Talk:.30-06 Springfield wildcat cartridges

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .30-06 Springfield wildcat cartridges article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / World War I / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Once the references are added, please remove the `\|unref=` parameter from this template.

Remove Clean-up Tag

Over the last few days, I attempted to perform the clean-up requested by Dmol.

Specifically, I removed many of the unqualified and unsupported qualitative statements (e.g. 'better,' 'superior,' 'highly popular,' 'very plentiful,' etc.). In some cases, I was able to add citations in support of subject matter expert opinion or I rewrote the opinion to clearly note it was an opinion held by a specific group (e.g. 'advocates argue...') if I had a citation. In other cases, I was able to replace the statement with a more quantifiable or factual statement (e.g. "very plentiful brass" was changed to "inexpensive, surplus brass"). I don't think the 'inexpensive' in conjuction with 'surplus' requires support as the very nature of surplus (especially military surplus) brass is that it is inexpensive. This is also easily verified, simply go to ammoseek.com and do a search for 30-06 (a military surplus caliber) against any commercial only caliber (e.g. 240 Weatherby or 6.5 Creedmore). The military surplus brass (9mm, 45 ACP, .30-06, 308 Win, 223 Rem) are typically less than US$ 50 cents each, whereas commercial only cartridges are US$1 to US$2, and more if the market for them is small.

In addition, I corrected the definition of 'wildcat' and included appropriate citations with references to the standards organizations. I added content in three areas (e.g. 6mm-06, 6.5-06, 338-06) and created two new areas (e.g. Ackley Improved, Gibbs) with references to other Wikipedia pages and citations if available.

In other sections, I added citations where I could find them. In a couple of places I added a flag requesting citations as I was unable to find a supporting citation (although I believed the content was generally correct, I just couldn't find a supporting reference).

I would like to remove the flag calling for the clean up of opinions and comments about efficiency by either removal, adding specific performance information, or supporting citations with expert opinion.

Before I did so, and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I wanted to create a talk thread to discuss the removal of the flag or the specific expectations for other changes as a pre-requisite for removing the flag.

FWIW, this is my first 'talk' on an article. So, please excuse me if I am not following the proper protocol or made an error in procedure.

Thanks, V/r Brian TXGRunner (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner[reply]

No leading decimal in proper cartridge names per SAAMI

Accorinng to SAAMI FAQ http://saami.org/PDF/FAQ.pdf (see page 3), there is no leading decimal before a proper cartridge name: "A decimal point is never included preceding the numerical caliber component of any cartridge name. That is, “308 Win” is correct, but “.308 Win” is not. Of course, decimals are included as needed in metric cartridge names such as the 6.8mm Remington SPC."

I was unable to find a similar statement on the CIP website, but CIP does follow this convention: proper cartridge names never have a decimal point leading the caliber component.

Both standards organizations do use leading decimal points for references to a caliber or bullet size. For example, ".264 caliber bullet" and ".240 bullet" is correct, but proper names are "220 Swift" or "338 Federal".

These are the standards bodies for ammunition, so the convention they established is proper (in my opinion). I tried to bring this article into compliance, but most Wikipedia articles use a leading decimal point before all standard (English) cartridge caliber names. The task of correcting this is massive and too daunting for a newbie like myself.

So, the point of this post is to see if there is any consensus in support of bringing Wikipedia's reference to proper caliber names in line with the standards organizations for ammunition. If I can get some feedback, I don't mind working on it over time, but not until there is some consensus in favor of it. Thanks, TXGRunner (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner[reply]

SAAMI might think it's okay, but I know of no other source that does it, or ever has, or ever suggested it. IMO, this is up there with putting a space between the "7" & the "mm" in 7mm. Caliber isn't just a number, it's a decimal fraction. (Yes, it runs contrary to actual bore diameter many times; so does 8mm Mauser. So what?) For 12ga, no decimal makes sense, because that is just a number. This is an extremely bad idea. And IMO, it warrants discussion on the Project page, because, if it's going to be adopted, it's a very big deal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I made a post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms asking for further comments. TXGRunner (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner[reply]