User talk:Zackmann08

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)

Reality shows

Just remember that Mythbusters and TopShot were grandfathered in right before the BAN on Reality TV/Documentaries/Hosted Competition or historical shows. MoviePropMaster2008 02:45, 6 December 2011 (CST)

You're cool with updating and finished those pages. I was just pointing this out to warn new members not to create any new ones. This is the warning on the page for 'category: Documentary'. It reads: "Warning: Documentaries are NOT automatically approved for inclusion into IMFDB. Most of the remaining documentaries have been 'grandfathered in', i.e. they were created before IMFDB ruled against including documentaries. Even those which are grandfathered in must be of exceptional quality and completeness to stay. The ones given a waiver have a limited amount of time to improve, or they are removed. As of now, there is a blanket moratorium on all 'new' documentary pages. If you have a page you wish to create, please run it by the Mods first to see if it warrants a waiver from the ban. " Thanks. We need to probably put another warning on the rules. Thanks for the update. MoviePropMaster2008 20:53, 6 December 2011 (CST)

re:table or listing

The list method was the old way. It's not bad when there is only a few instances a gun is used. The table makes it nice for large use guns. Most prefer to use the table nowadays. --Predator20 10:46, 8 December 2011 (CST)

re:categories

It's really personal preference. I wouldn't start categorizing unless 15 or more guns are used. Do you plan on doing any movie pages? Most of the time users usually list the hero guns first, then the bad guys and then the henchman.--Predator20 11:15, 12 December 2011 (CST)

As a note, alphabetical order is also acceptable; as long as there's some kind of order to things that's reasonably intuitive. Evil Tim 11:21, 12 December 2011 (CST)

re:gun pages

Take a look at the 1911 or Beretta page (or any of the high traffic ones). What you have currently on the S&W 460 page seems fine. --Predator20 15:57, 12 December 2011 (CST)

Re: Pineapple Express

Hi, man, not a problem. You're not the first one to do that, and you most certainly will not be the last :D. You also did the same to Wanted, but to be fair, I did it too (right after you). Oh and, some admins and users prefer to put the so called "Hero Guns" on top of the page, since they're the ones a visiter is most likely to view first. --Warejaws 12:09, 14 December 2011 (CST)

Black Bars

Just FYI, it is preferred to crop out the black bars on the top and bottom of screenshots before uploading. If you change the existing ones you can upload a new version on the image's page and then change the image width by 1 pixel on the article page to force it to update. --commando552 18:36, 14 December 2011 (CST)

re:sortable tables

I guess since it doesn't do them in grid style is the reason. One of our India users liked doing that. They also had a poster set-up too. See New York. One of the other mods got into an issue with him if I remember right. --Predator20 09:35, 16 December 2011 (CST)

You can easily turn any table into a sortable one simply by replacing "wikitable" with "sortable table" and it looks essentially the same and keeps the grid style. However, the sortable tables don't work with rowspaned tables (see Heckler & Koch MP5 for example of this) so is a one or the other kind of thing. Also, if you have a movie that has a number or entries for the same gun (different variants or different actors using it) they wont necessarily be next to each other if you organise by date, it depends what the previous sort was. --commando552 10:22, 16 December 2011 (CST)

24

I noticed that you added incomplete tags to a couple of the 24 pages. Are you planning on adding screenshots? Do you have the DVD's? If so, please let me know because I was in the course of finishing them up season by season. --Ben41 19:46, 19 December 2011 (CST)

Re: Dark Knight

Ask Ben41, who wrote the description, I merely added the pictures. There are clues that it is a P226 though: the trigger guard, and the position of the disassembly lever all indicate a SIG-Sauer P220-series pistol, and it is full-sized. --Markit 22:10, 19 December 2011 (CST)

Adding Tags

If you do not intend on working on a page, then please don't add the "incomplete" tag. If you are, then in the "workinprogress" tag is more appropriate. If you spot a page that's not up to standards, then the "nuke" tag is appropriate for that page. --Ben41 08:22, 20 December 2011 (CST)

RE:Covert Affairs

You are deffinitely right about the Redeye, you can even make out markings on the launcher saying M41A(something) which are correct as M41 was the launcher designation, whilst the missiles was the FIM-43. As for the rifle, I think it is actually a customised Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.III*. The magazine is wrong for a Nagant, and if you look at the profile of the receiver behind the ejection port it is totally different to tha Nagant, but matches the SMLE No.1 Mk.III* (am talking about the vertical "lump" level with the back of the magazine). Also, the rear of a Nagant bolt looks like a round plunger, as opposed to the SMLE which has a vertical oblong block at the rear, like the gun pictured. --commando552 15:46, 22 December 2011 (CST)

Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.III* - .303 British

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)

re:H&K Grenade Launchers

I have no clue. Could have been whoever created the pages. --Predator20 09:22, 25 December 2011 (CST)

Go ahead and try it, they always be reverted back the original names. --Predator20 16:30, 25 December 2011 (CST)

re:specifications

With the USP having so many variants, it may get redundant. Most already have a brief description.--Predator20 16:30, 25 December 2011 (CST)

Grenade launchers

Have you tried just using the "move" option? It creates a new page and redirect automatically. --Funkychinaman 11:35, 26 December 2011 (CST)

Forum

I have confirmed your username on the forum. (: I really like your gun brands idea and trial pages, we need to give them their own category tag. bunni 13:17, 26 December 2011 (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)

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)

Dead links

I saw your message to Tim. I've been leaving them be unless the link is for a page that's ineligible or unlikely to be made. --Funkychinaman 15:59, 4 January 2012 (CST)

As above. The wiki has a function (Special:WantedPages) which you can use to see where dead links go. This could be useful if someone wants to contribute but can't think of something we don't already have. Only remove them if the page is very unlikely to be made (even then, you might want to just remove the brackets and turn them into plain text) or you know the weapon doesn't actually appear. Evil Tim 22:02, 4 January 2012 (CST)

Apology

I'm very sorry for that mess you cleaned up after me i am a bit new to this website so i will try harder not to mess up.