Talk:Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country 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

Archives: 1: 250 days

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Casey Chan (November 1, 2013). "A map showing which countries owns the most guns". Gizmodo.

More columns added to chart.

For how it was done see: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox81. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half a dozen of those columns are of very little use to the purpose of this page and eat space that could have been used to list additional estimates and official data as we were discussing above. Surely the point of this page would be to list the estimates and not the raw data used to calculate them? We're getting to the point where we might as well rename the page "the small arms survey" rather than a more generic title. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Small Arms Survey 2017" in the first paragraph of the article.

Also, it is common in list articles to show the underlying data for the calculations. And the computation method:

Computation method:

1: survey(s) and expert estimate(s)
2: expert estimate(s)
3: analogous comparison

Feel free to start another article that has a column for each source of various estimates of gun ownership per capita. For a couple hundred countries. Good luck. You will be doing a lot of horizontal scrolling. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the result of the whole dispute resolution protocol? "Go start your own club, good luck"? MarkDennehy (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, yes. See: Wikipedia:Summary style. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Commons category link

See diff.

My edit summary was "We already discussed this. And commons:Category:Firearm statistics is all they have."

Mike Peel's edit summary was "so it's not worth linking to then".

It's obviously worth linking to since we are talking about firearm statistics.

Just like we link to related firearm statistics in the "See also" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: Only if it actually has content relevant to the topic (in which case a specific Commons category could be created), as it stands the link is no use. I'm saying this as someone that adds a lot of Commons links (mainly by the sidebar). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel. "as it stands the link is no use." All firearm statistics are relevant to the topic of this article. Just like related firearm statistics in the "See also" section. I have over 25,000 edits on the Commons. See: commons:User:Timeshifter. As far as I know you don't have special authority to remove "See also" links, nor special authority to remove links to Commons categories. No more authority than me.

If you find commons images that can fit a more specifically relevant category, then feel free to create that category. That is not my job. I am a volunteer like I assume you are. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are all firearms statistics relevant to the very specific "Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country"? You might want to create a more general article that matches this category if you want to link to it. Do you have the appropriate special authority to add Commons category links? ;-) Or are both of us volunteers? :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any special authority to add Commons links. I have over 37,000 edits on Wikipedia. I have added Commons Category links for various articles over years.

Has there been a change in guidelines that requires that Wikipedia articles can only link to exact matches in the Commons? It's news to me. Show me the guideline. If you can't show me the guideline, then please go away.

Civilian gun statistics are part of firearm statistics. Is this not obvious to you? You honestly don't see this? I believe you are playing games, and these type of abusive games, especially from admins, drives editors away, or at the very least causes them to edit less.

If you don't have a guideline to back you up, then go get consensus to create one. Then come back and when you remove Commons links don't give out misinformation that the general category is not relevant. Just say that there is a new guideline requiring more specific categories be created on the Commons. That would be honest and upfront.

I have already spent my time discussing abusive tactics by admins, whether the abuse was obviously admin-related or not. And I won't probably be spending a lot of time on this, or at the Village Pumps, etc..

But you seem to think you have authority to do this, and I don't see any authority, or guideline, except an admin badge.

I am being direct about all this, because you seem to have ignored our previous discussion.

Please show me the guideline. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: It's no game, and I'm not trying to use authority here. It's also not personal, I'm not only looking at this article. For background: Since you know Commons, you'll have seen the Wikidata infobox that is now used in categories there, which I wrote. This uses the sitelinks on Wikidata to display info, including the link to Wikipedias. I've been working to add more sitelinks to Commons, and a natural extension of that was to work with the {{Commonscat}} template here (importing new links, changing incorrect ones, etc.). Most of the matches were easy, but I've been working through the discrepancies, and am now down to around 11k remaining articles that are discrepant, and I'm trying to resolve those differences (a lot of them are either multiple commonscats that aren't necessary, misplaced links, or linking issues on Wikidata). If you want to see guidelines, please read the documentation at Template:Commons category.

This article comes up each time I run an import for new Commons category links, since the linked category doesn't yet have a Wikidata item associated with it, which is why I was trying to resolve it (I run this import script manually every week, so I see this a *lot*). Linking to 'commons:Category:Firearm statistics' clearly doesn't make sense to me, since you wouldn't expect the Commons category to just display info about this article in that category. It's related, but nowhere near close enough. What I would normally try to do here is to create a new Commons category, but I think there is just the image that you're already using in the article? So the logical thing to do is to remove the Commons link, since it doesn't provide any additional media that is related to the article content. If that changes in the future, it could always be added back.

I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I am not wasting any more time on it. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

This is probably one of the worst sources of data put on Wikipedia. Entire section needs to be changed to represent what it is, and it is just guesses. For instance, in Pakistan, the people make guns (home made guns) all day long. Are these guns represented? NO! Showing these guesses as "data" is just stupid and makes Wikipedia look like idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1603:dd22:3955:26a1:e716:9e05 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sudan and South Sudan

The map shows Sudan and South Sudan as one country, despite saying that the study was done in 2017, and South Sudan gained independence in 2011. 45.96.74.219 (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]