Talk:Main Page

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

Can anyone identify this revolver?

--Crackshot (talk) 11:05, 14 February 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.

Dynamic Article List

I've temporarily disabled dynamic article list while trying to track down a cpu spike. --bunni (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (EST)

Weird image links

I know it's not a biggie for some people, but I like to enlarge some images and I found these a week or so ago:

• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:MP5KA1.jpg
• http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Twotone_mp.jpg

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)

Oh, yeah, this was the third one lol: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:P5Wood.jpg Thanks for getting back to me so fast :D --Taurus96 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Trivia Page?

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

Realease data 03.28.2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lUKf_JROURo

Pistols used in The Duel

Hi, I just registered on imfdb to find information on the pistols used in Anton Chekhov's The Duel. The setting is supposed to be in 1890s Russia.

A few screen caps are online: the 2nd on this page, tumblr, imageshack 1, and imageshack 2. --JustanID (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2013 (EST)

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)

See here. --commando552 (talk) 05:36, 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. --Zackmann08 IMFDB Chief of Operations (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Well, It's good to see there's no exclusionary and elitist behaviour on this Wiki. DamageW (talk) "This is a democracy. Which means you do everything I say." 23:13, 13 March 2013 (GMT)

No one is forcing you to stay. --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

Never a more perfect nor predictable response, and the stereotype is complete. That's a bingo! DamageW (talk)

Firstly, nobody is stopping you from contributing to the site. What you are asking is that we use a hell of a lot of our time and effort to alter pretty much every page on the site for negligible gain. It takes all of what, like 3 seconds to get to the wikipedia article for something without a link, it isn't worth changing every page to save you a few seconds here and there. Judging by the fact that before this request you have only made a dozen edits in your 4+ years on the site it is clear that contributing is not your priority, so frankly I find it a bit rich that you are kicking up such a fuss because we are not following your every whim. --commando552 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Nice projection there, any other ways you'd like completely alter what I said? I don't see any "fuss kicking" here, nor am I making any demands whatsoever. I foolishly thought we could have a resonable debate about the pros and cons of my suggestion. This, however, was not to be, as the mighty "Zachmann" came along and said. "NO, because I say so."

So much for debate.

I also like the fact that you make negative insinuations because I don't regularly edit your site. There are many ways to support a site, including regular visits and telling your friends about it. You know, loyalty. Something I've done for years, in fact, although understandably I won't be doing so any more, other than to cite examples of some of the most snobbish, arrogant, hostile behaviour I've seen from Wiki editors since the "Into Darkness" furore on Wikipedia. Nice work welcoming back and almost immediately driving off one of your long-serving followers.

Worry not, you're clearly so cliqued-up and narrow-minded in here (yes, I'm resorting to insults, but only as a response to what I've experienced) that anyone who doesn't fit your criteria for perfection isn't welcome either to debate, participate or even be taken seriously. I'm outta here. Feel free to celebrate, pour scorn, whatever you do best. Go crazy. :-) DamageW (talk)

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)

Looks like a variant or relative of the Remington Model 31:

--commando552 (talk) 16:23, 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:

Note 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)