Talk:Pocket pistol

Merger from Mousegun

As can be demonstrated by my bold move, I wouldn't think that there would be any objection whatsoever. If there were an article called "Gat" that described a readilly available, stolen pistol, I would want it redirected to handgun. The funny thing here is that the term "Mousegun" is not in the dictionary, but "Gat" is. If anything, it needs to be on a list of slang terms used to describe handguns... if there. --Winged Brick (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mousegun is a common term. We have more flexibility to incorporate newer language than is possible in static, dated dictionaries. "Mousegun" and "pocket pistol" are also different manifestations of small handguns, and, in the case of Mousegun, this term of "Mousegun" also has usage in describing rifles firing bullets smaller than .30 caliber (e.g., an M16). The two articles really address different topics and should not be merged. There is value in keeping the two articles distinct. Yaf (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and single source

Based on reading this article, it appears that "pocket pistol" is one author's term for any small gun. If so, it's hardly worth having an article. Maybe an entry in Glossary of firearms terms would suffice. Unless more sources can be found to show that this term has common usage, etc, I'll redirect it to that list. Rezin (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

Pistoles historically came in 4 sizes; pocket, belt, overcoat, and horse. I don't have a source off the top of my head but I could find one if necessary. J8079s (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Pocket pistol

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pocket pistol's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "supica":

From Smith & Wesson Centennial: Supica, Jim; Richard Nahas (2007). Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson (3 ed.). F+W Media, Inc. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-89689-293-4.
From Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless: Supica, Jim; Richard Nahas (2007). Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson (3 ed.). Iola, Wisconsin: F+W Media, Inc. pp. 78–79, 151. ISBN 978-0-89689-293-4.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]