Talk:M134 Minigun

Popular culture section clean up.

Any thoughts on drastically trimming back the Popular culture section per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Pop_culture? I could see retaining the reference to Predator (1987) and the fact that it was appeared in numerous films and video games. Anything beyond that seems unnecessary. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Except that mentioning it's appeared in various movies and video games isn't necessary. Do we put that at the hammer article? The police officer article? It's simply not an informative thing to say. Media by necessity imitates human experience, and it's an obvious expectation that everything we interact with will appear in some form of media. Mentioning that isn't useful. Mintrick (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It was already trimmed a good bit a few days ago. If the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs can be trimmed also that's be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about removing the third paragraph regarding Mythbusters and leaving the remaining two. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-purposed the section along more encyclopedic lines. Rather than attracting a bunch of works with unknown and uncited importance, the section now revolves around actual popular (mis)perception. Mintrick (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It looks a lot better. I still think the Mythbusters thing should go as it is only tangentially related. The reference to the film Predator (1987) was, at best, borderline. I think it might be noteworthy, though don't have any particular problem with removing it along with the others. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, great idea. Why not just delete the entire article too, or better yet.. the entire Wikipedia-site? "Then it would all look very neat and pretty, and we can enjoy our tiny winegums in tranquility whilst we delete everything we touch". I came on this article to read about this specific weapon's usage, to see if it was actually this gun they had used in the film Predator, but since you guys had the reference completely deleted, I had to go to the discussion-board to find out the truth. God damn it, it annoys the hell outta me, that some people are so preoccupied with "tidying things up", that they remove USEFUL FACTS, just to make things LOOK NEAT. What is this, an encyclopedia or a knitting-club? Seriously.KnatLouie (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Regardless of how it looks, the minigun is NOTABLE in popular culture. That alone makes it worth it to have the section in. 24.154.119.139 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to have to add it in myself, but seeing as how everybody in this section is in support of the predator refernce, I will add it if nobody else does soon unless there is oppostion in the meantime. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Last chance. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep out. Unless you have references which show signs of particular notability, such as mention isn't worth the merit. Per pop culture guidelines, there "..should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances."
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to M-134 Minigun reverted

A user moved this article to M-134 Minigun without discussion. I reverted that move. Also, the M134 designation is just the Army's and does not include a dash. There are also XM196, GAU-2, and GAU-17/A variants covered here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we move it anyway? The name "Minigun" isn't appropriate for a single weapon or small family, the Russians etc. have miniguns too. Change it to M134 Minigun but add a variants section with those three. 202.156.14.98 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reading the section of this talk page called "Rationalization." This is not the first time this has been discussed. Minigun is appropriate for the family of GE weapons. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you move it, it would need to have a consistent title which is accessible. The US Navy refer to this as the Mk77 minigun. The Royal Navy refer to this as the Mk44 Minigun. They are all essentially the same group of weapon, but tying the page to an inappropriate designation wouldn't be the correct thing to do 90.221.104.131 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NZ as user

Can anyone one provide a citation as to the NZ use. Not saying it's wrong, just that I've never heard it.Falcon5nz (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Which versions ?

Which versions do the Georgian Armed Forces use ? I saw pictures of miniguns mounted on Mi-8 combat helicopters for the door gunner. They also use it for the "Didgori-2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.109.1 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

ID this "Minigun" from the 1940s

Does anyone know about this unusual firearm?. It comes under US Patent 2,436,175.

• Image
• Patent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhvtz (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)