Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Proposal to move a number of articles

Resolved
 – articles move--Pattont/c 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found a number of weapon article that I really think need to be renamed, and rather than proposing moves on each individual page which would require too much effort, we'll discuss it here. Here are the ones I think need to be moved:

Per naming conventions as the qualifiers at the end are unnecessary. I don't think we need to move the machine gun articles like M1919 Browning machine gun or M1941 Johnson machine gun because they are commonly reffered to by those names ("BMG", "BAR" etc).--Pattont/c 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see people using "rifle" in the name of the Johnson weapon, even though most MGs are often reffered to as "<maufacturer> machine gun"--Pattont/c 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean; it's ambigious. Ah right fine then.--Pattont/c 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


This is coming a little late, but did anyone look at Wikipedia:WEAPON#Naming_conventions? Those are the Military History Project's guidelines on naming military weapons, and it specifically calls for the type designators, like submachine gun, rifle, and the like.--LWF (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, that might be appropriate if anybody ever used the phrase, "M1 Garand rifle" as the common name. Also, WP:Firearms should override WP:Weapon if there is such a thing. In cases such as, "M1" then it's certainly important to have "M1 carbine", "M1 submachine gun" and "M1 grenade" when there isn't another name, but we're talking the M1 Garand. WP naming convention says you should use common names, WP:Guns convention says to use common name, WP:Weapon says M1 rifle or M1 Garand rifle... which one of these? And then there's WP:MilHist. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
On a second look, it seems to support using the designers name, but also says that we should say rifle. That falls in line with what I said earlier... we SHOULD use it, however again it's a disambiguation statement in my opinion. We clearly know what an M1 Garand is. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It says: A type designator. This is typically a concise description of the type of firearm in question (e.g. "pistol", "rifle", or "machine gun"), given in lowercase. Alternately, in cases where the weapon has a different formal name (e.g. the XM110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System), the formal name may be used; it should be left fully capitalized.. I.e. use "rifle" and the like when the weapon has no proper name, but when it has formal name like "Garand", use that instead. It doesn't say use both. It basically agrees with what we just did here.--Pattont/c 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just brought over a bunch of Russian articles

Some I polished more than others, but I thought it best to transfer quick and early, put up appropriate templates, and let them develop as needed. Mainly GoogleTranslated, and did some touch-up on various articles, though others still legible but rough. Some neat stuff I'd never have thought to create on my own:

EDIT: Also went through the Spanish and Portuguese wikis. Not much interesting in the Spanish, but several good articles in the Portuguese that I've transfered over. NOTE: the pt.wiki infobox doesn't cross over, if someone could neaten up the infoboxes that'd be awesome.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to turn Glisenti Model 1910 into something useful, and re-wrote Bergmann 1896, but there's not a lot to work with there. I might be able to do something with Savage Model 1907 and Steyr M1912 as well. Some of these other guns though, I've never heard of, and I'm concerned we may not be able to reference or verify them... Commander Zulu (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Civilian ownership of automatic weapons in the United States

Hi. I'm currently working on M249 SAW and I need reliable sources detailing gun ownership laws in the US and whether it's legal to own a SAW.--Patton123 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives http://www.atf.gov/firearms/index.htm has the federal regulations. Broadly, the M249 is unlikely to be legally owned by civilians because the stock of legal fully auto weapons was frozen in about 1986. No new ones can be made for civilians. The legal ones are ramping in price because every time they are trasferred there is a $200 federal tax which dealers add to the price. Although I have only read about the process, I understand that a civilian owner has to satisfy a local chief law enforcement officer to sign the form for the BATFE that s/he has no objection, and the BATFE will collect $200 from the person and issue a license after a long wait. However, the CLEO willing to sign these forms are rare creatures. You can find a community of owners and dealers willing to discuss with non-hostiles here: http://subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi . The famous Knob Creek shoot is the largest civilian machine gun shooting meeting in the US.ChrisPer (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a million.--Pattont/c 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are essentially correct about getting a CLEO to sign the forms. As I remember it, you also need to submit a set of fingerprints with the application. I would also check the weapon against the NFA registry to make sure it is properly recorded before buying it. I think you will find owning an M249 SAW legally will be highly problematic unless you are a Class 3 dealer. I'm almost certain none were produced for civilian sale prior to 1986 so any M249 you will run into will be in the possession of military, law enforcement or a Class 3 dealer. If the dealer has it, then most likely it will be a post-86 dealer sample which means no one other than a federally licensed, Class 3 dealer can have it. By the way, if you are interested in becoming a Class 3 dealer, I would suggest you take a look at Small Arms Review and Jane's International Defense Review to see what you are getting yourself into. It will be expensive, trust me. I would also suggest you live in a state with few gun restrictions (i.e. Nevada) before you even think about it. By the way, make sure you are going to run it as a legitimate, for-profit enterprise. BATFE takes a very dim view of applicants getting a license just to enhance a collection. If you want a quick primer on Title 2 weapons law, try to find a copy of Dan Shea's Machine Gun Dealer's Bible.

Good luck! Wmoberndorf (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) User:Wmoberndorf February 21, 2009

Mauser C96 Article Improvement Assistance Requested

Given that the C96 is one of the most famous and influential handguns of all time, I think it deserves a better and more thorough article than the currently standing one. I've begun a re-write (with the addition of references) to try and expand it and get the article up to FA class; I'm open to suggestions, ideas, or assistance on how we can improve the article! Commander Zulu (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am there. Good article, worth the effort.ChrisPer (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Will try to help. Which is the correct denomination: C96 or C-96, and why? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
C96 is the correct denomination, as far as I can tell, because it just is, basically. Same reason it's M1 Garand and not M-1 Garand, if that helps. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Try and find a copy of The Mauser Self-Loading Pistol by James Belford and Jack Dunlap. It covers the German guns along with the Chinese and Spanish copies. Please try to make mention of the .45 ACP caliber C96 as made in China. I saw one many years ago at the San Francisco Gun Exchange and it is an impressively large pistol. I have a copy of the Belford book if you need assistance. Wmoberndorf (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) User:Wmoberndorf
I've added a section on the Shansi .45 C96 pistols; I don't have access to Belford & Dunlap and my finances don't permit the purchase of additional reference books at the moment, so if there's anything useful in there that you think should be in the article, please feel free to add it (with reference) and it can be worked into the rest of the stuff in the C96 article that way. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Series of pages desperatly need moving

I've found a bunch of pages that seriously need moving:

They're a complete mess. We have a number of optiosn here:

Option one
Option two

I propose moving the navy one to "Mk 12" and either "mod 0" or somethign else. Ideas?--Pattont/c 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

M249 squad automatic weapon flag icons

On the infobox in this article are two country names. Why are flag icons needed here? They don't add anything. How is  United States better than United States? It's the same as writing Turtle, Plane and Rock. We might as well put an icon beside every noun on Wikipedia if we're doing this.--Pattont/c 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of the infobox is to provide information at a glance, and the flags are an excellent way of doing that IMHO. In the main text they're obviously redundant, but in the infobox they have a use and I feel they should stay. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Zulu as stated previoulsy. This disussion is a continuation of the discussion on the M249 talk page as well as a revisit of the previous concensus discussion here. I'll further add that the 'flag icon' guidance is intended for usage in prose and within the context of a paragrapn. Identifying a country with a flag icon allows quick recognition, especially in an infobox and in lists of users. It is the same as usage of flags with regards to battles where belligerants are commonly listed with a flag icon. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with Patton for the reasons provided by the two previous editors. Flags allow for quick identification and navigation and establish a historic and national context for the casual reader not familiar with the subject. Koalorka (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the previous three editors. It's quick and easy identification. — DanMP5 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case having the flag icon is worthwhile, as the Country of manufacture and/or use has an unusual level of importance. Just my 2 cents worth. Kartano (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
the waltherppk can be equipted with multiple attathments such as

Major re-org of Revolver and Semi-automatic pistol categories?=

The categories "Revolver" and "Semi-automatic pistol" have become unmanageably large. I started to reorganize them into "X by brand/manufacturer" and "X by country" in order to better organize them. Since a lot of pistol are used for a variety of things (police, military, civilian) it made most sense to define them by maker and/or country of origin. One member expressed concern about my making changes without consulting the group, so I'm here to ask: do folks agree that "Semi-automatic pistols" and "Revolver" categories should be broken down into country/brand/other categories, and that basically no individual model should be listed on the main category page unless it simply cannot be defined by country or brand? Having 200-300 models listed within just the "Semi-automatic pistol" category is unmanageable. I'd imagine the Rifle sub-cats might have similar problems. What say you? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In modern usage, the term "Pistol" is synonymous with "Semi-automatic Pistol". Therefore, I'd suggest just putting a disclaimer that at one time the term "pistol" in the English usage referred to all handguns. Understand, there is a third category of 'other' pistos that are neithe revolvers nor semi-automatic pistols though that would be left out in the split. I'd suggest that the term "Handgun" be a disambiguation page under handgun. Derringers, single-shot pistols such as the TC Contender, and other small weapons are still considered Pistols. It's more confusing than you're making it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with non-semi, non-revolver handguns being under "Pistol". That's convention, and there aren't that many of them, so having them be kind of an orphan under the "Pistol" category is fine to my view. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm even less clear what you are trying to do. What is the structure you're suggesting? Is it Handgun as the master category, pistol and revolver as subcategories, then semi-automatic pistol as a sub-subcategory of pistol? You'd then list odd pistols such as derringers and single-shots under the straight "Pistol" category? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what it already is. Firearms --> Handguns --> Pistols, Revolvers (and a few misc articles like Side arm that apply to both). Then under Pistols there's the Semi-Auto subcat and individual articles of "pistols" which are not revolvers (so not in revolver subcat), but also don't fall into the semi-auto subcat. That parts not the problem, it's pretty much worked itself out. My only concern is what happens within the "Revolvers" and "Semi-auto pistols" categories. Both of them would work better with more subcats, rather than just listing every single revolver articles under "Revolvers", etc. 06:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What you have been doing is creating small national sub-categories that really serve no practical purpose since most countries have no more than 3-4 indigenous designs, you would splinter the categorization and make it more difficult to seek out a design for anyone unaware of national ties. Koalorka (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all suggesting that "By country" be the only way of categorising Semi-auto pistols or revolvers. It's just that it's really unmanageable to have over 200 items in one category. I'm quite convinced that putting "S&W revolvers" into their own subcat within "Revolvers" makes sense, as it's very unlikely anyone will be trying to find a specific S&W and yet be entirely unaware that it is an S&W. Likewise, as at least an interim fix in reducing bulk, I think it would help to put all the Colt, H&K, Sig, Beretta, and S&W semi-auto pistols into their own categories within "Semi-automatic pistols". Listing them all out really clutters the category, and anyone wanting to find a given Sig will be able to find it just as easily in the Sig category. Workable? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer that any disambiguations not involve "Pistol" as a synonym for "Semi-Automatic Handgun", as in the UK/Australia/NZ/several other places in the Commonwealth, "Pistol" is a synonym for any handgun, not just self-loaders. Therefore I'd suggest Firearms --> Handguns --> Semi-Automatic, Revolvers, Other (covering Derringers, Howdah pistols, Single-shot muzzleloaders, etc) as a category progression, if that makes sense. That way (IMHO) we're still maintaining accuracy without putting an un-necessarily US-centric bias on things. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, what you're describing is basically what we have, except that rather than having an "Other" category we just have the derringers/howdahs/etc filed under "Pistols", and then "Semi-automatic" is a subcat of Pistols. That part of the system works just fine, to my view. What is of contention, however, is what to do [b]within[/b] the "Revolvers" and "Semi-automatic pistols" category. I believe we should subcategorize further (by brand, by country, by whatever other interpretations) rather that list 100-200 different guns just as a list in the category. Koalorka has expressed concerns about over-categorizing and making individual handguns hard to find, so we're trying to find a workable solution. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Ok, I mis-read then. I'd suggest that organising handguns by manufacturer/brand would be the way to go. The problem is going to be when you start listing the various service equivalents of civilian handguns; it's redundant (IMHO) to have L9A1 and Browning Hi-Power (or M9 and Beretta 92, for that matter) when they're basically the same gun. On the other hand, if we don't include them, people are going to keep adding them in anyway... perhaps we could list "Other Designations" next to the main article link to avoid this?Commander Zulu (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Another important consideration with revolvers and semi-automatic pistols is single and double action. Kartano (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Does every U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company gun need its own Wiki article?

The category [Category:U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.] lists a number of Wiki articles on firearms made by the US Fire Arms Manufacturing Co, and I'm really not sure they're necessary, as they all appear to be versions of the Colt Single Action Army and not really that different from one another in any major respect. The articles are properly sourced and referenced, but there's very faint tinge of fanboyism or advertising about them and I'm just not entirely convinced that they couldn't be better condensed into a single article- U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Co. revolvers, for example. Any thoughts? Commander Zulu (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let WP:GUNS#Variants be your guide.--LWF (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but someone has obviously put a fair bit of work into the articles and it would seem impolite to just arbitrarily merge them all and delete the category without opening the topic up for discussion first. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
A handful of us addressed the main article U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, which was chock-full of, as you mention, either fanboyism or advertising. More references than most M.A. theses, but almost all of them USFA press releases, and tons of info on Second Amendment issues and on Colt Mgf. Co. (completely tangential to USFA and covered handily in other articles) that the originator kept reverting and insisting were vital to the understanding of USFA. Basically, you'll have to go chat with the originator if you want to address the issue, and I rather doubt that anybody but him has a strong opinion on the issue, but I see a revert war if consensus with the originator does not proceed major changes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added this topic on the USFAMC talk page, in case anyone is interested. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been nearly a week with no response; at this stage I'm increasingly of the opinion the individual gun articles are a form of advertising and qualify for deletion on those grounds, unless someone has a compelling reason as to how the USFA revolvers are noticeably (and in some tangible way that the "average reader" is going to care about) different from every other Colt Single Action Army reproduction on the market? Commander Zulu (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's excessive, and that it's either advertising or fanboyism. You might have some difficult reaching consensus with the primary contributor. Definitely no reason to have multiple elaborate articles for individual reproductions, as you note. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that I've posted the same thing on the main article talkpage with no response, I'm not sure if the primary contributor is still around or still cares enough to comment. Commander Zulu (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've listed the individual USFA gun articles at AfD; the nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USFA Custer Battlefield Gun, if anyone wants to provide input there. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AK-47 collaboration

AK-47 is by far the most viewed article in our scope, with well over 250,000 views last month alone. The only other article that even comes close is M16 rifle with just under 200,000 views last month. I'd like to propose a collaboration to get this article to featured status. We can each take a section and work on that, then put them all together and write the lede. Here's the structure I'd like to use:

  • Development
  • Design details
  • Variants
  • Operational history
  • Civilian use
  • Cultural impact

The development, design details and variants section will be pretty sraightforward. The operational history section will be abolsutly huge, so I suggest we split content from it into a much sub article ("Operational history of the AK-47") and just give a summary in the main article. Even if we only give a single sentence per country and war this has been used with it's is going to be gargauntuan. Civilian use will be fairly straightforward, but cultural impact will probably be very hard to source. We'll have to include stuff like the flag of mozambique etc.

So what sections would you guys like to do if you think this is a good idea? I'll do any. Btw the pageview counter for Wikipedia is here, but it doesn't count redirects so you have to type in each redirect and add it up maunally yourself.--Pattont/c 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but page view statistics have the M16 over the AK-47 by about 10K views if you only count irect views. Are you sure that redirects don't 'create' another view?. That being said, I agree with you about the country list of users. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Redirects dont create another view, no. Are you up for the collaboration?--Pattont/c 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
We'd have to convince my stalker first. Seriously, the format that's there now doesn't call for a rewrite. If anything, one should tread lightly as it's been a featured article in largely its current form. I'd prefer an effort to standardize firearms articles in general that conforms largely to the de-facto standard now. I'll admit, though, that the AK-47 article would not currently meet any of those standards. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
M16 rifle is in an even wrose condition than Ak-47.--Pattont/c 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. It's probably best to start with a military firearm that isn't edited continually by 14-year olds. In fact, the BAR might be the perfect one. I don't think I'm up to it, though. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
By that standard the perfect article would be some obscure hunting rifle lol. Anyway, M16 would be easier to source. Maybe we should do that? We coudl work on it at a subpage of this project, then move it in when we're finished. What do you think? Btw I'd appreciate you reading Wikipedia:Indentation lol--Pattont/c 17:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Only if you read WP:CAPS and WP:SPELLING. BTW, to say I'm not up to it means that, though I'm interested in seing that the efforts go in a certain direction, I'm not interested enough in taking them there. I think a good start would be some healthy discussion as to the basic format. Perhaps a different format for civilian and military arms. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok subsection then. Also better download an in-browser spell checker lol, I type way too fast...
If you guys have got time to re-write the AK-47 article, perhaps you've also got time to drop past a few of the A-class reviews (such as Lee-Enfield and Lewis Gun :P) and provide a supporting vote or help with formatting etc? :) Commander Zulu (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapon article structure

Here's my proposal for weapons mainly used by militaries rather than civilians Obviously it should only be a rough guide subject ot change on a case-by-case basis

  • Development
When it was devloped, why and how
  • Design details
The workings of the weapon, its effectiveness, durability and mobility.
  • Variants
List of Variants
  • History
Conflicts the weapon has been used in, feedback it has recieved, how each variant was devloped and why.--Pattont/c 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Export history
This section probably won't be in every article, but we could use it if the history section is too cluttered.
  • Civilian ownership
Civlian use and legality.

Pattont/c 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, however your "History" section would be redundant and covered mostly by "Development. What I propose is a Deployment section after variants that would combine military and civilian use, in a historically correct progression. Koalorka (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
A structure guide already exists for military firearms. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Firearm.--LWF (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I say we update it. The accessories and civilian use categories are ill-conceived and not entirely practical for our purposes. Civilian use will fall under deployment while accessories can be included at the end of the design details section. One more, "design details" vs. "design features"? Koalorka (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In the case of military firearms, accessories is actually applicable. Maybe not as a section, but as part of the article. Note that the guideline specifies, Accessories. A list and description of the officially approved accessories issued with the weapon, such as bayonets and any special cleaning kits. So it isn't every little thing that someone thought to bolt on, it's the official stuff issued or approved for use with the firearm. And once again, maybe not a civilian use section, but there will be circumstances where it will be applicable, for example if a military firearm is phased out by its user, sold as surplus, and becomes a wildly popular hunting rifle, that would be worth covering, because it is part of the history.--LWF (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point. The other thing is that a "Civilian Use" section is going to be staggeringly US-centric or filled with Original Research, or both. "There are a number of civilian sporting rifles based on the Kalashnikov action" with in-line cites acknowledging the Valmet hunting rifle and a couple of the other similar sporting rifles (not just Military-Style Semi-Automatic Kalashnikov rifles as are commonly found in the US) would be about as much as I think you could realistically get away with in regards to that. And a couple of people would have to pretty much be on 24/7 Edit Watch to stop all the Armchair Commandos and 15 year old CounterStrike players from listing every single appearance of the AK in film, TV, video games etc, as well as making sure the information that gets put in the article is from reputable sources and not "My uncle who is on duty in Iraq at the moment". Commander Zulu (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we already have people looking out for the commando infiltrators and for soldiering teenagers.

Now on the point of US-Centric, in all honesty, yes it would focus on the US as the US is one of the biggest markets for firearms, if not the biggest, and a section that is mostly about the US is not a bad thing, as long as other relevant uses are covered. One thing I really want to avoid is removing applicable information because we aren't covering other countries, when there isn't anything to cover about other countries. I don't want equality in coverage, I want verifiability, and completeness.--LWF (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I do believe that un-necessary US-centricity could be a WP:WORLDVIEW issue. I'm not saying we should ignore the civilian Kalashnikovs in the US, but my concern is that a "Civilian Use" section would turn into "Legality of Semi-Auto AK-47s by (US) State". Then you get into issues like "How do you mention general bans/restrictions on military-style semi-automatic centrefire rifles, such as exist in Australia, the UK, and (to a lesser extent) Canada?" They're not specifically targeted at the Kalshnikov, but they do encompass it, and should probably be mentioned. I'm not suggesting we remove verifiable information just because there's lots of stuff about the US and only a single paragraph covering the rest of the world, but I am suggesting that we resist the urge to start listing the gun laws of every US state and generally act like the US is the only place in the world where civilians can own a (semi-auto) AK-47. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The 6 or 7 socialist-leaning states that ban rifles in the US are patterned after Australia and the UK where they go by characteristics. The only one that specifically mentions the AK-47 by make and model is California(they do that with AR's too, meaning Colt's PWA's and anything made 20 years ago are banned by name, but RRA, Noveske, and more modern manufactured receivers are not). I would think a simple link to "See Assault Weapons in California" for further details would keep the mishmash of state laws from infecting the article. I also know a few countries where it is legal for civilians to own full-auto AK's as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean CZ, but it's easy to avoid problems of listing where a firearm is legal or illegal, as I mentioned below, such a section would have lots of problems regarding interpretation of law, and the changing nature of law. In the case of AKs, it would be valid to mention that they are regulated in some municipalities as they are, and then to mention that in the US (and maybe other places) AKs from other countries have become very popular as a rifle for civilians to own. Such a statement is accurate, and complete.--LWF (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal to solve the civilian ownership problem

I suggest we should write a single article about what guns are allowed where and why, an link to it. Otherwise we'd have to mention practically every single country that exists and whether it's legal to own whatever weapon the article is about there (That includes afghanistan). We can then leave out a legality/civilian ownership section and simply link to the article someplace else.--Pattont/c 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To difficult, especially considering some laws are subject to interpretation, and that could possibly run into issues with Wikipedia not providing legal advice. In addition, it would have to have a disclaimer due to changing laws, and Wikipedia has a policy against disclaimers in articles. I think it's WP:NDA.--LWF (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a very silly argument. Nothing is "too difficult", it's either possible or it isn't. This is possible, easy compared to some other articles. We simply document what the laws are, and if there are peculiaralities we also state that. Not hard. No legal advice applies mainly to the reference desk unless it's blatant, and we wouldn't need disclaimers because laws change so infrequently (M249 IAR section had to be updated almost daily for a few days there, not law article will ever need to be updated that much). I wll go as far as to say this is easy.--Pattont/c 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's already a Gun Politics article that seems to pretty much be what the earlier poster was talking about, from what I can see... Commander Zulu (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The Gun Politics page seems to have a lot of this information. If readers require more detailled information on the laws for any particular country, can we just update the pages relating to gun politics in a specific country? Could we put a general reference chart of some kind on the Gun Politics page highlighting the most commonly asked about aspects of firearms law in Countries (Federal/State regulation, licensing, registration, import restrictions). Kartano (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

high vs. full

I've been noticing with rifles like the M14 that it's said they use "full-power rounds". I think this is a misnomer, it seems to imply other, lower powered, rounds aren't powered at their full capacity. Instead, I think what is meant is the term "high-powered". I've been correcting this in articles and it would be helpful if I wasn't the only one. --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In firearms history circles, the term "Full-power" is a backwards designation for standard-power military cartridges of the late 19th up till the mid-20th century. These included such standards as the 7.62x54R Russian cartridge, the .303 British, 7.92x57mm Mauser, .30-40, .30-03, and .30-06 American cartridges, the 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser, some French round, .308 Winchester, etc. The term came about because of the accepted term, "Intermediate-power" to describe the 7.92x33mmK, .30 Carbine, 7.62x39mm Russian, 7.62x52mm Czech, etc. which are considered "intermediate" or "Full-Caliber Assault Rifle" (FCAR) cartridges. The later "Small-Caliber, High Velocity" (SCHV) cartridges were spurred by the .223 (5.56x45mm) and later the 5.45x39mm and some Chinese 5.7mm cartridge. The SCHV is also considered an assault rifle cartridge. These are standardized terms. Read the excellent "Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition," by Max Popenker and Anthony Williams for further enlightenment. Further, the term "High-Power" has attained a pejorative connotation by its use in the media to describe any firearm illegally used. It is often erroneously used to describe firearms with high-capacity magazines, shotguns, magnum revolvers, and hunting rifles in general. In common media accepted style, it is virtually meaningless and intended merely to incite fear, not for any definitive use. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. A lot of media sources that are available often make use of terms such as "high powered" or "full power". Care should be taken if using these sources with respect to what the accepted definition is. Kartano (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging the Dragunov Sniper Rifle and the Dragunov Tiger

Can the article on the Dragunov Tiger be merged into the article on the Dragunov SVD? The Tiger is really a civilian version of the SVD rifle - the action and basic design of the rifle is almost identical. Kartano (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No question. I'm surprised someone snuck the page passed me. Koalorka (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Move SVD (rifle) to Dragunov SVD

Threre is a discussion about this here.--Pattont/c 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern Reproductions

There's an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USFA Custer Battlefield Gun currently ongoing and it's generated some discussion about whether or not reproductions of guns go in the main article (as with WP:GUNS#Variants), or whether there are some guns- like the Colt Single Action Army and the M1911 pistol that have spawned so many reproductions, knock-offs, and clones that a separate article dealing with those reproduction/clone guns is warranted. Any thoughts on the subject? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Reich weapons nomenclature

The old drama about the AIA M10 rifle series

Hi, all. I'm building up a list of references for the infamous M10 series of rifles from AIA. These are based heavily on the No. 4 action. Would it be worth adding information about these rifles to the article on the Lee-Enfield rifle? These rifles are slowly gaining popularity in Australia - as a Range Officer I now see several of them in use. Any comments or feedback on this idea? Kartano (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There's not really a lot to say about them beyond what's in the article, IMHO, but if you've got a copy of Skennerton's The Lee-Enfield or some other properly referenced stuff and think you can add something to the article, then by all means go ahead. Like yourself I'm a Range Officer and I've seen a few of them popping up lately, but there hasn't been much written about them from a "What they're like to shoot" POV- I think both the shooting magazines here have run articles on them at some point, though. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been taking a list of articles on the AIA rifles as I've been reading them. I'll see if there are enough references I can use there to add a short reference to these. The 7.62x39mm type M10-A1 and A2 rifles seem to be popular for whatever reason. Thanks, Zulu! Kartano (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Emptying Company infobox To Do list

I've just added images and infoboxs to these articles:

Charter Arms

Norinco

James Purdey and Sons

Sierra Bullets

Does anyone know any websites that display company information such as revenue or income? Because not all the fields have been filled. Thanks User:Tsange 16:56, 05 March 2009 (GMT)

Merging 5.56x45mm variants into main article

I've put merge tags on two variants of the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. Per 'variants' section, these should fall under the main article. Though each variant may deserve a paragraph or even two as is the case with the SS109, I think that a separate article is redundant and confusing. One does not, for instance, have a separate article for the 200gr loading of the .45ACP. Please go to the talk page there and comment. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The GP 90 is not really a variant. It evolved outside of any official NATO specifications. It's an indigenous Swiss product that retains some STANAG commonality. Koalorka (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sig states it retains full compatibility with the 5.56x45mm... in other words they standardized a different loading of the same cartridge. I don't even think this about semantics, it's simply the same cartridge, slightly different loading. For the record, the M855/SS109 cartridge is optimized for the 1-in-10" twist rate too. 1-in-7" is for stabilizing the longer tracer rounds. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes the Mk 262 article should definitly be merged. Not sure about the GP 90 as it isn't 5.56...even if it's compatible.--Pattont/c 19:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever way you say it, the GP90 is the same cartridge as the 5.56x45mm and will fire interchangeably with the other. Another way of saying that is that it is the same loading. In fact, since 1-in-12" twist barrels would probably do poorly with the Mk262, the case could probably be made that That cartridge should have a stub article first. The GP90 uses a 63gr bullet and I believe it even falls into the NATO specs as far as +/- variances. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge, I was wondering the same thing, and would support both being merged into 5.56x45mm. Even if GP 90 isn't a direct "variant" it's still basically the same thing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsman's_Association

Think the hard core pornography line should be deleted (unless it's true of course).

Checked the offical site http://www.sportsmansassociation.co.uk/ that same text is there apart from the part about pornography I also found it was done by 86.129.248.15 IP address. I will remove it and try to build the page. Tsange (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Separate Jarmann M1884's harpoon-gun variant?

Double-checked this against the WP:GUNS variant policy, but I'd argue that the harpoon guns based on the surplus Jarmann rifles are rather unique, differ notably from the original intent of the gun (and from guns at all), and should probably be their own article in Category:Whaling, with links between the two. Anyone object to my splitting the harpoon-gun info into its own article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging of the CQBR article with M16 or similar

Could the CQBR article be merged with another such as the AR15 or M16? This seems to be about a modification to an existing rifle. Does it however merit a seperate article, in a similar way to the Pederson Device? Kartano (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is a firearm a tool or a weapon?

A certain user:Theserialcomma thinks it should be defined as a weapon. The term "weapon" implies a use that is not implicit in the tool. In reality, very few weapons are exclusively weapons. The vast majority of firearms are not used as weapons. They are used as tools for punching holes in paper targets, knocking over steel plates, or just making noise. The term weapon limits the definition of a firearm to only one of its many uses, that of a weapon. Beyond that, the term "weapon" has negative connotations and may be considered POV and pejorative. Firearms are tools. Their use as a weapon involves the choice of the owner, not the nature of the firearm. I've made these points before and the consensus was to keep it as a tool. However, the particular user who is warring with me over this one also thought that five references were not enough to validate that a compensator reduced percieved recoil. Could I get some input on the article Firearm from the WP:Firearms community? Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearms were invented, designed and built as weapons. Use in recreation is secondary. It's like saying swords and spears are tools because they can be used for fun. Both are weapons.--Pattont/c 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering firearm is defined as a weapon by every dictionary I've seen; the etymology of the word (fire and arms); and the fact that the article Firearm is in the Weapons category (not in tools); I would have to say that weapon is the proper word to use here... using the word tool would mean that it's primary purpose is something other than being a weapon, and that is just not accurate... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Does this meaning extend to match-only type firearms (I.E: the Anschutz target rifles) which are designed and built for only one intended purpose? Kartano (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Is a decorative dagger any less a dagger? I've seen beautiful, jewel-encrusted knives that I would probably never cut something with, but I still consider them knives, and I consider knives to be cutting tools. It may not be a perfect comparison, but I think that a gun that's not meant to be shot at living targets is a weapon that's not meant to be used as such. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have several purpose built competition rifles, and those are no less weapons than any other firearm... they are still deadly weapons... they are more accurate than your average pea-shooter, but that doesn't mean they are no longer weapons... is a NASCAR car not an automobile because it is designed and built for only one intended purpose? I'm not saying that firearms are not used as tools on occation, but the primary definition should remain a weapon... if nothing else, think about it like this, any random person could use a firearm as a weapon but only certain people use them as tools (and only certain firearms are used as tools), so the broad definition on the main firearm article should define them as weapons... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. It is a tool that may be used as a weapon. A stapler can be a weapon. A toothpick can be a weapon. Heck, marshmellows can be used as weapons. That a marshmellow can be used as a weapon does not mean you define it as a weapon. That an axe can be used as a weapon does not make it a weapon. That an icepick can be used as a weapon does not make it so. Knives, machette's, shovels, hammers, rope, sticks, rocks, etc. are all weapons as well. The firearm is a tool first and foremost. Yes, the name is a conjunction of 'fire' and 'arm' meaning fire weapon literally. The bottom line, though, is it is still a tool above all else; it is a tool for moving projectiles at high speed through a barrel. It was designed as a weapon but it is a tool. Therefore, the intended use of the tool is as a weapon. I don't disagree that it's a weapon and that's the underlying area of disagreemnt other editors seem to have with this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that a weapon is a tool (it is even stated on the article Weapon, right in the lead)... but it would be both redundant and disambiguous to call a firearm a tool (a very simple term that could mean anything) instead of a weapon (a specific type of tool) in an encyclopedia article... if you look at the weapon article, it lists firearms as modern weapons, but the tool article makes no mention of firearms (or weapons at all for that matter)...
I guess it's all a matter of semantics, but my logic leads me to think that if we are going to use one specific word (tool or weapon), we should use weapon... because a weapon is a specific type of tool, whereas the word tool could mean anything from a weapon to a socket wrench to a stick... and while you are correct that any tool could be used as a weapon, firearms are tools designed as weapons...
I also think (after reading the above comments here, as well as those on Talk:Firearm) the consensus is leaning towards the word weapon... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Very valid points. Would it be possible to refer to them as "firearms" instead of "weapons", if a weapon is a specific subset of a group of firearms? Kartano (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have missed the point of the conversation slightly... we are discussing the lead sentence on the article Firearm... whether to say "A firearm is a weapon that..." or "A firearm is a tool that...". Also, a firearm is a specific type of weapon, not the other way around... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Mea Culpa, thanks for the heads up. Kartano (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A firearm is a tool most often used as a weapon. If a firearm is NOT a tool, then you'd have to change the definition of a tool. There are negative connotations associated with the word "Weapon". A firearm is a type of tool. At one end of the spectrum we can say that a firearm is a solid object. That dumb enough for the internet? At the other end we can say it is a device for accelerating projectiles in a given direction. To me, this is like saying that a knife is a weapon. That implies a required use that is not implied in the design of the tool. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A weapon is type of tool, tool is very loosely defined. You wouldn't say a fork was a tool you'd say it was cutlery, it's more specific. Of course a fork could be used for any number of other purposes, but it's still cutlery. A firearm is type of tool used to incapacitate others, i.e. a weapon.--Pattont/c 19:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

About half-way down the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence page there is a boxed list called "gun interest groups in the US" - does it exist as a nav box or can it be turned into one? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It exists as a template, here. It could be edited into about anything. Yaf (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Here you go:

{{Navbox
((insert arguments here))
}}

unlike non-navbox version, doesn't break article flow (even if my terminology is wrong, it's my opinion that navbox style does looks cleaner than old one) =^_^= (!!!continued below!!! -- old, non-navbox transcluded template breaks flow on talk pages too -- !!!continued below!!!)
Note -- {{USgunorgs}} nominated for NPOV-check because of additional problems with the template. --Kuzetsa (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Gun interest groups in the U.S.
Gun rights advocacy

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
National Rifle Association
Pink Pistols
Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Sisters
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Gun control advocacy

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
American Hunters and Shooters Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Americans for Gun Safety Foundation
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
League of Women Voters
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Violence Policy Center
(!!!continued here!!!) =^_^= above is (for now) accessable with {{USgunorgs/navbox}} or can just paste the contents of the subpage to overwrite the "flow breaking" version entirely... Regardless of the technical / specific reason for the "cluttered appearance / erroneous flow breaking", I suspect that the flow-breaking glitch lies in the "align-right" wikimarkup used for the original USgunorgs table / template. --Kuzetsa (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Have made this change, and updated "navigated to" targets. Yaf (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant additions to Lee Enfield

A user is trying to add an obscure reference to "three-oh-three" in a movie he watched to the article, Lee Enfield. Could we have a few knowledgeable users attand that discussion. For the record, he is also edit warring to include "Puke state" as an altrenate name for the state of Missouri. Thanks for the help. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks completely irrelevant to me. Those setences discuss hte cartridge not the rifle, and aren't important enough to be mentioned in this article (Sure, specs of cartridge, how widespread it was etc are all reelvant, but not this). Have opposed addition on talk. Btw renamed section, title was rather provocative.--Pattont/c 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, Patton. However, I'm following up on Nukes4Tots's contribs simply because he has begun WP:Hounding me, vandalizing my talkpage and reverting me on a page I've worked on for years and which he has never visited before, and accusing ME of edit-warring there. The guy's obviously out to wreck my good rep, and I'm just advising folks to be aware of the way he communicates with other editors (User talk:Nukes4Tots/Archive 1), his history of blocking for edit-warring, and the case for his being a sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukes4Tots/Archive) (though I'm not clear on the final disposition there). Just FYI. He knows a lot about his subject, and while his attacks on me do indeed annoy, his capacity to drive away contributors whose pleasure in editing is spoiled by bullying is of greater concern. DavidOaks (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
He warned you for edit warring. You did revert his removals of your content multiple times. I'm very aware of his history, in fact many other users have been permanantly banned for less, but he has the encyclopedia at heart and tries to act in its interests.--Pattont/c 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, Wikipedia was not about "the pleasure of editing". David, You've gone around in several places acusing me of bullying, hounding, edit warring. If I were thin-skinned, I'd call that, in and of itself, a personal attack, but I realize that you're backed into a corner and this is how you're reacting. But... I'd really like you to address your edit and the content. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference is far from obscure- it's an important part of Australian Identity- and it absolutely needs to be in the article. In this part of the world, ".303" refers to the rifle as well as the cartridge, so IMO the reference isn't in the wrong place. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mondragón rifle tampered with?

Another forum I follow had some relatively knowledgeable folks come across Mondragón rifle, and several said that there appear to be all kinds of falsehoods inserted into the article. The Mondragon has plenty of rumour and myth attached to it, but apparently the claim that Germans made sniper rifles from them, and similar claims in the article, are completely lacking in accuracy. Does anyone have any resources available to tackle this issue? Any reputable books against which these claims can be fact-checked? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Move Colt CMG-1 machine gun to CMG-1

There is a proposal here to move Colt CMG-1 machine gun to CMG-1. Thanks!--Pattont/c 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

9mm pistol

I was in the process of trying to remember what type of 9mm pistol I shot in the Navy when I typed "9mm pistol" in the search box. Oddly enough, there is no article with that name. Not even a redirect. Any suggestions on what it should redirect to? It seems like a reasonable search item.--Rockfang (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Try M9 pistol. This is most likely what you were looking for. Yaf (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There are hundreds of pistols that chamber many types of 9mm cartridges. Koalorka (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The M9 was indeed what we used. Thanks for the info. Any idea though if "9mm pistol" should redirect to (if anything)?--Rockfang (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Read my last comment again. Koalorka (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe as a disambiguation page, listing all (is that even possible?) of the different 9mm pistols. htom (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
To Koalorka: Ok. :) I thought it was regarding what type of pistol I used in the Navy and not my redirect question. Sorry about that. I was going to suggest redirecting it to Semi-automatic pistol but then I realised that some machine pistols used 9mm as well. There's gotta be something we can redirect it to though. :)
To OtterSmith/htom: Hmm. That may be doable. I'm not up on the policies/guidelines on disambig pages though.--Rockfang (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with them either. Skimming WP:D, perhaps what we want to do is have 9mm pistol as a WP:SETINDEX page, stating that it's a generic term, frequently a semi-automatic pistol, sometimes a machine pistol, or a term used instead of the particular name of the specific pistols [ then a list of links]. htom (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I beleive what's being said is that since there are, quite literally, hundreds of models of firearm and tens of millions of individual 9mm pistols, an article by that name would be as useful as an article on unleaded-fuel powered vehicles. In fact, there are over a dozen different "9mm" cartridges out there to complicate the matter more. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is true. If we are going to have a disambig from "9mm Pistol" I'd nominate Semi-automatic pistol as the best candidate, but I don't think we could justify a dedicated article. Otherwise we'd have to do ".45 Pistol" covering the Colt Peacemaker, Modern Repros, the M1911 pistol, any other handgun ever made in .45 LC or .45ACP. Then we'd have to do pretty much every other popular calibre out there. The whole thing would get silly pretty quickly, in other words... Commander Zulu (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drumming up new contributors from TheHighRoad.org

I'm a regular poster on www.thehighroad.org (a major firearms forum with 87,000 members), and have been trying to drum up some support for WP:GUNS. If any members here are also THR members, and want to offer any insight as to why this project is important to the firearms community, suggest how folks can help out, etc., here's the link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=443873&highlight=wikipedia MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest an active project member set this up. It likely would have avoided this issue. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Colt M1889/DA revolvers pre-1911

I was wondering if I could get some help on this. Someone already created an article on the Colt M1892, but I think that's only a variant of the 1889. I'm using this as a source. There seems to be a vast array of DA revolvers that apparently are from the same family, that were used by the military in the late 1800's. --Phil1988 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

criminal use

Hi, I believe that the criminal use guideline may be setting too high a bar for notability. The guideline suggests that there would have to be a legislative change caused by criminal use or widespread media interest in the firearm. However, the notability article in Wikipedia says that "It is agreed on Wikipedia that notability must be demonstrated using what are termed "reliable sources". The theory of "reliable sources", on which the core policy of verifiability rests, has been one of the key developments over Wikipedia's lifetime. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and generally exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that reliable sources "exercise some form of editorial control.".............Based on this source, I would argue that if a journalist, historian, law enforcement official, etc. makes a statement about the criminal use of a certain firearm in a reputable published source, then this could go in the article on the firearm in question. To repeat the hypothetical example I gave in my attempt to propose changes to the guideline:"In 2002, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms stated that the 9mm XXX-99 was the most commonly used handgun in felony offenses in the US" [source to reputable book or newspaper]..........Other reliable sources might include historians:"In 1999, firearm historian Jane Doe released a study that indicated that the 9mm XXX-99 was the most widely used handgun in armed robberies in the US in the 1970s and 1980s[reference].OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think "Criminal Use" of a firearm is notable in any but a very few cases (Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano and Clyde Barrow's sawn-off shotgun, for example). I think we'd need several reputable published sources that a particular firearm was notable for criminal use before we started including it, though, just to make sure that we really were only acknowledging the truly notable instances and not the trivia. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources

Hi, I added standard Wikipedia language on reliable sources. Re: the notion that only the project coordinator can make changes to the guidelines page...do you have a source of authority for this claim? It was suggested earlier that proposals have to be submitted, and then discussed, and then the coordinator will make the changes. Yet a back-and-forth of editing on a page is a widely used way of, in effect, having a discussion.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If editors were not meant to be able to propose changes by editing the project page, then why is the page not protected so that only the coordinator can edit it? Perhaps this would be a good idea to prevent future unwanted edits from people such as myself who mistake the "edit" button as being available for use for editing? : )...........OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Did it not occur to you that "WikiProject" might indicate there were other people involved, and whatever was on that page had probably been agreed upon by them, and that it was not, therefore, your place to change it without discussion? Think of a project page as being like your personal User Page- "other people" don't get to change it without checking with you first. You've certainly been on Wikipedia long enough to realise this (and how things work around here), so rather than being smarmy about it how about simply apologising for the mistake and joining the project so you can help improve it and the articles under its scope? Commander Zulu (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen a back and forth editing discussion of guidelines and policies? I personally doubt it, because to do so would cause hopeless confusion for anyone trying to use those guidelines and policies. In cases like this, it improves things if the discussion happens first, then comes to a consensus, then is implemented, and for the sake of clarity, implemented by the coordinator to make it clear where it is coming from. Now, the reason the page isn't edit protected is because there are things that any editor can and should edit. We have an area for AfDs, an area for AfCs, we have a place where people can join the project. I suppose it would be possible to create templates with the parts that aren't for everyone to edit, and then protect those, but that would still leave the problem of how I would edit an edit-protected page, seeing as how I'm not an administrator.--LWF (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sawed-off shotgun vs. Sawn-Off shotgun

There's a discussion at Sawed-off shotgun regarding a potential name change- "Sawed-off" shotgun is not regarded as the "common" name, with "Sawn-off" shotgun being both grammatically correct (or at least moreso than "sawed"), and in more common usage world-wide than the (parts of the) US-centric "Sawed". Personally my vote is for a move to "Sawn-off shotgun" (which is what the article's subject is referred to as near-exclusively throughout the article itself), but rather than just arbitrarily moving the article I thought it best to get some input first. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How about the first member to post a pic of a legally owned version in their collection gets to pick? :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Krag-Jørgensen‎ 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The MP-40 isn't generally also known as a "Burp Gun"

It currently says on the project page that two of the "highly common" names for the MP-40 are Schmeisser and burp gun, but this is incorrect- the term "Burp Gun" refers to the PPSh-41, not the MP-40. The MP-40 article makes no mention of "burp gun" as a nickname, whereas the PPSh-41 article does make mention of the titular firearm being called a "Burp Gun". (They're called "Burp guns" because of their extremely high rate of fire- around 900rpm!) The link Burp gun redirects to Submachine gun, so I'd argue that the wording on the project page needs to be changed to something like "...should use the real name or a highly common nickname (e.g. Schmeisser for the MP-40, or Tommy Gun for the Thompson Submachine gun)." Thoughts? Commander Zulu (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, life's been busy enough that I forgot about that. Like I said, I thought I saw it somewhere, but it's been long enough that my memory may have been garbled. I'd be fine using Tommy Gun instead, or just using the current burp gun wording, but using it for the PPSh-41 that it actually refers to.--LWF (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"British Military Rifles" M1917

The article "British Military Rifles" contains the statement:

Many M1917s were also, ironically, sent to Britain under Lend-Lease, where they equipped Home Guard units; these .30-06 rifles had a prominent red stripe painted on the stock to distinguish them from .303 P-14's.

I believe this is incorrect. The M1917s were sold to the UK in 1940 for a nominal price. Lend-Lease did not begin until March 1941/

Df1995 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure M1917 Rifles were still supplied under Lend-Lease- Britain remained chronically short of rifles until around 1942, IIRC, and was taking whatever they could get. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. One of the reasons I joined Wiki is that I'm very insterested in Military Science.

Hi everyone, I'm Ironkoji.

In the last few weeks somebody has gone through the list of assault rifles and virtually gutted the information on many of the rifles there. I would sincerely like to have the information that has been removed, to be restored. Please don't say it was because of lack of citations and whatnot. I'd studied and verified plenty of the information that has been removed. You may not have notice or may not have liked the citations given, but for the most part it was all there. Especially interesting where the very extensive articles on the FFV AK 5 Basic and the Beretta AR 70/90. How can I get the missing information restored please, because without it I cannot give further citations and bibliography on that information. I don't have a photographic memory. I'm not trying to be unfriendly, but it's true, many of the articles have virtually been gutted and that information, for the most part was legitimate. Please restore the information and give me some time and I'll help to improve the citations for it.

Your friend,

Ironkoji —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironkoji (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kammerlader - feature article review

I have nominated Kammerlader 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture: Did I miss a discussion somewhere?

Someone has just gone and drastically re-written the Pop Culture guidelines. I'm not necessarily saying I seriously disagree with them, but I'm pretty sure we're, you know, supposed to discuss these sorts of things with the other project members rather than making sweeping arbitrary changes... Commander Zulu (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not miss a discussion, what happened was undiscussed, without warning, and shouldn't occur again. If the editor still thinks the Pop culture and Criminal use guidelines should be changed, they will need to come here and discuss it. Once that has happened, we will try and reach a consensus, and I will implement the changes myself.
Everyone, in the future, before making changes to the Project page, come to me if it's minor, such as adding a section for something, and come to the talk page for a discussion of something major. And to everyone, do not go and make changes to the page yourself, come to me. It can become difficult to keep track of things when others are going around making their own changes. Now, an exception to this is making minor maintenance edits, replacing dead links and such, and you don't need to come to me before joining the project, or adding to our to-do list, or any of the other things that are clearly meant for use by anyone.
Now, onto a related subject. CZ, you made an edit to the pop culture section saying that the MP 40 was never referred to as a "burp gun". I seem to recall checking into that before adding that to the guideline, but I will check into it again, I may be mixing things up in my mind.--LWF (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got no reference for the MP-40 being called a "Burp Gun", (the term is, I believe, supposed to represent the high rate of fire of a particular SMG, which the Schmeisser does not have), but I've heard the term used by several Korean War and Vietnam War veterans to refer to the PPSh-41 and PPS SMGs. The Wiki article on the PPSh-41 also refers to it as a "Burp Gun" in the lead paragraph, but the MP-40 article makes no such mention of it being nicknamed a "Burp Gun". Commander Zulu (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am concerned about the conflation of trivia sections (which are, I agree, trivial and should generally be removed) and pop culture sections. Wikipedia is different than the respected paper encyclopedias of the past for several reasons. Without going into an exhaustive list, I'll just name 2: Wikipedia is often much more current than paper encyclopedias (in some articles, material is updated daily) and it often has a broader range of coverage in its articles. For example, the coverage of a subject often extends to the popular culture treatment of the subject. As I argued in my earlier addition to the guideline, the problem is not pop culture sections per se, but poorly done pop culture sections. Poorly done pop culture sections are random, indiscriminate lists which tend to be filled with original research, speculation, etc. A well-done pop culture section, though, can help the reader to understand how the subject of the article (whether a 1950s pistol or a 1970s rock song) continues to influence popular culture. By well-done, I mean referenced to experts in the field (pop culture historians, sociologists, etc), and well-written. As such, I would like to request:

a) making a distinction between trivia sections and "In popular culture" sections b) removing the statement that pop culture sections clutter articles and add little (or softening it by saying "indiscriminate lists of pop culture references clutter articles"). As is, the guideline appears hostile to the inclusion of pop culture references.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The guideline IS hostile to the inclusion of pop culture references. Personally- and I stress that this is my personal opinion only- I'd like to see more Pop Culture stuff in Wiki articles because, let's face it, we've got unlimited space to work with and people expect Wiki to have the pop culture/ephemeral stuff you can't get in a traditional print encyclopaedia. The problem is that there are so many Fanboys out there who add in all sorts of completely irrelevant guns-in-movies/TV trivia and back it up with cites from obscure Anime magazines and 'zines no-one has heard of, rapidly turning the article on FictionalGun into a "List of appearances in Gunsmith Cats and other obscure TV shows", ultimately making the article more about the fans of the mentioned TV series and not the firearm itself. That's why Pop Culture references are generally discouraged. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me where it says pop culture sections clutter articles. Because it doesn't, it says "In general, pop culture sections clutter articles and add little". Then it goes on to state what kind of pop culture information belongs in Wikipedia. Really what it is saying is other than some kinds of information (which it then gives examples of) pop culture isn't a good thing. And it doesn't say no pop culture, it says to avoid it, as these sections have to be carefully maintained to prevent them from spiraling out of control. Now, adding a qualifier to the statement about pop culture sections in reference to quality would not be a bad idea. Now, I wouldn't mind making a small distinction between pop culture and trivia, but one reason it uses trivia now is because so much of the material that winds up in pop culture sections is pointless trivia. --LWF (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of it, in fact. The only pop culture we should be including in articles is pop culture which has helped to define the subject. A perfect example is in .44 Magnum, because it was because of Dirty Harry that the general public became aware of the cartridge. This doesn't hold for about 99% of Wikipedia's pop culture entries, and isn't referenced by reliable sources in half of the remainder. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me improve Category:Semi-automatic_pistols

Please help me improve the semi-auto pistol category. Suggest we move the 'vendor' names into a subcategory "Pistols by Manufacturer" and add another category "Pistols by year produced" and subcategorize accordingly. Spectre9 (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Assault Weapon article mistakes

Whomever is responsible for the opening paragraphs under "Assault Weapon" does not know (anything)! I don't care how many college degrees you have or how many years you've been a lawyer or how many years you've spent in the military and/or police or how much you "think" you know about firearms! YOU ARE WRONG!!! NO semi-auto guns are assault weapons no matter what military firearms they "may" resemble or how scary milquetoast Americans think they look! That IS FACT and is NOT up for debate! Communist politicians can NOT come along and summarily deem perfectly legal guns illegal as they see fit! That's how these clowns get voted out of office, re: 1994! This (deleted) is what makes "Wikipedia" look like just another giant joke on the internet! Self-professed experts in law and firearms and the military and law enforcement are a dime a dozen!

JRR 6-14-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrbrt (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"NO semi-auto guns are assault weapons no matter what military firearms they "may" resemble"
Really, what is an FN FAL or an L1A1? They pulled the full-auto sears out of those because they aren't very controllable...care to revise your statement?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The L1A1 is a Self-Loading Rifle and is thus not an Assault Rifle. The FN-FAL is an assault rifle, though (automatic/burst fire capabilities). The New Zealand Government uses the term "Military Style Semi-Automatic Rifle" to refer to Semi-Auto versions of things like the AK-47, M-16, and FN-FAL, and I think it's a very useful and handy definition that might be worthwhile to incorporate into Wiki articles dealing with the subject. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "assault weapon" has several different meanings, which are discussed in the Assault weapon article, but the most common meaning is the legally created definition. This includes certain semi-automatic firearms, not full auto ones. Whether or not this legally created definition is arbitrary or muddle-headed or anti-gun is part of the debate, and that's discussed in the article also. Any article on Wikipedia needs to be written for the average reader. For example, someone in the U.S. might say to themselves, "There's a proposal to ban assault weapons, but what are those, exactly? I'll look it up on Wikipedia." If the article says that they're full auto, the average reader will be completely misled. Note also that this article is about a very controversial topic, so maintaining a neutral point of view is also an issue. I'd like to encourage interested members of this WikiProject to take a more active role in patrolling the article, and to comment on this question, either here or at Talk:Assault weapon#Term "assault weapon". Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The L1A1 is an Assault weapon yes? ...in my mind, so is any weapon than can take a full-auto sear but has a semi-auto sear in its place. An FN FAL with a semi-auto sear is effectively the same. Actually, I'm a little confused by your definition of a self-loading rifle not being an assault rifle because in the article for FN FAL it is defined as "self-loading" in the first sentence. (The international confusion of terms is undoubtedly mine).
I believe that Jrrbrt is forgetting that legitimate military weapons can be assault weapons as can be seen from his edit here. We have a lot of true battle rifles in the U.S. that are converted to assault weapons (semi-auto) from selective-fire assault rifles. I get the impression that Jrrbrt is only thinking of the knockoff look-a-likes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes because of the international cultural differences. An "Assault Weapon" is (outside the US) a select fire capable gun, usually with a pistol grip. Basically, it's a synonym for "Assault Rifle". The L1A1 SLR is not an assault weapon- it's a Self Loading Rifle (an actual name for the rifle in Commonwealth use), or a Military Style Semi-Auto. The fact it can be modified to full-auto is irrelevant, because, as manufactured, they are semi-auto only. The M-16, AK-47, and StG-44 are Assault Weapons. The AR-15 is a Military-Style Semi-Automatic. Having said that, I realise the term "Assault Weapon" has a legal definition in the US not used anywhere else, which isn't helping the situation. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! I have always hated that incorrect term since it's inception in the late 1980's. I personally refer to such pieces as "so-called Assault Weapons", most states in the US do not use the term, the Federal term has dissolved with the expiration of the unconstitutional ban. It's really just used in a handful of places like California where they have archaic backward laws prohibiting private ownership of such weapons.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • While the original editor has some very valid points that I agree with, I feel he's going about it all wrong. Starting out by ranting, telling people how ignorant they are and how there is no room for discussion and then going back to name calling doesn't help. I totally understand your frustration with people mislabelling firearms, then having ill-conceived laws made up about them. But to win that battle requires winning the debate through the calm, reasoned, presentation of facts that show the fallacy of their argument, not by telling them that they are ignorant and that there is no disputing it. Someone said something once about catching flies with honey...... Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Krag-Petersson 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming in Foreign Language characters?

I wanted to propose here before I did any changing that foreign-language characters be transliterated in the titles and text of WP:GUNS articles. The reason is actually policy spelled out in WP:EN. This is a no-brainer to me, but some editors went around a while back and changed several articles. Notably, the CZ-82 article and other Czech guns. I'll list a few here:

ČZ vz. 82 should be CZ-82 or CZ model 82, ČZ vz. 27 should be CZ-27 or CZ model 27, etc. with ČZ vz. 52 and possibly some others. Also, there is Vz. 50 which is translated as "model 50". Don't think I'm going out on a limb and the WP:EN article seams crystal clear to me. I can be sure that few people know how to type a "Č" let alone what it is. Any other thoughts? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this. Not only is it a WP:EN issue, but in the examples you give, the "CZ" nomenclature is well established in English for firearms descending from Česká Zbrojovka, as that article correctly notes. Of course, the articles should give the alternative nomenclature as well. One minor point: for historical firearms, the popular name in English is sometimes ambiguous; a problem I'm familiar with in regard to Japanese WWII firearms especially. The naming guidelines shouldn't override proper disambiguation in these cases. I don't have any specific example in mind; I just want to make certain it's considered. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This might prove challenging. While I agree that the unique Czech alphabet characters can be converted to their English equivalents, translating actual words and names has the potential to introduce some serious confusion. The AK-47 will suddenly become the "Kalashnikov model 1947" and all of the "Type X" East Asian designiations would have to become the generic "Model X". Tread VERY carefully, we've been down this road before. For this particular group of firearms my recommendation would be to maintain the "Vzor or vz" identifier, especially in models introduced prior to 1989, it's unique to Czech-made weapons and used almost exclusively prior to the privatization of CZ. When CZ began marketing their products to West it was a rather obvious choice to simplify this system and use the company abbreviation followed by the familiar model number. Simply calling the vz. 52 pistol the VZ-52 is a crude oversimplification. Koalorka (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it's a crude oversimplification. The distinctions you suggest are fine for a single mention in a lede, but not in the title of the article or in use throughout the article. The CZ-52, for instance, is universally referred to as such in the United States... it is certianly not referred to with the "Č" with anything short of a passing rarity. Articles that simply state, "model 50" as translated are obviously vague. Considering that the term, "CZ-50" or "CZ 50" are almost universally understood, I don't see the point in trying to look "cool" by using Czech characters in the title or the abbreviation "vz." to refer to anything in the article. "Vzor" means "model", why not translate it and say "Model"? Now, if it's a formal part of the model, then by all means, use it. But it's not, it's a just a word and should be translated and abbreviations are only appropriate if it's a formal name. Therefore one would not say, "vz. 50 throughout the article any more than one would say, "the pistole" this or "the pistole" that. I believe that doing so is just an attempt to flavor the article and is not appropriate. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We also had some trouble a while back with someone trying to change all the European calibre designations to use commas instead of decimal points (7,92x57mm etc). It's just weird to the eyes of English-speakers, along with the accent marks on foreign letters (except some of the French & Scandinavian ones, for some reason). If the Czechoslovakian Wikipedia wants to use the accent marks, great. But in English, they shouldn't be used, so we have CZ-52, Vz-61 Skorpion, and so forth. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well there is one more thing to be decided. What should we use as the standard format. I believe, using the CZ-24 as an example, we should use "CZ 24 pistol" as the standard format rifle. This does several things. First, that's how "CZ" currently does it. See: [1]. Also, the word "pistol" will help differentiate between the CZ 24 pistol and the CZ 24 rifle. I don't believe that VZ, Vz, Vzor, vzor, or any other permutation of the word, "Model" should be used in the English language article besides in the lede to provide the Czech translation. I'd like a consensus on the naming so that I don't have to go back and explain myself when all the nay-sayers come along and say it shouldn't be that way. Here's some examples of the moves needed: Pistole vz. 22 becomes CZ 22 pistol. Pistole vz. 24 becomes CZ 24 pistol. ČZ vz. 27 becomes CZ 27 pistol. CZ 45 becomes CZ 45 pistol. vz. 50 becomes CZ 50 pistol. ČZ vz. 52 becomes CZ 52 pistol. ČZ vz. 82 becomes CZ 82 pistol. Škorpion vz. 61 becomes Skorpion submachinegun? Any other suggested moves?

Is the Skorpion well known as the Vz-61? I'd be inclined to move it to Vz 61 Skorpion sub-machine gun, but otherwise I agree with you. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Translated, the term, "Vz-61" means "model 61". Since this particular firearm has a name (no need to translate the name) then I believe the name should be used. Create redirects for other possible names to make it easy to search for. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The proposed scheme makes me nauseous. I see this as a step backward towards the "Deagle", "Grease gun", "Pepesha" and other such nonsense. You cannot simply replace the model identifier with "CZ" since that is a contemporary commercial designation that isn't accurate; there were several state-run armories operating under the Ceska Zbrojovka name, for instance, calling the Vz. 52 the CZ-52 is 100% incorrect since it was made by CZ Strakonice, the CZ we are most familiar with (CZ Uhersky Brod) had nothing to do with the gun. Before you continue to hammer your point, I would recommend you do a little research on Czech weapon nomeclature. Your proposed naming system is not only US-centric but just plain wrong. Koalorka (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not just replacing model designation with "CZ" and I reject that CZ should only be limited to the point at which said company started using the moniker. What matters is that these pistols are almost universally referred to in the Western World. Your dating of when "CZ" became "CZ" is also incorrect. Ed Ezell places that date in the late 20's along with the CZ-27 pistol. In fact, commercial offerings from CZ were referred to as the "CZ-27", CZ-36, CZ-38, CZ-45, etc. While in-service models were given a model designation of Vzor, this was not true of commercial and export models. All this long before the CZ-52.
I'll dismiss the comment about "Deagle" as hyperbole. I'm attempting to be academic about this, not reacting knee-jerk but actually examining both the history and common-sense naming convention to gain a consensus. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment as WP:EN is clear in this regard. If/when the articles are re-named, I would like to see foreign alternative designation retained somewhere in the article (opening sentence, infobox, in a parenthetical statement, etc.) as it is of interest to some readers. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Per convention, the Czech-language name and any alternative names should appear in the lede. I don't believe it's appropriate to rename at the moment as there needs to be more comments on what to rename them. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Recoil Upward Motion

Why does the barrel of a pistol or rifle rise - as opposed to jerking any which way - when fired? Why is the barrel forced upward? Why not any direction, straight down, or left or right? Contributions/167.153.5.107 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The barrel does not always jerk upward. The center of thrust (where the energy from firing the rifle or pistol goes) is above the center of mass. Therefore, the muzzle will almost always rise. Some firearms have an "in-line" design such as the M16 rifle, TDI Vector, and FG 42 where the firearm itself does not rotate because the center of thrust is in-line (roughly) with the center of mass. Also, with long-guns, recoil from the rifle causes the torso to rotate about the hip, causing the torso and thus the firearm to rise. This is really a discussion for a firearms forum such as TheFiringLine.com. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Weapon photo guidelines

Are there guidelines for producing the weapons photos? Do's & Don'ts? Looking for tips and advice. Appreciate any help. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about weapons in general, but FIREARMS photos that you take are best done with stock firearms (no aftermarket modifications or attached doodads). No fancy stuff in the background just plain white is preferred. No 'glamour' angles, just representative side shots or closeups of distinguishing parts of the firearm. That's about it. There's a general consensus on the Glock pistol page that you can refer to. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. What I've rigged up has white pegboard as the background and I've been trying to photo in the sun. What is a glamour angle? To get a few into photo frame and maximize closeness, I have placed them at a diagonal angle. No good?
Not crazy about pulling off optics which I have zeroed-in. I might do that for some but not others (guess those with scopes and mods would go to the Commons but not in articles). What about a Ruger-Volquartsen 10/22? The only thing that is Ruger is the receiver and everything else is Volquartsen (except the stock which is Hogue, comes that way from factory.) See the rifle here. Would I create a new article for that?
I'm a tinkerer and modify almost everything...that is half the fun. Stock weapons are like blank canvas to an artist, ready to be modified.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess this would be a "glamour angle", note how you can't see anything but the bottom in great detail. Also try not to under expose the gun like I did here, I seem to be great at sucking at this.
Removing the optics really isn't a requirement, I mean most people will never see some rifles without a scope (some of the Savage rifles without irons for instance).
I think the Volquartsen 10/22 would fit nicely in the "Uses and customization" section of the Ruger 10/22 article. And I know what you mean about modifications, I just try to get a photo before I start changing out stuff ;). — DanMP5 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How are these? Am I getting warm? I've shown different configurations not knowing if there is a preference. I added the Mini Thirty to see if this weapon should be racked on the pegboard for a more proper photo like the Mini-14 or whether this may be too accessorized by current community standards. Details are on the description pages. Once I get a better idea about what I'm striving for and the weather turns, I plan to try again. I really like the transparent graphic versions such as this Rk62. May try my hand at that later.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For encyclopedic shots, have the gun horizontal. The peg-board is fine, but if the barrel is parallel with the pegs and shot that way in the camera, it takes up less space on the page. Just standard from what I've seen. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox presentation of information

I have been looking at a few firearm articles which have multiple variants of a given weapon listed in the same infobox. The problem I see is that the information is presented in a backwards manner that is more difficult to process and doesn't mesh well with general use of English language. As an example from the SIG SG 550 article, the infobox has a listed length as 772 mm (30.4 in) stock folded (SG 550) .

Now, I find that absolutely backwards; it is irritating to read because you have to process the information backwards to remember it. SG 550 (stock folded): 772 mm (30.4 in) is much more approachable and easier to remember. Normally when you (or at least I) look at a data table or a spreadsheet, the leftmost entry is the name of the whatever, and the information to the right of that is the data/specs/etc. Allow me to throw out as an example an infobox from the Honda Accord article which lists type (hatchback, sedan, etc) before length. Some guy (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Organization

I thought I remembered discussing this here but I guess not. Whatever. As briefly as possible:

MP5 has next to no organization. The design details section is extremely unapproachable and generally too long. The MP5 article is rated start class. By comparison the AK-47 article has more organization with better use of subsections, and no extremely detailed and long description of the mechanics involved in firing the gun. The AK-47 article has been a featured article. My point here is that articles such as the MP5 article are not well organized and need subsections, and there should be a general policy on applicable subsections under "design details". My feelings are somewhere along the lines of "features" and/or "accessories" as subsections, as well as "firing mechanism/process/whatever" if this is deemed absolutely necessary (though it seems to me it would be better to have a single article discussing, say, the typical mechanical process in firing a closed-bolt submachine gun than having a description of the process in every article that would fall into that category.

I implented some minor but (I feel) needed organization to the MP5 article which was reverted. Here is the edit if anyone feels like commenting on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heckler_%26_Koch_MP5&diff=298456725&oldid=298449435 Some guy (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's some good work, but the major problem with that article is simply that it suffers from expertitis - there is far too much completely unsourced technical detail which interests a specific audience but overwhelms the disinterested reader. Unfortunately there's always tremendous pushback when trying to remove such material from firearms articles. If I were you I'd consider working on a personal sandboxed copy of the article in your userspace and presenting it when complete - that's what I did when reorganising FN P90. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with you about the "expertits". Thank you for your suggestion about sandboxing the article in my userspace, I did not think of that. I had a similar problem with the SG 550 page - the same user reverted my organizational changes and said they make "absolutely no sense" but didn't back up that statement at all, and frankly I can't see how the changes "don't make sense". Here's the version I did for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SIG_SG_550&oldid=298458446 . If you'd be willing to support me in implementing these or similar subsections and minor reorganization, I would appreciate it. Either way, thanks for your input! Some guy (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created sandbox versions at User:Some guy/SG 550 and User:Some guy/MP5. Comments and improvements are very much appreciated. I hope there are some people who actually read this page. Some guy (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This same discussion is taking place with more participation at the Milhist talk page here as well as this thread. It is a good idea to have it take place in a single venue. Editors are invited to comment there. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [2]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious new article

Hi. Would someone with some expertise mind taking a look at Heckler and Koch MP9, which I've just run across? The article's unsourced and with no inbound links, and a cursory search can't immediately seem to corroborate the thing exists. I'm unclear if this is because it's an outright hoax or if it's just a matter of names getting mixed up, and the content is actually talking about something else.

Thanks all. Shimgray | talk | 08:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search suggests the MP9 might be a licence-built version of the Steyr TMP; at any rate, the article does look like a weird combination of mixed-up names, unsourced and dubious information, and what might generously be called "Original Research". There's no way a 7.62x51mm NATO calibre firearm could be classified as an "SMG", either, especially not one that allegedly has a 100-round drum magazine. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Info on firearm dissassembly?

Should we add info on dissassembly of firearms to their articles if available? Cerebellum (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. In some cases, it is very particular like the Ruger Mk II and the info has good value.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, Wikipedia isn't an operating manual and I'm really not sure what encyclopaedic value instructions on how to disassemble a particular gun have. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be hard to do so without getting into WP:NOTHOWTO issues. The only exception might be a firearm that has a unique, novel, or otherwise noteworthy means of dissassembly. On a side note, a good deal of firearms articles have a link to the user manual which provides this information. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Users sections on Firearm articles

Per a conversation that started here, I would like to standardize an html comment for the Users sections on all firearms articles that reads approximately:

"This section is for cited entries only. Please do not add entries into this list without a citation from a reliable source. All entries without a citation will be removed."

I would also like to know your ideas on whether it is better to remove the unsourced entries altogether or tag them as "citation needed" and give them a while. These sections are subject to driveby creep and I'm hoping to put an end to that.

Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, but I'd suggest an element of common-sense be applied. For example, it's Common Knowledge that the US used the M1 Garand as a military rifle, and insisting on a cite to that effect really seems to be extra work for no real gain. However, if someone wants to say that Burkina Faso used the rifle, then yeah, I think some sort of cite is necessary. As to your second point, I'd prefer "citation needed" on contested entries rather than removing them; at least that way it gives the people maintaining the article (if any) a chance to try and find a citation, or at least marks them as being in need of attention for a future project-wide drive. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I couldn't bring myself to tag Germany on the list of users for the G3....which created a weird type of exception but I understand where you are coming from. I don't want this to become a workload issue for the project...quite the opposite as I'm hoping to get the drive-by editors to have to cite their own additions to this section. To me, this seems like a persistent problem going unchecked in many cases and I'm hoping to find the fix for it. The html comment, citations for all entries, and hopefully something written into WP:MILGUN about the Users section (currently it isn't mentioned anywhere) would give WP:Firearms members as well as non-members something stronger to point towards for enforcing this as citation-only entries. Currently, it is a small mess without them. I suspect these sections can be highly inaccurate.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is site-wide policy anyway. We should be far stricter when it comes to verification of entries on lists like that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree Berean Hunter on this. The User sections, while important, seem to attact an inordinate amount of unsourced additions. I, generally, try to check standard sources before removing them, but it is not always verifiable. Agree with Commander Zulu about using some common sense (e.g. M1 Garand/US, AK-47/Soviets, etc.), but anything beyond that really should be cited or promptly removed. Otherwise, we are left with a rather meaningless list of alleged users. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization Conventions

There is currently a discussion spanning multiple pages of the project concerning capitalizations in the titles of certain firearms. The question is whether or not pages like M3 Howitzer and M2 Mortar should be changed to "M3 howitzer" and "M2 mortar". I was hoping more project members could weigh in. The discussion can be found here. Neil Clancy 03:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Measurements in firearm cartridge articles

It seems that the force of the bullet is primarily shown in foot-pounds in cartridges when the caliber is in inches with the measurement in Joules in parenthesis. Ex: .30-06 Springfield In cartridges whose name is in mm, joules is the primary measurement. Ex: 7.62x51mm NATO It seems awfully arbitrary to assign the unit of measurement based on the cartridge's name. Could it be changed so that joules is the primary measurement for all the cartridges, with foot-pounds in parenthesis? It would make it easier to compare them if you knew that all articles had the same format in the infobox. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, most shooters in English speaking countries- even shooters outside the US- still use Imperial measurements for things like muzzle velocity and "impact force" of cartridges. To your average shooter (and thus average reader of the article), measurements primarily in joules don't really convey any useful information, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk)
I would tend to agree with Commander Zulu. Cartridges with measurements in mm probably originated outside the US, and are used mostly by people who use joules, while cartridges with measurements in inches probably originated inside the US, and thus would use Imperial measurements. I would recommend keeping the articles as they are. Cerebellum (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What about things like .45 and 9mm? It's not like all the imperial measurements would be gone, but the format for all infoboxes would be consistent if we changed the measurements to "metric (imperial)". 24.6.46.177 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, such a consistency would actually be confusing, and if we were to change to one or the other being the "primary", most users would find the Imperial measures to be more familiar in regards to firearms, and so should be the primary. Showing both emphasizes that the figures are different, and hopefully reminds people to check the units they are using. htom (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a "Gun writers" category?

I noticed just now that there's no clear category shared by Jeff Cooper, Elmer Keith, Bill Jordan, Charles Askins, etc. Some of those gents aren't in any firearms-related category at all. So for the moment I categorised them as Category:People associated with firearms (which is itself not an ideal title), along with gun designers and the like. Should we have a category like Category:Gun writers and file it both under Category:People associated with firearms and Category:Writers by topic? Or does anyone have a better filing idea? In the meantime, if there are other similar figures I've missed, please put them in Category:People associated with firearms for the time being until we find a better place for writers/columnists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion! What sort of notability levels would we be looking at? I don't think anyone doubts that Jeff Cooper or Elmer Keith qualify, but there are a vast, vast number of gun books and magazines on the market, and a lot of the people involved aren't really notable enough to warrant more than a stub article at best. Still, it's definitely and idea that bears further discussion... Commander Zulu (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point I'm less concerned with starting new articles (although Taffin, as a published author in addition to long-running columnist probably deserves at least a small article), and more just interested in having a category which encapsulates the above names. I'd suggest those men are most known for writing about guns, and less so for falling into the category "lawman", "hunter", "survivalist", etc. If Elmer Keith had hunted but not written extensively about it, we'd never have heard of him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

100-some cartridges listed in Category:Hunting, solution?

Currently nearly half of the entire Category:Hunting is taken up with entries for firearms cartridges. I'd argue that such a presence in the parent cat is excessive. What do y'all think more workable: 1) not have any cartridges categorised under "Hunting" at all, as a huge percentage of cartridges have been used for hunting, or 2) create a new "Hunting cartridges" or whatever-named category and dump them all in there? The current settup is really not workable, since I imagine most folks interested in hunting aren't fascinated by the minutiae of .308 Winchester vs. .307 Winchester and whatnot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the average reader isn't interested in reading about the differences between various wildcat/obscure cartridges, and I'm inclined to think we don't need firearms cartridges in the hunting category, as pretty much every calibre ever has been used to hunt with at some point. The problem is going to be dealing with all the bots automatically re-assigning the articles after they've been removed, I think... Commander Zulu (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have good sources for Bullpup

Hello, I'm relatively new here, but I was interested in cleaning up Bullpup. I've got a few minor sources I've been using through a cursory book search, but I was wondering if anyone knew of more meaningful sources to use (I can send for them via my local library if needed.) I'm assuming some of the info would be in firearm configuration histories, that sort of stuff. --Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

.338 Xtreme

I've given this a cleanup, but I don't know anything about anything when it comes to bullets and ammo. WP Firearms residents could probably easily run their magic over this (infoboxes, categories, check the name of the article, etc...) and turn this into a solid stub/article article with minimum effort. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've never heard of a ".338 Extreme" before, and I've checked every single gun site I know. Are you sure the .338 is a real caliber round?--Rollersox (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
??? Did you check it in Google? There's tons of mention on firearms sites and blogs, references to published articles, sales sites that sell ammo, etc. It's a niche cartridge, but it appears that it definitely exists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can't...Everytime I try to get to Google or Bing or any other search (i.e. Yahoo!, etc.), my computer breaks down into a lag and it restarts automatically.--Rollersox (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Manton, London, Gunmaker.

Dear Wikipedia.

I am related through marriage to Joseph Manton, London gunmaker.

I noted that Wikipedia had recorded Manton's date of birth as being 1760, whereas, the

Mantom family tree (of which I have a copy) records Joseph Mantons birth date as being 1766.

Additionally, 1766 is recorded on the epitaph of his grave, stating that he died in 1835 aged 69.

I have taken the liberty and "tried" to correct his birth date on your records.

If I have failed to do so, could you please make the correction for me please.

Thanks and kind regards, Laurance A Cronin (Australia)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.142.247 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 September 2009

disadvantages of double rifles

I can think of one disadvantage presented by double rifles. During the manufacturing process these firearms are regulated. That is to say they are sighted in using specific ammunition. Not using this ammunition may result in less than acceptable accuracy. This is not only a concern when purchasing an older rifle but even modern ammunition is sometimes changed in significant ways. I suppose there are ways around this problem but I can offer no advice. It would be very sad indeed to buy an expensive rifle only to discover you have a problem. I offer this information as food for thought and do not claim to be an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.49.167.77 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, first time contributor. Just plain forgot to sign out.

Cape fisherman 110.49.167.77 (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

New discussion on the spacing of calibers in article titles

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Ammunition articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I meant to ping this page when starting that thread. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Jarmann M1884 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to propose some changes to the Pop Culture guideline. I am concerned about the conflation of pop culture sections and trivia sections ("Avoid pop culture and trivia sections"). Yes, trivia sections are often full of pop culture information ("In the unreleased episode #473 of Cool Anime, one of the henchmen in the title montage is carrying a Desert Eagle"). However, trivia sections can also contain random factoids about variant designs, optional accessories ("ABC company in Utah makes a velcro strap for the scope...), usage by different military units ("The rearguard troops in the Ossetian 3rd Brigade carried Skorpion machine pistols in the early 1980s...")So it seems sort of like "guilt by association" to put the two terms together........As well, the next sentence sets what I argue is a too-high bar for inclusion of pop culture information ("Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable..."). According to Wikipedia policies, I would argue that the bar is more modest: if a reputable film critic or film historian has noted (in print) the way that the use or depiction of a certain weapon (or class of weapons) in a film contributes to the aesthetic goals or style of a film then this would appear to qualify for inclusion in the article about the weapon (or the class of weapon). You have to follow WP:UNDUE, of course, and provide a reference. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the changes I am proposing........................................................................ ................

Trivia sections

Avoid trivia sections, because in general they clutter articles, and contribute very little. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information.

Pop culture sections

Pop culture sections in firearm articles should not consist of a list of appearances of a certain firearm or class of firearms in films, TV shows, or comic books. Acceptable pop culture information should have a reference to a reputable source which explains the pop culture impact of the firearm in question. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. For example the Walther PPK's use by James Bond could appear in the Walther PPK article, because the use of this gun by the fictional spy been noted by a number of film critics. The pop cultural item that the firearm appeared in must represent the firearm realistically, and if named, should use the real name or a highly common nickname (e.g. Schmeisser for the MP40, or Burp gun for the PPSh-41). Speculation as to fictional appearances such as claims of a fictional gun being based on a real one should be removed in all cases as they are original research. Likewise, lists of fictional appearances should be removed as they violate WP:AVTRIV. Airsoft versions of real firearms are not notable to the firearm article. Citations are needed if the notability of an appearance of a firearm in pop culture 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. See WP:MILMOS#POP for the guidelines on pop culture pertaining to military history, including military firearms. Pop culture should be treated in articles with coverage appropriate to its significance to the subject of the article; as per WP:UNDUE.

Given that "Pop culture creep" is inevitable, I'd be interested in perhaps establishing a consensus list of articles with "approved" pop culture sections. For example, besides the Walther PPK and Webley revolver examples already given, I'd submit that the Winchester M1887 is really only recognised because it was in Terminator 2, everyone knows Han Solo's blaster pistol is a modified Mauser C96, and the Browning M1917 machine-gun played an important role in the movie The Wild Bunch. The concern about Anime fans adding trivia to articles is a valid one, but I think we need a middle ground between a carte blanche listing of every film/tv/game appearance ever of every gun ever made, and our current policy which seems to try and pretend guns don't notably appear in movies very often. Commander Zulu (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd accept a mention of the Broomhandle under Solo, but not vice versa, since he's carrying a fic weapon. By contrast, Sable using a Chinese .45 model is notable, because it was his standard weap, & because Grell made a point of getting it right. Ditto Bolan & Big Thunder. I'm less sure "T2" belongs on the Win87 page; "Winchester '73" on its page, yes, since it was central to the story. I guess, as a rule, I'd want it to be pivotal to the story: like Christine on the Plymouth Fury page, or "Bullitt" on the Mustang page, but not "Bullitt" on the Charger page (what the baddies drove, IIRC). Am I on the fence, here? Or is that clear? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'd like to see an exemption for "Signature weapons of 'genuinely notable cinema/TV/game/book characters" - thus, the M1887 from T2, Jack Harkness' Webley Mk IV, Han Solo's C96 blaster (yes, I know it's a "fictional" gun, but really, it's a C96 with a firing cone and a telescopic sight welded onto it), and so on. In short, the guns that keep getting added into articles anyway and we have to keep removing because of the current trivia guidelines. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we're not far apart. My main beef over Solo is it not being a gennie C/96, which leads me to say, put a ref/link to the Mauser on the Solo page. Or on Irving Feinberg's. The others, no prob from me. (I'll leave the T2 ish to somebody who cares. ;D Not a fan.) And where trivia sections are concerned, I'm inclined to terminate with extreme prejudice. If this'll cut down the garbage, I'm all for it.
As an aside, did Kuryakin carry something special? Or 86? All I recall is, Fleming switched the PPK to bigger cal (.32ACP? which is still a weenie) after hearing his original choice was too lightweight. (Of course, if Jimmy could shoot, 1 in the eye would do it...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The original Bond Gun was a .25 calibre Beretta, which was later upgraded to the .32 calibre PPK, as you say. And whilst Solo's blaster isn't a "genuine" C96, I still think it's worth mentioning because people will invariably keep adding the information to the article if we leave it out. Anyway, what I'd suggest is that we establish a list of Significant/Notable Non-Anime Popular Culture Characters With Guns, and- having established that- then find their signature gun and work out if it's notable enough to be included (for example, Beretta M92s and Glock 17s are in pretty much every movie and TV show these days, so I can't think of many instances where they're likely to be notable). The thing is, I would estimate that a vast number of casual Wiki users (not the editors, but the people who read Wiki) want this sort of information. I always enjoy the "I did not know that!" aspect of what little trivia remains on Wiki, and I think this obsessive desire to suppress it only hurts the project. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The real issue here is not whether the character is well know, but whether the character's weapon is well known. Dirty Harry's weapon became more popular IRL because of Dirty Harry. James Bond's is so closely associated with him that it serves as an icon. Reliable sources must establish that the character influences popular perception of the weapon; this is the basic rule of pop culture references on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we judge on how well known the character is; how many people really know who Sable is? I'm not against the "I didn't know that" angle; I like them, too. I'm just hoping to avoid the laundry list of mentions I've seen in some of the automobile pages. It's getting to the point where "There was a '50 Desoto driving past in movie 'X'" qualifies. Let's not. As for Solo, as stated, I oppose, & let the trvia adders be damned, just change it back. (If you like, I'll add the C96 to my watchlist & do it myself. ;D) If you're after including the "signature" gun of a given character, agreed; that would include the twin .357 AMPs The Penetrator used. And the notability list strikes me an excellent idea, to weed out the "minor" appearances. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, the C96 article actually has a properly cited reference to the Han Solo thing, so I wouldn't panic too much about it. The notability test I was proposing was two-tiered. Firstly, is the character notable? (Sable would probably fail on these grounds, unfortunately). Then, is their gun notable? This would rule out most of the "historically accurate and unremarkable appearances of commonplace guns" (eg German soldiers with Lugers and Kar98k rifles) but leave room for things like Indiana Jones' revolver in Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Just a thought, at any rate. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the editor who proposed the new wording for the pop culture section. The notability test that I was proposing was the standard one used in Wikipedia: a reference to a reputable source which explains the pop culture impact of the firearm in question, preferably an expert in the field. As I understand the goal of Wikipedia in regards to whether a fact is considered to be accurate enough for inclusion in WP, I think the goal is verifiability, not truth. So if 3 Professors of Pop Culture at Harvard say the "use of the G-36 by Tom Cruise in the bridge attack scene in Mission Impossible III cemented the firearm's unique look and capabilities into the minds of US film viewers...etc" (silly made-up quote), in a book published by a reputable, major publishing house, then we would consider there to be grounds for considering the G-36 to a weapon with a pop culture impact. (reminder...again, that was a silly, made-up example!). As far as the key question in the above proposal...how do editors feel about a) the proposed wording for the pop culture section and b) the proposed wording for the trivia section? ThanksOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Added new cats by calibre: .25 ACP and .32 ACP

Added two new cats: Category:.25ACP firearms and Category:.32 ACP firearms. I put the "ACP" next to the number, per ".22LR" in the first cat, but does WP:GUNS prefer to separate them? In any case, it seems to me there is some utility to doing this as a cat rather than as a List. Let me know if you think more cats like this are worth exploring or no, and feel free to add to the extant categories. I may have to put the ".25ACP" one through WP:CFD to get a space put in there, though can probably do a speedy if everyone agrees there should be a space here on the discussion page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Elmer Keith

Elmer was not as involved in the .357 as the article says. P.B. Sharpe was more responsible than Elmer. The case was not as described "otherwise identical " The original cases has large primer pockets, large primers, and more metal in the case at the web than a .38 due to higher pressures of 46,900 CUP. The current .357 is 35,000 CUP, and of course small primer pocket but still more metal at the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.170.152 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

.357 .38 Special correction

The original .357 cases had large primer pockets. There is more metal in the case at the web. The .38 Special came out in 1899 NOT 1902. It became smokeless in 1902.The .357 was D.B.Wesson's idea just like the .38 special, with P.B.Sharpe doing the testing and load development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.170.152 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV with Semi-automatic_firearm

It appears that this issue has been resolved. Can this be marked as having been completed on the TO DO list? Kartano (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Criminal use

Hi, I also have a suggestion for the improvement of the criminal use guideline. Currently, it says criminal use info must meet "some" criteria. This seeems a little vague. How about saying that.....................Criminal use sections in firearm articles should not consist of a list of uses of a certain firearm or class of firearms in the commission of various crimes. Acceptable information on criminal use of a firearm should have a reference to a reputable source which explains the impact of the firearm in question to law enforcement or criminal conduct. If a reference to criminal use of a firearm is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert or organization (e.g., the FBI) is encouraged. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Over three weeks have passed without comment on this proposal to change the wording of the Criminal Use section. Under the WP rules on changing the contents of a guideline page, once you have proposed changes and several weeks go by without comment, you can make the changes. I am adding this reminder that if there are not comments, I will soon modify the Criminal Use section with the above changes. Thank you.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to let the WP:MILHIST guys know about this... they don't always seem to check here. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The above reads well to me. If this has since been implemented, I apologise for the late comment. Kartano (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

M10 articles

I belive that many of the articals on firearms needs a lot of improvement and insert like the page on the jackhamer i found a lot more info than what ive found

What is the consensus at the moment on creating an article relating to the AIA manufactured M10 series of rifles? These rifles are now garnerning a lot more note in shooting circles in Australia and the availability of the firearms has improved with them being obtained through multiple dealers. I don't think the company merits an article, but perhaps the rifles do? I have several magazine and print references that could be used for these now. Any comments? Kartano (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally "variants" go under the parent article, as I understand it- so there's probably not quite enough information or notability on the AIA rifles warrant a separate article just yet, but they'd certainly warrant an expanded section in the Lee-Enfield article, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Kartano (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms/Archive_6&oldid=1087829142"