Talk:6.5mm Grendel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archive[edit]

Talk:6.5 mm Grendel/Archive 1

This archive isn't linked automatically for some reason. Rezin (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

By: Reginhild[edit]

Much discussion on editing this page has taken place among experts on the 6.5 Grendel cartridge at the website www.65grendel.com. Link to applicable discussions: www.65grendel.com discussion on edit of Wikipedia "6.5 Grendel".

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not proprietary any more[edit]

As of 2011-10-12, the cartridge is not proprietary any more. Finally, Alexander Arms released its trademark, the cartridge got SAAMI approval and all is fine and dandy. Will take a while to get a nice, quotable source for that, for now: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_121/549934_Alexander_Arms_released_6_5mm_Grendel_Trademark.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.212.138 (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

6.5mm Grendel Vepr[edit]

There was never any Vepr produced in 6.5 Grendel, much less last year. As far as I can be told by Wolf Performance Arms as of November 2012, the importer into the USA, there are no plans for one as far as they knew, and that if there was, MOLOT would take years to produce it.

There is also an advertisement for a 6.5 Grendel Vepr floating around the internet; this has been widely assumed as a false advertisement, since there has been not been any mention by MOLOT ever of a 6.5 Grendel Vepr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.17.51 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources[edit]

My understanding is that articles can't cite "self-published sources" unless the author is an expert in the field who's been previously published. WP:SPS I see two sources in this article that appear to violate that policy:

http://shootersnotes.com/grendelmania/why-the-fuss-about-the-grendel/
http://www.lead-slinger.com/pdf/62OCC.pdf

Unless someone can point out how these authors are published experts, I'll go ahead and delete the sources and the text which cites them. Rezin (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at it I think I was the one who put up the shooters notes link. I recall at the time thinking that well, the math supporting the statement is self evident but rifle ballistics isn't a subject that a lot of people know, so why not attach a reasonably well written web reference to further illustrate it. If this was a controversial pop culture subject such as Monica Lewinski where every sentence is patrolled and argued for decades I could see deleting the reference, but not in a math based article like this one where anybody can crunch the numbers and come up with their own conclusion. I didn't do the other edit but the reference cited was, (like the one I posted) both reasonable and with no commercial interest. When you come to your final decision whether retaining or deleting them will make a better article I hope that you might consider some more liberal Wikipedia principles than you may have been exposed to in the past: WP:RAP,WP:IAR and WP:RRULE Anyway, have a great day! Trilobitealive (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The wikilinks and the math adequately support my statement so don't delete it if you find the reference inadequate. I did add another reference by Arne Brennan, who is a widely quoted and acknowledge guru, to help folks out if you decide to delete the other one. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a biography, but we should still follow the rules. I could crunch the numbers and show that this round is heavier than a pingpong ball, lighter than a VW Beetle, and more accurate than a thrown kitten. However even if my math is correct and my conclusions unimpeachable these facts would still violate the Wikipedia prohibition on original research, as I understand it.
I didn't mention the wikilinks nor the idea of doing the math to prod you. This is s very concrete subject where everything is calculable and the numerical parameters are there at the various articles. Concerning kittens and Volkswagens I don't understand how sarcasm can be constructive. Let me see if I can explain my stance about what you are calling the rules. They are actually a mostly firm guideline for learning to edit until the editor sees enough good and bad articles to understand the ways to edit to make a better article. WP:FATRAT should be added to the list of helpful links I posted previously in this discussion. It is hard to explain how the rules can be applied differently to BLPs and technical articles but perhaps this can help.
One of the other ways of drawing wider attention and help correcting an editing concern such as the one you've expressed is to tag an article with {{self-published}}. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't see where Brennan makes any comparison between the 6.5mm Grendel and the Winchester rounds. Why would we describe Joseph Smith, the unsigned author of the ShootersNotes website, as a 'neutral' commentator? Rezin (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a pretty good question. He is talking about rounds which many readers would recognize to be comparable. Others, perhaps not. For an article like this when I post a reference I consider the educational value of the link.
"Why would we describe Joseph Smith..." Concerning these various websites, you've probably noticed that the online shooting community is evolving to a huge peer review forum. Unlike biographies, philosophies and political viewpoints, ballistic theories can be proven true or false. All the statement are testable, requiring a load table, a chronograph, a test barrel and precious little else. Some of the most respected experts are people you have never heard of and have never published anything in a paper journal. And some of the more popular published writers would be laughed off the web.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I did think of something else after meditating on this conversation for a bit. If you look at the history of .50 Beowulf you'll notice that I came to the opposite conclusion some months ago in that article. So basically I think the only fair thing to say is that you have to look at it and decide which looks better to you. So I am maintaining the gist of my first statement above, "...when you come to your final decision whether retaining or deleting them..." and trust that you'll find which way makes the article better.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean this edit? [1] Yes, it does seem like a similar situation with a different conclusion than what you're proposing here. In your discussion above you are suggesting that a variety of essays outweigh a variety of policies and guidelines.
I think we can finesse the situation by reducing the commentary and stating the simple facts. It's still not ideal, but this line isn't the worst problem with this article. That'd probably be the over-detailed and totally unreferenced 'timeline', which has been tagged for about 18 months. Rezin (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)