Talk:Rules, Standards and Principles

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm thinking rules should be one sentence codes of conduct, standards should be an article writing primer, and principles should be more overarching imfdb themes or goals. btw have any other admins seen the District 9 page? The layout seems to do a better job of making the guns the stars of the page. Thoughts? FYI I've protected this page for sysops only. bunni 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a FAQ? It could be useful.--Oliveira 12:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Bunni, I definitely think the District 9 page is a great format, and I think that's the format we should continue to use for future pages. -Gunman69 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's that necessary to separate the gun types handgun, rifle, shotgun etc, unless there is an extremely large amount of different guns like you see on a TV show. --Predator20 19:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
To add to the discussion, there should be some clarification about the ordering of guns- as it stands, some pages are organized in terms of the gun's chronological appearance, other pages are based on the gun's prominence, and some simply don't have any order at all. Thanks for all the positive comments on the District 9 layout- I think it should be applied to all the large pages, especially the ones that are featured. --Markit 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: since this was written, AdAstra2009 has decided that the layout in question was "unorthodox" and re-ordered everything so the weapons are in chronological order and without sub-categories. I can't say this is an improvement. Compare: District 9 to this version. Vangelis 18:04, 6 March 2011 (MSK)



Thanks so much for this page. I am looking at some of our ramblings on the Forums as to what rules we think should be on here. I will start a search (probably later, it's late) and try to compile a rules list taken from the best suggestions by the mods and members. MoviePropMaster2008 07:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pic types, # of pics

Should there be something about .jpeg's being the preferred pic type because of the size the others take up? The number of pics per gun is a big issue too. I think in some movies like war films where you have a number of actors handling the same type of gun. One pic of each actor isn't that bad. But in other films were it's just one actor it gets overblown when there is more than 4 or 5 pics. There should also be something about wide screen pics being preferred, but the black bars should be cropped off. As Oliveira said a FAQ is needed, I think something like a tutorial would be excellent. When I first discovered this site. I had no idea on how to upload pics, put them on a page etc. So I screencapped Extreme Prejudice and asked GM45 if he would help. So he uploaded my pics and put them on the page. Then told me to write the text. After doing that I saw how it was done and was able to do it myself. So there are tons of users out there that want to contribute, but don't want to screw up. --Predator20 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think there should be something about page formats.--Oliveira 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts and suggestions

This is such a good idea. I’m a pretty new member and made a fair amount of mistakes. A lot of new members probably copy what they see other people doing, so if they see someone do something wrong, they may think that it is alright to do the same. Here are some points that you guys can consider when writing this page. 1. Like predator20 said a standard for how many screen caps are acceptable without becoming excessive. 2. If you believe something is wrong or misidentified and want to say something about it, don’t edit your comment onto the page but into the discussion area for the page. 3. Maybe don’t edit a page without entering what you want to do into the discussion area first. 4. A link to tutorials on how to build pages, screen cap, et cetera. I know they are not done yet, but this could be so useful to answering question and problems. 5. FAQ a definite. I cant find an image for a Lusa A2 sub machinegun what do I do?(You get the point). A lot of FAQs could probably be answered by a link to a tutorial. 6. What a page needs to contain in order to fit the standard (like what Oliveira was saying). Simple things like category photos should line up vertically, spelling, et cetera. 7. Appreciation of others members work. Don’t go on an edit rampage and kill someone’s page to fit your own liking. Instead mention how maybe they should bring up what’s on there mind in the discussion session of the page. 8. Keep your opinions humble, and on your own user page. No ranting on how such a gun is the best/worst ever on movie/weapon page. 9. Explain that text, just like images, can not be just copied and pasted from IMDB or such sites. 10. Explain that if they frequently disobey the rules they will face consequences.

p.s. Sorry this is so long lol. --Mauser 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Appreciation of others members work. Don’t go on an edit rampage and kill someone’s page to fit your own liking. Instead mention how maybe they should bring up what’s on there mind in the discussion session of the page.
Good point, but look at both sides of it. One one hand, at IMFDB, we've been too lenient for too long regarding bizarre formatting. We all know members have put in a lot of hard work on a page. But being a wiki we get tons and tons and TONS of new edits and new pages by new members (many of them anonymous) all the time. Alot of their edits are BS. (I had to remove a ton of MANGA images and butt heads with members who thought that IMFDB should include appearances of guns in Manga). I think that a temporary note at the top of the page, eliciting input will be well received. On the other hand, I completely agree that it is outrageous that newbies or anonymous members roll in, radically change the format of an established page, especially when it is NOT conforming to the standard as established by IMFDB, and then roll out again, never to be heard from again. What we must all remember is that pages conform to the standard as set by the mainstream of IMFDB, not some weird little experimental page. I mean, Wikipedia has a page format standard. I used to NOT be so bugged by 'what I considered to be' irrelevant screenshots (like goofy shots that don't clearly show the gun, but allows the page maker to make some 'pithy' remark as to how bad some actors' shooting stance is). It wasn't an issue, until Bunni had to change servers AGAIN to keep up with the crushing transfer of data. That was when we should have gotten a clue that we must be efficient in our bandwidth heavy images. An FAQ is definitely going to be helpful here. Good points. MoviePropMaster2008 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was kinda thinking the samething when I wrote that. Someone is probably going to go off on how its not fair because it is a wiki. Two sides to every coin I guess. --Mauser 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys

I'm very busy with work tonight, but I thought I'd point you to this topic in the forum, where we discussed possible rules: I'm glad to see we're finally getting some rules on the front page. -MT2008 02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice Job

Its coming together very nicely. Good Job to everyone who worked on it. --Mauser 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussions in the main wiki pages

Add something about this. Nothing makes a page look amatuer like this example from Punisher War Zone
Alcatrazz 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So technically this is more of a CQB-R than an M4. Excalibur01 17:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CQB-R has a 10.3-inch barrel, but basically yeah. Spartan198 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks more like an HK416 to me, but that's just me, I could be way off. --The Specialist 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not an HK416; note the hole size and shape on the rail system. --Res0290 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok people. After watching the behind the scenes footage. This IS an M4, just with a 10 in barrel. Excalibur01 05:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussions are okay as long as they are TEMPORARY. They should NOT be on a page long, and certainly once a weapon has been 100% identified, all discussion should be removed. But sometimes discussion help remind people to try to help ID a specific weapon. Personally there are TONS more irritating and amateurish things about bad pages than discussions. Also, why don't members do their duty and if they see discussions that seem outdated and are no longer relevant, just move it to the discussions page. That's what it is for. MoviePropMaster2008 02:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We really need something about disscussions.--Oliveira 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind discussions soo much, it's just when they linger there for so long without an answer, or when the gun has been identified, and they're still there for months, although I'd prefer talk pages be used more often. One more thing, can you include something about how crappy images shouldn't overwrite high quality images such as yours, I think it would be good to clarify the importance of the highest quality images.--Alienqueen11 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think now that the main page has been changed to show what articles are being discussed, more are using them. Before someone could post something in a talk page and be forgotten for months.--Predator20 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "direct fire role"

As far as I'm aware, both the German 88mm FlaKs and the Soviet B4 203mm howitzer were used in the direct fire role during WW2 (there's archive footage of B4s firing with the barrels level during the Battle of Berlin in Call of Duty: World at War). Does that mean they'd qualify for gun pages? I know MPM has said before that German prop houses own real 88s, and there's quite a few interesting notes I could make about them (eg how you can tell a FlaK 18 / 36 / 37 / 41 apart). Evil Tim 01:48, 21 April 2011 (CDT)

2.1.5 It must more than one real firearm in it

There is a "have" missing in there. --Milkovich Milkovich Signature.jpg 10:13, 2 May 2011 (CDT)

2.1.6. Recommending movies/TV Shows?

Is it possible for those not skilled in HTML or knowledge of guns and knives to recommend a movie/TV show that should be added to the site?

For example a continuously rotating list of 50 movies that should be added and why.

I wanted to add Gangster's Paradise: Jerusalema, but I can't get to grips with the HTML system - I haven't used HTML since I had a MySpace page and that was 4 years ago.

A request page would get ridiculously out of control pretty quickly. The general consensus is that if you want to have a page on the site, you need to put forth the effort to learn how to properly make one. --Ben41 18:21, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

The problems is probably in me

"It must have more than one real firearm in it" - so, according to this sentence pages with one single gun (like Chapter 27 or Alien 3) will be/should be deleted because there's only one weapon in them, right? To me this sounds like this: IMDB Owner: "We will not include Alien on our site, because there are only nine actors, and the minimum limit is ten per movie." In my opinion this should be somehow merged into the anime/game section, because some users (including me) like to add fictional/hybrid/franken/insertwhateveryouwanthere guns to those pages. That should be limited somehow, if that is possible. ><

Unrelated: Into the "Computer and Video Games Requirements" section a note should be added regarding leaked stuff. Something like absolutely no leaked images or screencaps from leaked videos/games should be added. - bozitojugg3rn4ut 16:29, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

Nice code

You know instead of [ [ C*tegory:Poster and Cover Art ] ] you can put
I don't know the name of this code, but it's typed as <*pre*> <*/pre*> (without the asterisks) --StaraptorEmpoleon 13:15, 7 October 2011 (CDT)


To the image rules, I think this should be added, in the same vein as descriptive filenames:

Do not use default filenames

Avoid filenames that are either the default for the program you are using or highly generic (eg "Snapshot001," "Image01"). There is a high chance that another image will exist with the same filename, and if the "ignore any warnings" box in the upload menu is ticked it will overwrite the existing one. By extension, do not tick the "ignore any warnings" box without good reason.

Evil Tim 01:20, 24 October 2011 (CDT)

Are people still doing that? ugh! That has been the source of many image disasters in the past. MoviePropMaster2008 13:24, 24 October 2011 (CDT)

If I may suggest another one: Avoid file names that pretty much admit to file sharing, like this one, Castle.2009.S04E01.HDTV.XviD-TLA.avi 000419127.jpg. It just looks bad. --Funkychinaman 13:41, 24 October 2011 (CDT)

time stamps

how do i amend the time stamp to show my post as i live outside the us--Seekerdude 17:41, 16 March 2012 (CDT)

Question on watermarks seen on media

Yeah, I'd like to do a page on Aazaan, an Indian movie. Thing is majority of the movie has watermarks on the upper left corner of the screen. But there are some instance where it can be less seen if the background has white/black bacground. I feel like using photoshop or something to edit it since Moserbaer, the Indian media distributor, does this to most of their DVD releases. Thoughts? Ominae 19:58, 22 April 2012 (CDT)

Pics without watermarks is the preferred format, but not if the pic is significantly cropped off. --Ben41 15:09, 23 April 2012 (CDT)
Looks like either taking a screencap with the watermark or "editing" the pic prior to uploading is the way to do. Darn you Mosebaer! Can someone advise me "if" removing the watermark from a pic prior to uploading is a bad move considering that this is my first time facing this issue. Ominae 17:02, 23 April 2012 (CDT)


Is there another way to upload pictures of shows or movies other than screen-caps, such as public domain pics? What about screen-caps from other wikis? A Shootist 12:44 23 April 2012

You would upload pictures the same way screencaps are uploaded. Screencaps from other wikis is generally not desirable, because it's difficult to determine the source these were taken from. --Ben41 15:09, 23 April 2012 (CDT)
Thanks for the info. Other than DVDs, where else can i get screen-caps from? A Shootist 17:47 23 April 2012
Streaming services like Netflix and Amazon, and to a lesser extent, Hulu. --Funkychinaman 17:03, 23 April 2012 (CDT)


Would an admin mind amending the spoilers section to say that instead of just stating "SPOILERS" at the top of the page, the Spoiler Template should be used? --Zackmann08 12:19, 25 April 2012 (CDT)

Can't say I'm a fan of that. Especially not the three exclaimation marks, it's not like it's that important. Three exclaimation marks should be reserved for warnings of pits of crocodiles or sulphuric acid throwing machines. Evil Tim 00:35, 2 May 2012 (CDT)
Well it can be changed. The goal is to make them all uniform. --Zackmann08 00:38, 2 May 2012 (CDT)
I just don't see it as a particularly necessary template, to be honest, and I don't really like how the roadsign icon looks on actual pages. Plus "may contain" doesn't really help people decide whether to keep reading. Surely a spoiler template should say it does contain spoilers since otherwise there wouldn't be a template? Evil Tim 00:45, 2 May 2012 (CDT)

Been giving this a bit of an overhaul

Should I add "no pornos" to the general standards? You know someone's going to try it sooner or later. Evil Tim 02:27, 4 June 2012 (CDT)

As you can see on the below discussion, yes, it's probably time. --Ben41 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2013 (EST)
So we'll define that as movies given an NC-17 for sexual content (not sure how many legit movies that would catch), unrated because of sexual content, and / or movies with no cinematic release primarily sold through sex stores? Evil Tim (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2013 (EST)
I would steer clear of using the NC-17 rating in the definition for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it wouldn't apply to foreign films or even for films rated by the MPAA it would be harder for foreign users to check. Secondly, there are legitimate films that would be caught in this deffinition as they could say something like "Rated NC-17 for strong violence, drug usage, sexuality and language" and there is no way of knowing necessarily which factors are NC-17 worthy and which are only R grade. Lastly, there will always be the grey areas, so I think it is better if we simply ban "pornographic" media, as this allows us some wiggle room on decisions. For example there are a couple of films that I can think of that have some scenes that could be defined as "pornographic", but this is not the overall focus of the film and it has received a wide release even in an unedited form, such as Baise-moi (I think this would be eligible if anyone ever wanted to do it as it has quite a few guns in it). Then you also have the case of things that were originally made as "pornography", but then also had an edited down version such as the animes Kite and Mezzo Forte. --commando552 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2013 (EST)

Ratings have been shifting as well. Midnight Cowboy was rated X, but if you watch it today, it's a not even a hard R. I think restrictions we have in place (feature length, no NSFW screenshots) should suffice. --Funkychinaman (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2013 (EST)


Something about the use of redirects needs to be added. I would love some help perfecting the language...

When you need to link to a particular gun that is a subsection of a larger page (such as the M1911 which is part of the M1911 pistol series), instead of putting [[M1911 pistol series#M1911|M1911]], you need to simply put [[M1911]]. The reason for this is 2 fold. One, if the M1911 is ever moved from this page, the other format will no longer work. (Now obviously in THIS case, the M1911 is never going to be moved from the M1911 pistol series page. But we ran into this issue when we reorganized this page and had to redo EVERY page that linked to the Kimber models or the Springfield models, etc.). Secondly, if the subheading is ever changed (say from "M1911" to "Colt M1911", this link will not work any more. In either case of a change happening, the [[M1911]] redirect can simply be changed instead of having to change EVERY page.

Another good example is the Beretta 92FS. The link should read [[Beretta 92FS]]. NOT [[Beretta_92_pistol_series#Beretta 92F/FS|Beretta 92FS]].

I am sick of trying to explain this to everyone and want it in the rules. So that we can point everyone to one place. --Zackmann08 09:29, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Putting up Young Justice

Thinking of doing this since there are a few firearm details that are realistic (except a few that are sci-fi based). One I can find is the M2 Browning on Abrams when the Army shows up. Another is the FAMAS, but looks like a bit futurized with League of Assassin shinobis. Ominae (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2013 (EST)

I've seen every episode, and I haven't seen anything that sticks out too much. --Funkychinaman (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Yeah, that is what I've been thinking about. The only thing I can add is the M2s. Although I don't know... Probably won't work. But it's nice to add those episodes to the Best of YJ collection in my HD. Ominae (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (EST)

The general rule is no western animation unless the guns are done particularly realistically with specific models. I wouldn't really say this is the case with Young Justice, although there may have been an M2HB the vast majority are made up or generic. Sort of like on Justice League Unlimited where the guns were always generic or futuristic apart from the episode where they went back to the old west where they used much more realistic and accurate guns (or any time Vigilante shows up). --commando552 (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2013 (EST)

I'll have another look at the episodes where firearms are involved. If they don't look like actual ones, then I won't bother. Ominae (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Since the site hasn't allowed any of the Batman The Animated Series-type animation, I would think it's very doubtful this series would be okay to put up. --Ben41 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Sure, Ben. Just that the M2s looked real to me. Honest. But like I said, I'll check it before I do anything else. Ominae (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Pretty sure that this image is shot down already. An example of the M2 is at the background. The M16s aren't like that as much since the details are not animated much. I checked that Deathstroke has a M1911A1, but not more details. That's all. Ominae (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2013 (EST)

A few suggestions and thoughts

Well, basically there are still no web original productions on this site and, giving the fact that some of the web series now have a movie production qualities, cult following and plenty of firearms, maybe there should be a category and/or table for them, when they will appear? I also wonder what to do with po... well, adult movies. Don't think of me as a pervert, but as a muss culture geek I have seen many porn parodies and some of them have real guns and some even many of them. Of course there should be restrictions for screencaps (which already exist in cases of nudity in normal productions), but still it's a segment which will emerge, eventually. --Kloga (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2013 (EST)

Adult films, really? Aren't there enough regular films to cover? Web productions are something to consider on a case by case basis. It's really going to taken under consideration if a major company such as Amazon or Netflix puts it out. --Ben41 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2013 (EST)
I have also put another suggestion on "Actor" category discussion page, but no one responded. :( --Kloga (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2013 (EST)
You can always write a short bio that covers the significant stuff, like here and here. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2013 (EST)
I know about biographies. I just think that it will be interesting to feature other media also, at least on actor's pages (maybe with some proofpics on discussion page or something like that). Sometimes people have a really interesting gun filmography in short films, for example. If bio is somewhat free-form, why it's impossible to add such tables on actor's pages? --Kloga (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2013 (EST)
You can put anything on the actor's talk page. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2013 (EST)
I did one for example, one discussion page. I'm also still hope that someone apart from me is also interested in seeing such things on primary actors pages. --Kloga (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2013 (EST)
I am against a new category page for other media, but the discussion page is the best place for what I think you want to do. I would recommend though that you concentrate your efforts on media that is acceptable for the site (movies, television, video games). --Ben41 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2013 (EST)
I'm concentrated as much as I can, I just feel uncomfortable for not telling properly about firearms spotted in other media... --Kloga (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2013 (EST)
What Bruce Willis did in media that don't qualify for inclusion on IMFDB is as relevant to IMFDB as what he got his kids for Christmas. Evil Tim (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2013 (EST)

A Few Questions

I'm a little bit confused by a few of the principles. First of all, about bootlegs - what to do with those films that were not released yet in any form and only exist in VHS or TV Rip (many unaired pilots fall to this category)? Is doing a screenshot from your own re-recording of VHS okay? Also, what about guns made for video game consoles? Some of them were really used in movies (I can recall Odyssey video game console gun, a realistic looking rifle, in one movie and a web show), sometimes even mocked-up as real weapons. Maybe some compilation article like Air Guns is needed (when I'll cover those movies/shows/TV series, whatever)? --Kloga (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2013 (EST)

1) I actually have used screencaps ripped from my own DVR on a page, and it was for an unsold pilot aired as a TV movie. As far as I know, the film never got a home video release. In my defense, the film was consistently on air at the time, but if that violates the rules, I'll delete the page myself. 2) I'm assuming you mean video game consoles. I think they can be noted on the page, but wouldn't warrant their own page, nor would they be acceptable as the only gun in a film/TV show. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2013 (EST)
1) I just want to add Darkman TV series unsold pilot and a few more things. I also know a few films that are here already, but were not released adequately yet, but I don't give up them, cause articles are good. And I also have a DVR, by the way and record anything I can because sometimes it's the only way to have at least somewhat legal copy of a needed film. 2) Yes, sorry, a mistype which I repeated. Sorry, but I have even two more questions: 3) What to do with self-made guns, like this and this one and a few others? They pop-up here and there and add confusion. Probably at least they deserve their own page, with sections and sub-sections on types and most known models (like Assassination Device or Air Guns)? 4) Also is it okay to do an article if there's only one gun in the movie, but watcher will probably won't recognize it due to obstacles? --Kloga (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (EST)
Unsold, unaired pilots don't warrant their own pages. We've already ruled on improvised weapons, they can be noted on the media page but are not eligible for their own weapon pages. --Funkychinaman (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2013 (EST)
Even when they were aired as a TV movie? Also, I'm mostly not talking about improvised weapons, but for illegally manufactured (the one in the first Brother is a good example), some of them in nearly factory-level. Sorry for such a "question day", but I'm also wondering - if alien weapons, despite not based on anything realistic, predicted or were based on real experiments (soviet sci-fi comedy "Kin-dza-dza" has a phaser-like things called "tranklykators" which are really depicting nearly 90% perfect how real experimental laser weapons behave), can they be included at least as a gun-related trivia? --Kloga (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2013 (EST)
If they were aired, that's different (which is why I specified "unaired") above, but as far as I know, the Darkman pilot was not aired, and at 30 minutes, too short to be aired as a TV movie. We could consider a homemade revolver an improvised weapon. I give trivia sections a lot of leeway, although I'm not sure all of my fellow admins would agree. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2013 (EST)
As for alien weapons and other fictional guns of that sort, stuff that is not based on a real firearm can be listed on the discussion page if you want to put up pictures of it. If it is actually based on or inspired by a real experimental weapon system then it could possibly go on the main page in an "Other Weapons" section, but having not seen the movie (and I can't find anything from searching for "tranklykator") I can't really say in this case. However, fictional weaponry like this can only be mentioned if the page is already eligible and has real firearms in it as well. --commando552 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2013 (EST)
Here's the picture of a few of them (the upper one, featuring four screenshots; I wonder why wole article is the picture, some crazy survivalist blog). One on the upper right is a faux tranklyukator (I'm steel thinking on how to transcribe) built by a visitor from Earth , which itonically, quite possible, was built from a real anti-tank rifle. Also the one under the faux tranklykator seems to have a pistol grip. Others are just props from the spare parts, but how them are firing is suspiciously similar to real laser experimental laser cannon, built later in the USA. They probably have seen Soviet factory lasers, though. --Kloga (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2013 (EST)
Well, being a fan of Kin-dza-dza, I have to add some remarks. The "tranklykator" weapons have nothing in common with real guns. These movie props were made from various junk, and if some of them have parts of real guns (such as pistol grips), they still aren't based on some real firearms. The effects of "laser beams" are generic visual light effects; similar effects can be seen in various Sci-Fi movies all other the world. So there is no reason of creating Kin-dza-dza page. Greg-Z (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Automatic Crossbow

Well, we've all seen Van Helsing and probably read the section also. While researching the thing for some reason, though, I've found that there are numerous examples of these not only in fiction, but also in real life: mechanical, gas-operated, pump action, electric... Rules say that only those things deserve separate pages, that are direct fire weapons. Well, wikipedia says: "Example of direct fire weapons include handguns, rifles, machine guns, anti-tank guns, and anti-tank rockets. Howitzers and mortars are examples of indirect fire weapons. Large caliber machine guns, like the .50 caliber, can be used in both roles. In the pre-gun age, bows could be used in either role." So I want to ask a permission to write an article on Automatic Crossbows (probably with sections for each type: mechanical, gas-operated, pump action etc.), which I'm eager and inspired to do, especially considering that we already has such things on database, quite a few. In fact it's one of the earliest examples of direct fire and those could be considered as honorary ancestors of firearms. --Kloga (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (EST)

We've gone over this. No. You've been harping about bows and arrows for THREE YEARS now. Let it go. Move on. --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2013 (EST)
This is the Internet Movie Firearms Database. Weapons other than firearms can be mentioned either in an "Other Weapons" section or listed on the talk page, but this is purely for trivia and the weapons do not deserve their own page. If we were to ever make pages for bows/crossbows (which I doubt we ever will short of possibly a gallery page to hold images of appeared known types for reference) it would certainly not be for purely fictional weapons like the automatic crossbow from Van Helsing. These are not real weapons and are purely props so is akin to making a generic page for phaser guns. We do list appearances of some non firearms, mainly Air Guns which are all lumped together on the same page, but this is due to the fact that not only will they possibly be mistaken for real weapons by the average viewer, but they are also on occasion depicted as such. Nobody is ever going to think that automatic crossbow from Van Helsing is a real firearm. --commando552 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2013 (EST)
Also, you quote the "direct fire" clause from the rules like that would allow crossbow pages, totally ignoring the fact that the title of that section is "This is the Internet Movie FIREARMS Database", hence specifically discounting them. --commando552 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (EST)
I concur with commando, the primary point of the site is firearms. Over the years weapons pages for Molotov cocktails and other explosives and such have been deleted and their references on a general scale eliminated because they don't fit the primary criterion of the site, which as stated, is firearms. I have to agree crossbows and other non-firearm weapons would have to generally be excluded on that basis as well. There are exceptions made for some things, but as said, those are listed on the media's page or it's discussion page and not given their own weapon page, and done on a case-by-case basis as I understand. Your asking to apply something on a wide scale, something that doesn't fit with the point of the site. I have to disagree (though I'm no authority, just wanted to chime in). StanTheMan (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2013 (EST)

Final word on this: no. We have enough problems with the top-level category being called "gun" as it is without adding yet another thing to it that isn't one. Also almost all repeating crossbows are modern fabrications, so there would be no point in a page for them. We're not here to point out groups of things that look alike, if we did that we could also have a gun page for "cartoon shotgun" and "generic Warner Bros revolver." Evil Tim (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2013 (EST)
Commando, read a page on TV tropes that I linked, PLEASE. Especially read REAL LIFE section which lists real life automatic crossbows, that really exist. I'm not saying about particular ridiculous and stupid example from Van Helsing, such things really do exist. And they cannot be classified as bows only, becuase of some firearm principles actually used in them. I DON'T wanted to argue and tried to focus on Andrei Tarkovsky page and category instead (coming soon), but when people say that I'm stupid enough to think that Van Helsing's crossbow is real, just in more generous words, I cannot ignore it. As rules says NOTHING on automatic crossbows, some of which are far more firearms then Air Guns, at least specify how to include them on page and will they be counted for "more then one gun" rule If I'll create the page with one firearm and this?.. Thanks. --Kloga (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2013 (EST)
I know that repeating/automatic crossbows exist, that isn't the problem. Just because something is automatic doesn't mean that is is any more eligible for a page than a regular crossbow. If a crossbow has as you say "firearm principles actually used in them", do you mean that it uses an explosion to propel the bolt? If this were the case and it was actually a production weapon then it would possibly qualify for a page like the Greener Light Harpoon Gun, but I doubt that this is the sort of thing that you are talking about (if nothing else, once the projectile is propelled by a pyrotechnic charge it will lack a "bow" hence not a crossbow by any definition). Also if the example from Van Helsing is "particular ridiculous and stupid", don't use it as the example for what you are talking about, come up with a better example to try and justify a page you want to make. Lastly, I never said that you were stupid or even vaguely insinuated it. If you don not understand English particularly well that is fine, but it is probably best not to get into arguments (particularly with admins) where you cannot put forward your case well and come up with imaginary slights against yourself which you then call people out on. --commando552 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2013 (EST)

No. End of subject. Evil Tim (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (EST)


I see this "The following videogames have been determined to not qualify for IMFDB as a result of past discussion: Halo, Phantasy Star 0, Doom 3, Streets of Rage, Mad Max, Einhander" I assume this is because most of the weapons in Halo are purely fictional, but for the ones that seemed to be based on real firearms (the DMR in Halo Reach/4 appears to be based on a Kel-Tec RFB) would it be okay to add a fictional variant to the Kel-Tec_RFB weapons page itself with the games and digital series it appeared in? S3anyBoy (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (EST)

No. No Halo stuff. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2015 (EST)

Is there an archive of the original discussions where these games were determined to be unsuitable? I assume games like Borderlands and Destiny are also ineligible despite having some weapons that resemble real life ones?

Most of the discussion pages were deleted, since there's nothing left to discuss. When in doubt, ask. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2015 (EST)


Is there a reason the majority of tables are "wikitable" instead of "wikitable sortable"? Simply changing class="wikitable" to class="wikitable sortable" makes it possible to sort the table without messing up formatting. Since most of the tables don't seem to be in any sort of consistent specific order anyway I will go ahead and change them to sortable when I notice them unless there's a specfic reason not to.

Please hold off until we discuss this further. Thanks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2015 (EST)
They're supposed to be in date order. Evil Tim (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2015 (EST)

"date order"? Some are in chronological order (older films at top), some are in reverse chronological order (older films at bottom), most were started in one order or another and then additions were simply made tot he bottom of the table. Simply adding to the bottom of the table is the easiest way to edit so I can understand why most people did that instead of trying to find out where they needed to insert their new row. Having sortable tables means no one has to bother trying to force the table into order by itself, but people can easily sort it by year/gun/actor.

Ex: Reverse chrono order: Attempted chronological order: Clusterfuck of tables (some chrono, some reverse, some other):

S3anyBoy (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2015 (EST)

The Style Guide sets the standard as by date, ascending order. It took a while to lock that down, so some may be in descending order. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2015 (EST)

So the AK tables are really messed up then. Is there some way to mark pages with incorrect tables for future corrections? S3anyBoy (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2015 (EST)

Reefer Madness

Is Reefer madness acceptable for a page? It's been a while since I watched it but I think it only has a single gun, but the gun is an integral part of the story (2 characters fight over it and it goes off killing a 3rd) I was gonna try to grab some screencaps tonight or tomorrow, but I probably won't bother if it's ineligible. S3anyBoy (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (EST)

If the gun is identifiable, then I have no objections. --Funkychinaman (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2015 (EST)

Commonly used but unofficial English titles for works not (officially) released in English?

What's policy on this kind of thing? It came up with City Shrouded in Shadow (detailed on talk page). I don't really care which is used for that page, but I'd like to know what site policy is for that kind of thing because it will likely come up with in the future. --VladVladson (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

The appropriate section regarding release titles still answers this, as has been noted elsewhere. StanTheMan (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2017 (EDT)

Don't replace movie gun images

Here's a proposal for another rule (and one that I'm surprised isn't in this section, because it's been a de facto rule for some time now): Do not replace/overwrite any IMFDB exclusive images that were provided by MoviePropMaster2008 or another industry source. MPM2008's images in particular are ones we should treasure because they're both exclusive to us and also because his photography skills are phenomenal. Further, it's desirable for us to have these images instead of images jacked from a Google search without the original photographer's permission. The closet we have to this rule is the one under Image Rules: Gun Images that says "However, the rule is, if the image of the gun already exists here, don't upload any more. There had better be a really compelling reason to do so, like a specific variant that best matches a variant in a movie, television show, Anime or Video Game. The Biggest exception is Screen used Hero guns." I think that this needs to be expanded. -MT2008 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2018 (EST)

Personal tools

Social Media