Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Getting organized

Name (mm/in)

Bullet Diameter

Case Length

Rim

Base

Shoulder

Neck

Round Length

Name (mm/in)

Bullet Diameter

Neck

Shoulder

Base

Rim

Case Length

Round Length

It seems to me the second form, as opposed to the current form (top), seen on the "caliber" pages, is more logical. Comment? Trekphiler 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. What do others think? I'll change it if there's enough support. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice, after a repeat post above (oops...), this conflicts with current editions of COTW. Mine (which is pretty old...) uses the second form, which is why I favor it...but also, I find it more intuitive. And the individual page infoboxes use a variant of it (see above). Trekphiler 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thompson submachine gun pop culture content

Turning into a revert war. Comments? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to the person, maybe they'll listen. Oh, by the way, welcome back from your hiatus Thernlund! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LWF (talk • contribs)

Unfinished business

1. When I left there didn't seem to be much of a concensus on what to do about the WPGUNSAWARD template I was working on. The latest version was this one...

On behalf of the Firearms WikiProject, I, Thernlund, hereby award

Some User

the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.

What to do?

A. Implement.

B. Alter.

C. Start over.

D. Scrap the whole idea.

I plan to run with option A if no strong objections crop up in the next 7 to 10 days.

2. It was brought up that the WPGUNSMEMBER userbox caused problems for Firefox users in certain situations. There is no fix for this as near as I can tell. Someone mentioned on my talk page that it may be simpler just to go back to a standard static userbox (ie. kill the options). Doing so would solve the problem. What to do?

A. Leave as is.

B. Make static.

I plan to roll with option A (ie. do nothing) unless there are strong opinions.

So, there's that. Comments, questions, complaints? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 10:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

M1 Garand - Good Article?

Hi everybody,

speaking of unfinished business, I recently took the liberty of adding a few sources to M1 Garand rifle, fixing it up a bit and nominating it as a good article. EyeSerene has been so kind to accept the article for review and has added some helpful comments to the talk page. The review is currently on hold. Unfortunately, I've been out of town on an unexpected trip for the last few days and I haven't really had the time to work on the article.

Long story short, any help at all is appreciated. I'll see if I find some more sources and make the necessary changes tomorrow. The last round of adding cites required a trip to the library which, unfortunately, isn't an option at this point due to time constraints on my part and I guess it probably won't be necessary anyway. Thanks. S ^up? 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I did all the easy stuff I could find on that list. Still need some help for the two specific items mentioned on the talk page requiring references, as well as checking other areas of the article for potentially missing references. It's passed my knowledge of this particular firearm now. Arthurrh 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think I'll be able to make time to go over the article tomorrow to try and work on any issues that may still need to be addressed. Cheers S ^up? 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we did it. The article was just promoted Good Article status. Is there an appropriate place we should be listing this on the WikiProject Firearms page? Arthurrh 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added a new section underneath the FA section on the project page. Thanks again for your great work. :) S ^up? 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Airsoft

I happened to spot this. Does this really fall under our oversight? I'm for removing the project banner. It's a project unto itself anyway. Comments? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't get involved in Airsoft guns as part of the project anymore than I would start working on toy gun articles. They're not firearms, they are firearms replicas. Just my two cents. I'm sure the airsoft guys would disagree. ;-) Arthurrh 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the tag. We cover firearms, not replica firearms.--LWF 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic categorization

Wouldn't it be nice to have automatic categorization to Category:Firearms? this would create a nice overview of the entire project. I think it is possible to implement this so that everywhere Template:WPGUNS is put in the talkpage, the article is added to the firearms category, much like the Template:WPMILHIST template. I think i could pull it off on the coding part, with enough sandboxing :) any ideas? --Boris Barowski 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a cool idea. Arthurrh 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did it :) now, every page the WPGUNS template is applied to, will appear in the firearms category. If you want to exclude a page from being put in the category, just add the parameter |categorize = no . I'm still looking into linking the article itself and not the talk page. -- Boris Barowski 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated the info page too: Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Project banner. If you have further suggestions, please let me know, I enjoy experimenting with new code. --Boris Barowski 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick update. All articles that are categorized can now be found at Category:WikiProject_Firearms. This way the wikiproject page does not interfere with the general Firearms page. this was done after a chatsession with some seasoned wikipedia users at the wiki IRC chan. I'll come up with something new for the general firearms category. Please comment if this is OK, the whole thing should be dropped and reverted or suggestions to expand it. --Boris Barowski 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that even better, because of the non-interference. We can find everything if we want to, but normal categories still apply. Can you make it strip the "Talk:" portion out so it links to the main article? Arthurrh 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked the wiki helpdesk and they told me that it is impossible to do that. I guess we'll have to go to the talk page first and then to the article. I might work on something to implement in the infoboxes, again, like in the MILHIST template, but adapted to our needs. Too bad that we share those infobox with them, but I'll try and coordinate. I was quite shocked to find out that we have 1300+ articles :). we might need another Drive to un-stub them and provide infoboxes. Anyway, It should be easier now to check all articles and add what needs to be done to the to-do list. greets --Boris Barowski 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. It will help to at keep track of what articles are there, so that people can categorize what needs to be done. I've been trying to do that as I find new links, by adding the WPGUNS template and by putting them on the todo list. I'm afraid it's growing faster than I fix things. Arthurrh 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. This will help a lot.--LWF 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Range

I've had some difficulty with various editors toying with range. Trying to get a consensus here. What seems logical is to cite one authoritative source, such as Janes, for range on all military firearms. It's annoying to see people tinkering with these numbers on a near continual basis. Any ideas?--Asams10 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, range should be based on one single reliable source. not just for militairy firearms, but civilian ones too. Same thing with "velocity". you cannot take a rifle like the Remington 700 and say "that's the velocity of the bullet", because of different loads with handloads, different commercial loads, and the sheer number of different cartridges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boris Barowski (talk • contribs) 09:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Well, I kind of don't like the idea of relying exclusively on one source, although Jane's is a good one. It's difficult to say, although I suppose it could simply be stated that a citation from a reliable source must be presented when changing the range.--LWF 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For Military firearms, Janes is the only one that gets updated. It seems to be authoritative and doesn't leave much out. The problem with referencing range as you go along is that I can find a dozen different ranges in different sources for the same gun/load. This is an ARBITRARY number to begin with, I believe that it should be standardized to avoid people toying with it. This came out of some editor going into the AK-47 article and saying it has a range of 400 meters, not 300. What difference does it make? If I had an agenda, I'm sure I could find a source that said the AR-15 had an effective range of 600 Meters and the AK-47 had an effective range of 150 Meters. The numbers mean nothing without a benchmark. Janes seems to standardize things. I'd be open to other sources, but that's the only one that I could think of. I'm also not in possession of the book nor do I want to spend the time myself editing ranges on all of these things. That's why I brought it here.--Asams10 04:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would personally like to purchase Jane's Infantry Weapons, but it costs over $1000! I just go to the library when I want to read it. Hayden120 09:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the criteria for determining range? Arthurrh 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would say the most accurate way to describe a weapon's range is to cite the particular firearm's factory sight range settings. I have implemented this standard in all my articles and I think it would be reasonable since after all these are the ranges the designers and engineers have specified that weapon to most effectively engage targets. Sure a projectile remains lethal far outside the specified factory range but producing hits at such distances is simply impossible. For example the MP5 has a rotating diopter drum with 4 apertures that correspond to ranges 25, 50, 75 and 100 m. I include this in the "range" (not "maximum range") line in the infobox. Koalorka 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then my SKS has a 'range' of 2000m, and my .30-40 Krag shoots to 1600yds. Oh, hey--then there's my .22 Mauser trainer that evidently can plink out to 1200m as well. I'm not sure factory sight range settings are the best way to go... Instead, let's look at the cartridge commonly used, the bullet weight and the downrange energy, and try to figure out a distance where a bullet goes from being deadly to dangerous. TeamZissou 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that factory sights are often somewhat optimistic. It's not clear that effective range numbers given here or anywhere else have any useful meaning. Arthurrh 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AR-15 variants

I just recently created this new article to summarize all the tables of AR-15s on Wikipedia. Please thank Thatguy96 for his excellent work on these tables. Check it out. -- Hayden120 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bi 3681

Just came across this article. Don't know the first thing about guns, and wasn't sure what should be done with it. Could someone familiar with the subject matter please deal with it? Thanks. J Milburn 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a toy, this is WikiProject FIREARMS. --Asams10 04:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct you are. I just killed this article off the project. Isn't there an Airsoft project someplace? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just added the appropriate airsoft tags. Heh heh, my first (and only) airsoft edit. Arthurrh 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really hate these new airsoft gun articles, they are going to fill up Wikipedia. They are just toy versions of real weapons, why should they have their own article? Many brands will produce replications of the M4, so is an article for every one going to be created? Hayden120 05:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're fighting a losing battle, Hayden. They need their own Wikipedia... say, WIKITOYS or something like that. I've fought some really stupid issues like people wanting to mention a "Transformer" toy under the Walther P38 article. Toys are for kids to get interested in stuff Adults do. Once you're an adult, you can DO things instead of pretending to do things. My arguments kind of lose weight when you consider most of these guns CAN'T be owned most places, thus the popularity of the toy versions. BUT, they are still TOY'S.--Asams10 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they do. Maybe we should see about having the project deleted. But I am mindful of the fact that someone once tried to do that to this project. So maybe not. Hmmm. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Government of Australia (and several other countries) disagrees with your assertion that Soft Air Guns are "Toys", I'm afraid, Asams10. I don't think they belong in WP:GUNS, but I don't think they should be dismissed as irrelevant "Kid stuff" either. The Soft Air reproductions are quite extensive and interesting, and there's a lot of places where people can't own firearms in the traditional sense, but can have a Soft Air replica. The problem is when every. single. Soft Air replica of an M4 carbine or a Desert Eagle or a Beretta M92 or an AK-47 gets its own WP article. As long as it doesn't get to that level, I don't see why there shouldn't be separate WP articles for the major Soft Air guns. --Commander Zulu 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say I am not against the airsoft sport or airsoft guns, in fact I think its quite interesting. It’s the fact that an article for every brand and gun replica is being made, and there are going to be stubs and low quality articles everywhere. I mean, we don't have articles for every Lego set in existence. Hayden120 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a wikipedia article for every manufacturer of airsoft guns, where every product can be put in a separate subdivision or grouped with other products of the same line (because mostly the only difference is a handguard or stock). If there are too many products, one can group them on separate pages, like "manufacturer X AR-15 line". I strongly oppose the extreme fragmentation that will occur when every single product, often only made for one or two years, gets its own article. --Boris Barowski 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This could become a problem. Of course if we did try and have them deleted it wouldn't be quite the same as the attempt to delete ours, as that one was someone's political agenda. I wonder if perhaps we could suggest to these people to move their articles on guns to the airsoft wiki-http://www.airsoftwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page . Or we could recommend that they consolidate these articles in the articles on the manufacturer.--LWF 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well they do have articles for each manufacturer, see Tokyo Marui, Classic Army and Western Arms for examples. Also see List of Airsoft Manufacturers. I don't think individual articles should be made for the guns as they are replicas; many brands produce replicas of the same gun. All guns made by a particular manufacturer should just be mentioned in the manufacturer's article. I have nominated an airsoft article to be deleted in the past, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring H&K 4 Pistol FPS-175 Airsoft Gun) and I think we should consider the same for this new article. Hayden120 05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello (again)

I'm back after taking a long work related "holiday". I've taking the liberty of removing the crossed out articles on the To-Do section, as the list is a tad big, and there really isn't any argument about the completion of these tasks. C0N6R355^talk_contribs 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality rating system

I stumbled upon some code that Kimon had taken from some other projects and worked on but apparently did not finish. I spent a good chunk of the day refining it and came up with this. Instructions here (which are incomplete at the moment).

Thoughts? It does still need much in the way of supporting pages, which if we implement I will work on. But I'd like to see what folks think. As I said, much of this was done by Kimon. I severely tweaked it as it was unfinished.

Please advise. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. We'll need to come up with some criteria and create a system for assessment, but now seems as good a time as any.--LWF 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Implemented with some supporting content. More to come, specifically, a Review page. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just used it for the first time. Huzzah. Arthurrh 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The old template had a link directly to the tasks section of the project page, but it seems to be missing in the updated template. Is there a way to fit it back in? Arthurrh 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the open tasks. Hope it's OK this way. --Boris Barowski 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also if you like at the military history project box, if you use their "show" button, it not only shows the rating criteria, as the firearms does, but also gives the template for rating, making it easy to cut/paste. Just a suggestion. Arthurrh 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was .41 Action Express deleted

I did a bunch of work recently on fixing and cleaning up .41 Action Express, but someone went ahead and deleted it. They said it wasn't notable, but I disagree. It's part of our ongoing work and is and will be referenced by more articles as we flesh out the firearms articles. I'm not sure where others stand on this, maybe I'm in the minority. And I'm not sure what actions can/should be taken. Arthurrh 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not notable?! You gotta be kidding me. Who said that? I'd recreate that thing without blinking. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a request for undelete on the admin's page. Maybe you can express your opinion there as well. Arthurrh 05:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I did. I expect that the deletion was in good faith, but I could dig up a hundred articles on topics less notable than the .41 AE. This round absolutely deserves an article. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was in good faith. Probably the admin didn't understand firearms, so didn't know that. Plus he may not have been aware of the overall effort here to cleanup firearms related articles. I have no idea how many cartridge infoboxes I've added, but it's a bunch. Arthurrh 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A bunch is right. I tend to follow peoples edits, but yours are always good and SO NUMEROUS that for the most part I tend to skip over them (depending on the edit summary). You're a machine.  ;-) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion seems to be arbitrary. They didn't ask us. There is lots on the 41 AE under this article: Jericho 941.--Asams10 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The original AfD was for .41 AE, which is an abbreviation and should have been fixed, as someone here did. But the .41 Action Express cartridge,though uncommon, does exist, and there are still firearms in that cartridge (i even know someone who has a jericho in.41AE). Many articles on a myriad of subjects (such as some persons, computer related specialties, ...) are way less notable than this one. Please let me know where I can contest this deletion. --Boris Barowski 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was restored. Thanks all. Arthurrh 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ammunition categorization

Hi everyone, Shouldn't the ammos made into two categories; obsolete ; active? this might make search and or status more easy for newbies. Also, I started putting the MAP on some of the caliber; CIP and/or SAAMI (piezo). Can't we add a MAP section in the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalashnikov (talk • contribs) 07:03, 1 September 2007

How do you define "Obsolete" or "Active", though? No-one makes rifles chambered in .303 British anymore, but the ammunition is still commercially made because there are millions of rifles in that calibre. Similarly, Fiocchi make 7.63x25 Mauser ammo but the only gun chambered in the calibre is the Mauser C96, which has been out of production since the '30s. --Commander Zulu 14:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the MAP - ambivalent on the obsolete vs active category. Arthurrh 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, the obsolete cartridges are usually the ones wich are not manufactured on a large basis or by major ammunition makers. Active cartridges (or current) are the ones for wich major firearms makers are still producing plus ammunitions are also made on a commercial basis.Kalashnikov 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope. What someone considers active another might consider obsolete. Too subjective. Better to just leave it unsaid and let the individual article do the talking. As far as MAP, do you mean in the infobox? Could do that. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the MAP in the infobox, with room to mark it for units, since there are at least 3 measurements in use. Maybe an entry for each one, since there isn't a way to do conversion? like MAP_PSI=, MAP_CUP= ... Plus an entry for source like there is for the ballistics info.

Re the category of active-inactive, I've tried to do such things myself, and it's EXTREMELY difficult - see the mess that is List of rifle cartridges. Take into account you have obsolete that are completely out of production, obsolete that boutique companies produce, obsolete in US but produced in EU and vice-versa, wildcats, proprietary, ... ad nauseum. See the categories in COTW for an example of the pain you introduce with this.Arthurrh 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that current status of cartridges can be a problem, so, let just drop it. Regarding the MAP and dimensions, should we better show wich standard it is (CIP, SAAMI - none) in the infobox? Also, who's going to modify the infobox and when? Kalashnikov 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am when I can work out an elegant way to get it in. In progress. Right now I plan to have it either configurable (ie. you can pick which), or have both. Configuarable is my prefernece. Stay tuned. If you have ideas, please advise. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think having the possibility to show both - SAAMI AND CIP - standards will be a good idea in some cases - I especially think about the 8X57... there are some cases wich will justify to show the differences between both... Kalashnikov 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Arthurrh 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll see what I can do to get this in this weekend. Look for it by Monday. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we also add volume in H20? It's another common measurement used when definining cartridges. Arthurrh 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I think we should go ahead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalashnikov (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Colt 9mm smg

This article is disgusting. I almost vomited when I read it. Luckily someone has removed a lot of the rubbish that was in it, but it still needs to be redone. The infobox needs to be removed and the proper one that is used in all the other articles needs to replace it. It is written in fragments; it just looks so tacked together. It even needs to be renamed. Just for historic purposes this is what it used to say until someone finally had the decency to delete it. I also bolded some of the great, professional encyclopedic writing as well as the highly accurate pieces of information:

"The Colt 9mm SMG is a machine pistol.It is more accurate than the famous MP5 and is easier to use. It also has a higher rate of fire than it. It looks like a mini M16.It has ablowback rather than a gas firing mechanism. It is used by special operations groups such as the U.S. Army Delta Force and the U.S. Navy Seals. It replaced the MP5 in a lot of places. It is one of the most highly accurate submachine guns in the world. Special training is not required. If you know how to use an M16 you will know how to use this. Empty cartridges come streaming out of this gun at such force that they put a small metal sheet behind the ejection port so that the cartridges don't hit the shooter. Oh, and this gun is not like most M16 models that clog up. It is known for still firing after getting out of some pretty messy places. This gun is so light that when first seen it was called the"plastic toy". That nickname was later replaced when troops started seeing it killing coldly and efficiently. Because of its blowback mechanism it can fire at any temperature here on Earth. It is one of the most powerful submachineguns on Earth. A 2-bullet burst will kill almost anybody."

-- Hayden120 06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already started to clean it up, and I have moved the page. -- Hayden120 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete?

Is someone kidding? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just put a delete tag on it. Arthurrh 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong. I found two solid references, probably there are more to be found. It looks like the darn thing exists, at least as a concept. More of a missile really at the point at which is has attitude control, IMO. Arthurrh 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shotgun sizes?

I'm new this is site so I apologize if I do something wrong. I have been working with my son to get him ready to hunt. And he brought up a good question that I need help with. What is the purpose for the naming of the Shotgun sizes? Why is a 10 ga. larger than a 12 ga., and so on? I would greatly appreicate some answers. I don't want to do him the way my dad did me. (Because it is! Now shut up and listen.) TAHNKS, Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.131.226 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 September 2007

Basically, the shotgun calibers were measured by the amount of lead used in the cartridge; a 10 ga was 1/10th pound, a 12 ga was 1/12th pound, a 20 ga being 1/20th pound. The only modern exception being the .410, wich is measured by the bore diameter. Hope this may help.Kalashnikov 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Gauge (bore diameter) for an article about it. Arthurrh 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

9X57 re-consideration

I tried to work quite a bit on correcting the 9x57 article, adding links specs and breaking down the text. Please your appreciation; what else can be done to help the old lady staying alive.. thanks,Kalashnikov 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some more work and removed the notable tag, I don't believe it's applicable anymore. It would be better if there were more inline refs, I put fact tags for this. Plus if some of the mentioned firearms and cartridges had their own articles and referred back, it would also be of benefit. Arthurrh 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep! I'll work it out as soon as I have some spare time... I will add the 9.3X57 with references to current manufacture. Firearm wise, one can work it out in the Mauser topic... I will look what I can addKalashnikov 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)!

Popular culture policy

I read and commented on what is going on here. Thinking about it, I think I'd like to work on our policies regarding pop-culture and crime. For pop-culture, I pretty much said there what I had in mind...

Any popular culture item being considered for inclusion in a firearms article...

A) Must be able to be attributed to a source that is notable and reliable in the field under which the article topic falls; and...

B) Said source must be writing/speaking as a whole about the article topic (i.e. the firearm) rather than the pop-culture item as a whole.

An item meeting these requirements should be able to be worked into the text of the article. A separate section for popular culture items should be avoided at all costs.

For criminal use, maybe something like...

Any criminal use of a firearm being considered for inclusion in a firearms article should meet the following criteria...

A) A feature unique to the firearm in question was used by the perpetrator during the commision of the crime; or...

B) The use of the specific firearm covered by the article resulted in highly publicized action by a government agency, corporation, or other notable entity. For example, "X happened because of THIS MODEL gun", not "X happened because of A gun which happened to be this model"

Items meeting this criteria should be able to be attributed to a reliable source (e.g. a news organization such as MSNBC or CNN) that includes mention of why the specific model of gun used is notable for the criminal event.

Comments? Anyone? With some work (if people feel it needs work), I'd like to implement this at some point, community allowing. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty good, Thernlund. The only thing which bothers me a bit is the "Notable and reliable source" clause- What would you consider a "Notable and reliable" source? For example, I'd never consider a Blog to be a "notable and reliable" source, simply because I don't consider Blogs to be notable in any circumstances. --Commander Zulu 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say... I agree. That was bothering me too. I'll think about better verbage. Ideas? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is that I think this might be setting the bar too high- my concern is that the bar is already too high, and that it should be lowered a few notches. I do, however, concede that "In Popular Culture" sections should be avoided- I'm all in favour of incorporating the information into the actual article itself instead. --Commander Zulu 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some researches done here (in Canada) regarding the criminality with firearms. The main problem with this is that anti-guns are using these to try to have some weapons banned (like semi-auto pistols, right now). I'm all for such a debate, but it depends how it can hurt... We do have a lots of trouble here....I would also say we have to show both sides of the medal; was it a legally registered weapon or was it a stolen or smuggled one?. Look at this; http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1990-95/explor_rpt_e.asp, it's an interesting study wich can give some very good points to it. Kalashnikov 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tommy gun specs

This page has debate (?) starting over including detail-different spec charts. Seems to me they'd be valuable, or interesting, to the uninitiated, tho maybe not in the article itself. Perhaps better split off in a "Thompson specs" page? Or an "infantry weapons specs" page? Trekphiler 07:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC) (BTW, can somebody message here how to point directly to a section heading with a link? Thanks.)Done...

New Page template

Is there a standardized form for a new page for firearms and ammunition? I know there are infoboxes templates, but is there any for the entire work?Kalashnikov 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have a standardized form. I recommend looking at existing pages to get an idea about firearm page format.--LWF 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually paste in an empty firearms or cartridge infobox, then added one-line lead to start, and a few section headers, like "history", "performance", "Specifications", "See also", "References", and the category and by default I add a stub tag, then remove it when I'm finished. Arthurrh 01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I put this up is to try to standardize the form; the information that we bring sometimes looks like all mixed up, and maybe having some directive line might help "standardized" (I am totally aware that it's a case-by-case matter) page... your thoughts are welcome.....Kalashnikov 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

External link guidelines

In the project page there are guidelines for things like citations. There doesn't seem to be one for the use of external links, which sometimes is a problem. It would be good to know what the basic guidelines for including and excluding external links, for example I think that what's on .25 ACP should probably be removed. Arthurrh 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That article needs a once over. What's under references and external links probably needs to go. What did you have in mind as far as a policy goes? I could probably conjure something (like I did above). But comments are less than forth coming here on most days. Ideas? Maybe I'll work up an entire list of guidlines and RfC it. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a good basic list at WP:EL that I think spells it out. For example WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Maybe we do a quick summary and refer back. Arthurrh 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Firearms infobox - new params

Pressure and volume params now available. 13½ hours late, but it's done. Comments welcomed. I can adjust if necessary. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

H&K 416 needs to be cleaned up

It was recently changed to a artical that looks as if it came out of guns and ammo. Can we get some people to revise it.(ForeverDEAD 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

I added it to the to-do list. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

New class value for project banner

It has occured to me that much of what goes on around here is, and has been, covered by other projects. Often different projects are looking at different aspects of an article and as such their quality rating differ, which is ok. But sometimes the overlap is so complete that it hardly makes sense to have two systems that are looking at a given article in the same light. Often you'll see someone rate an article and simply tag both project banners with the same rating. So I've added a rating value called "deferred". This rating can be used to defer the article to other projects. The example I used is Mikhail Kalashnikov which is covered by both WP:WPBIO and WP:MILHIST. While this article certainly falls under our purvue, the other two projects much more than adequaetly cover the topic where quality is concerned. I would even go as far as to say that WP:WPBIO is probably the most appropriate of the three to be rating that article in terms of quality.

So there's that. I think more projects ought to have such a rating. Maybe one day the stats will pick it up. That'd be cool. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Continue to be bold!--LWF 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Assessment for comments. Arthurrh 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the proper value was "def", but I changed the banner template to include "deferred" as a possible value. As well, I fixed the issue you described. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about when/where it's appropriate to use this. Anyone have comments, ideas, suggestions? Arthur 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I've always seen this as generally applying to biographies, since they typically do not include much specific information on firearms (e.g. operation) and have more biographical and historical information. I'd always felt that firearms should be rated by us since they include information pertaining directly to the firearm.--LWF 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So you think we should take the lead over for example WPMILHIST if it's a strictly military firearm? BTW, can you remind me of the easy way to see what articles are currently tagged as deferred? Arthur 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily the lead, just to participate. To see which ones are deferred see Category:Rating-deferred Firearms articles. Again, I'm not saying how it should be, just commenting to help build a consensus.--LWF 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

.280 Ross and Ross rifles

I was going through the .280 Ross and there's a wierd thing here; the .280, as far as I know, never saw the battlefield (not on a common basis anyways) but there is a sentence saying that it was popular among the snipers... As far as I know, and can find, it's not the cartridge wich was popular with snipers, but the rifle (Ross, Mk III, cal. 303 British). So, do we keep this allegation there with the request for reference or we just scrap it? Also, I will work up,slowly, the Ross rifle article, since it is very incomplete and not precise. Last thing, is there still a reason to keep the 280 article as a stub?Kalashnikov 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the sniper reference. Arthurrh 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right with the reference on the .280, Arthurrh, but it only mentions one sniper who used (Osprey #12, pp 101-102) (a Ross, Commercial Match Rifle, Mk II*?? I will have to confirm that later), so, to me, it is hard to say it was a common practice. Anyways, to confirm this, I contacted Ross historian and major collector, Mr. B. DeLong who might help finding sources for such a statement.Kalashnikov 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

After many researches and contacts with Ross specialists and collectors, it seems that the .280 was not in use at large and by many snipers; but some used .303 brit 1907 (Mk II**) commercial target rifles instead of military (wathever, it's really close one from the other, the difference being mainly in sight locations and type used. Unless someone has more proof of such military sniper use of the 280 Ross, I propose instead of "It was popular as a military sniper's cartridge" sentence, something like; "it was even (seldom?)used as a sniper cartridge". Kalashnikov 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an article titled Ross Rifle Company, or something of the like. Ross produced much more than just the Canadian military rifles, and these (though most are somewhat obscure) could be paid better attention in an article about the Ross company ans as a bonus it could clear-up some jumbled information in the Ross rifle article. A disambiguation page could even be created if we'd differentiate between the "Ross rifle (military)" and the "Ross Rifle (sporting)", but only if enough info could gathered. There's a sort-of discussion on the Ross rifle talk page (as well as a debate), if anyone is interested. TeamZissou 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am currently working on the Ross Rifle article and already added the commercial models and I am curently working on the Target (Match) rifles. I will atack the military models later. As for the Ross Rifle Co., I think, and it's my own opinion, if we should do so, it should not be to describe the rifles they've done, but showing all the different products they did; optics, bayonets, combat knives. Kalashnikov 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In Roger and Knap's publication, Sir Charles Ross and his rifle, Ross is credited (though with suspicion of "borrowing" some design ideas) with developing the:

• Model 1897
• Model 1900
• Model 1903
• 12 variants among the Mark I-III series of the Ross military rifle.

Ross also produced the:

• Ross .22 Cadet and .22 Sporter
• Military Match .280
• 28-1906 Experimental
• Model 1907 "Scotch Deer Stalking Pattern"
• Model 1905-1910 Match Target rifles
• Model R
• Model M-10
• Model R-1910
• Model E
• Model E-10

Rifles made by the Ross factory were chambered in not only .303 British and .280 Ross, but also .22LR, .354 Ross-Eley, .354 and .28-1906 Ross experimental cartridges, .35 Winchester (the only American cartridge chambered for the Ross rifle), and the .370/.375 Eley.

In addition to all of these firearms and what you've mentioned, Machinery Magazine published articles from 1911 through 1913 describing the manufacturing process of the straight bolt rifle design, and one article on the manufacture of the Ross automatic knife ("switchblade", the articles have been reprinted by Lindsay Publications Inc.).

So, I've put all this down not because you didn't know it, Kalashnikov (because I think you've used the works I've cited), but to show that there is much, much more to Ross' rifles than the Mark-series military rifle; and, the current Ross rifle article doesn't reflect that, nor does it incorporate other Ross firearms effectively or clearly. Because information is rather limited regarding the non-military Ross firearms, they may better be represented in a single article discussing the Ross Rifle Co. products in total, with a brief description of the military rifle and a link to that article. TeamZissou 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ross commercial rifles chambered for the (.354 Experimental, .354 Ross-Eley... these were prototypes, and I did not see or heard of commercial rifles still existing and/or been made for this caliber. I did not mention prototypes, this can be added later in "developments". I only put the model wich are known to exist, still today. If you have reference on it, we'll go ahead. This is really a matter of development and or prototype and might be in this section. This can also be cited in an article about Ross or the Ross Rifle Co. I'm OK with that. Kalashnikov 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll pitch-in when I get around to it--I might create a prototype section, or separate the article's new info into different sections so that the military rifle info is coherent and the other rifles are covered. If you build a Ross Co. article, I'll help build it up the best I can.TeamZissou 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

List of firearms

This page needs to be spit into other sections or reorganized like extremely bad. Its almost impossible to find anything.(ForeverDEAD 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

For discussion see its talk page. Arthurrh 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard infoboxes

What is the guideline for non-standard infoboxes, like the one in Savage 10FP? Should we leave it or replace it with the template? Arthurrh 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace it. It should be similar to the many other firearm related articles. Hayden120 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace. Without question. I've done so in the past. I expect it was put in there by someone who just didn't know of the exisiting infoboxes. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news: new cartridge photos on the way!

Hey, everyone. I just finished slowly moseying through Wikicommons and uploaded a few cartridge pics. Here's the list:

• 6.5 x 52mm Carcano
• 6.5 x 55mm
• 6mm Remington
• 7.7 x 58mm JAP
• 7.62 NATO tracer rounds, in stripper clip
• 7mm Remington Magnum
• 8mm Mauser stripper clip, 1941 Turkish military production
• .22-250 Remington
• .22 Long, 22 LR, 22 Winchester Magnum
• .25-06 Remington
• .38 WCF
• .45-70 Government
• .222 Remington
• .250 Savage
• .257 Roberts
• .280 Remington
• .303 British stripper clip, civilian sporting rounds
• .338-06
• .348 Winchester
• .358 Norma Magnum
• .380 Auto vs. 9mm Luger

...and then there's a photo of the front cover of New Notes on the Red Army, published 1944--originally a restricted document for the use of officers of the British Army, I believe, in case anyone would know where that could go. Wikimedia has been having some server problems, so I'm not sure when the pics will be available for articles--it usually takes a day for approval. I'll start pinning them up as soon as they're available, but if anyone wants to jump the gun (no pun intended) I suggest using Mayflower and searching for the above cartridges. TeamZissou 07:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia had them available right away, and the photos are up on the pages that had none or poor(er) photos. I need to write some additional info on the image pages to make them searchable, it seems. I'll get on that tomorrow. TeamZissou 08:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a few more tonight, and have placed them on the proper pages:

• .30-40 Krag cartridge box
• .270 Winchester
• .30-40 Krag cartridges
• .22 Short
• .7mm-08 Remington

The .348 Winchester, .358 Norma Magnum, and .38-40 now have photos but no articles as of yet. TeamZissou 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Firearms glossary?

There are a number of glossaries in Wikipedia (see here for a list of articles tagged as such) and I thought it might be worthwhile setting one up for firearms, to cover terms that are important, but can be summed up in a sentence or two, and may not be worthy of an article, as well as "see also" links for items that do have articles. Some good resources to use as references would be the SAAMI glossary here and MidwayUSA's GunTec dictionary here.

As for content, the rule of thumb for inclusion used by SAAMI was ONLY industry terms would be included which are unique to the firearms and ammunition industry directly. Optical terms have been omitted for the most part. Common metallurgical terms were not included because they are not unique to the industry. Where there is a common term with a usage unique to our industry, it has, however, been included. That sounds like a reasonable starting place for here as well.

Just looking at a couple of random Wikipedia glossaries, like Contract bridge glossary and Golf glossary, I see a couple of different formats, and one commonality. Each has a heading for a letter, so you can create a link to, say, Contract bridge glossary#D for, dealer, and it will take you right to the appropriate section of the article. scot 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I've often felt when writing that having a simple explanation for some of the funny gun terminology would be helpful for readers. Arthurrh 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of a firearms glossary, and I would be willing to help write and illustrate it. TeamZissou 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Id support one too if you guys made one. Mayby insted of a page we could have a seperate section of the project have the glossary there if some are opposed to just a normal page. ForeverDEAD 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of it, provided it isn't an exclusively American Firearms Glossary- we'll need input from other countries as well! --Commander Zulu 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm backing it up too Kalashnikov 12:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, I'll create a stub today. I'm thinking I'll harvest a bunch of terms from somewhere, edit and format them, put in links to the SAAMI and MidwayUSA glossaries as references, and then we can start filling out definitions in our own words. Sound like a plan? scot 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start putting data in Glossary of firearms terminology; see the talk page for information and instructions. scot 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-firearm firearm spin-offs

Should we mention tools and their "ammo" in the cartridge article, or some other article that falls under this project? By tools, I refer to things such as "powder actuated nail guns" and cap stun guns used in meat processing. TeamZissou 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Powder actuated tools and the cartridges they use are already mentioned in the Blank (cartridge) article, so just put in a "see also" and point to that. scot 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that. Thanks!TeamZissou 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Anybody else get weird posts from antigunners concerning their userboxes? I got a few today on my talk page from a senior citizen calling me "obssessed with weapons" because I have "3 guns on my page and a reference to hunting and law enforcement". He went on to tell me how barbaric he thought hunting was and how he doesn't own a gun, etc. Anybody else get stuff like this or am I the project's lone weirdo-magnet?--Mike Searson 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probaly just that you atrack weirdos lol foreverDEAD 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably!

)

--Mike Searson 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Making your own userbox

Is it against the rules to make your own userbox that says your a member of this project? Oct28th-myBday-sendregards 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not if what you do is tasteful and well-done.--LWF 00:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If i make one should i pass it to the templetes or whatever or should i keep it to my we self. Oct28th-myBday-sendregards 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See what the others think, then decide based on their opinion of the finished product.--LWF 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright and thnks for fixing my spelling mistake i didnt notice ForeverDEAD 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Member comments

A recently added member put the comment "Guns don't kill people, i kill people." after his userid. I was wondering if this should be changed to something less offensive to people coming to look at and join the project? What do others think? Arthurrh 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the best course would be to ask the user to change his comment to something a little less controversial.--LWF 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Experience Guidelines

Can anyone point me to any guidelines on creating articles with content based on personal experience? I just added the .340 Weatherby Magnum page last night (my first ever real Wiki article). I didn't put too much content in there because a lot of what I could add is based on my personal experience or knowledge that I've gained from 30 years of being a firearms buff. I've looked around and it seems like a lot of articles are not based 100% on citations, but I wanted to err on the side of careful for my first article. Tad Marko 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

All articles should be based on verifiable data from reliable sources, and the guidelines specifically exclude writing purely from personal experiences, so make sure you have sources/references for material you use. Arthur 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider .38 Special#Performance. There are a lot of data in that section and there is nothing in there that I would dispute, however, there is not a single citation. Is that not strictly good form? Is it acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXTad (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not. I basically write first, then flesh it out with cites. Then as I read more, I find more, add it, etc. Be prepared though, if you use gun or knife magazines as source material...the antigunners and pseudointellectuals not trusted by their governments to own anything more deadly than a spork will question the source material if the article ever makes it past "Good Article" status.--Mike Searson 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I've run up against trouble with the cite requirement myself- there's a lot of firearm related information out there that, whilst accurate, isn't necessarily in an accessible print cite somewhere. This is especially true of information relating to the "effectiveness" of particular rounds, service periods of military firearms, and so on. The best I can suggest is keep an eye on the various shooting magazines and look out for reference books in 2nd hand bookshops etc- there's quite a bit of information out there if you know where to look! --Commander Zulu 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the debate is getting confused by a misunderstanding. There is no REQUIREMENT to cite in an article, there is merely a requirement that what's included is verifiable. Writing from personal experience is fine so long as it can be verified in some way. It's okay, for instance, to write something like this: "The M1 Garand will occasionally 'double' or fire two shots in rapid succession when the firer intended to fire one." Yeah, I know this because my match Garand would do this to me annoyingly often. Even though I know this and I write from personal experience, I KNOW it's verifiable and I've seen it in books... don't know where I've seen it but it's out there somewhere. I'm writing from personal experience, yes, but I'm allowed to include it because it's verifiable. If somebody puts a fact tag on it, I'd be compelled to pull it off because Wikipedia does not require an item be cited. You can tag the whole article, yes, but I know of no single article out there that is completely cited and, in reality, the sources tag is redundant in EVERY case.

Just remember that if someone does challenge the information, it can and should be removed. According to policy, the burden of proof lies with the person adding/restoring information. So if you know something from personal experience, but cannot find a source, understand that the guidelines allow other editors to flag/challenge/remove such material. So try as best you can to find sources, especially if you have information you expect is likely to be challenged. A guideline to remember from WP:VER is "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Arthur 01:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now then, if one were to write, "Balad Air Base experienced a major power outage in May of 2006 when a main power line was severed by a backhoe." It would be improper to include EVEN IF it was the backhoe operator who severed the cable writing it.--Asams10 12:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that I added my additional questions. This has all been very informative, and, if nobody contradicts the comments by Asams10, CZ and Mr. Searson, I'll use those as my guide as that is what my gut was telling to do. I just wanted to be sure that I was at least meeting minimum expectations. I just (literally) got rid of 20 years of Shooting Times, Guns and Ammo, Gun World, Guns and Handgunner. I knew I was going to regret that, but you just can't keep everything. I did keep my Rifle and Handloader magazines, but they're packed away for the same reason I had to get rid of the others. As for magazines as source materials, unlike GQ and Cosmopolitan, gun magzines are peer reviewed. Any inaccuracies are quickly pointed out by the readership or even other gun writers and the magazines often publish letters from these readers. I know this isn't news to anyone here, but I just wanted to get that stated. Tad Marko 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the term 'peer review' is a bit misunderstood here. Scholarly journals like the "New England Medical Journal" or whatever have an established process of review. You don't get published without an exhaustive and thorough process. "Guns and Ammo" is nothing like a scholarly journal. For that matter, neither is American rifleman. The others you listed are all what I'd call "Ad factories." They are there to sell advertisements for the guns 'reviewed' in the articles. There are good gun magazines out there such as Small Arms Review that do scholarly work, but they are not the norm. --Asams10 17:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough in my thoughts above. I certainly know what scholarly peer review is, but it mostly doesn't exist in the firearms field. I think that the fields of firearms and cartridges are much more remembered history and non-professionally generated data than they are traditional science. Certainly there is science, but even the R&D developments of modern military applications are largely refinements of old concepts. These fields are unique in that much of the development and utilization is by "regular" people. Examples are bench rest. There you have people competing down to the 1/1000th of an inch at 200 yards, which are degrees of accuracy much more precise than anything that is being developed for military applications where a certain amount of dispersal in certain applications is desired.

Many periodical publications are certainly nothing but advertising rags, but there are a lot of data in certain others that is as scientific or historically precise as it usually gets in this field. Ken Waters' work in Handloader is a good example. It is also a good example of the sort of peer review I am talking about if you consider the written dialogues he often had with his readers. Certainly this isn't of the same caliber as the New England Medical Journal, but it mostly is all there is. I consider writers such as Taffin, Venturino, Aagard, and Seifried to be above reproach. Not infallible, but they are certainly writers who have a strong regard for detail and factual accuracy.

I can understand the problems involved when putting references like these on articles which are going to receive hostile critical review, but the field of firearms research is largely a field of everyman. Even many (most?) commercial developments these days are at least based on or inspired by if not completely the work of non-professionals. Examples: 7mm-08, .338 Federal, 10mm, .204 Ruger, .458 Lott. Even the .450 Marlin is nothing more than the lawyerization of .45-70 loads that have been developed by individual handloaders for years.

After writing all this, I'm not sure what my real point is other than I suppose to create a discussion of how to properly cite data that are the result of an environment almost completely different than that of things like archeology, paleontology, pharmaceutical research, medical research, aerodynamic engineering and even simple history or political science. To come back around to the beginning, I think that I can paraphrase the earlier comments of Asams, CZ and Mr. Searson to be that stating commonly known facts is tolerable if not desirable, but of course citations whenever possible are preferred. Citations from books are preferable to those from advertising supported periodicals. Tad Marko 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Classifications

I noticed that some pages that are classified as stubs seem to be a bit further along, such as .257 Weatherby Magnum. I'd consider that a start rather than a stub. I would like to solicit some other opinions before I go and update the categories for some pages, though. I would think that any page that has a photo and infobox is at least a start. A stub would seem to be a page that just mentions the cartridge and maybe has one or two bare facts about it. Are there any specific guidelines for this? Tad Marko 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• You absolutely should remove the stub tags when appropriate. Normally short articles like that are considered stubs, however; unless they are basically "as complete as they're ever likely to get".
  
• Just follow these steps:
  
  • 1. Be BOLD!
    
  • 2. When in doubt discuss it at the article's talk page
    
  • 3. If no body comments refer to step 1. (if someone notices and reverts, then you'll at least have gotten their attention for discussion, see WP:BRD)

• And yes, there is Guideline for this, it's at WP:STUB.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia's gun control debate

• Some Wikipedians have argued that Debatepedia might be a good vent for arguments outside of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.82.172 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Subpages?

The Project page is a bit long, any objection to moving the templates, especially the infoboxes, and the assessment criteria to subpages?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gram values

Several articles use grain values but do not show gram equivalents. For example, 5.56 × 45 mm NATO and 7.5 x 55 Schmidt Rubin. I see that this is partly due to the way that Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge is designed without regard to grams.

How can we get gram values into the template? Lightmouse 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you can use this template: Template:Gr to g. You use this template: {{gr to g| ## |abbr=MOS|spell=American|precision=1|wiki=yes}} to get this result for the number 55 as an example: {{gr to g| 55 |abbr=MOS|spell=American|precision=1|wiki=yes}} ; You can plug in whatever number you want for the 55 of course. What I do is put the template on my user page so I can just cut and paste. Go to my user page, click edit, and copy my template shortcuts to your user page and we'll all be happy. --Asams10 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To what purpose? The industry standard for powder measures and bullet weights is grains. I could see if you were talking about weight of a firearm, itself...but I guess I don't see this as anything besides placating lovers of the metric system at the expense of accurate information. --Mike Searson 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Grams are the standard for all firearms related weight (mass) measurements in continental Europe as well as most of the rest of the world. Grains are only relevant in North America. (I'm not sure if I should include Canada or not. I have no idea about Britain.) There is nothing inaccurate about grams. Having said this, though, since this is the en version of Wikipedia (does that mean North America?) it might be preferred to have grains first, but grams are going to be much more useful and meaningful to everyone else. Tad Marko 21:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As an NRA Instructor and a Ballistician I think it's dangerous to put the two close together, lest someone were to transpose the information and blow something up. Are people in Europe allowed to reload anymore? I know most aren't even allowed to own guns.--Mike Searson 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Anyone who uses Wikipedia as a reloading manual shouldn't be reloading. Besides, it seems to me that the ballistic info is of useful encyclopedic value, regardless of whether one is able to (or inclined to) reload.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Grains are the industry standard in the US and because of the vastness of the market in the US and Canada vs. that in Great Britian and Europe, most of the industry figures are in Grains. I believe Grains should be first but have no objection whatsoever to the use of Grams. For those users who are crippled by the Metric system, they can understand what weight all of us superior Americans are speaking of... it's a theraputic tool for the measurement challenged in Europe. --Asams10 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, then by all means, include it!  :) --Mike Searson 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If the specification is in grains, then grains should be first. If the specification is in grams, then grams should be first. The converted value should always be the one in parentheses.

The simplest solution that I can see would be to remove the unit symbol "gr" from the template. I would then go through all the articles and add "gr" manually. The current design prevented me from simply adding "(4.0 g)" because it ended up as "62 (4.0 g) gr". What do you think? Lightmouse 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Originals first; conversions in parentheses. Gene Nygaard 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you. I think you're trying to overcomplicate the issue. This is a moot point in the vast majority of articles. The weights should always be given in grains, with grams given merely for comparrison purposes so somebody unfamiliar with the industry standard can judge how much the bullet or whatever actually weighs. It should read "grains" and not "Gr" as "Gr" can be confused with "gr" and "g". The template does everything for you, there is no need to go article by article and change everything. Re-read my post above please. --Asams10 12:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to go article by article. My suggestion was based on my limited understanding of the template code. Perhaps using Template:Gr to g and Template:G to gr is a better idea. However I am reluctant to guarantee success if I did the edit. I agree with you that the units should be spelled out in full. Lightmouse 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the magic of the conversion template. You just cut and paste the template and all you have to enter is the numeric value for grains. You'd have to plug the template in, of course, but once there, it's a breeze. I've gone through a few selected articles and added this for weight and length values... grains are just as simple in my opinion. --Asams10 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with articles and some templates but the Firearms Template is a bit complicated for me. Can you add Template:Gr to g and Template:G to gr to it?Lightmouse 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm leery of all the proliferation of black-box conversion templates. We now have many more problems in articles using them than in articles not using them. Gene Nygaard 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody here have the skills to edit the template to provide for source and converted values? Lightmouse 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody want to do it? Or is anyone willing to explain to me how to do it? Lightmouse 12:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SA80

I was looking at the SA80 article today and realised that it looked a lot shorter than it used to. I then checked the history and about 1/4 of the article had been removed on the 18th of November, and there were many parts of the new article that just looked low quality. The page had been like this for the last 2 days without anyone realising. Can someone please help me understand why this was done? I restored the edits (now), but see it before. (Comparison) Hayden120 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, which is it?

I was always taught that a battle rifle was simply a rifle that fired a fully sized rifle cartridge, as opposed to the intermediate cartridges of assault rifles, and not it's own type of firearm. The articles on wikipedia do nothing to help avoid confusion. This is part of the article on automatic rifles, emphasis mine:

"In many cases, [automatic rifle] describes a rifle capable of self-loading and firing a single round for each pull of the trigger (i.e. firing semi-automatically). However, it is also used to describe non-intermediate firearms capable of fully automatic fire (a type of automatic firearm)."

and then these sentences from this article:

"The term battle rifle can have different meanings. Usually, it refers to rifles firing a "full-sized" (as opposed to "intermediate").........."

"During the latter half of the 20th century, the assault rifle, and later the carbine, (firing an "intermediate" cartridge) has gained in popularity and superseded the battle rifle as a general infantry weapon in most modern armies."

I understand this last sentence to mean that rifles firing intermediate rifle rounds (assault rifles) have replaced rifles firing full sized "battle" rifle rounds. --Philip Laurence 13:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Few militaries use full-sized cartridges. Most have switched to intermediate-power for lower recoil, and less weight.--LWF 15:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. I mean that there is an overlap in the definitions of automatic rifle and "battle rifles". I believe the term "battle rifle" to refer to non-intermediate firing rifles (as opposed to the term battle rifle referring to a service rifle) to be a neologism. I haven't found any sources that use the term without referencing/sourcing wikipedia. --Philip Laurence 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been a minor debate on Talk:Battle rifle about the definition of battle rifle. As i have argued, there are no reliable sources outside of some firearms writers, but if these were our sources, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. No firearms manufacturers or militaries acknowledge the term "battle rifle" to mean an assault rifle that uses "full-powered" rifle ammo, at least as far as i have seen. Are we really to believe rifles as diverse as the Lee-Enfield, to the M14 and also the FN FAL (under the battle rifle definition used on wikipedia currently) all fall under the same category simply because of their cartridges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Laurence (talk • contribs) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes the definitions do overlap but that's valid, it is my understanding that an automatic rifle is a classic style older-production rifle capable of fully-automatic fire i.e. the M14, while the battle rifle is an assault rifle chambered in a full-size rifle cartridge, i.e. G3, FN FAL. Some designs will be even more difficult to classify but if at least one of the two types are mentioned it won't be incorrect. Koalorka (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realize I forgot to sign my name. Anyway, yes, I understand what people are trying to pass off as a "battle rifle" but the thing is there are no sources I can find - and that's what this discussion's about. --Philip Laurence (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's more of a contemporary assessment of older generation firearms. Enthusiast jargon if you will, no a clearly defined class of weapons by any means. Koalorka (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, doesn't it fail Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms? --Philip Laurence (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Potentional new Uzerbox

• This user is a member of Wikiproject Firearms

I made this after looking at the old Uzerbox's. I wasnt to big a fan of them and made this one. comments on it? Esskater11 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I'd suggest not using 1337 speech on Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously. -- Tad Marko (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd use a lighter bg under the text; my system isn't showing the link (too little contrast). Trekphiler (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifications template on .32 ACP and others

I just posted this at Talk:.32 ACP but I thought it might be appropriate here too.

"I think there is something wrong with the Specifications template. On the article page the bullet diameter is shown as .984 in (25.0 mm) which is the same figure given for overall length. When I click on edit the template shows the diameter as .309, which I assume is correct.

There are similar problems with (at least) the .380 ACP, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .50 Action_Express articles. I don't know how to fix this but maybe someone could take a look?"--Boreas 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed now. Thanks to whoever took the time. --Boreas 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disarmament in Somalia

I don't see how this fits in to gun politics seeing as it doesn't contain any infomation on Somali gun laws (if there are any) and doesn't seem to cover our scope. Remove it from gun politics? Goldfishsoldier (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for ammunition

Hi. I've been trying to keep track of a naming dispute over at Talk:7.62x51 NATO (see both requested move sections, one a few months old, and one very recent). At least one editor has claimed that there is a pre-existing consensus regarding how to name ammunition articles, but I can't seem to get anybody to explain where this consensus can be found. If anybody here can provide any insight into the situation, it would be greatly appreciated.

It would seem appropriate to have some sort of centralized discussion, arrive at a consensus regarding the naming of ammunition articles, and then write down whatever we decide in a place where people can find it later. It may be that WikiProject Military history also has an interest in this question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was reached in this discussion here by the WPMILHIST/WEAPON task force, some time ago (late 2006). Hopefully that helps! --Commander Zulu 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion it is CLEAR that there was no concensus. Even a quick count of the opposed and supporting showed nothing substantial. Further, that was under 'military history' and had little to do with firearms cartridge editors who are, generally speaking, firearms enthusiasts. It's a more proper discussion to have here and form the concensus here as ALL cartridges, military and civlilian alike, fall under this WikiProject. --Asams10 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there was a consensus then, it's clear that there isn't one now, so it would be a good idea to form one before altering any more article titles. If we reach some kind of agreement, let's write it up as a naming convention, and obviate the need for such disputes in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote goes for "7.62mm NATO" and "5.56mm NATO" respectively. No need for a lengthy title and everything else will redirect there. Also no need for the length designation as there isn't, for instance, a 7.62mm x 63mm NATO round to be confused with. --Asams10 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking on an article-by-article basis, or are we talking about forming a general standard? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that there can be a general standard. While we can say something for the 5.56 and 7.62, how do we deal with the .244 Remington or the 250-3000 Savage? In reality, there are only two standard small-arms calibers here that fall under this discussion now that I think about it. --Asams10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could borrow the firearm naming convention, use the shorthand military designation for military cartridges (ex. 7.62 NATO) and the commercial designation for non-military cartridges (ex. .223 Remington).--LWF 20:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What does SAAMI have to say about it? If you ask Ruger, for instance, the 40 S&W is actually the 40 Auto. Of course, is it 40 S&W, .40 S&W, 40 Smith and Wesson, .40 Smith and Wesson, 40 Smith & Wesson, or .40 Smith & Wesson? Does SAAMI have any opinion on this? If we were to go by a single source, I'd say that would be authoritative. Cartridges of the World uses the convention of 7.62x51mm NATO for that, the 5.56mm NATO, however other military cartridges are a hodge-podge of naming conentions. I'm leaning towards the reality that there are no conventions and we'll need to pick a source (Cartridges of the World anyone?) and stick with it. --Asams10 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A brief browse around SAAMI's website doesn't show much on this subject. I do agree that this is a little difficult to come up with a single, accurate convention for all the cartridges on Wikipedia.--LWF 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that there isn't a single, definitive source for cartridge names, and that we may not be able to come up with a single, one-size-fits-all convention for all the cartridge names here on WP. There's going to be a lot of compromise involved, I think... For example, the cartridge 9mm Parabellum is known by about half a dozen different names (including 9mm Luger, 9x19mm, and 9mm NATO). I've been doing a bit of thinking about this issue myself, and realising I've probably been a bit inflexible (and would like to apologise for that). I still think the best format is AxB (Name) with no spaces, but I can see why the "mm" is necessary, especially for non-shooters. The problem is that not every metric cartridge has the "mm" as part of their name- particularly the Russian cartridges 7.62x54R and 7.62x38R, and I've seen 7.62x39 Soviet as well. Thus, we end up with:

• 7.62x51mm NATO
• 5.56mm NATO
• 7.62x54R
• 7.92x57mm Mauser
• 9mm Parabellum
• 6.5x55mm Swedish
• etc

I'm inclined to think we should generally go with the Commercial names of cartridges (where possible) to aid accessibility- let's face it, Cartridge, Rifle, .303" Mk VII is a very long-winded (and purely academic) way of referring to the .303 British rifle cartridge cartridge. Similarly, everyone knows what .30-06 Springfield is (even though it has a military designation of something like .30 M1 Ball, IIRC)- but we run into problems with things like 7.92x57mm Mauser, because the cartridge is commercially known in the US as 8mm Mauser- but elsewhere as 7.92x57mm Mauser. Perhaps we should set up a committee to try and decide cartridge names on a case-by-case basis? --Commander Zulu 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I have seen several users have been laboriously renaming and accordingly editing several articles on rifle cartridges from German origin that have never been used by militaries in undoubtedly good faith. If Wikipedia would like to use the AxBmm NAME format for metric cartridges in a military context that is fine by me, but please consider renaming the article 8x68mm Spitz to 8x68mm S or its original CIP approved 8 x 68 S format, so Wikipedia readers without specialist knowledge of cartridges do not get confused or be tempted to create unnecessary dangerous situations.

The name 8x68mm Spitz is rather irresponsible to use. The letter S in 8 mm cartridges from German origin provides gunsmiths, ammunition traders and users information on the particular bore dimensions to avoid dangerous situations with bullets that do not have the correct diameter, since several 8 mm bores with varying dimensions are in existence.

I personally feel it is a pity that in some Anglo Saxon countries European cartridges are allotted unofficial colorful nomenclature and mm additions and these find their way into an encyclopedia . For an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, that tries to use verifiable facts from reliable sources, I think it would be nice to use the cartridge nomenclature stated by the ammunition standards organization (CIP / SAAMI) responsible for the country of origin. Arguments like that an European cartridge elsewhere or in another language might be differently named are not very sound, since the United Kingdom is a CIP member state.

CIP cartridge nomenclature format sadly does not always follow logical rules. For instance Mr. Brenneke got the honor of the official addition of his name for creating the 6.5 x 64 Brenneke and 9.3 x 64 Brenneke. Though also being a Brenneke design, there really is no 7 x 64 Brenneke or 7x64mm Brenneke, etc.. CIP only knows a 7 x 64 without any further additions. Remind that for non wildcat cartridges your, mine, Jane’s, Wikipedia’s or the ideas of anybody else on European rifle cartridge nomenclature are utterly irrelevant in CIP member states. CIP rulings have arbitrary legal status there for all civilians. This tight ruling might have its drawbacks, but also made it possible to fall back on rulings when fire arms accidents need professional investigation. Only the governmental organizations of CIP member states do not have to comply with CIP rulings and standards and can do whatever they seem fit with their fire arms and ammunition. This is why organizations like European armies can use their own service ammunition nomenclature.

Copyright prevents me from adding any official CIP lists, datasheets, drawings, etc. from the CIP CD-ROM to Wikipedia. If you are interested in purchasing a CIP CD-ROM, I advise you to contact the CIP approved Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House in the United Kingdom.

Francis Flinch (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where a unit symbol is used, I prefer a space before the unit symbol. The SI authority says "a space is always used to separate the unit from the number" and so does the Manual of Style. We do not have to follow that guidance but some Wikipedia articles do. I happen to think spaces make names look clearer (so I also prefer '7 x 64' rather than '7x64'). If we were tight for display area, such as on an ammunition box, spaces are the first thing to go but Wikipedia is not limited like that. Lightmouse (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Industry wide, the standard has always seemed to have been no spaces. To me, the spaces confuse things. It's not about saving area on the page, it's about continuity. --Asams10 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The web contains references with and without spaces. I suspect that people do not care much either way. The paragraph above by user Francis Flinch has references with and without spaces, I can't work out what his preference is. Lightmouse (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant wp:mosnum guideline reads:

• "Values and unit symbols are spaced (25 kg, not 25kg)"

Why depart from that simple and sensible advice? Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Luckilly, this is not a numbers issue, it is a caliber designation. The numbers are often incorrect in terms of actual length, diameter, etc. Cartridge designations are not numbers and should not be treated as numbers so WP:MOSNUM is irrelevant. People keep getting wrapped up in the numbers issue and trying to force designations into some box they really don't belong in. --Asams10 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a numbers issue. Exactly what is measured may vary from case to case, but the numbers are not pulled out of thin air. They are actual measurements. And as far as designations go, there is no IUPAC or IUPAP or CGPM or whatever with generally accepted authority in the naming of cartridges, as we have with things like chemical elements and SI units. What we need here is a Wikipedia standard. Primarily English-based (English numbers and the like) since this is English Wikipedia.

Furthermore, one thing this edit-warring has given us is the redirects from the various alternatives that should have already been there anyway, but often were not. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The names for NATO cartridges should be easy to resolve in that the NATO names are standardized by STANAG. Thus, the proper name is 5.56mm NATO, and not 5.56x45mm NATO. Further, the effort to standardize names here is producing some ridiculous results. For example, there is one self-appointed authority who insists on renaming 9mm Parabellum "9x19mm Parabellum" even though that is not a historically accurate name. You can call it 9x19mm, 9mm NATO, 9mm Parabellum, and 9mm Luger and be equally correct. But combining metric designations with colloquial or trade names produces results that do not reflect reality, as with the erroneous "5.56x45mm NATO."--Ana Nim (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you like you can add CIP's "9 mm Luger" nomenclature to your collection.Francis Flinch (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

O dear, I might have stirred up things a bit. My personal opinions and notation preferences have no much to do with the actual problem, as long as I do not feel safety issues might arise from the propagation of nonsense. I do think it is a pity when history pages keeping track of edits going back to March 2007 are erased by article renaming as has happen with the 7.5x55mm Schmidt Rubin article. Gene Nygaard's proposal to choose English-based standards does not work out that simple, since the United Kingdom is a CIP member state and UK standards sometimes deviate from the US that uses SAAMI standards. If using the cartridge nomenclature stated by the civilian ammunition standards organization responsible for the relevant country of origin as much as possible, which will at least cover the nomenclature of lots of registered cartridge chamberings originating from Europe and the US, is considered a bad idea, communities like this one can try to make up a Wikipedia standard. Adding Infobox fields for the relevant official CIP, SAAMI, military, etc. nomenclature might also help in giving those articles a nice touch. Francis Flinch (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a place where you can request that bad article moves like that be fixed; I forget the name of the page, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, "9mm" is a term of art; it is a name for a caliber (or gauge or whatever) of bullet and the weapon that fires it, that is derived from a measurement. It isn't really "nine milimeters" (= "9 mm"), nor is it ever spelled out as "nine-milimeter[s]" (unless someone foolishly constructs a sentence that requires this conversion by putting it at the beginning). In fact, spacing "9mm" would be a very bad idea, because if you write "9–mm pistol" you are talking about the world's smallest firearm, not a caliber. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case someone should inform the editors of calibre that they've got it all wrong. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Target" versions

I've been thinking about this for a few days now, and someone else has suggested it to me that WP:GUNS#"Target" versions be renamed as WP:GUNS#Variants, and be expanded to a degree. Any thoughts?--LWF 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree- it's a good idea, especially as there are variants of rifles that aren't target versions, but still not different enough to warrant their own article (I'm thinking of things like Folding-Stock versions of various autoloading Military rifles and Sniper versions of standard-issue rifles, especially). --Commander Zulu 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree - variants generally don't need a separate article, and our guidelines should make that clear. Variants definitely expand beyond just target versions. -- Arthur (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing I should mention is variants in mind when I wrote it, I just somehow forgot to specify that.---- LWF (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my thoughts are that it would include: all folding, telescoping, etc. variants; accurized variants; ergonomic variants; bull barrels and the like; variants rechambered for a different caliber; and compact/carbines. The exceptions to this would be where large amounts of design or history would be lost in a merger. For example, this wouldn't apply to AK-47 and AK-74, or to AK-74 and AKS-74U. Any thoughts? Anything else that y'all think should be included, or shouldn't be included?--LWF (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For example bull barreled 10/22's could be taken care of in a Ruger 10/22 article. However, if there is sufficient source material and historical significance (say an M1D or a Mosin Sniper)..I think the weapon could do with its own article. --Mike Searson (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's done. Any feedback would be great.--LWF (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor re-wording might be in order to provide some clarification? I suggest something like:
Variants of a model of firearm- such as folding/telescoping stock variants, target versions, silenced versions, variants chambered in a new calibre, and compact/carbine variants generally should not receive their own article, having instead a section on the variant in the parent firearm's article; The exceptions to this are where significant amounts of design and/or history would be lost by merging the articles. For example, even though the Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk I "Jungle Carbine" is a carbine variant of the Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I rifle, a huge amount of re-designing went into the rifle, making it a unique arm in its own right, and eligible for its own article. Conversely, however, the The 9mm Parabellum ("Red 9") version of the 7.63x25mm Mauser calibre Mauser C96 "Broomhandle" pistol would not merit a separate article, as the only difference between the parent arm and variant is a change in calibre, which is best covered in a section within the main article. Thoughts? --Commander Zulu (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I'll try to incorporate your ideas into the guideline as soon as I have the time.--LWF (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes. Thank you for your suggestions Commander Zulu, though I did not use them all, the ones I used were very useful.--LWF (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help!--Commander Zulu (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and More than One Ballistic Source

I've noticed that the cartridge infobox really only supports one source of ballistic data, but sometimes I can't find complete ballistic data in one place. Is there anyway that the infobox could be made to support more than one source? -- Tad Marko (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It can be done. I can't remember offhand which articles already have it. Use something like source name 1<ref>this is the first ref</ref>, Source name 2<ref>This is the second ref</ref> and it should work fine. Arthurrh (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TDI KRISS Super V XSMG

Rename TDI KRISS Super V to TDI KRISS Super V XSMG

The correct name was being used TDI KRISS Super V XSMG then an editor named Asams10 moved the article without any discussion to the incorrect name TDI KRISS Super V. The firearm is named by the company at their homepage here: KRISS Super V XSMG. The "KRISS Super V" refers only to the firing mechanism, which will be used in other firearms created by this company, so the XSMG, which the company included in the name of this specific firearm must be included at the end to differentiate from other firearms i.e.: it is the actual name being used by the company that manufactures the firearm. I notified Asams10 at both his talk page and the article discussion page, but he is being stubborn and moves the article back, stating that is is advertising. To avoid an edit war would other people, please get involved. Thank you Chessy999 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You've started, what, 4 conversations in different places, Cheezy? Look at the project page, read the section on naming conventions, and argue your case to a concensus before you go making changes. Thank you, BTW, for pointing out that the name I changed it to was also wrong, I've corrected my mistake. --Asams10 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up, SKS

As a result of multiple, massive, copyvio's, SKS has been gutted. Needs a lot of work from someone very knowledgeable on the subject. I've got a couple of 'em, but, never read up on 'em much... SQL^{Query me!} 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I might attempt to do a write-up on it. But I am going to remove irrelevant "legal issues and civlian usage" type information. Koalorka (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has been restored in full, with an added reference. Turns out it wasn't someone from Wikipedia copying from another website, it was someone from another website copying Wikipedia.--LWF (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I wasn't aware of that when I posted here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What I personally wonder is why people bother copying Wikipedia for anything. Prestige? Who even goes to those other websites when Wikipedia at least cites sources some of the time, instead of none of the time?--LWF (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found two of my articles on Wikipedia copied and used as adcopy on dealer's webpages for knives: Ernest Emerson and Strider SMF. Wonder if someone copied it to sell SKS's?--Mike Searson (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Prvi Partizan Deletion

Boy howdy, there are some editors around Wikipedia that are in a hurry to delete stuff. I added Prvi Partizan this evening and it looks like it was gone less than half an hour later. I added it because it was referenced as being one of the few suppliers of certain metric calibers in several firearms related articles. I figured that this was enough to justify the inclusion of a stub about an international corporation. I didn't put any less content in it than there is in the apparently non-offensive to deleters Sellier & Bellot, so I'm a bit confused as to #1 why it would be flagged for deletion and #2, why it was necessary to be deleted so stinkin' fast. I waited more than 24 hours before I moved a page after announcing my intentions on the related talk page...I figured people would be at least as careful with outright deletions. Anyway, is there anyone around here that has more experience with this sort of thing that can give me some thoughts on this? If Prvi Partizan can't make the grade, I'm not sure that there aren't a lot of other companies mentioned in Wikipedia that need to be gone. Tad Marko (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I patroll new pages alot,(note i didnt tag this one) and would love to help execpt i cant even read the page. If you made a subpage for it again i could take a look at it. Esskater11 10:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Help me out...what do I need to do to help you? What is a subpage? Tad Marko (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the page, went away to see what I could find to add to it, then came back to discover it had been deleted. That's awfully fast, but I'm not actually sure there's enough information on Prvi Partizan to justify a wiki article. Then again, the same could be said for the Sellier & Bellot article, too. I think we need more than "(Company) makes ammunition in a variety of calibers" to merit the company having a Wiki article, FWIW, but that doesn't mean new articles in that vein should be deleted before other editors have had a chance to expand them. --Commander Zulu (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand cleaning up bad articles, but I really fail to see why an article with links needed to be deleted so quickly. I don't think that it matches the criteria for WP:SPEEDY, which seems to be more concerned with vandalism and garbage pages. I left a note on the talk page of the person who flagged it as well as well as the person who actually deleted it:

• User_talk:Bielle#Prvi_Partizan_Deletion
• User_talk:Jmlk17#Prvi_Partizan_Deletion

I will give them a reasonable amount of time to respond before I edit their changes.

I'd bet dollars to donuts they are from the UK, Scotland, Canada, or Oz. There's a cabal of antigunners from those countries who flag and attempt to delete every weapon related article they see because they either think its "not notable", they don't like the subject matter, or have an irrational fear of weapons. I guess when you live on your knees in a nation that has been disarmed, you need whatever little sense of power you can find.--Mike Searson (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the guy who flagged it for deletion is on the east coast. Close enough, I suppose. He was actually pretty nice about the whole thing, and the article is back in place. I learned a few things about making sure that articles are notable from the get go. I also learned about inclusionists, discovering that I am one and that deletionists are wrong. ;-) Seriously, though, I was surprised that anyone would be in such a hurry to delete a factual article. I still think that applying WP:SPEEDY to it was wrong and that speedy deletion should be reserved for vandalism, gibberish and offensive things. Tad Marko (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall speedy is reserved for vandalism, and the like. In fact, WP:SPEEDY has nothing about content, or notability just vandalism, advertising, copyvio, and a few others like that. In my opinion, it should have been prodded, not speedied.--LWF (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(u)While I agree, that as an administrator myself, I probably wouldn't have deleted the article so fast (a half an hour isn't very long to let an article grow), we have a very important policy here, at wikipedia. Assume good faith. Accusing someone of deleting an article, because "they're probably an anti-gunner", really isn't assuming good faith. I've noticed, as of late, it seems one almost has to have a perfect article, for it to pass newpages some days. People make mistakes, get in a hurry, or, just aren't familiar with the subject matter sometimes. I know I've made a similar mistake at least once now. If you guys like, I will see about getting the previous version undeleted, for the article's history, and proper attribution. SQL^{Query me!} 12:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The "To Do List"

Should "fire forming" really be on the this list to have its own article? I would think it should be a section in the Handloading article. Alfordap 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Wildcat cartridge. scot (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so why does "fireforming" need its very own article if it is mentioned in Handloading? If we want more info on Fireforming then shouldn't that information be added to the Handloading article? Alfordap (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfordap (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the unsigned comment earlier. I am still getting use to the format. it is very different from forum sites. I will get it sooner or later thought. Alfordap (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Glock article consolidation

This is a mess. Reading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants, it's obvious that the 23 Glock models that each have their own articles need to be combined into a single article. Well, it's obvious but I'll state the obvious. Unlike many other firearms, the Glock features interhangeability of a surprisingly large number of parts. Subvariants, though they have different model numbers, are essentially the same gun. Glock prides themselves on this and it's against the project policy and common sense to have that many articles for the same gun. Here's how I see the work progressing if anybody'd like to comment:

1. Tag the Glock 17 article with "merge from" tags to all the various sub-models and have the discussion there. The concensus is already here, we're just going through the motions to ensure nobody is blindsided... the articles WILL be merged. Done.
2. Tag the various sub-articles with "merge to" tags. Done.
3. Move content from Glock to Glock 17.
4. Make the Glock article about the company... short and sweet.
5. Merge unique content, discussions, pictures, etc. from the various pistol model articles into the Glock 17 article.
6. Redirect those articles to the Glock 17 article.
7. Fix about 1,000 redirects. Anybody got a bot?
8. Crack a beer. --Asams10 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have my full support! And if I can find the time maybe over the weekend I can try to supply a nice technical description. Koalorka 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of moving Glock to Glock 17, what about something else, like Glock handguns or something? SQL^{Query me!} 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a silly idea, actually. --Commander Zulu (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Glock handguns" or "Glock pistols" might be a more appropriate name than "Glock 17". — Mudwater 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mudwater, I find "Glock pistols" would work best as 'pistol' in the title is common to other articles such as the M9 pistol. Hayden120 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Glock pistols sounds much better to me, too. Not sure why I didn't think of it :P SQL^{Query me!} 12:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd rather prefer to keep the article Glock 17, this is the pistol from which the entire Glock line of models is derived. The remaining pistols are simply variants. Koalorka (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply having the title as ‘Glock 17’ is a little bias; anyone looking for the Glock 21, etc. won't be able to find it. A title that summarizes the whole range would be better, and Glock pistols satisfies that criteria. Hayden120 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The existing Glock 21 page that comes up in searches for Glock 21 would redirect to the appropriate section in Glock 17. Koalorka (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It will still cause confusion under the name Glock 17; it needs to have a name to cover all variants. The Glock 17 is the 9mm variant, so why should all the others come under the same name? And don't say because all the other variants were derived from the Glock 17. We haven't named the Heckler & Koch USP article "Heckler & Koch USP9" have we? Hayden120 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not doing it already, please chime in on the [talk page] where the merger discussion is taking place. --Asams10 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

I have recently noticed that this talk page can frequently go long periods of time without being archived. If everyone agrees, I'd like to have Mizsabot or perhaps Cluebot archive everything in the page over a month old. Any comments or suggestions?--LWF (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Good to Me!--Mike Searson (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A month sounds reasonable to me SQL^{Query me!} 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's done.--LWF (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New template

I designed a new template for inclusion in articles about John Browning designs. I have added it to FN M1900 as an example. Thoughts? --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it but some of Brownings rifles and a few shotguns are not listed. I think if it were to be used it should include all of his firearms. Alfordap (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I only added weapons that had articles. Feel free to edit the template if you have weapons to add. --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Weapon usage and user feedback mention?

I've recently gotten into an edit war over the inclusion of user evaluations and feedback regarding the L85A1 or SA80 assault rifle. I'm of the conservative view that such evaluations even though properly cited through media sources will always be subjective, and do not belong in an encyclopedic entry that should contain no more than cold facts, design features and a history. The debate concerns the L85A1's reliability or alleged lack thereof. The article itself implies that there was an reliability problem with some of the weapon's features. However, in a paragraph about the revised version, the L85A2, I address the issue by acknowledging the problem and listing the modifications done to the weapon, to improve this defect. I'm in no way defending the weapon's engineering faults, I just see the "Criticism" subsection as an opportunity to transform the article into a nightmarish "weekend warrior" debate. There are discussion forums for that. Can we get some somekind of consensus and possibly include this into our guidelines? Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than having a section dedicated to criticisms they could be included in the general text. I personally believe that actual reported problems are more than worthy of note. Imagine if we didn't include anything on the troubles with the early M16s. The main thing I would say on criticisms is that there should be a reliable source for the statements.--LWF (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, if there's a valid or official source documenting any problems. Koalorka (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Our first anniversary

Well, one year ago today I started the WikiProject Firearms, and in that time we have accomplished a fair bit. We got a featured article. We now have a guideline for pop culture applying to all firearms instead of just military firearms. We've established a guideline of the notability a criminal use of a firearm. We made the decision on how to have variants of firearms in Wikipedia. Overall, not bad. Wouldn't y'all say?

Now, I am wondering, what else have we accomplished, and how can we improve?--LWF (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. We also added a ton of infoboxes to firearms articles, especially cartridges. Still more to do in that area. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course we're continuously expanding our scope with coverage of lesser known and obscure designs! Keep up the good work. This next year should see emphasis placed on maintaining and enforcing uniformity. Koalorka (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Denel PAW-20 Neopup

I've got a user stating that the Denel PAW-20 Neopup should be called the Neopup PAW-20 and was designed and manufactured by Tony Neophytou. But the existing sources and a google search indicate Gemaco Elbree Pty Ltd and DENEL as being the design and manufacturing concerns. Could someone with more resources check this and advise? Mbisanz (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the Denel PAW-20 Neopup is not within our project's scope. I recommend you go to WP:WEAPON for the proper project/task force.--LWF (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons

I've noticed in a number of gun articles (M16 rifle for example) that we currently use {{flagcountry|United States}} (producing United States) in the "origin" field, although that is not recommended (or indeed mentioned) in the project page. I would argue that the inclusion of the flag is not encyclopedic, adds no information, but is merely used as decoration. If anyone can come up with a coherent rationale for using the flag in addition to the name (in this case United States), here would be the place for it. WP:MOSFLAG provides a more detailed rationale for why using flags in infoboxes like this is deprecated. --John 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the MOS and it says something different than what you're saying, John. I think it's neither decorative nor wrong, it's merely informative. --Asams10 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Can you quote the bit you think I have misunderstood? More importantly, can you explain why in your opinion the flag adds information to the article? Put another way, why is United States more useful to our readers than United States? --John 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You can certainly justify your position with the MOS. Please quote the applicable statements in the MOS that say we should not use flag icons. --Asams10 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to see. First, the way we work here is that the onus is on you to justify the retention of the flag, either by reference to a policy/guideline, or to a consensus. Are you able to do that? The relevant parts of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) would be: "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." and "Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information in a general context, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration."

If you have a good answer to my question above ('why is United States more useful to our readers than United States?'), now would be a good time to state it. --John 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really justify why it's NOT useful. I say it is, and I'm not the only that's edited these articles to add flags. You REVERTED our edits; it is incumbent on YOU to justify your reversions. This is not constructive.--Asams10 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That shows great misunderstanding of how our project works, if you'll forgive my saying so. I have shown you where in the MoS it says this use of flags is discouraged, as you requested. I would like to see you state what you believe the flags add to the articles. If you are unable to do so, they can safely be removed. See also your talk. --John 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to be a pill about it, you're not being constructive. YOU reverted, YOU state your case and don't post on my talk page, I won't respond there. --Asams10 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree here with John , he has stated where the MOS applies here while Asams has provided no means to back up his position and all i can see is WP:PRETTY Gnevin 11:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked as a neutral 3rd party to comment on this disagreement. First, Asams10, the process works like this: add boldly -> revert -> discuss. If you are reverted, and reverted with guidelines as a justification, it is up to you to then respond and explain how your edit does meet guidelines. "I say it is", without quoting the applicable portion of the guideline is merely stating your opinion, and when your opinion is stacked up against guideline, it won't prevail. It is more helpful to say "I say it is because the MOS says...." So, please frame your comments as addressing how the icon makes the information more encyclopedic; in other words, what encyclopedic information is lost by not having it.

Second, the issue at hand...I assume that we're talking about the icon in the infobox, because there is clear mos justification for the flags in the long list. In this case, I see nothing gained by having the flag, therefore it is merely decoration, and John is correct, that is counter to MOS. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right Alan. Thanks to you both for commenting. I have restored the MoS-compliant versions of the three articles in question. For the record, this was the first time I reverted them, contrary to Asams10's assertion. --John 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the very small flag icon is used as decoration. For articles that involve warfare, religion, politics, and other powerful socially charged topics, the flag icon becomes very useful and is in fact encyclopedic ( at least used in encyclopedias I own). I don't know the details of how the brain works for speed readers, but when I read a socially charged article, the flag clues my brain to pull up a wealth of info related to that country. For example: Lets say I access the article on the AK47 and a couple things that stand out above all the text is an image of the rifle and the flag of USSR or Russia. Immediately the brain pulls up all the conflicts, politics, and other history relating to the country that I guarantee will also be mentioned or referenced in the article. Sounds strange but now the brain is charged with this info and allows me to read through the article much faster (speed reading) and with greater understanding of the topic. Now add a flag to an article about a blender or bicycle and all the info the brain pulls up is totally unrelated to the article and is unencyclopdic. Its a judgment call, and for firearms articles that are related to warfare, it works.

Also, the MOS for using flags is merely a guideline instead of policy and stresses that good judgment should be used when adding the flag. Asams10 has made many contributions to the articles in question just as John and Gnevin have made many to the MOSFLAG guideline, so I hope that the good faith edits to the rifle articles by Asams10 can be respected as good judgment (as mentioned in MOSFLAG) and not forced to follow a rigid guideline but be aware that guidelines do exist for using flags so the use should be limited. We are all volunteers here, lets go after the blatant violations of the guidelines and policies and allow Asams10 to do good work. --I already forgot 16:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. Straight away I disagree with you though, as your own example makes clear; should the AK-47 article show Russia or Soviet Union? I can see arguments for using either, or even both. In a written encyclopedia, writing should be our main means of describing things. Flags oversimplify and overemphasise nationality, hence the consensus that MOSFLAG currently enjoys. Valid exceptions to this might be articles about sports teams (which play "under" a national flag) and possibly some history articles where the authentic flags used at the time can be shown. I do not wish to comment on Asams10's behaviour here, as this is not the place for it. Guidelines, by their nature, exist to help the encyclopedia, and exceptions, when valid, require a reason why they are valid exceptions. I see no such reason here, and the fact that none seems to exist seems to me a very telling point against including the flag icons. If there is a reason, other than decoration, for including the flags, let us hear it and discuss it. In the absence of such, I will continue to believe they are being used as decoration, something we do not use images for. --John 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that you disagree with my tone. Well, your tone is every bit as abrasive as mine and you continue to make jabs at me. I'm unapologetic and will remain so, however I note that you've actually begun to defend your position (good) while at the same time re-reverting the flags on your three pet articles. You COMPLETELY ignore the dozens of other flag icons in the M16 article as well as the dozens of other firearm articles that have flag icons. Flags signify national origin in a quick and visual manner. They also identify historic context. For instance, the flag of Germany has changed at least four times in the era of modern firearms and guns like the Mauser 98, MP-40, G3, and G36 all came from starkly different countries... ALL named Germany. The flags are a curt, visual way of associating the firearm with the historic period. Your only argument falls short in that the flags are not there "merely" for decoration. My points to counter you are 1) the very low standard of inclusion... that they be not merely for decoration, 2) your lack of applying the standard in editing uniformly even in the articles you did edit. 3) your lack of participation in firearms article editing and therefore lack of credibility in dictating formats, etc. or participating in this project, 4) your lack of speed in providing support for your position to include your misrepresentation of the standards. --Asams10 17:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not interested in discussing your behaviour or your "tone" here; it is quite simply not the place for it. It is incumbent on all of us who edit here to follow our guidelines, which include the Manual of Style. There are good uses of flag icons; a cursory read of WP:MOSFLAG will perhaps help you in understanding the issues around flag use, as it seems apparent that you are not familiar with it. There is much in your latest post that was incoherent to me; I understand you wish to use flags as a "curt, visual way of associating the firearm with the historic period", but experience has shown that this use of flags is unsatisfactory, as the example I gave of which flag icon we would use for the AK-47 should make clear. This is why we have the Manual of Style. Our readers can read, and it is better and more encyclopedic to state nationalities in infoboxes in plain English writing. --John 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, a guideline is NOT a policy. They are completely two different animals and a POLICY is 100% non-negotiable as where a GUIDELINE is NOT, it is only a guide to help us create a standard we all agree on. MOSFLAG is NOT clear on the removal of flags when used in reference to historical periods of time or when used to indicate a country of origin when related to firearms so the MOSFLAG needs more work if one article related to sports can have loads of the same flag but another article with social and historical significants may not have any. MOSFLAG is a fairly new guideline that still needs work to make it less ambig in my opinion.--I already forgot 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"...it is better and more encyclopedic to state nationalities in infoboxes in plain English writing" But it is stated in plain english in addition to the flag.???

"but experience has shown that this use of flags is unsatisfactory" Can you give a few edit diffs so I can see how the flag use was unsatisfactory for this type of situation? Just curious--I already forgot 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, I just disagree with that. The AK-47 was CLEARLY a product of the Soviet Union in every sense. The Manual of Style is not a law-book and being mere guidelines, your case for reversion is somewhere between weak and petty. That much of my last post was incoherant to you makes it clear what I'm dealing with here and I'll just bow out of this discussion leaving it at what I said. You're wrong, you're not going to admit you're wrong, nuff said. --Asams10 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, some of us read at different rates and use very simple but powerful objects to aid in that speed reading. I think images clutter an article but a small flag icon for warfare related articles have great value as I read a lot on history related to all countries. For sports articles, I find no value in using the flag other than some sort of national pride because I don't follow sports, however, I know some readers find value in its use so I don't object. I think I made some pretty valid points, I just hope they are not discarded for the sake of a pissing contest.--I already forgot 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"In a written encyclopedia, writing should be our main means of describing things." Understand that this is just your opinion. I do agree with you, but many other wikipeidians feel that visual references are just as important, especially to individuals who are still growing intellectually and soak up the images like a sponge. Also, relating to the use of Russia or USSR... I think USSR would be appropriate but would like to see a clear example on the MOSFLAG page with related discussion on the MOSFLAG talk page first.--I already forgot 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a cotton pick'n minute (not flaming here). I just looked at an article you just edited and it is loaded with no less than 30 flags of Scotland. I personally find that excessive as I know the country of origin by the title Scotland national football team so one flag will do the job. If I want to know more about the individual player or clubs and what country they are from, I will click on the link to their page. I'm now confused here??? --I already forgot 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Thank you for your further comments. You seem to contradict yourself somewhat. Far from it being "just my opinion" that an encyclopedia should use text as the main means of imparting information, you immediately state that you share this opinion. So, it would seem, do a majority of Wikipedians. I don't know why you would think it was in any way a "pissing contest"; it is only about making the encyclopedia better by using our policies and guidelines. Feel free to start a discussion at the guideline's talk page if you wish further input. Finally, there is always the Simple English Wikipedia for those who struggle with reading English. --John 16:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I share your opinion, but it is obvious by the thousands of articles with flags and images that others may disagree. The opinion is not a contradiction but indicates how the diversity has been a contributing factor to the success of wikipedia... it is not just one persons idea or opinion but a collaboration of such. --I already forgot 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Finally, there is always the Simple English Wikipedia for those who struggle with reading English" I was not trying to imply users were struggling with english but that images tie visual references to certain topics or objects which aids in the learning process as one grows intellectually. Thats all I was implying. --I already forgot 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports articles, as I stated above, are recognised as a reasonable use of national flags. If you feel the use of flags in that article is excessive, I suggest posting your concerns at Talk:Scotland national football team. I hope this helps, --John 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't see the double standard here? --I already forgot 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have no interest in adding or removing flags but after reading your concerns on flag use in article pages, I would think that you would have already address the issue of excessive flag use on the Scotland football page before removing the only one on the M16 rifle page. Not trying to get into an argument or edit war, just trying to make heads or tails of the issue here (looked like an edit war on the m16 page). Like I said, I don't care about the flags either way, just that I can see how its use on the M16 page could be warranted. Everyone here seems to be an honest hard working editor so I hope everything works out for the best without edit warring or pissing each other off.--I already forgot 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep or remove (part 2)

So far the only reason to remove the flags related to fire arms articles is to try and enforce [1][2][3][4] a newly created ambiguous guideline on articles that don't attract much attention. So, just as the MOS info box says, "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception", I'm going to use common sense here and say there is no reason to create a blanket policy or guideline to remove flags of origin from firearm related info boxes as they can in fact clue a reader to the political time frame and the general state of the country during the time the firearm was created (USSR OR Russia), so for that reason alone the flags are not merely decoration. I understand the need to try and enforce the new MOSFLAG guideline to "get the word out" but I suggest a little more tact, more of a consensus by the general body of wikipedia to chime in on MOSFLAG, and discussion (not just a note) on the project/article talk page before deleting good faith edits by proven editors.--I already forgot 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, with respect you are completely missing the point here. I did not wish to remove the flags because of the Manual of Style page, I wished to remove them (as part of a much-needed copyedit I should add) because they add nothing to the articles. The MoS recognises this, but the uselessness of the flags comes first. It would have been the same if these articles contained long trivia sections with references to obscure computer games or songs by unknown bands; I would remove these too, and not because WP:TRIVIA exists, but because we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a children's book. Guidelines and policy exist to guide us in areas of style and usage, and help to make the encyclopedia consistent across different subject areas. They also encompass a consensus of many, many editors who have worked together, with policy and common sense in mind, to write them. Now, two important caveats. You are quite right that occasional exceptions can be made to guidelines, and it is also true to say that consensus can change. But, and this is the clincher, there needs to be a good reason, in encyclopedic terms, to do this. Thus far I am not seeing this good reason. Our readers can read, and are perfectly capable of understanding Russia or Soviet Union, without dumbing it down for them as you suggest. Neither does Wikipedia recognise a category of "proven editors"; with nearly 40k edits and a sysop bit, I would hope though that I would fall into that category if it did exist. We certainly don't leave material which is useless in articles because we respect the editor who added it, if that is what you are implying. --John 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, anyone else have an opinion on if flags in the info box should stay in firearm related articles? Please try not to comment on other editors comments which may fork the discussion in another direction. Lets just focus on if and why the flags should stay. --I already forgot 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. One problem with this I didn't mention is which flag do we use for the United States? As you are likely aware, the U.S. flag has changed a number of times. I count 25 revisions over the years (see here) as various states acceded to the Union. Take this article, for example. The weapon entered service in 1917, so should (arguably) display , and not as it currently does. (As you will observe they are virtually indistinguishable at thumbnail size, as in the German example I gave below; but an encyclopedia should use the correct flag for the historical period, again see the German example.) But why stop there? John Browning hailed from Utah, and the Browning Arms Company is currently headquartered there, so why not display that state flag in the gun article too? Morgan, Utah seems to lack a city flag, but if it had one, should that also go there? If not, why not? You may think I am being ridiculous to make a point here; I assure you that I have seen articles (example) which use(d) a veritable fruit salad of flags. It was in response to this proliferation of flag icons that the guidelines were produced.

Finally, another point which should perhaps be considered, at least with regard to certain flags. The United States Flag Code states that "The flag should not be used ... for any decoration in general (exception for coffins)". I am not a U.S. citizen myself (although I currently live in the U.S.), but out of basic respect for flags, and given that this use of the flag is entirely decorational (read: we could perfectly well manage without it), we should at least consider following the Flag Code. --John 17:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Utah is not a country so using state and city flags is a bit off topic... lets stick with country flags for now. As you have shown, not all cases will be the same (US flag changes or very similar and not noticeable as a thumb nail) but the discussion is if the image is used as decoration or not and whether to create a blanket guideline to remove all instances of country flags. As you have shown, not all cases will be the same, therefore a blanket policy may not work.--I already forgot 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that Utah is not currently a country but a state within the U.S. Historically though, like many states, it had a period of quasi-independence. Of course, the Soviet Union is not currently a country either. Flags over-simplify national origin, and should be used with great care, Q.E.D.. --John 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"QED" Interesting... you basically prove that flags can be more than just decoration and have historical significance that may clue a reader to a time frame and you end with Q.E.D... very interesting indeed. --I already forgot 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Finally, another point which should perhaps be considered, at least with regard to certain flags. The United States Flag Code states that "The flag should not be used ... for any decoration in general (exception for coffins)". I am not a U.S. citizen myself (although I currently live in the U.S.), but out of basic respect for flags, and given that this use of the flag is entirely decorational (read: we could perfectly well manage without it), we should at least consider following the Flag Code" Ok, I see where this is going. For the record, my understanding of the code is that it relates to the actual flag and not a photo copy or other electronic reproduction.--I already forgot 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated above the use of flag icons can come extremly usefull when there are almost like 5 nations with the name germany. A quick look can determine quickly what time period and empire this was in. Also in the use of military article's it makes a quick refernce to what time period. Jack The Pumpkin King 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. Dates and names can accomplish this purpose much better and less ambiguously though. As an example, do you honestly see a huge difference in these icons: , and ? My proposal would use Germany (date) and Weimar Republic (date). Do you see how this is much clearer, easier and more suited to an encyclopedia? --John 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Like most other images on wikipedia, they are visual refs and not meant to replace text such as Deutschland text you mentioned. In addition to the historical and political value, it has a visual reference value. For example: scroll to the top of this talk page and then scroll back down fairly quick taking note of the objects that stand out. I bet the flags stand out above and beyond the text. It's a quick visual ref in addition to cluing the reader to the historical and political time frame such as Russia and Soviet Union. Same geographical location but two totally different countries. Yes, no doubt what so ever that the "Russia (date)" text and date should be there, but adding the flag keeps the text clear and is suited to firearms related articles for a quick visual reference.--I already forgot 17:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I like the addition of pictures to help explain concepts, the flags have a tendency to put a lot of emphasis on the country where the firearm in question was created, making that more important than other aspects of the article. I think in articles where the country of origin is a major or important part of the article a flag would be appropriate, firearm or not. But in many cases, the country of origin has little to do with the topic of the article, making the flag serve as a distraction from the topic at hand. Arthur 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well, I'm not seeing any consensus or good arguments here for retaining the flag icons on gun articles. On the other hand, our MoS deprecates this use of flags, and they seem to add nothing to the articles. I'm going to take it that if this discussion is over, we can now start to remove the flags from gun articles. I have explained at length my detailed rationale for doing so. Does anyone have any last-minute arguments for keeping them? --John 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about this discussion... on one hand I don't see anything wrong with the flags; they visually complement the country's name for quick recognition. On the other hand, they don't really add anything to the article, and you can probably read the text quicker than you can identify the flag. Also, as John said, our MoS deprecates this use of flags. Hayden120 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to have gotten way out of hand and gone way off target. I am a newcomer to this Project and just reviewed the entire thread for the first time, I am pretty much a disinterested party. I won't say I agree with John, everyone has made some points above and everyone has said some pointless things; but I do see a real problem with the oversimplification of flags, both as to time period and geography, is the Browning Hi-Power a U.S. or a Belgian weapon? The article lists both countries of origin, should both flags be place there as well? Many other Browning weapons would have the same problem and then you have variants produced under license such as Argentine Brownings and variants produced as copies without license. The Maxim gun (which is missing an infobox by the way), is that a British gun? What about all the variants/copies? Is the MG30 really a German gun when it was first produced in Switzerland annd Austria? All of these questions are rhetorical and I'm not suggesting we do away with the "country of origin" altogether, but the point is that the flags do tend to overemphasize the national origin. And the flags aren't always easy to visually distinguish, whether or nto you distinguish the various American flags in articles, who can actually see the difference, the same thing goes for the flags of the Weimar Republic, West Germany, and modern reunified Germany, and I'm not sure that the flags of the PRC and USSR are really that easy to tell apart at that scale - and those are flags we're all familiar with - many would take some thinking to identify at any scale and I'm pretty flag savvy. On the other hand, I do see value in visuals. This is a mult-media encyclopedia, not a print encyclopedia. I don't think you really have consensus, but the proponents of the flags need to defend their use more convincingly or they should be removed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To counter johns point about the same flag of Germany. I garentue you that there are two countries with the same common name but different flags. without the flags in this situation you would either have to make the person click the link or read it wrong and think another nation/regime. OR you would have to write a highly official name like (hypothetical here) The 3rd empire of mars republic. Esskater11 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I do not agree to removing flags from firearms entries for the same reason Asams10 has stated: "The flags are a curt, visual way of associating the firearm with the historic period. Your only argument falls short in that the flags are not there "merely" for decoration. My points to counter you are 1) the very low standard of inclusion... that they be not merely for decoration, 2) your lack of applying the standard in editing uniformly even in the articles you did edit. 3) your lack of participation in firearms article editing and therefore lack of credibility in dictating formats, etc. or participating in this project, 4) your lack of speed in providing support for your position to include your misrepresentation of the standards"

So far John you have not provided a single valid argument to support your reasoning apart from the MOS violation, which is poorly defined and flaky at best. Koalorka (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One brief question, if you don't mind my asking, John? You don't seem to show much interest in editing the firearms articles, but you are a member of the project. I'm just a little curious as to why you joined.

One the subject at hand, I will just say that I don't really have a preference one way or the other in this debate, although the use of flags does in my opinion prevent lists found in certain articles (ex. M16 rifle#Production and usage from becoming one large list, and seems to make it easier to focus on specific countries.--LWF (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to provide reasons to remove the flags; that is not how we work here. The onus would be on those who wish to retain them to provide encyclopedic reasons for retaining them, bearing in mind that this is not a children's encyclopedia but one for grown-ups. This I am not seeing so far. To answer the one good point made above, LWF, there is no problem with using flags in lists; I agree they are genuinely useful there. Individual flags in infoboxes are not.--John (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we did to my satisfaction. That you refused to accept the opinion of others gives some really good insight. You don't generally edit firearms articles and joined this project, apparently, just to argue against us on the flag issue. Bad form. --Asams10 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith says a lot more about you than it says about me. I am here to write an encyclopedia; yourself? --John (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• We would like to see you first write an Encyclopedia John... Koalorka (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had assumed good faith with the initial edits, but your actions and words since have proven that you aren't interested in firearms articles or their improvement or listening to reason, rather your pattern of edits PROVES that you joined the firearms project merely to press your crusade against flags on everybody who disagreed with you. --Asams10 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Do you have anything to say about why flags are necessary in these articles? Which 'reason' are you referring to here? Do you seriously believe that users of the encyclopedia will find (say) the US flag helpful, more so than the words 'United States'? That's a little insulting to their intelligence, isn't it? Save the ad homs for someone who will be impressed by them; I am not. --John (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another common sense view which backs up mine, and agrees with the broader community consensus as expressed at WP:FLAGS. --John 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will ask a brief question in hopes of clarifying. Where do you think flags are appropriate, and where do you believe they are inappropriate? Also please explain the reasons for each.--LWF 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I think flags are acceptable as a space saver in data tables with many nationalities listed. I think they are unacceptable in single use in infoboxes because they add nothing (compare " United States" vs "United States"), oversimplify and overemphasise nationality, are often wrongly used (historical flags seldom seem to be used compared to modern ones), lead to sterile edit wars between people who take different views on flag usage, are essentially decorative fluff, and are slightly insulting to our readers (who are perfectly capable of reading words) and to the majority of our editors who wish this resource to be taken seriously as an online encyclopedia. --John 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in this discussion for almost a year and in all that time the only arguments I have ever heard in their defence are:

1) They look nice; but "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" (from WP:IMAGES).

2) They help readers quickly see the nationality of the subject; but our readers can read and will be able to understand the national origin if it is stated in text. This also avoids giving undue weight or oversimplifying national origin, which is in many cases quite complex and debatable.

3) They do no harm; but they do cause enormous disruption when they are misapplied. --John (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've heard the reasons why I think flag icons are unhelpful and (like pop culture trivia) should be purged from these articles. Now it's your turn. Let's hear the reasons why the few who defended the use of flags in infoboxes want to keep them. Bear in mind that the reasons should be encyclopedic (ie information and utility based) and be independent of WP:OWN. Take your time, I am looking forward to reading them. --John (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We already said it, you didn't listen, you're not a part of the firearms community, you're a part of the flag community and that qualifies your opinion somewhat. Who said item #1 above? Also, who said they were misapplied as you imply in #3? Then, you say in item 2 that somebody can simply read text instead of glancing at a flag to ascertain national origin... well then doesn't this put too much weight on the name of the country? You're trying to bully your opinion into the firearms community who had no objections to flags... Stop. --Asams10 (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not hearing those reasons. --John (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

None forthcoming, sorry. You cannot impose policies by repetition, we've stated our reasons for maintaining flags. Koalorka (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to leave flags of the country the firearm is predominately manufactured in.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)