More rules for IMFDB (including foreign entries)
 

Personally it's getting a little perturbing that so much of our work can be undone by anonymous IP addresses. Perhaps we should seriously look at making EVERYONE create an account before they can either create a new page or edit. Just a thought.


Foreign movies
We've recently had a slew of Entries for BOLLYWOOD movies, "some" Chinese or Korean films, and have a few really obscure European films (like those EAST GERMAN B&W movies from the 1960s). Usually pages for foreign films are pretty lean on content.

This made me think about foreign movies in general. We should have rules, unless it is an available title in the U.S. (available at any Hollywood/blockbuster/netflix) then the creator of the page has an obligation to complete it as much as possible. That MEANS posting the cover/poster, and also screencapping it as well as putting in the effort of putting in a brief (i mean BRIEF) summary of the film, including some technical data like year it was released, whether or not it is color or B&W and whether or not it was a foreign (i.e. NOT english) language film.

I'm not that concerned with films readily available in the U.S. .... This is an American based site, and Mods or superusers can eventually get to those pages. I myself attacked ''A Clockwork Orange'' and recently ''Timecop'' and updated them when I saw them as blank or lame pages. (note: Timecop is still an ongoing project)

But foreign films where I would literally have to spend DAYS hunting them down or buy them from overseas mail order houses just to see them, should NOT fall into the lap of American Mods or Superusers to fix. The original posters should take the responsibility of screencapping the film or doing little things like putting up the poster of the film or putting a brief description.

For example, I was the one who posted the posters for several Foreign movies entries (and I also tracked down and wrote the summaries and tried to find production stills online) and frankly I'm not doing it any more. It's the responsibility of the person who actually SAW the movie and wants its inclusion into IMFDB to make the page complete.

Just me venting.... Input or suggestions anyone?

I dunno if we should necessarily require them to upload screencaps. If they at least follow proper format and put effort into the page (instead of just putting a quick list of the guns) by including descriptions, page links, and gun images, then the page at least serves SOME useful function.

I've actually done pages myself for which don't have screencaps yet (my "Far Cry" page being an example - I do intend to do screencaps for it as soon as I have a copy of the movie where the German subtitles aren't in the way).

I whole-heartedly agree about requiring accounts to edit. Hopefully it would improve the average quality of pages and edits.

As for foreign movies and stuff, I really don't think a page should exist if it doesn't have screen-caps regardless of country of origin. So if the DVD isn't available, then it probably shouldn't be created.

As a noob I would agree that seeing a page with no poster or screen grabs sucks, only a short list of guns (usuallyi not spelled correctly either). I would give them a time period (like 6 months) and if no one has helped with the page, especially something foreign or so obscure that no one else can get the screen grabs, the delete it. The site will seem so much cleaner.

That's the general logic although so many crap pages come in at a time, you forget about one crappy page after six months.

Brief Summary
 

Hi friends, I have introduced BOLLYWOOD movies in IMFDB. I would like to know that what is the best procedure to add brief summary and technical data to the article. Is it through adding an Infobox or by creating an additional paragraph with heading "Summary" ? :D

Let's add something about inline comments. If someone makes a mistake, fix it, don't add a pithy comment about how wrong he is, and how awesome you are.

Reference ???
 

Why there isn't any reference? None of the articles have any reference. Without proper citation, how is it possible to claim that the information is authentic? :confused::confused::confused:

What do you mean? Please clarify.

For the record, before IMFDB was started ... there WAS NO RECORD of much of the information here. Many of the original pages were created by film & gun enthusiasts. There is TONS of information here that you will never find anywhere else, ever. Why? Because this is a specialized field of interest.

Most gun publications couldn't give a rat's ass if a specific movie used a chopped and Converted HK94 instead of an MP5 for example. They're only interested in gun history. Movie trivia sites are only interested in movie history and are notorious for knowing NOTHING about guns.

In fact this site was created to CORRECT much of the erroneous information on the net.

There is a lot of first hand information, or face to face second hand information that is being chronicled here. I and the other armorers on the site put in information 'from the field' per se. In the beginning, I was regularly inputting information that I got first hand from industry vets like Syd Stembridge and Mike Papac. We now have first hand information from guys like Al Vrkljan and Steve Karnes that is found nowhere else! I also documented 'on the set' information from guys like Larry Merrril and Harry Lu (though as we've discovered, sometimes even experienced armorers 'remember it wrong'. ;) eh MT2008? ) But IMFDB has grown ALOT from a year ago. So I am not sure where other publications can give attribution, nor would I trust them to know what the hell they're talking about anyway. Ignorance about weapons in films abounds (I still have to explain to 99.99% of the public that we use REAL GUNS in movies). You're NOT going to get accurate information from other sources unless they're from the armorers (or MG brokers like Dan Shea) or other people associated with the industry.

... exactly what he said.
This stuff could count as general knowledge because it is generally acquired through experience as opposed to, say, research.

Usually the spotting of an HK 94 versus MP5k is done by the viewer and contributor looking closely and figuring it out, not by reading a rental invoice.

He means refrence like Wikipedia has, where you have to fill out a bunch of crap in order to prove you didn't steal the image you upload. I tried to upload an image of Sgt. Strank from Flags of our Fathers for the Reising M50 page but it was removed in record time because I "stole" it from the movie. He wouldn't respond when I asked how to NOT steal it. It's a publicly released DVD, so why the hell is it considered stealing when I credit the movie?

I prefer IMFDB to wikipedia any day because it doesn't take a half-hour to upload an image only to have removed instantly.

Oh, if you didn't know, I hate wikipedia.

Well I've been trying to get IMFDB our own LICENSED images for a long time (350+ original images and counting), but I'm drowning against the WAVE of jacked images. I bust pirates for stealing my stuff on Wikipedia all the time, but it makes us look kinda hypocritical when there is so much jacked photos that OTHER people took for their own uses on IMFDB.

But I'm trying..... ;)

You don't understand wikipedia. Do you own the rights to that movie? The only pictures from the movie that can be put on the page, according to That Other Wiki are pictures released to the internet by the creators of the film.

Meh, I still don't like that though. That's why the gun pages are so hard to make. You either need to get the rights to use the gun pic (which is very difficult) or take your own gun picture (you'll notice a lot of the pics are ones taken by owners).

I'm confused. who are you talking to?

Alcatrazz. Sorry for the confusion...

Hi brother, first of all I do agree with you that it does have tons of information and this is a specialized field of interest. But when ever any one will ask you about authenticity of any article, you will need to say that " when we started ... there was no record ... blah blah blah ... so we have experienced armorers ... and blah blah blah". Hang on a second, I dont know any of those experienced armorers. With all due respect, they may have expertise on firearms and they may have first hand information. However, did they take any responsibility that 90% of the information of IMFDB is CORRECT which in turn, aims to CORRECT much of the erroneous information on the net. Who takes the responsibility that what IMFDB says is even 90% true. Reference does not always mean "wikipedia style reference". Articles can be cited in a different way also.

As far as I know that, every gun has some sort of morphological peculiarity (otherwise they could have trapped in copyright issue). When some one identifies the gun by looking at the screenshot he basically looks for those identification marks/characters in the gun. He finaly compares the gun in the screenshot with the possible original image of the gun in his mind and then comes into conclusion. But he only writes about the conclusion, and hardly tries to establish the fact with enough reason. What if he writes about the identification marks one by one and also writes about the comparisn which he made, along with the reference that the real gun does have these external features. This reference can be of the manufacturer or any other authentic website. And if no other websites have any clue about the identification marks then please ask any of the experienced armorers to publish their own blogs and write about it. Those blogs can be used as reference. For the chopped and Converted guns, I think more reason (both for and against) to identify the gun, is required.

Finally, if you realy want IMFDB to be appreciated internationally, then there has to be absolute transparency in the articles. Most of the people in this world live outside the US, and most of them dont know those experienced armorers. Either you have to keep in touch with experts from every film industry around the globe who can take responsibility of the articles based on films made in their native film industries , or make the articles systematic so that they can be self contained with enough reason to establish the facts. Add transparency and concrete reason, so that in future if any scholarly articles publised in this specialized field, can cite IMFDB without any confusion.

Thank you.

Not a bad idea
 

So you dont figure it out by reading a rental invoice, thats good. It is needless to say that it could have been the best reference, but for a sixty year old movie finding an invoice is next to impossible. By the way, how do you spot the difference between HK94 and MP5k? You mentally calculate everything and finally post that it is HK94 and not the other one, right? Why dont you describe your analysis so that every one can go through the flow chart and agree with your conclusion?

Well telling an HK94 from an MP5K is easy because they are different weapons (I think he means HK94 and MP5).

You can tell and HK94 from an MP5 because many movie armorers used to "chop and convert" civilian 16" barrel HK94s to resemble MP5s by cutting down the barrel and converting it to full auto.

Here's the images so you can see some of the differences I list:

http://i41.tinypic.com/5cxd76.jpg
This is a genuine Heckler & Koch MP5A3 with an S-E-F trigger group. Note the push pin in the lower reciever behind the magazine well, the paddle magazine release behind the magazine well, and the three lugs on the barrel.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2wohaoo.jpg
This is a "chopped and converted" HK94. It has the 0-1 trigger group with a 2 added to convince the audience it has a full-auto selection. Note how it lacks the barrel lugs, the push pin lower reciever, and the paddle magazine release.

Now, I sense something negative in what you've been writing. Have I mis-read your writing or do you have an attitude?

negative ?????
 

You have mis-read my writing for sure(My first language is not english). I dont know why do you sense something negative or think that I have an attitude. But if I had an attitude I could have left the forum. By the way, do you expect that people will always post positive criticism here? I dont think you do.

Now, don't you think that the above difference between HK94 and MP5 along with the analysis that you have given can be very systematic to identify chopped and converted HK94 ?

I've always just used the barrel assembly and the paddle mag release differences myself. It's not usually to hard to tell, and generally easy to figure out in old movies.

It seems like a close to fool proof method to me, as long as the weapon is important enough to be seen clearly. I see no reason it can't be applied to every HK94 conversion.

My apoligies then. I understand people don't always write positive things, but no one likes it when people write negative, it brings everyone down.

I think we should somehow build pages like MPM's 12 Gauge Pump Shotgun page to help teach newer users how to tell these guns apart.

Im wondering something on identification, whats the difference between an m16a3 and an a1 with a2 handguards. The look identical to me.

Okay, here's how to tell apart an M16A1 with A2 handguards and an M16A2/A3.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2gtrrk9.jpg
This is the M16A1 with A2 handguards.

http://i40.tinypic.com/kcjd42.jpg
This is an M16A2 (same as A3, A3 is just full-auto instead of burst fire). Note how the gun has different rear sights (the addition of the windage sights), and has a shell deflector behind the ejection port. Also note how the A2/A3 has a heavier barrel.

Thanks. Those little details are a bit hard to spot in a movie but now i know.

Hey, thanks GM that's a helpful thing! Something I was curious about myself.
Could you direct me to the pump-shotgun page? That's an area I could use improvement in.

Just type in 12 Gauge Pump Shotgun in the task bar, it will show up. It shows you how to compare a Mossberg, Remington, and Winchester shotgun. Also shows how to compare a 500 and 590 Mossberg. I hope he adds more to the page eventually, it is very useful to those who need it.

Yes, I absolutely intend to add to it. Got some nice guns I need to photograph for it. Just haven't had the time.

That is ... if you trust the info from an Armorer that you don't know personally, thus has no street cred internationally, thus every thing we say is suspect ;)

Thanks GM.
And MPM for writing it.

I trust you truly are an armorer. You have 350+ legitamite gun pictures uploaded for the site and you definately know your stuff. Only someone with serious trust issues wouldn't believe you're an armorer. Same goes for Steve, he uploaded all the images of the SK 1878 shotgun being built, and even has his page linked to an IMDB page. I think it is safe to say he is an armorer. :D

Hahahaha, I was making a pun off of another poster's quote.

Whaaaaa?????