Split
 

Would anyone mind if I split up the PPD-40/PPsh-41/PPS-43 page? There's no reason they should be together other than the fact that they were Soviet WWII weapons in 7.62x25mm. They otherwise don't really have anything else in common.

I was under the impression that there was a direct lineage between all those guns.

That's like saying the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine are of the same family and type, just different caliber.

I thought that too. don't do ANYTHING until it has been approved. Sure some of the other countries' copies or descendants of the gun are also listed, but that kinda makes sense.

Comparing the M1 Garand to the M1 Carbine is ridiculous. One was NOT the descendant of the other. The M1 Carbine was an independent design directive to replace the pistol as the primary support weapon for secondary units or vehicle drivers.

It'd sort of be like putting the Thompson, the Reising, and the M3 on the same page, because they're all American and in .45 ACP. From the bit of research I did, the PPD is based on the the MP28, and the PPSh and the PPS were designed by different guys. It's true, one is more simplified than the other, but not necessarily based on one another. According to the Modern Firearms page, the 35 round mags from the PPSh and the PPS aren't even compatible with one another.

I wasn't comparing that, I'm saying I've actually met people who have mistaken these guns together cause they have the same M1 in their names.

It can be confusing. My buddy, a fellow shooter, had always assumed that the M1 Carbine was just a carbine version of the M1 Rifle. (Which would be a fair assumption to make.) It wasn't until two years ago that I explained the difference to him.

It's not like that at all. The Tommy gun is an open bolt delayed blowback, the Reising is a closed bolt delayed blowback, and the M3 is a simple blowback.

I always thought the PPS was a simplified PPSh which was a simplified PPD. And if the PPD is so similar to the MP28, should it be on the MP28 page?

Well, yes. I was citing it as an absurd example.


If we're worried about too many pages, we can consolidate the MP18/MP28/Lanchester/PPD-40 onto one page. Neither of them are that big.

Uh, no. And don't start being like POI (or as I like to call him POS). That suggestion is again.. RIDICULOUS.

Who said we were worried about too many gun pages? You're creating a controversy out of nothing. And if we were to remove gun pages (I would LOVE to eliminate all video games and the weapons that only appear (in real life) in the mind of a video game programmer, like those prototype Russian or Chinese weapons, whom NO ONE has ever seen in a real movie, handled by HUMAN BEINGS.

I don't know about the PPD but shouldn't the MP18 and the MP28 be on the same page?

Hey now, let's not get nasty. ;) I just thought I was getting a vibe about not having too many pages period.

Sounding like PersonOfInterest will never turn out well......;) Now as too the vibe about too many pages, that's Too many lame or STUPID pages. That is the vibe that everyone should be getting. Now if a gun deserves its' own page, and that it has unfairly been lumped into a lineage that is not really its' own, then yes. But also be aware that some lines of guns are still obscure and to split them up will just create MORE pages that users will have to track/hunt down in order to find.......Why do you think we lump ALL M1911s regardless of maker onto the M1911 page?

I think it's time for a thread lock, before this gets outta hand

In the limited context regarding the PPSh-41 and the PPS-43, I believe the lack of lineage and their potential page sizes would warrant separate pages for both. (The K-50M is there as well, as it should be, as it's developed from the PPSh, but the description appears to have been cut and paste from the Modern Firearms page.)

This is a valid topic for discussion and I don't see what MPM is getting worried over. He told funky not to change the page and he didn't change the page. Other people may want to weigh in on this and other pages. I personally think the S&W pistol pages are a bit too spread out, especially considering the massive lumps that are the Glock, AK-47, and M16 pages (which all look wonderful).

We do have the 4500, 5900, and 6900 series's on one page. The rest vary too much single stack, double stack etc. We try to combine when we can.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith..._pistol_series

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith..._pistol_series

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith..._pistol_series

Looking up the S&W pistols I've discovered this little error.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith_%26_Wesson_Escort

It redirects to

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith...sson_61_Escort

The problem is that is screws up the rotation in the article alphabetization.

Smith & Wesson 5900 pistol series leads to Smith & Wesson 61 Escort leads to Smith & Wesson 639 and so on and so forth until you get to Smith & Wesson CS 45 leading to Smith & Wesson Escort which is a redirect back to Smith & Wesson 61 Escort, thus the whole rotation repeats itself.

Redirect pages need to be taken out of the article alphabetization rotation.

Edit: And another error.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith_%26_Wesson_76

This page is not in the rotation at all

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith_%26_Wesson_M76

the redirect page is in the rotation but only if you go backwards from
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith...I_Hand_Ejector

the M&P page (http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P) is also out of the rotation, does anyone know how this thing works?

Edit 2: From what I can tell it should go like this:

Smith & Wesson 6900 pistol series
Smith & Wesson 76
Smith & Wesson 908S
Smith & Wesson 916 Shotgun Series
Smith & Wesson 945
Smith & Wesson Baby Russian
Smith & Wesson CS 45
Smith & Wesson M&P
Smith & Wesson Mk II Hand Ejector

You're bitching about the actual redirect pages?

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title...rt&redirect=no

Get real.

OK, ok, calm down.

No, the point I was making is that the article alphabetizer thing (I don't know what its official name is) is all messed up. Ideally, you should be able to start at whatever article is alphabetically first and go through every single article on the site. But you can't do that because some of the articles don't link in the proper sequence, and in the one case I illustrated, one of the redirect pages causes a loop in the sequence.

Funkychinaman makes a decent point. I figured they were all related, but apparently they aren't, so naturally I'd think we'd do seperate pages for them all, with maybe a see also: section for the rest of then, since they are relative to one another in that they were service guns during the same period, but not mecanically compatible or designed similarly.

As far as the S&W classic automatics go, if you're going to consolidate them, there should be a page for the 39 series, the 59 Series, the 69 series, and the 45 series. Those are the simplest categories, and all of the guns are more or less descended from all of those. For example, separating the 59 from the 459 from the 659 from the 5904 from the 5906 is kinda eh to me, since, apart from some minor changes, they are all just about the same gun.

that is because people will still type in "Smith & Wesson Escort" without realizing that the actual model number is the 61. If they do, they will still end up at the RIGHT PAGE. Those who type in Smith & Wesson 61 Escort will get the correct page. Re-directs don't count because they are not in the actual GUN DIRECTORY. They won't show up in the listing of all GUN pages. They just show up in the rotation (which people should NOT be using to find a gun anyway).

The problem in the past is that people have split apart pages and did a crap job of fleshing out the page. IF there is a large number of people who hold a 'misconception' that they are related, then you are obliged to write some sort of coherent introduction for the gun page to EXPLAIN why this is so. For one, tons of people put PPSh-41s and PPS-43s in the same lineage. So much so that tons of folks for years erroneously called them PPSH-43s (myself included).

As for the S&W pages, it's all about people finding the right gun when they are looking for it. No one intuitively knows that a certain line of guns are just improvements of the previous models. WE KNOW that because we've been researching it. But the lay public doesn't. We are working against IMFDB's craptacularly BAD search function. It doesn't do fuzzy searches like IMDB does. So remember that a gun can't be un-findable to the general public when you think long term about doing a massive reformat.

At the first part, I agree that it needs to be done right, so let him do it right, and if he doesn't do it right, revert it all back, or have someone do it correctly. At the end of the day, the change should still be done if we're going to be continuous with a certain format of keeping like guns together and unlike guns apart (the definition of "like" being guns that are clones or mechanical descendants or something like that), kind of like the M16 and 1911 pages.

As for the S&W pages, yes, finding the gun is the most important thing, but that just means we need to do proper redirect pages after they have been combined. We do this on the M16 page, the 1911 page and the Beretta 92 page, to name a few, so why should the S&W Automatics, which all share mechanical lineage with a few original pistols, be split up?

Then why do we have it?