imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Guns & Movies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-29-2008, 09:51 PM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-29-2008, 10:09 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,499
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2008, 12:39 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-2008, 12:49 AM
Gunmaster45's Avatar
Gunmaster45 Gunmaster45 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 1,779
Default I fixed that page.

I put the image over the titles so they all fit. It works pretty well to keep them organized.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-2008, 01:07 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2008, 01:08 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunmaster45 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2008, 01:19 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-2008, 02:17 AM
Gunmaster45's Avatar
Gunmaster45 Gunmaster45 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 1,779
Default Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-02-2008, 02:25 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunmaster45 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-02-2008, 02:37 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
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 View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.