Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Criminal Uses

I know i have done this before, but i feel as though my skills have vastly improved since then. I'm speaking, of course, about criminal uses listed on firearm pages. Now i do like what you've done with Glock, mentioning several massacres but also talking about how they've caused increase gun control. But what i really have an issue with is why smaller lists aren't allowed. I added criminal lists to several firearm pages. Now i didn't just add them and not provide sources - i did give sources (most of which came from the articles themselves). I think i did a pretty good job on Ruger 10/22 (which has been used in a number of massacres, which certainly seems worth mentioning). However, all of my hard work was completely undone under the pretense that it wasn't important enough. Now Ruger Standard has a list similar to what i made but without any sources or mentions on how they impacted the gun. Are those guns significantly linked to those crimes (not to my knowledge). SIG MCX is similar in that it mentions the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting but no mention of the impact it had. I may just be biased since i tend to take it personal when my work is undone (especially for reasons i consider trivial or unwarranted), but still. I think criminal lists should be allowed on firearm articles (within certain reasons of course). I hope you will take the time to read my concerns and respond thoroughly. Have a good one. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The question of criminal use on firearms pages has been discussed many times. In some cases consensus has favored inclusion. In others it has not. The critical factor seems to be the impact of the crime on either the particular firearm and/or a significant legal impact of the shooting. Sometimes after a mass shooting with something like an AR-15 pattern rifle there will be calls for bans. However, I don't think I've ever seen someone call for a shotgun ban after a shooting with a 5 shot pump action shotgun. Thus the fact that a Remington 870 was used in a particular crime per a RS doesn't mean it's use is DUE for inclusion on the firearm's page. This is particularly true if the firearm was rather generic with respect to the crime in question. The Remington 870 is a popular shotgun. Thus it's use in crime might reflect nothing more than it was readily available. It could have been easily exchanged with a Mossberg 500 with no impact on the crime. Springee (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
That still doesn't really explain why Ruger Standard's list is justified and mine aren't. Is it really associated with those shootings? Is the MCX really associated with the nightclub shooting? It sounds to me like these have less to do with the impact of the crimes, and more just the sheer magnitude of the crime (the 2nd deadliest shooting in U.S. history). And the JFK assassination too. And furthermore, does it really matter that much? Does the legal impact and aftermath of the crimes really matter more than the fact that these guns were used in so many massacres? I think the fact that the Ruger 10/22 was used in so many shootings (which i'd imagine garnered lots of legal attention and presumably affected the gun anyway) would carry enough 'weight' and 'significant association' that it should be noted on its page. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Basically articles that get little traffic can sometimes have edits that are questionable yet stand for a while. I removed that list after reading your comment. It was a particularly poor example as it didn't even cite sources. I would suggest reading through the archives here and looking at some of the notices for related RfCs. It might give you a better understanding of how we got here and what the consensus thinking has evolved to be. Springee (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I was preparing to suggest that change. Thewellman (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a notice, the removal of two of the lists has been disputed, Winchester Model 1200 [[1]] and Ruger 10/22 [[2]]. Springee (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally criminal use for a firearm is only appropriate when a specific incident has a legislative effect. Listing every time a specific one was used rarely has due weight. PackMecEng (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Broken Infobox

Type 11 light machine gun's infobox is broken and it is far beyond my current wikiability to unbreak it. 67.70.18.46 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting us know.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Webley Revolver FAR

I have nominated Webley Revolver for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect: Gun politics in the United Kingdom/Archive 4

Re: Gun politics in the United Kingdom/Archive 4 -- This title has for some time (possibly) for months has been automatically been assessed as "C class". Can we eliminate this link? Adamdaley (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Vest buster article

The Vest buster article is suspect with respect to notability and neutrality. The creator (and primary contributor) has been removed for sockpuppetry. Before going about an AfD, however, I figured it best to run it passed the project. Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 23:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Roger that. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 06:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year !

Hello dear colleagues! Even if it is a bit late, I wish you all a happy and healthy new year. Kind regards from de:Portal:Waffen in Germany. Yours --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dry fire

Could somebody take a look at Dry fire, please. I suspect it's a notable subject, but the current article is a disaster. Mostly referenced, what is referenced is to largely unreliable sources, lots of WP:OR and HOWTO. I'm not a subject matter expert, so I can't make a credible attempt at fixing it myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a peek. It looks technically sound but has wiki-problems. It's written in an instructional tone and is weak on sourcing. I'll try to help a bit there. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Good explanation is given in Snap cap and everybody should stay away of friendly-fire ;-) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:.44 Evans, Short, merge to Evans Repeating Rifle

Hi, I came across this draft reviewing G13s and thought it should be merged to Evans Repeating Rifle but I do not have access to the source to verify the information (Cartridges of the World). I was hoping someone here might be able to take a look. I made a dummy edit so it should not get deleted. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox weapon

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox weapon § Generated short descriptions. — Goszei (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonsens in series of templates concering *** infantry weapons of World War II

Hello, as we work international i came across Template:WWIIUSInfWeaponsNav + Template:WWIIGermanInfWeapons and some others in Category:World War II weapons navigational boxes. The mix of weapons with ammunition is nonsens in a template for weapons. See my comment there. On our side we fixed it like this: de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Handwaffen der Wehrmacht im Zweiten Weltkrieg + de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Infanteriewaffen der französischen Armee im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Thinking about similar corrections in en:WP is up to you. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Explain "Duty to inform" in articles

Gun laws in the United States by state and other articles list "Duty to inform" in the table listings. What is "Duty to inform"? Readers need a Wikilink, not just ref-links to the particular laws. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point. I wonder if a short Wikipedia article would be warranted. If not, maybe a section in Concealed carry in the United States. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

Introducing the Firearms Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

nice thx. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Neat-o. :) --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 17:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Firearms Barnstar Hall of Fame

Up to now this barnstar has been granted 1 x time(s) worldwide:

Requested move at Talk:IWI Tavor#Requested move 12 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IWI Tavor#Requested move 12 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Arming teachers

I just started this article after the Robb Elementary School shooting. Other contributions are welcome and there are lots of sources over many years easily available through Internet search. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As most of the world does not have this issue, could you consider changing the title of the article to include "in the US"? (I'm not sure of the correct formatting of US, sorry) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Any reason we don't already have Winchester Machine Rifle (Model 1917)?

I saw this off-handedly mentioned in another article as a redlink, and it appears it was a prototype design that indeed predicts a lot of the other design ideas that would eventually culminate in the Stg44 and later assault rifles. Any major reason I shouldn't whip up a basic article on it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to merge this information into the Winchester model 30 article or is a separate article preferable? Thewellman (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's an entirely different firearm, no? Forgotten Weapons link for Model 30. Meanwhile here's the Win 1917 (commonly called a Burton as well): link to GunWiki. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SVD-63#Requested move 18 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SVD-63#Requested move 18 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-split VSS Vintorez and AS Val?

A tangent at Talk:SVD (rifle)#Requested move 18 August 2022 suggests that there may be consensus to undo the undiscussed merge of VSS Vintorez and AS Val. Considering the backlog at Category:Articles to be split and Wikipedia:Proposed article splits, seeing if consensus can be reached here, which seems to be an active centralized page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Too much focus on firearms themselves - illegal activity depicted on plinking page

The scope of this project is much wider than firearms as items, and yet the priority system almost ensures other pages will never be improved.

I am concerned with the page on Plinking It mentions road signs only once in the article, and has two photos of road signs shot up. This is an illegal and dangerous activity and does not illustrate plinking. Some folks have attempted to anonymously fix it, and it reverts back. It would be better to have photos of more typical plinking targets, such as a tin can, fruit, or a target stand of some sort. As it remains, this article is disparaging on firearms owners. 131.162.64.5 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ksp 58 machine gun#Requested move 9 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ksp 58 machine gun#Requested move 9 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Separating manufacturer articles from list of weapons manufactured?

Hi! I was wondering if there was any consensus for/against splitting firearm manufacturer articles into the parent article and a list article of the weapons they manufacture. I think such a split is more encyclopedic but did not want to do one for FN Herstal unless there is no consensus against doing so. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest evaluating that on a case-by-case basis. Manufacturers having produced a number of notable firearms, like Winchester Repeating Arms Company, or firearms with a variety of other notable products, like Baldwin Locomotive Works, might best be described in a separate article; while manufacturers notable for production of a single notable firearm might be adequately covered within the article about that firearm. Thewellman (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The status quo is that it can be done based on the normal decision making processes at the article which in essence echoes the "case by case" idea. I think that that is the right status. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a good case by case candidate. Some companies like say Colt will have a long list of models while other companies my have just 3 or 4. Basically the same point Thewellman made. Springee (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for FN Herstal

An article that been involved with (FN Herstal) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of weapons developed by FN Herstal). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:IWI Tavor#Requested move 27 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IWI Tavor#Requested move 27 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Winchester Model 1200

Winchester Model 1200 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been working on the article but I am limited by sources. Google Books here, lists a number of sources in print that I cannot access. If anybody has access to printed reliable sources applicable to the subject, could you please drop by and add them where sourcing might be improve (see the GA assessment). Particularly, there is where olive-drab.com has been used for the years that the 1200 was acquired by the U.S. Army and the reference to the AR-7 as preceding it as rotating-bolt shotgun design. Also, that the model 12 (and similar) could be slam-fired but not the 1200. It would be nice to tighten the sourcing for this. I have gone about as far as I can without help. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Requested move 5 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Requested move 5 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:AS Val and VSS Vintorez#Requested move 3 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AS Val and VSS Vintorez#Requested move 3 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of C&Rsenal

As many in the firearms community know, Othais and Mae at candrsenal.com do a lot of solid historical research and are quite often cited on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=%22C%26Rsenal%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns10=1. In my longtime experience they are at least as reliable than Ian McCollum, if not more, not to speak about printed books on obscure WWI-era firearms. There has been some media coverage on their demonetization and an interview on Guns.com (neither discusses the historical research though). I have found some praise on blogs however: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/tag/crsenal/ https://www.billstclair.com/weaponsman.com/index.html%3Fp=13173 https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/136132906224/crsenal-you-might-know-them-for-their-great-site

The problem is they don't pass the criteria set out at WP:SPS, and a WP:RSN discussion seems to be needed. What do you guys think? Ain92 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:PP-19 Vityaz#Requested move 14 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:PP-19 Vityaz#Requested move 14 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Articles for deletion/TAPCO

FYI, your comments pro or con are invited at:

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for ISSF 10 meter air pistol

ISSF 10 meter air pistol has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Caliber conversion sleeve#Requested move 15 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Caliber conversion sleeve#Requested move 15 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Major RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Gun dynamics

Hello, I wanted to bring this page to your attention, as I think it may overlap with physics of firearms and internal ballistics, but I'm not an expert. I also wasn't sure what the protocol was for adding WikiProject banners to the talk page. Thanks for taking a look! Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 13:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerning language in gun laws pages

Hey, just want to check in with some folks. I don't think the term assault weapons has been used correctly on a number of pages, and in the public discourse the term is politically charged and often used inaccurately. It might be best to put quotation marks around its use, or replace the term with "semi-automatic" weapons where applicable. There is a similar issue with "military-style" weapons being used to describe exclusively civilian-use firearms. 2601:444:382:FC20:1A4:401:E6E8:E98B (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms/Archive_13&oldid=1256375040"