on the "Combat" which is a version designed for IPSC competition and is totally unsuitable for police/military use, so it has possibly the most misleading name ever. --commando552 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
Headhunters ID 2
One of the characters pulls out a revolver with a six inch barrel. It appears to be a .357, given the size. (We later see the character's ammo stash, which includes boxes of .38 SPL, but that's only circumstantial evidence.) Going frame by frame, it appears to have a full-length underlug like the Smith & Wesson Model 686, but this one has gold accents, which seems to be more of a Taurus thing. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
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, the other things not so as far as I know. StanTheMan (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
