Talk:FN P90/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Units and numbers

It's not nonsense, just miscommunication. Since you said that it was used by a tiny unit, I assumed you were referring to one inside the group already listed. If the group is small, then it follows that the number of weapons they have would also be small, thus, saying that the P-90 is used "in small numbers" is unnecessary. Oh, and as we are both at or beyond the 3RR rule, the original version stands until this disagreement is settled. Westrim (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, even though GROM is a relatively small force they use a variety of weapons, not saying that the P90 is used in small numbers implies that it is the unit's general issue firearm, which it isn't. Koalorka (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All of these groups have a number of different firearms in use; there is nothing to imply that the P-90 is their only weapon (either overall or in it's category) or that they use it as a general issue weapon. I'm sorry, but the problem you see is nonexistent. Westrim (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Koalorka. Understand what we've been up against. People have added Russia as a user of the M-16 and the US as a user of the AK-74. Sure, each has examples of the other's weapons, but does that make them a primary user? No. Should that distinction be made in cases where EXTREMELY limited numbers are being used? Yes. Ed Ezell has a book called 'small arms today' or something like that. The book lists firearms used by nations and there's some sanity involved that you don't list each and every weapon to include onsies and twosies as being 'used' by a country. There's some guy that goes on every weapon article he can find and lists the Philippines as a user. Does the US use the StG45 because we evaluated one following WWII? Did the US use the Ruger P-85 because they evaluated it once? This is absurd. Out of the 150,000 or so (guess) P-90's, Poland might have, what, a dozen or so? Maybe 50? Is that reason enough to say they are a 'user' or should there be a qualification like 'limited user'? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Koalorka (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly well said. We're listing organizations, not countries, and they do have to have them available for combat or other operations. There is nothing to indicate that this organization doesn't make it available for use by it's members, ergo it belong on the page and NO OTHER GROUP lists any indication as to the numbers it has- why should this one? I won't pretend to be intimately familiar with GROM, but as a special forces organization it would naturally have many different weapons- all available for the use of it's members if they deem it mission appropriate. To repeat- we are listing the users of this weapon not its owners, and numbers in use are not important to that objective. Westrim (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your logic completely eludes me. Please read and heed the WP:3RR warning on your talk page. Further, you are going down a dead-end path if you hope to establish a consensus to remove the prior consensus language. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer, then; the list is of users, not owners and only of users; how many they use is irrelevant. Countries are also irrelevant, they're just the method used to sort the list; it's the organizations that are the focus. And you might want to check the articles history; Koalorka passed 3RR before me.Westrim (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn it. I dislike making mistakes, but correcting them is better than defending them. I checked the history again (for the fourth time since this began) to make sure the phrase had not been there before- and it was. I'm sorry for that misunderstanding. I believe that when I saw this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FN_P90&diff=237182265&oldid=236698618) from my watchlist, I mistakenly got the impression that it had just been added by Koalorka, and then deleted by the IP. I still wasn't the first to hit 3RR, and the language is still inappropriate for the list, but I made a large error, and I'm sorry. Westrim (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I normally try to stay out of edit wars, but this is absolutely ridiculous. GROM is a very limited user of the P90 and your version makes it look like it's their primary weapon. I don't even know what your trying to say about "the list is of users, not owners and only of users; how many they use is irrelevant", so I'm not even gonna try to reply to it. Is english your primary language? You seem to have trouble reading what we are saying. Also, you have already reverted the page seven times and if you revert again I'm reporting you to WP:ANI. — DanMP5 16:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't question someone's language comprehension when don't seem to have read most of what's been written and flat out state that you can't comprehend the little you did read. Look at the name of the list! It's not "countries", like Nukes seemed to think in his first post, its not "numbers in use", its "Users". As in "what organizations use this weapon" The numbers that they use has no bearing on the simple fact that they do use it. It's not very difficult. Westrim (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the wording "limited use"? It gets the point across that they use more than one weapon-type, and that the numbers used are relatively small. Any thoughts?--LWF (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work fine. — DanMP5 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. We'd have to make sure it gets used on all the groups that it applies to, though, because using it for just one group out of 30-odd would be ridiculous. Westrim (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Westrim, since you reverted my warning on your talk page, I'll assume you read WP:3RR. Since you've been sufficiently warned and you then reverted... AGAIN, I've reported you for edit warring. As a word of advice, tossing accusations around really didn't help your case. It's really cool that you know what other editors are thinking, so I won't have to explain myself any further? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read my edit summaries (particularly the last one), or the paragraph I put here on that topic? Do that first. Also, try not doing what you criticize and try not ignoring what others do because you agree with them. Koalorka passed 3RR before I did, but I see no notice on his talk page. Hypocrisy is unbecoming. And what accusations/mind reading? Westrim (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's not "countries", like Nukes seemed to think in his first post," can't really be interpreted any other way than mind reading, sir. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"People have added Russia as a user of the M-16 and the US as a user of the AK-74.", "...book lists firearms used by nations...", "...as being 'used' by a country...", "There's some guy that goes on every weapon article he can find and lists the Philippines as a user", "Does the US use the...", "Did the US use the..", "Poland might have, what, a dozen or so?". All this and no mention that the list is of organizations that use the weapon, not countries. I base my assertions on facts, sir. Westrim (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Westrim, how long do you think a comprehensive list of users of the P90 would be? 300? 500? 1,500 organizations? If you don't have a comprehensive list, the list is meaningless. I'm not talking a perfect list, but let's say the Colorado Springs police department has four P90's in their armory. Is that notable? Let's say that Todd, the police chief for Taylorville police department likes the looks of the gun so he's got one in the gun locker in his office that he shoots about once a year? Is the Taylorville police department now a 'user'? How about the Scottsdale Gun Club? They've got one they use for Demo purposes. Are they a user? You put together a list of 90% of the organizations that use at least one P90 and then we'll talk. If you're speaking in black and white absolutes, then you are always going to refuse that grey exists and, therefore, you're not debating in good faith. I'm speaking in shades of Grey. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just start quoting myself, because I'm tired of writing the same damn responses repeatedly. From my third post: "...and they do have to have them available for combat or other operations." Is that clear? Will you start actually reading so I stop having to repeat myself? And I like how you skip over any acknowledgment that you thought the list was of countries that used the weapon. Westrim (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your requirement is utterly ridiculous. Go to the project page and try to sway everyone, once you succeed, return and we will amend everything to your desired version. Until then, you can probably be more productive focusing on the Babylon A.D. page and letting serious editors here do their work. Koalorka (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the topic of discussion, it is in my desired form. However, I think I will ask for outside intervention. By the way, I'm sure the people of wikiproject films would love to be told they aren't "serious editors". Keep the focus here and stop the diversion tactics. Westrim (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, you're not addressing my points and yet you're criticizing me and Kaolarka for not listening to your points. So, what is it? 300 users? Every personal user by name too? Outside intervention? So, you try to browbeat and edit war and nobody agrees, so it's now time to hunt somebody down? What is it you want? You want there to be LESS description of the level of use by one particular agency. Really? That's all you want? Wikipedia is not a place to 'make a point'. I'm sure there's some cool WP page on that, but I'm not going to bother to hunt it down now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have. Repeatedly. You just refuse to listen because every time you raise a point I effectively refute it, such as your mistaken belief that the list was of countries, which you still haven't addressed. I'll just copypaste what you ask in your post and the responses I already gave. Q:"So, what is it? 300 users? Every personal user by name too?" A:"We're listing organizations,...and they do have to have them available for combat or other operations." and "I'll make it clearer, then; the list is of users, not owners and only of users; how many they use is irrelevant." Q:"What is it you want? You want there to be LESS description of the level of use by one particular agency. Really? That's all you want?" A: No. I want the list of users to be just that, no notations of the numbers they have, which is what the segment under debate is. However, I do agree with LWF's suggestion that we list the level of that usage. I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to get you to understand what the list is and isn't. It is not a list of countries or numbers in use. It is a list of users. That's all. I'm going to wait for other editors to make their thought on the matter known, I'll check back in a couple days. If no one has commented by this time on the 12th, I'm removing the disputed segment and implementing LWF's suggestion to the best of my knowledge.Westrim (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no outside interest and no objections to my plan, I will go ahead and execute it. If there are objections, please note them here before resorting to reverting. Westrim (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

Heck, I can think of a dozen agencies that bought the P90 in the USA over the past five years. Those aren't all listed, but every one bought more than this Polish unit. How many agencies do we list? HOW MANY AGENCIES DO WE LIST? It's a question about a number. Give me a number. What, 50% of the purchasing and using agencies? You're giving me half-answers and supposition. I'm tempted to remove EVERY agency there that isn't referenced due to VERIFIABILITY. For the sake of improving the article, is the list going to be comprehensive and included 300 or so agencies that have the same level of use as the Poles or are we going to limit it and put qualifiers under the entries for level of usage? Are we going to reference this or do we just take your word for it? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't yell. If you want to talk about the very different problem of verifiability, create a new thread. Yes, verifiability is a problem. Many of these we only have the editors word for, and sometimes not that. At some point there needs to be research and cleanup, to find out what proof was given for some of the additions, and to see if any references can be found- and excise the groups no reference can be found for. If you want to do that, go ahead. And if you can find references for the US agencies you mentioned, list them. Where have I not fully answered any question or made suppositions? Don't throw out stuff like that if you won't back it up. As for length, that problem should be discussed when it actually becomes one; right now it's not. Until then, we list as many agencies as references can be found for. And you're not taking my word for anything; I haven't added any of the agencies. If you mean the level of usage qualifiers, I was planning to implement that solely for agencies whose references made it clear. It's always possible that another thread will decide there shouldn't even be a user list, but that is yet another discussion. Westrim (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How many agencies? What percentage? I must be dense, because those questions haven't been answered in spite of the fact that you say you answered them. Would you be kind enough to provide those answers? You objected and edit warred over the inclusion of a 'limited' qualifier for a single agency. So, what is your standard. Do tell. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wars don't happen without at least two combatants, even if one side shoots down every attack the others make. And stop bringing up a mistake I already apologized for. As for how many and what percentages, I answered both questions already: "Until then, we list as many agencies as references can be found for." If you still don't understand, "as many as possible"= 100%. Westrim (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A link to the 'what links here' page

Considering that a substantial number of visitors of this page do so because of its appearances in pop culture, most notably Stargate, perhaps there should be an explicit link to the 'what links here' page for this article. Most casual visitors don't know about its presence in the toolbox, and thus some assume it's an commission and add it in. If we added a link titled "other articles that have the P90", or something to that effect, under the 'see also' section, it would probably greatly alleviate this irritant. Westrim (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

People who are looking to find information about the weapon itself come here, those who wish to read about a television show go to that show's page. It's very simple. Koalorka (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The concensus against inclusion was built on several articles and on WP:GUN. This is a circular argument that doesn't need to happen again. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm specifically NOT talking about inclusion, just a link to the 'what links here' page added to the body of the article so casual visitors know it exists. NOT a trivia section and not a notation of its pop culture appearances. I'm not making the same argument that others have, but trying to find a compromise. And to Koalorka, you're wrong. My very first visit to this page was influenced by its appearance on the show- since it was a real weapon, I never even considered looking on the Stargate pages. The next thing I wanted was to see where else this odd looking weapon had turned up, and whether it was the same as the rcp90 I used in Goldeneye, or several other appearances. I couldn't find the data and was left disappointed. Only later did I learn of the 'what links here' page, and how to use it. Westrim (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a link is stupid. The firearm article has nothing to do with the television show. With limited exceptions, depictions of firearms in the media are NOT notable in any way, shape, or form. This is not one of those exceptions. That means no links, no categories, no mention whatsoever. This is an article about reality. Fictional 'worlds' are just that, fictional. That whole realm of unreality needs to remain separate or it cheapens the entire WP:GUN project. And please don't correct my alternate spelling of the word conCensus. I seriously doubt that anybody looking for information on the television show would have a hard time finding both articles without a link. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone's idea stupid in your first sentence isn't exactly WP:CIVIL, or conducive to a productive discussion. And you are misunderstanding, framing my idea in previous discussions and missing its merits or what I'm actually saying. To quote myself "Just a link to the 'what links here' page added to the body of the article so casual visitors know it exists. NOT a trivia section and not a notation of its pop culture appearances.". To reword that: I just want to include a more explicit link to a page that is an integral part of the framework of wikipedia, already exists, and that most visitors don't know about. I do NOT want a list, or even mention, of its fictional appearances, so stop saying I do (and if you keep saying I do, you are either not reading what I say, assuming that I'm a liar, or- well, something else). On the word consensus, I am guided by spell check, not correcting it for fun or to antagonize you. I, at least, did have that trouble, because I was looking for info on a real weapon that happened to be in a fictional show, not a fictional show with a real weapon. Westrim (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, cut the bullshit. It's not your idea, it's the latest in a long line of attempts to infiltrate legitimate articles with fiction. If you're that attached to the idea, then I apologize for your impression. It wasn't my intent to insult you. The present discussion is a rehash of about a hundred similar discussions that led to the now longstanding (internet wise) concensus against inclusion. As time goes on, the burden of evidence to overturn the concensus goes up. Frankly, it's annoying that children and otherwise well-meaning adults come to real firearm articles to play. I, for one, have no trouble separating fiction from reality. Heck, I have a rubber-band gun and I've been known to sit down with a Beer and "The Way of the Gun". That doesn't mean that I want to read about it in the Galil article! I don't even want a link. If I want to know what guns they used, I'll go to the article. Kick-ass movie by the way. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ah, cut the bullshit. It's not your idea, it's the latest in a long line of attempts to infiltrate legitimate articles with fiction." Well, so much for WP:AGF. Consider yourself reported. And it is my idea; try actually looking at it, instead of dismissing me as another 'infiltrator' trying to mix real world info with fiction. I'm not trying to overturn, or even challenge consensus; I just want to provide a compromise, a more explicit link to the 'what links here' page for those who don't know it exists. I'm not even sure what to say to the second half, it's so off base and off topic. And check your links: I'm pretty sure Galilee has nothing to do with any of this. Westrim (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"3rd" opinion

Firstly, I'm not convinced that this qualifies for WP:3O as there are three editors involved:

This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process.

That said, and noting that two editors are opposed to explicitly linking to "what links here", I tend to agree: there is already the ability to see what links to the article simply by following the existing link and I am not certain that providing a second link within the body of the article will be any more useful - why will it succeed where the original link failed? I am unconvinced by "Considering that a substantial number of visitors of this page do so because of its appearances in pop culture" as we have no way of knowing what motivates a user to visit this page. I tend to agree with Koalorka that users wanting information about a TV show will visit that show's article (and, implicitly, that users wanting information on a weapon mentioned in a TV show will visit the weapon's page).

I feel that comments regarding WP:CIVIL fall outside the remit of a WP:3O, beyond noting that I do encourage all parties to remain civil and to assume good faith at all times. Complaints in this regard should be directed to the appropriate noticeboards.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  01:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Only two editors are butting heads, though. If he was debating the merits of whether to include the link more explicitly within the body of the article itself, I could work with that. Instead he's dismissing it as a continuation of previous debates (that I had no part in), and therefore not even worthy of consideration on its own merits. That's the problem I wanted a third opinion on. Thank you for at least considering my idea, even if you disagree, but I needed another editor to note that debate only works when we listen to each other. Westrim (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your version of what you think I'm doing... but you're wrong. It IS a continuation of, or rather rehashing of, previous debates. IIRC, you've been active along this path before, so your level of faith is well known and therefore I don't have to ASSUME anything about it. I'm not one for forgetting and I know you've got a long history of acusations against people, myself included and you rarely assume good faith. So, explain this edit: [1]. Was I yelling at you or trying to avoid a TLDR by highlighting my primary points? Well, if you'd assumed good faith, you'd know. Now then, I notice that your interest in firearms articles is limited 100% to the P90 article. Great. Thanks for the help. I also assume that you are trying to improve it. Great. Thanks for your imput. But, it's quite disheartening that you refuse to accept the conSensus of WP:GUN regarding fictional usage. Do I go on your favored article genre and try to tell you what to do? No. If, for instance, I was a member of the Aircraft wikiproject, I'd certainly make a case against fictional additions, however they are more lenient there. Why? That's a concensus. This is a small community with a dozen or so REALLY active members and the concensus is much more strict than the fictional articles you generally edit.

All that being said, you're considering this a new debate and not a carry-over from the earlier one on content. You're not a member of the WP:GUN community and you are editing a single talk page trying to sway the community concensus on this. Please, refrain from tossing accusations and attempt to resolve this (again, might I add) on the WP:GUN talk page. If you don't even if you're able to sway a concensus in your favor on this page, it would not apply as the community concensus would contradict it. Wow, conSesus is a hard word to type. By the way... PLEASE (this is not yelling, by the way... I'm BEGGING) report me if you think I'm being uncivil. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm just going to start quoting again. (Please excuse the delay in responding- I was busy)

"It IS a continuation of, or rather rehashing of, previous debates. IIRC, you've been active along this path before, so your level of faith is well known and therefore I don't have to ASSUME anything about it."

No it's not, and you're continuing to not assume good faith. You recall very incorrectly- I've never added, or argued for the addition of, any fiction references on this page. If you're speaking of our discussion on a different topic, that was a different topic. However, I would note that I had the same problem with you then that I'm having now- that is, you refused to AGF from the beginning and ignored any points contrary to your own.

"Was I yelling at you or trying to avoid a TLDR by highlighting my primary points? Well, if you'd assumed good faith, you'd know."

If you want to highlight a point, use italics; otherwise it looks like yelling, especially when done to a whole sentence rather than just key words. For instance- I am not trying to include a link to fictional material from this page in any way, shape, or form: I am trying to add a duplicate of a link already on the page to the main body, under the 'see also' section specifically, for the many casual visitors who will not find it otherwise. And by that point my patience was severely frayed, as I had already shot down your positions several times, but instead of acknowledging that and/or providing a rebuttal, you either ignored me or switched to a new tactic- verifiability in that case, and what the list is a list of before that (users not countries, if you forgot).

"Now then, I notice that your interest in firearms articles is limited 100% to the P90 article... ...But, it's quite disheartening that you refuse to accept the conSensus of WP:GUN regarding fictional usage."

I edit this only because I saw a need when our previous disagreement came about and because I find this a fascinating entry in the evolution of weaponry. As I have stated repeatedly, I understand and accept the consensus perfectly fine, and am not challenging it- I'm just trying to come up with something to help those who don't know of it find what they want. If you actually read what I say, you would know that. Again, I only want to add a link for the 'what links here' page of the article to its main body. If you want to argue the merit of that, fine, but you aren't.

"Do I go on your favored article genre and try to tell you what to do? No."

I have no favored article genre. I edit Wikipedia, not any one project. The only reason I made so many edits in some fiction articles is because they were in development, with new material to add or keep from being added, and misunderstandings to be corrected. That, and there is one series that I am (still...) in the process of overhauling the articles on, as they were neglected for many months. If you looked at my watch list, there are at least as many real world articles as fiction articles, especially if the duplicates and multiple entries from the same series are grouped together. Also, the fiction articles I do watch are of a wide variety.

"All that being said, you're considering this a new debate and not a carry-over from the earlier one on content."

That may be because it is a new debate, whether or not you accept that.

"Please, refrain from tossing accusations and attempt to resolve this (again, might I add) on the WP:GUN talk page."

You mean accusations like assuming someone of lying when they say they aren't rehashing old stuff? And you actually never mentioned taking this to the WP:GUN talk page page before. Someone else may do that, but I don't know if my idea is useful for all weapons.

"Wow, conSensus is a hard word to type."

Why do you keep harping on the word consensus? I already said I don't mind you misspelling it (and yes, it is a misspelling, in every form of English).

As a last thought, if I somehow haven't made this clear, I am interested in this gun in its own right, not simply because it appears on a tv show. It was the first source that brought it to my attention, but after learning more about it I'm more interested in it's prototypical nature in warfare. Consequently, your assumption that this is merely a continuation of old arguments by those trying to insert references to its fictional appearances is false. I am only trying to include a more explicit link to a page that already exists, and in fact already has a link on the page- but due to its obscure nature is virtually unknown to casual visitors. If you want to debate that, fine, but you haven't. Westrim (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, TLDR. If you've got a good point, make it shorter than this, please. I don't have all the time in the world. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)