User talk:Zackmann08

Don't forget to add categories

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.

Barrett M82A1 - .416 Barrett

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)

Once again you're doing good work tackling the pages that the rest of us just lack the energy for. Such as the page for the S&W 27/28. Looks good. --Jcordell 10:40, 7 February 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)

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)

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)

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)

Unit Converter

I'll work on the unit converter on Thursday bunni 23:43, 24 January 2012 (CST)

Colt Challenger

Go right ahead. But do not upload over mine. Start a new one. It's not used but in two pages. --Predator20 07:16, 26 January 2012 (CST)

re: Colt .22 Target

It certainly looks based off the Woodsman. But I would leave as is for now. Unless some of the other mods think they need to be combined. Can always put a link in 'see also' on each others page. --Predator20 11:01, 29 January 2012 (CST)

Re: CZ

I know a bit about CZ, I can try and help you to the best of my abilities, but I can't promise too much. --SmithandWesson36 17:03, 29 January 2012 (CST)

Removing references to movies which are not included on the site

Do not do that. Just because it doesn't currently have a page here. Doesn't mean it won't ever have a page here. If someone took the time to add it to a gun page, they probably seen the film and know what was used. While this is an actors page, Jennifer Jason Leigh used a Model 66 snub in Rush. There's no page for Rush, but I know that's what she used because I saw the film. If seeing something in the "red" bothers you, take off the [[]]. --Predator20 11:02, 7 February 2012 (CST)

649

That is definitely a 649. Close inspection of the finish looks to be Stainless Steel. I have Nickel plated Models and they don't look like that under that type of light. You can see the fine brush marks on the SS. So anyone who has misidentified this gun as either a Model 38 or 49 was mistaken. MoviePropMaster2008 04:44, 8 February 2012 (CST)

RE:

I see him. Thanks. -MT2008 09:36, 8 February 2012 (CST)

Bodyguards & Airweights

Personally I don't see the harm in doing that. I'm enough of a S&W Wonk that I know the difference between the Model 36&37, 40&42, 38&49 and so on. But I could see where it might confuse somebody who isn't as versed in S&W's numbering system for all it's models or the engineering differences between a Chief Special, Bodyguard and Centennial. Sure. I actually hadn't thought of that. Sometimes having knowledge about something can actually make it harder for you to take into consideration those folks who might not. Good work.--Jcordell 21:04, 8 February 2012 (CST)

RE:SIG50

It basically is a TAC-50, but it is a modified version produced by SIG-Sauer featuring a new top rail and a different stock. Here is its page on the SIG-Sauer website. --commando552 04:10, 11 February 2012 (CST)

Featured Article Template

The change to remove the poster image was so that the Main Page would better fit smaller screens. Yes, anyone can suggest a Featured Article, I agree it would be better if there was more turn over in the articles. bunni 00:13, 15 February 2012 (CST)

FeaturedArticles2

Thanks for the new images. If you want to try to do some new articles, please refrain from doing video games or anime and please try to find images that show the weapon clearly and that don't have any network logos in them. --Ben41 20:32, 15 February 2012 (CST)

These were initially left out to their overuse in the previous template. You can go ahead and add them to the discussion if you like. --Ben41 04:08, 18 February 2012 (CST)

SW 629 snub

In the future, please do not replace a widely used gun image if it's from the opposite angle and it's not the same gun configuration. Instead, just upload the image as a different screenshot and replace the code on the pages. --Ben41 01:15, 19 February 2012 (CST)

CSI NY

Good work on starting the CSI: NY - Season 7 page. When possible, it's best to upload screenshots that don't have logos in them as DVD's or Blu-ray's are preferable sources. It's understandable though if the particular season hasn't been released yet in that format. --Ben41 04:11, 21 February 2012 (CST)

Sure I'll be happy to help out. --Jcordell 20:24, 21 February 2012 (CST)

Hey no problem, glad I could help. --Predator20 18:36, 22 February 2012 (CST)

MP5K

Actual PDWs are fitted with an extended barrel that has a threaded section (covered with a cap" on the end, along with 3 lugs around the outside which are used to fit flash hiders or suppressors that looks like the muzzle on a regular MP5. The actual caption on the MP5K page for that image is "MP5K with the PDW-style folding stock attached, commonly used in films to emulate the PDW - 9x19mm. The real MP5K-PDW, illustrated below, is distinctive in having the longer barrel and the newer trigger group." Despite how the wording of this suggests MP5Ks now have the Navy receiver as well. IMO that image should be moved out of the PDW section into the MP5K section, but haven't done it yet as want to clarify with an admin what section "fake" MP5K-PDWs should be listed in. --commando552 14:24, 22 February 2012 (CST)

Revolvers

It's one of those things that annoys me because it makes a distinction that isn't technically correct, since really revolvers and magazine-fed pistols should be under a top-level heading of "pistols." I know some people like to use the word "pistol" as if it's a shorthand for "pistol that isn't a revolver," but it's never looked right to me. If you can think of a snappier term that isn't pistol and is a bit more specific I'd be happier, but you can change it back if it bothers you. Evil Tim 15:51, 23 February 2012 (CST)

Oh, I see why this is. It's a distinction that's only made in American English; my Chambers and Oxford dictionaries both define a pistol as "a small firearm designed to be held in one hand." Over here the Webley service revolver was fully "Pistol, Revolver, Webley No. 1 Mk VI." It should be pointed out that this distinction hasn't always been made in American English either, since Samuel Colt's patents and advertising materials called his new weapon a pistol. Evil Tim 02:20, 24 February 2012 (CST)

Pistol vs Revolvers

I'm inclined to keep it the way it is. --Ben41 15:05, 24 February 2012 (CST)

LaRue Tactical

What do you think about creating a gun brand page of LaRue Tactical's weapons, and updating the LaRue Tactical OBR page with both OBR 5.56 and OBR 7.62? Maybe even adding the PredatAR series would be great too. --RaNgeR 20:05, 25 February 2012 (CST)

Ah. Well then, no problem. Thank you anyway :) --RaNgeR 20:18, 25 February 2012 (CST)

Re: CSI NY

Sorry about that; it's a relic from the fact I started that edit before you updated those images. The Wierd It 13:12, 26 February 2012 (CST)

I only have season 2, but you're doing a great job with the pics now and good start on season 8. --Ben41 19:17, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Identifying revolvers

Just a tip when adding screenshots of revolvers that are hard to identify:

1. Try to find a side shot showing the release lever (these will help identify whether the revolver is an S&W or a Colt).

2. A shot of the ejector rod below the barrel

3. A shot that shows if the revolver has an exposed hammer.

I realize that you won't always be able to find these shots, but just something to keep in mind. --Ben41 20:08, 27 February 2012 (CST)

continuity error?

In this shot looks like a blued finish that is well worn.

Travis pockets the revolver. (S08E04)

Looks nickel.

Travis aims the revolver. (S08E04)

nickel

Travis aims attempts to kill himself. (S08E04)

blued

A closeup on the barrel of the gun. (S08E04)

nickel in these two.

The gun falls as Travis drops it. (S08E04)

The gun lies abandoned on the ground. (S08E04)

We don't have a stock photo of a nickel Model 36. We typically use the Model 60 image in place of it. We could use the Model 37 since it's actually nickel.--Predator20 00:00, 28 February 2012 (CST)