imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Guns & Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Smith & Wesson Revolvers (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=19)

Yournamehere 11-29-2008 09:51 PM

Smith & Wesson Revolvers
 
I noticed while editing a few pages that each individual Smith & Wesson Revolver has it's own page. Shouldn't we combine them all into one page like you did with the Glocks?

MT2008 11-29-2008 10:09 PM

Good question. I would have to say no, just because Smiths have been around for so long and there have been so many models with various changes to each, that it wouldn't work as well.

Though I suppose this is fuzzy to some degree. Myself, I'm not always sure how to determine which guns should get their own pages and which shouldn't. For instance, the Cobray M11/9 is grouped under the MAC-10 page even though it's not at all a "MAC" (not made by Military Armament Corp.), just a derivative, but the Taurus PT92 is on a separate page from the Beretta 92F.

We really don't have a policy in place yet to determine which guns get their own pages and which don't. Sometimes, it's pretty obvious, sometimes it's not.

MoviePropMaster2008 12-02-2008 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MT2008 (Post 80)
Good question. I would have to say no, just because Smiths have been around for so long and there have been so many models with various changes to each, that it wouldn't work as well.

Though I suppose this is fuzzy to some degree. Myself, I'm not always sure how to determine which guns should get their own pages and which shouldn't. For instance, the Cobray M11/9 is grouped under the MAC-10 page even though it's not at all a "MAC" (not made by Military Armament Corp.), just a derivative, but the Taurus PT92 is on a separate page from the Beretta 92F.

We really don't have a policy in place yet to determine which guns get their own pages and which don't. Sometimes, it's pretty obvious, sometimes it's not.

I agree, the Smiths have variations upon each model type, and to put them all on one page would create an unwieldy monster page which would have it's formatting screwed up every time someone edited it. It would be a nightmare.

On that note, I don't necesarily agree that the M11 should have it's own page, since it was built on the original blueprints for the .380 M11 by SWD who also contract built the MACs (10&11) after M.A.C. went under. It was merely stretching the .380 frame to allow for a 9mm round. In fact, upon close examination, the construction is nearly identical to the MAC-11, except one is stretched (and a different caliber of course).

What I think needs SERIOUS work is the M1911 page. If a manufacturer makes more than THREE types of M1911s they should get their own page just because the M1911 page is a Mess.

I suggest this:
1) M1911/M1911A1 (the first page and holder of all originals and absolute CLONES of those models as well as one offs).

2) M1911 Kimber

3) M1911 Detonics

4) M1911 Para Ordnance

Just a thought. Doesn't anyone else get sick and tired of fixing the screwed up formatting on the M1911 monster length page?

Gunmaster45 12-02-2008 12:49 AM

I fixed that page.
 
I put the image over the titles so they all fit. It works pretty well to keep them organized.

MT2008 12-02-2008 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 (Post 117)
On that note, I don't necesarily agree that the M11 should have it's own page, since it was built on the original blueprints for the .380 M11 by SWD who also contract built the MACs (10&11) after M.A.C. went under. It was merely stretching the .380 frame to allow for a 9mm round. In fact, upon close examination, the construction is nearly identical to the MAC-11, except one is stretched (and a different caliber of course).

Fair enough. But do you think the PT92 page should be on the Beretta 92 page? Again, I just want to be sure that whatever we do, we're consistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 (Post 117)
Just a thought. Doesn't anyone else get sick and tired of fixing the screwed up formatting on the M1911 monster length page?

YES. I'm always embarrassed by that page because (if you check the page rankings), it's one of our Top 10 most popular pages, yet it really needs better formatting. It's a nightmare to navigate and match particular variants to their entries, so I think the fact that it's so disorganized reflects poorly on IMFDB. I shudder to think what the proposed S&W revolver page would look like if it were in that format.

MT2008 12-02-2008 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45 (Post 119)
I put the image over the titles so they all fit. It works pretty well to keep them organized.

Last I looked (a few seconds ago) it was still messed up.

I think I like MPM's idea. We should have a page for Colt M1911 variants (and maybe keep close copies like the Auto Ordnance which sometimes substitute for the Colts in movies), and then another for Kimbers, another for Detonics, etc.

MoviePropMaster2008 12-02-2008 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MT2008 (Post 122)
Fair enough. But do you think the PT92 page should be on the Beretta 92 page? Again, I just want to be sure that whatever we do, we're consistent.

Well Taurus never actually MADE an exact 92 clone. SWD, RPB did make licensed exact clones from M.A.C. and continued to 'hold the torch' when M.A.C. dissolve and went under. Taurus is making a 'close but not exact clone' of the Beretta 92, but concurrently. Beretta isn't going anywhere and neither is Taurus.

I think a better example is the Ruger Mk II. After all a LONG time ago, Bill Ruger reverse engineered a captured NAMBU pistol in his garage, and made the "Standard" aka (the MK I, though never called that). The Mk II and III are just improvements on the MK I. I would not consider putting the Ruger MK II under the NAMBU page, even though the pistol born by cloning the Nambu in the first place. Does this example make sense? :)

personally I don't have strong opinions regarding Taurus, but they do make a serious attempt to stand out and make their own distinctive lines of guns, so I wouldn't mind Taurus keeping their own pages, even the 92& 99.

Gunmaster45 12-02-2008 02:17 AM

Huh?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MT2008 (Post 123)
Last I looked (a few seconds ago) it was still messed up.


No it isn't. The images are a little above their titles but everything lines up now. Much better than it used to be.

MoviePropMaster2008 12-02-2008 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45 (Post 127)
No it isn't. The images are a little above their titles but everything lines up now. Much better than it used to be.

Huh? I checked and I refreshed several times just to be sure. Are you sure we're all talking about the same page? The M1911 pages?

MT2008 12-02-2008 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 (Post 125)
Well Taurus never actually MADE an exact 92 clone.

They didn't? I've seen a picture of one of the very earliest PT92s, and it looked just like the original 92 (not the 92F, though). However, I guess it's harder to think of the PT92 as an exact 92 clone since there's almost no interchangeability of parts (as I discovered when I tried to put a 92F mag in my own PT92).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 (Post 125)
personally I don't have strong opinions regarding Taurus, but they do make a serious attempt to stand out and make their own distinctive lines of guns, so I wouldn't mind Taurus keeping their own pages, even the 92& 99.

I guess that makes sense. The PT92s made today are certainly much easier to tell apart from the 92F (although the older ones are still what I see in most movies).


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.