Common Mistakes
 

Is there any interest in making a "common mistakes" page? Kind of like an FAQ page only in reverse? I keep coming across pages where people have failed to close a table... or haven't subdivided the guns into Handguns, Rifles, etc. Is this something that the admins think would be useful or just another waste of space?

-Z

It would be useful if we then pointed people to it when they made a common mistake. It would save the person pointing it out having to explain it (which some new users take poorly as being singled out) and may stop the new user from making more common mistakes.

Alrighty! Well I will start the page and I hope others will chime in and add to it.

-Z

It'll be nice to standardize the type of tables we're to use. Like does the show title and episode go in the same box, or does episode go with notes, or does it go movie, actor, character, or actor, character, movie.

Show title goes with the Notes and it goes Title, Actor, Character.

That's what I've been going with. It'd good we're making that standard.

So I had a thought while working on this. Perhaps it would be better to make a couple of template pages. Not templates like the infoboxes but like the Manufacturer Template. Basically a page where users can just copy and paste the code when they create a new page.

On the page we could also include a list of common mistakes to avoid when creating a page. If this idea is liked by admins, I propose making a template for each of the following:

• Gun
• Video Game
• Film
• Television
• Anime
• Actors

This way instead of telling a new user "look at the M1911 page" or look at how the "Call of Duty" page is organized, they could be steered to the template. Again, I don't want to make useless, cluttering pages. I honestly think these could help.

-Z

When we do actor pages, what size subheadings do we use for film and television? Is it == or ===? I've seen both.

Can someone finally make a ruling on hash marks? Not even the admins can agree.

Agreed. Can we PLEASE make a consensus...

Originally, the layout was that we defaulted to the highest level of hash mark and only moved downward if there were more subcategories. What it ended up being was different depending on the type of page.

Thus is the movie page was broken down into groups of weapons it was:

=Pistol=
==M1911A1==
==Browning Hi Power==

=Rifle=
==AR-15==
==AK-47==


etc.

Now we sometimes have pages which have the ENTIRE page divided into categories, aka, the ones which denote GERMAN versus RUSSIAN armies, for example. If we did GERMAN ARMY then we would do:

=German Weapons=
==Pistols==
===Luger P08===
===Walther P38===

=Russian Weapons=
==Rifles==
===Mosin Nagant M91/30===
===M38 Carbine===

Or that's what I remember us doing.

As for actors, since there was not a higher level of category, I was going by what I saw the originators do back in 2007, i.e. default to the double hashmark for Film, Television, etc. Personally I think it looks better to have the line than just to have it boldened. Also it separates the title from the tables (which have taken over most of the pages ... which is a good thing). But with subcategories, I think members began being inconsistent with their hashmarks, because of how they were on OTHER pages. But these older ordering of hash marks came from the times when we did NOT have tables and we were nesting information.

So I always did it:

Joe Schmoo used the following guns in the following:

==Film==
INSERT TABLE HERE

==Television==
INSERT TABLE HERE


Now I believe weapons should be the same.

The AK-47 has appearing in the following:

==FILM==
INSERT TABLE HERE

==Television==
INSERT TABLE HERE

the reason why is that with constantly changing widths of pages (determined by the MONITOR of the viewer) the underlines of the double hash marks helps visually separate the tables and categories. Again, this slowly morphed because we started creating more and more tables. I never liked the Triple hash mark for an entire category. That is less visible as a major section title, IMHO.

THANK YOU PropMaster!!! SOOOO nice to have this laid out. I really dont have a strong opinion one way or the other but I DO really care for consistency...

The only addition I would make is for pages like the AK-47 which are subdivided into multiple categories (AK-47, AKS-47, AKM, etc.). There are a ton of pages like this (M16, M1911, Beretta 92FS, etc.).

How does the following look:

=AK-47=
==Specifications==
==Film==
==Television==
=AKS-47=
==Specifications==
==Film==
==Television==

etc. etc.

Currently I have been using:
=AK-47=
==Speicifcations==
===Film===
===Television===

But I like what you are saying about using 2 "=" instead of 3. What are your thoughts on the pages for multiple guns?

SO glad to finally be getting a consensus.

Specifications are nice, but I never thought them to be 'categorization worthy' IF doing so screwed up the categorization of the guns. For one, look at AK-47. The Specs for the many types differ very little other than the year of introduction. the rate of fire, caliber, type of box magazine, etc. usually are the same. Also with 'after market' conversions like the AKU-94 bullpup AK, there really isn't a reason for a Specs because it changes depending on what AK is put into the aftermarket stock.

Now this is a point that I've never really discussed with others. I like having the specifications, but I just embolden the Specs title and don't let it be a category title (so that it shows up in the TOC). I don't think people will look to the TOC and care where the SPECs are as long as they are always at the beginning of each gun section (where needed).

Now here is where I would like input. How important ARE specs to the page viewer? Sure it should be there somewhere, but does it NEED a category all it's own?

I would say yes, it should have a category of its own. It is its own little bit of information about the gun. To me, it warrants its own section. Personally I think part of the problem is that we are lumping SO many guns together on the same page.

Continuing with the AK-47 example, The AK-101, AK-102, AK-103 etc seem to warrant their own page (THIS IS MY OPINION!). I know we are NOT Wikipedia, but this IS how Wikipedia does it. Same goes for the M-16 page.. I TOTALLY get why the M16, M16A1, M16A2... are on the same page, but seems like some of the other models should get their own page. This page is getting HUGE! The 1911 page is another good example.

The reason I bring this up here, is that it fits in with the discussion about the Table of Contents. I mean the Table of Contents alone for the M16 page is longer then a number of entire gun pages. Is there room for a discussion of splitting these pages up a bit? I'm not saying that EVERY model of 1911 needs its own page... Thoughts?

-Z

I would say it is probably better to not actually have the specification be a category, for the reason that the way gun pages go they say "The XXX appears in:" then the TOC, so it always seems odd to me as it appears that specifications is listed as something the gun appears in. This is a pretty small niggle though, a much bigger issue is pages where specs are as a level 2 heading and the media are as a level 3, as it makes no sense the film is a subsection of specifications. I think that ideally the order of a gun page should be a short little blurb about the gun, then the specifications not in a TOC listed section, then the appearing in line with the TOC underneath. Only question about this is if you want to keep "specifications" as a title above the specs, is there a way of doing it so that the text font size is larger without using headings as otherwise i don't think it looks right. Is there a way to exclude a heading from appearing on the TOC?

I would say that the Specs AND film heading should both be level 2 headings. Also, the title saying "The XXX appears in:" should go AFTER the specs.

gotta disagree with you on this point. Specs should NOT be on par with the level of identifying the media that the gun appears in. specs are NICE, but they (again) are not the main thrust of IMFDB. I always liked having Specs as a nondescript part of the main description of the gun. It is interesting trivia and information that is good to know, but it doesnt fulfill the MISSION of IMFDB. The media listings of the appearances of the gun DOES fulfill the primary mission of IMFDB. :D

Grr. I hate being wrong.... I have to agree... It isn't part of the mission to give gun specs.... agreed. ONE of the reasons that I started adding specs to every subsection is because a lot of the specs were just wrong. You get a page like the Mini-14 that list the specs for the entire page as being semi-auto and 37.2 in long. Well that only applies to 1 of the 3 variants that appear on the page.

Here is what i purpose, killing a few birds with one stone.

• I concede that gun specs are not essential to the gun pages, but do help give more info and (in some cases) to identify a gun, so lets keep the specs in their BASIC form. We do not need to know the muzzle velocity or the range, but having a length and capacity is nice. Also production dates can be VERY important for identifying guns in older movies.
• Lets try to split up some of the super packed pages... Take the AK-47 page for example. If we gave the carbine versions their own page, then there would be no need for separate specs for each gun since the differences are negligible. Same goes for the M16 page where we could simply say the length ranges from X in to Y in depending on the model.
• Lets put specifications as the same heading style as the media types. As was previously said "Film is not a subsection of Specifications". One thing that I will say, while the "Specifications" do not need to appear in the TOC, it is nice to have them formatted the way a Heading 2 is formatted. Alternatively we could just making the "Specifications" title area thingy bold but lets definitely get rid of the Heading 2 for specs and Heading 3 for media because that looks like crap (and yes, I know that I have been one of the people doing pages that way. I apologize.)

Thoughts?

-Z

I made a couple of template pages that we can direct users to. Thoughts?

Template: Gun (Multi)

Template: Gun (Single)