Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
Flag of the United States.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
Flag of Germany.svg      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
Flag of France.svg      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
Flag of Italy.svg      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco / Armi
Flag of Poland.svg      Dyskusje:        Militaria / Broń
Flag of Russia.svg      Обсуждения:   Военная история

Gun Politics Task Force: creation process[edit]

There is a consensus among active editors to create a "Gun Politics Task Force" as a sub-project of WikiProject Firearms. See Proposal: "Gun Politics Task Force". @Scalhotrod: has reserved the page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Gun Politics Task Force. He has also researched other task forces which we can use as a template. The most important issue to consider is the scope of the task force, and hence which articles it will include. That scope won't be fixed forever: we just need a working definition to get started. To get the ball rolling, I'd propose we might say something like, "Topics encompassing organizations, legislation, regulations, political issues, and societal effects associated with firearms." How can we improve on that? Rezin (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rezin: sounds good. It can be changed later if we need to. I'd suggest adding people too - e.g. Carolyn McCarthy, Wayne LaPierre, and Big Tim Sullivan. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This okay?[edit]

[1] I was WP:BOLD and moved Lee–Enfield from a hyphen to an ndash. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Grubb reflector sight on an unidentified rifle[edit]

Speaking of Enfields: can somebody indentify the rifle in these pictures so they don’t have to stay in the unidentified firearms category? Thanks in advance  hugarheimur 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Torana: looks like a Lee-Metford to me. Note the volley sight thingymawhatsit on the side. And the unprotected front sight. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I’ve put them in the Lee-Metford category. Thanks, Faceless Enemy. Rgds  hugarheimur 15:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

10mm versus 10 mm?[edit]

All of the cartridge pages out there (e.g. 5.56×45mm NATO, 9×19mm Parabellum, and 7.62×39mm) have the "mm" next to the last digit of the cartridge name. However, 40 mm grenade, 10 mm caliber, and 125 mm smoothbore ammunition all have a space. I may have to self-revert a bunch of stuff because I've been operating under the assumption that "40 mm" means "40 millimeters" (as in "the ant walked 40 mm") whereas "40mm" means "40mm caliber" (as in "40mm grenade"). What's the dividing line here? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The caliber is indeed expressed as a measurement in millimetres. The abbreviation "mm" is the unit, not part of the number, and therefore should be separated by a non-breaking space, per WP:UNIT (40 mm, not 40mm). Similarly, the multiplication sign should be separated by non-breaking spaces (5.56 × 45 mm, not 5.56×45 mm). Technically, the unit "mm" should be repeated after both measurements (5.56 mm × 45 mm) but there may be good reason to ignore that in this special case if it is never referred to as such. sroc 💬 16:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a bizarre, WP-only (AFAIK) convention. Every magazine article I've ever seen, every metric caliber reference, has been 10mm or 5.56x45mm or 75mm with no space. I see no reason to invent a new convention. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ammo seems to be a weird exception - try searching images for "9mm Luger box" or "5.56 box" or something. The "mm" is usually shoved right up next to the last letter. (see [2][3][4]), but there is some inconsistency ([5]). And I believe Trekphiler is correct; convention in gun writing seems to be "9mm" not "9 mm". Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There could be some U.S. writers' oddities at play, here, since most of the refs I've seen have been U.S. sources (mainly the gun mags). IDK if Europeans generally ad a space in ammo, let alone elsewhere; for myself, I've always left out the space in all cases. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: It's not "bizarre", it's logical. You say "9 millimetre", not "9millimetre"; the same applies when you replace "millimetre" with "mm". This is specified in the International System of Units which defines SI units such as millimetres. There may be a special exception for calibres, though. sroc 💬 02:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's bizarre if WP is the only place it happens, which appears to be the case. Neither is what's written a dead-accurate representation of what's spoken, or it would invariably be "nine millimeter" & never "9mm" (or anything like it). I presume you're not advocating that. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
10mm or 9mm or 5.56x45mm are the correct cartridge names according to SAAMI, just like Trekphiler says. This is why you see them spelled that way in reloading manuals, articles in trade magazines, and catalogs from ammunition manufacturers. Technically all of the non metric calibers on Wiki (45 ACP, 32 ACP, etc) are incorrect as the decimal is never added to precede the first digit according to SAAMI, either. Now in the original statement, with regard to 10 mm caliber, that is correct because it is not an article about the 10mm cartridge, but rather cartridges that use a bullet that measures 10 millimeters in diameter.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Mike Searson, so is it a "40mm grenade" or a "40 mm grenade"? Ditto to "100 mm gun" versus "100mm gun". Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it both ways, but more often with a space. For cartridges over 50BMG I would defer to the Military Project, For WP:Guns we are more concerned with small arms.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Schwarzlose M07/12 listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Schwarzlose M07/12 to be moved to Schwarzlose M.7. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style addition - specify caliber?[edit]

Can we add something in the project guidelines about making sure that the caliber is generally fully designated (e.g. "9×19mm" or "9mm Luger" rather than just "9mm")? There are lots of articles with the caliber designated as something like "7.62 mm". We shouldn't make it incumbent upon the reader to follow a series of links to understand that an AKM, FAL, PPSh-41, and Dragunov all take different 7.62 mm ammunition. Likewise, mixing metric and imperial units gets ugly (e.g. "The armed forces of X use calibers 9×19mm, 5.56×45mm, 7.62×51mm, and .50 BMG"). IMO it's easier for the reader to understand if we keep things consistently metric or imperial when in a table. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, spell them out and be consistent; if you want to take the lead on drafting something up, you have my support. The second part I do not agree with and hate when people use "11.whatever" when describing 45 ACP and IIRC, 50 BMG and 45 ACP are the only non-metric cartridges used by any military (unless there are still zoomies packing 38s). John Moses Browning cries in heaven every time someone types that, but every time I shoot 10mm on the same day as 41 Magnum, a kitten gets happy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What about "12.7×99mm (.50 BMG)"? ".50 BMG" doesn't mean anything to non-Americans or newbies, and "12.7×99mm" doesn't mean anything to me. The nice thing about the metric designations is that you get an overall feel for the cartridge sizes relatively quickly. Can we get something that works for new/European readers without ditching experienced American readers? I'm especially talking about lists of military equipment, where 90% of the rest of the list will be in metric terms...which I guess falls under Wikiproject Military History just as much as it falls under this project. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the time the average reader just needs to know at first instance the weapon bore in a measurement - they are comfortable with. Eg in WPMILHIST articles if I see ".50 cal" I generally add a "(12.7 mm)" after it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral eyes needed at Bushmaster M17S [edit]

There is some edit dispute going on at Bushmaster M17S, so it would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved party could swing by to help resolve the discord, and/or help to bring the article up to snuff. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Your edits are, of course, correct. I suspect he's going to be a handful for a little while. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent work by both of you. Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Could you take a look at Draft:Gas-Checks in British RML Heavy Guns? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)