Talk:Walther WA 2000

Untitled

From what I understand, 176 were made and 16 are in the United States. 12 are owned by Mr. Walther and 4 are owned by another individual.

Popular culture / Fictional use

I have moved the list of references to films/tv/video games to a new pages and replaced the section with a link to it. Some would argue that it does not belong in Wikipedia (WP:NOT), but either way it has grown too large for this article. This will keep the article relevant and uniform with other similar articles (see Heckler & Koch MP5 / Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture or MAC-10 / MAC-10 in popular culture) for similar ...in popular culture pages) and also to help with inclusion into the List of firearms in films and List of firearms in video games pages. Deon Steyn 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

why remove refrences of it being agent 47 sniper rifle. in his page there is a link to the WA2000 rifle, why cant there be a link to him in the WA2000 page.(124.182.213.202 09:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

The references to Agent 47 are not notable based on the requirements set forth on the WP:GUNS project page, which you can read here. Nburden ^(T) 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I added two pictures and made some minor changes.

Kind regards, ----Marius Haberer (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude wtf, the WA2000 is practically an unknown gun with so few being made, a "WA2000 in popular culture" page isn't worth making, thus a small trivia section. Nothing with wrong with that in this case

As the man said above it is a relatively unknown gun and was used in a James Bond movie, and Modern Warfare 2(The 3rd largest selling videogame of all time). I think a small trivia section is perfectly fine mentioning this and will not agree with your deleting my information. The page you refer to above even specifically states "Avoid pop culture and trivia sections. In general they clutter articles, and contribute very little. Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable, for example: the Walther PPK's use by James Bond." Both of my mentions are "highly notable." ----Lbrad2001

The James Bond movie you're thinking about is The_Living_Daylights where James purposely shoot's the girl's rifle in the scene where he helps get the General out of the concert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.71.236 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The project's example of a highly notable mention is the Walther PPK, which was used in virtually every James Bond film. The Walther WA 2000 was used in only one of the films, so no it is not highly notable. The project guidelines also say that: "Citations are needed if the notability of an appearance is disputed; these citations should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances." If you can find a reliable source showing the weapon's increased fame or notoriety due to these appearances, post it on the link page here so it can be discussed. Do not add the pop culture text back to the article itself without doing this, or you will be reported for disruptive behavior. ROG5728 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I happen to disagree with you so I am putting it back up...if you want to be an ass then I will delete your info as one of your sources is a broken link. Now, dont touch my info again! It is perfectly valid and adheres to the guidelines. I dont know how stupid you are but the fact that a gun that only a handful of people in the world owns appears in a James Bond movie is relevant to me. Also it appears in Modern Warfare 2, the most played video game on the planet right now, and 99% of the people in the word who have heard of it have most likely seen it only in one of those 2 places. You have no right to try and bully me around and control this page. ---Lbrad2001

It doesn't matter if you 'happen to disagree' with me. The IMFDB link you added is not a reliable source, and it does not even say the weapon's popularity was significantly influenced by the appearances. Quoted again from the firearm project guidelines: "Citations are needed if the notability of an appearance is disputed; these citations should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances." You're disregarding the project guidelines and your trivia addition does not contribute anything whatsoever to the article. Wikipedia is not IMFDB. You have been reported for disruptive edits and behavior. ROG5728 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok you do that Napoleon. I think it does contribute. End of discussion---Lbrad2001

No I dont agree, my info will be saying up. Wait you are saying my link is not a reliable source....your reference DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. (Lbrad2001 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)) (Lbrad2001 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

If you can't view the firearm project guidelines that is a problem on your end, and you should take a time out from interjecting irrelevant text into the article until you can actually look at the project guidelines and previous discussions concerning pop culture trivia. ROG5728 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have, and my addition meets the criteria. This is a weapon used by a very well known fictional character in one of the most popular movie series of all time. He uses it once in a movie and once in a video game. Its a Walther just like his sidearm. I'm sure if he uses a sniper rifle again in another movie he will use it again. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but to quote you "It doesn't matter if you 'happen to disagree' with me." My addition does meet the criteria. (Lbrad2001 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

No it does not meet the criteria, because it's not highly notable nor does the citation say it is highly notable. Again, quoted a third time from the project guidelines: "Citations are needed if the notability of an appearance is disputed; these citations should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances." Contrary to what the guidelines say is needed if the notability is disputed (as in this case), you instead added a citation that is a list of appearances and is not a source claiming increased fame or notoriety as a result of the appearances. Therefore your addition does not meet the criteria and your citation does not establish notability. ROG5728 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, and I'm not changing it, it does meet the criteria. Why don't you correct your own problems such as your dead link reference and stop bothering other people with your opinionated beliefs about what you think should be in an article. There is already another person on this board who disagrees with you about his Hitman reference, thats 2 against 1 buddy you lose. (Lbrad2001 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Your additions do not meet the criteria and I did not post a "dead link reference". Regurgitating the same nonsense repeatedly does not make it true. Your citation is a freely-edited list of appearances that does not establish notability, as it must. That is not 'my opinion', that is what the project guidelines say. Pop culture trivia has been thoroughly discussed at the talk page there and on individual gun talk pages. The consensus in all cases does not agree with your edits. ROG5728 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done arguing so this will be my last post, its staying up...end of discussion (Lbrad2001 (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

James Bond reference appears to be legitimate and pertinent. (Jakebradson (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

See WP:SOCK and my most recent edit summary, Brad. ROG5728 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the James Bond reference should be included. Oh and the only WP:SOCK I see is you ROG5728. Caden ^cool 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not using sock as a baseless insult, as you are. The second "brad" account (Jakebradson) was created shortly after the first "brad" (Lbrad2001) was blocked. The second "brad" account was also created for the sole purpose of two edits adding the same trivia text as the first "brad" account. Both "brad" accounts even sign their comments in the exact same manner, putting parentheses around the entire signature line. ROG5728 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay let me explain. I saw your post as incivil. Implying that another editor is a sock can be seen as a personal attack, it can also be seen as bad faith on your part, especially since you have no concrete proof for your allegations. Please focus on content and not on other editors as you have done too often on this talk page. Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:SPI. If you feel Brad is a sock, make sure you have the evidence for such an allegation before you file a report. Now, as for the content issue, I do believe the James Bond reference should be included in the article. On a side-note please remember that none of us own the articles on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:OWN. Caden ^cool 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not call the user a sock. I directed him to WP:SOCK because he could have been unaware of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets. I would actually recommend you look at the pages you linked, because you're the only editor on this talk page to have used sock as a baseless personal attack. I do have sufficient evidence to open an SPI about the editor in question, but more recently he has agreed to leave this article alone so it should not be an issue. As for the article content, that addition does not conform to the project guidelines for firearm articles. Those guidelines were not created by me or by any one person, but rather they were created out of discussion and consensus. The consensus in discussions there has been to not note pop culture trivia unless the gun's popularity was dramatically increased by the appearances and the gun is considered inseperable from those appearances. For example, Dirty Harry's use of the Smith & Wesson Model 29 is highly notable because it made that revolver extremely popular. As with any other addition, you also need a reliable external source saying that the weapon's popularity was significantly increased by the appearances, for example this source that says the Dirty Harry series made the S&W Model 29 revolver extremely popular. ROG5728 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rog you were just very reasonable there. You had a misquote and you kept my correction in. I have no problem with you doing that. But don't try to accuse me of anything. I followed the rules by making the change that I made. If you treat my like a civilized human being then I'll do the same for you. If you continue making accusations I will continue to get angry. Just because we differ on the sentence that I wanted to insert in the article doesn't mean that everything I do is wrong, even by your definition of what that is. Lbrad2001 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia

As explained in the above discussion, per the firearm project guidelines we do not include pop culture trivia in gun articles unless it's highly notable. Lbrad2001, stop reverting and start discussing the material in question or you will be blocked again. ROG5728 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ROG5728 You've already been overruled by everyone who has disussed this. Stop vandalizing the page, and stop making threats as you have been warned against this in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.253.82 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually ROG5728 has not ben overruled by anyone. He is following the project's guidelines as he should. The appearance of the Walther in that movie was trivial at best and it is not worthy of inclusion in the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ROG5728 has been disagreed with by virtually everyone who has commented on this page over the last 4 years. Evidently you are reading another discussion page. Pay attention and get your facts straight. Per the firearm project guidelines pop culture references are appropriate when notable. As this is. I only follow the rules, I don't bully people or make threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.253.82 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The project guidelines also say that: "Citations are needed if the notability of an appearance is disputed; these citations should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances." If you can find a reliable source claiming the weapon had increased fame or notoriety due to this appearance, post the source on the talk page here so it can be discussed. Otherwise, the content won't stay.

By the way, see WP:SOCK. This is a direct quote from Wikipedia policy: "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion." Your account is obviously a single purpose account, and the same goes for all of the other accounts trying to add this material to the article. Your IPs and contribs are viewable by anyone. Edit warring with your single-purpose accounts/IPs will lead to a block from editing Wikipedia. [[User:|ROG5728]] (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You were warned about personal attacks before ROG. Now I am going to report you for making your unsubstantiated claims. {{ROG5728:ANI-notice}}

Evidence of a second article using the same tactics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glock_pistol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice please the exact same accounts backing one another up. I've only ever edited a handful of pages, so I cant possibly SOCK puppet. I have made edits without signing in first, which I will admit fault for. However I have been on a public computer and made no attempt to hide my intentions or identity. I also didn't make all the corrections that ROG is attempting to imply I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Link Doesn't Work

I was looking at the "production" paragraph thingy, and the like doesn't work. It takes you to "http://www.waltherusa.net/wa2000.htm" but, it doesn't seem to be a site. Star3Wars3 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. It was a dead link. Caden ^cool 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Article image is a fairly low-quality 3D rendering?

Is there any replacement that can be found? --Ifrit (Talk) 21:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I restored the previous image. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Article image fails to note of the first generation variant and modernized variant recently retired by Bundespolizei. Beneficial to have both version present as not to confuse readers to thinking the two models are different weapons. No free replacement can be found of both variants and thus, accurate rendering image is currently suitable. Refer to Wikipedia:Image use policy and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images if new image does not violate any policy, then it may not be enough reasons to warrant permanent removal of the new image. Reverting good-faith edit by Bilcat. Discuss if any objections based on Image Policy or Manual of Style. NotLessOrEqual —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought you owned the rights to the images, so what does fair use have to do with anything? - BilCat (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the images are owned by me since I rendered it and also released under CC0 Public Domain, I never mentioned anything in regards to fair use or copyright in the above, it was just in regards to any modifications, removals or reverts for any trivial reason outside of anything noted by Wiki policies. Sorry about the confusion.

NotLessOrEqual

Ok, I understand now. It's been my experience that actual photos, even those taken in the field with "distracting" backgrounds, are preferred to rendered images. Infobox images aren't intended to cover all models in one photograph/image. I don't believe you should be pushing your own work over other images, and especially not removing the only real photographs of weapons from articles altogether. Certainly, you shouldn't be engaging in edit wars over anything, as you've been doing on a number of articles. While I appreciate the effort it takes to make renderings, don't force them into articles. Rather, you need to be seeking consensus of other editors to avoid an appearance of self-promotion, and seek to use you images to complement the existing images, filling in gaps in photo coverage. - BilCat (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It was in the best interest for the website, at least as far as these images go, should have some form of quality standardization. Although it allows for anyone to contribute, there lacks a codified quality for articles based on industrial design objects (eg. vehicles or weapons). Lets say for fire-arms, some editors use photographs which are taken in dark environments with difficult to distinguish details, others taken at weird angles which may not display the entire subject and others taken among other weapons or objects which may draw away emphasis (eg. behind a glass cabinet). All my images are standardised, facing towards the left, clear of any distracting background and rendered under neutral light conditions with exact same amount of pixels. Same does not need be said for articles in regards to things such as architecture, landscape or environment. Another editor asked whether my works are self promotion of which I explained all my images are always released under CC0 Public Domain purely for the sake of the benefit of Wikipedia and the general Public of which I do not, and never will, take credit of my work for. Quality standardization does not equal self-promotion. There is nothing to gain from any of my contributions both in name nor currency. I apologize if I didn't or couldn't contact other editors about this issue as I am relatively new and not as experienced, not sure whom to contact my proposals about to, or if to multiple people. Things may seem self-promotional when in actual fact is all in good faith and the sake of consistent standards.

Sorry for any confusion.

NotLessOrEqual

May I ask, what is the source for the 3D files used to create the images? Felsic2 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I am of the opinion that the 3D rendering is less valuable than the available photo. --Ifrit (Talk) 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

His image ruins the page, I have hundreds of pictures of the WA2000 that are far better than his crappy render that is inaccurate in proportion. No WA2000 had plastic furniture too. This guy is full of himself 174.215.220.238 (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The drunkard is as the other person stated, full of himself.

The images are god awful and misleads the page viewers to believe that a polymer stock version existed which in reality, only exists in his own mind. 74.214.211.85 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely awful main image?

Why the constant need to keep a poorly proportioned and textured drawing as the main image? On top of the terrible looks, the gas block is completely wrong, the recoil pad incorrect, the scope looks awful, and the scope mount never existed? On top of stuff that never existed, the polymer stock idea. The closest info that could even attribute to a polymer furniture set existing is the 5 black stocks in Switzerland that are new old stock replacement parts, but even those are just painted walnut wood stocks. 12.5.64.82 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the guy who runs this page wants to promote his awful work under the guise of "standardization". If you try to replace it he'll hit you with a copyright claim and repair his image. I'm sure even if you were able to photograph a real WA2000 he'll replace it with his image again. Gunnman934 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blame the drunkard who promotes his 2 second paint program creation. The drunkard forgot that “standardization” does not mean anything when your standards are shit. He misleads the common man about an alleged polymer stocked variant just so he can show off his art creation that would make white canvas “painters” look like Da Vinci. 74.214.211.85 (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"The entire rifle is designed around the barrel".

I take issue with this statement in the "Design" section on the basis that it is entirely redundant. All rifles are designed around the barrel. If there is a more interesting statement to be made about the design considerations then I would prefer to read that instead. ADEps (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the first and only semi-auto bullpup sniper rifle built specifically for the .300 Winchester Magnum

Yet, it's almost never mentioned. Even the manual explained why the .308 model was the wrong model.

Also, I have all 3 manuals and numerous artifacts of the rifle, know many owners of the rifle. This wikipedia article might have some of the worst information on this rifle and looks like it was written and edited by children for all I know. 104.229.41.108 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Poor main image

It is absurd that retards still insist on keeping such a shockingly awful drawing for the main image of this article. There is so many inaccuracies in its drawing attempt, on top of the fact of the blatantly wrong information of their ever being a synthetic stock version. 12.63.246.90 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No need to be rude. If you can find a better freely licensed image for the infobox then let us know. If you have a problem with the drawing consider making a better one yourself and uploading it to Wikimedia Commons our file respository. If you are suggesting complete removal of the image on accuracy grounds please be explicit, an editor may see your suggestion and action it.

@NotLessOrEqual I think you created the file but there isn't any info on where you got your inspiration. Could you add it? Commander Keane (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We've tried replacing it with licenced pictures, and the guy keeps reinstating his picture.

Let's face it, it has nothing to do with anything other than self promotion of his picture. Even though there is a great licensed picture of the WA2000 from the Wehrtechnische Studiensammlung Koblenz in the description, his trash incorrect render is still front and center. We are sick of it. Gunnman934 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, me knowing the OP who wrote the first message here and his involvement with a real WA2000, I agree. This entire page is run by retards. There is simply no other word to describe the level of incompetence regarding this gun article other than retarded. Gunnman934 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)