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


RfC notification, Smith and Wesson M&P15 article[edit]

There is a RfC related to the Smith and Wesson M&P15 [[1]]. The topic in question is

Should the following content be added to the article?
The Smith & Wesson M&P15 was used in the 2012 Aurora shooting,[1][2][3] the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting,[4][5] and the 2015 San Bernardino attack.[6][7][8]

Please see the talk page for additional details. Springee (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Garand M0[edit]

Discussion underway here on the worth of restoring a deleted page on the M1919 Garand prototype. Comment is invited. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)~

On the topic of pictures[edit]

I have noticed one MAJOR problem with many firearm related pages and lists, and that is a lack of pictures. this is completely understandable for very scarce/rare/prototype firearms, but for others that can be found with a quick google images search it isn't as much so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillcat222 (talkcontribs) 00:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not every pic online is free to use.... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
In fact, most aren't. You need to make sure that you get either the permission of the photo's copyright owner or find photos that are in the common domain or are under something like the GNU or Creative Commons license, which is much more difficult. Or take a picture yourself and release it under the CC license, which I've done for a few guns I own. — Bardbom (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Firearms.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Firearms, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope - if anyone cares[edit]

Are attacks and incidents where firearms are used part of this project's scope? It's not explicitly stated in the section where the project's scope is defined, but there are many listed among the featured content section. ansh666 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. That would be like WikiProject Automobiles fitting cases of vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter within their scope. Most attacks or incidents will either fall under WikiProject Crime or the Military History Project. As far as Scope, yes, that belongs to us. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that a lot of people seem to think that it does - and I'm sure they'd think the same of the automobiles thing. I've come across the same issues in deletion sorting too. Should they be removed, or is it okay if they've been there for so long? And maybe there should be a statement in the scope definition about what isn't covered, like WP:WikiProject Death? Admittedly many of the events triggered debates on gun control and gun politics, which are covered by this project, so it's a bit of a gray area there. ansh666 21:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Are those people members of WikiProject Firearms? Vehicle-ramming attack is not part of WikiProject Automobiles. I seem to recall a majority of WikiProject Firearms members have previously expressed a preference to exclude most firearms attacks and incidents from WikiProject Firearms. The subject is addressed by the Criminal use and Popular culture guidelines. I suggest firearms attacks and incidents might better be included (with vehicle-ramming attack) in WikiProject Terrorism or WikiProject Crime. Thewellman (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I also have a problem with this. There are too many firearms articles that start with “ACME introduced firearm ABC in July 2000” then spend the rest of the article talking about how it was used to commit mass murder XYZ and terrorist attack 123. While these incidents may be notable. They should not dominate the firearms ABC article. A “see also” link to the mass murder XYZ and terrorist attack 123 articles should suffice.--Limpscash (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
They are definitely not members (nor am I, though maybe I should be); they go around adding random project templates to current events articles' talk pages. There seems to be lots of politics involved, which I think is silly, but it is what it is. ansh666 07:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Limpscash, these incidents, criminal use, mass shooting, terrorist attacks, whatever you want to call them, should be limited to the "See also" sections. More often than not, the addition these incidents on firearms pages is little more than sensualism or political propaganda. I vote that we rewrite the guidelines to limit the silliness--RAF910 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


That the follow sentence be added to the Criminal use section... Therefore, criminal use of firearms should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section of said article.

Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section.
Sorry, minor rewrite for better change in meaning or intent.--RAF910 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Criminal use
  • In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". Therefore, the criminal use of firearms should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section of said article. Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section.
  • SUPPORT--RAF910 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (if I understand correctly the "see also" links to a page describing an incident involving said weapon). "Criminal use" smells like an effort to demonize firearms. There's no similar moves when a Ford is used to escape a bank job.... (Not since Clyde Barrow, anyow...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT For reasons already stated. While it may be impossible to prevent the addition of this information. We can limit it to a very simple and very neutral "See also" link.--Limpscash (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


This could be an improvement but that still seems odd to me. The parallel example would be looking at the S-Class 430 Mercedes-Benz article and then in that 'See also' section, you stick a link to the Murder of David Lynn Harris. Somehow, that murder doesn't seem germane to an article about the car...not even in a see also section. I note that our article on the murder itself only ever mentions a Mercedes but no model so I had to go digging to find the exact type. That seems to have not occurred to many of the journalists covering that murder either as they seem content to just call it "a Mercedes". Few would think that the specific model would be that significant after all, she killed him with a car; does it matter what type? No one seems to have wanted to stick that into the article but if she had used a firearm instead of a vehicle, they would have beaten a path to a firearm article to shoehorn it in. Mentioning the vehicle is germane to the article on the murder but not the other way around...that is the problem.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

♠That reflects a problem in the media coverage, too, tho. When there's a killing with a vehicle, there's not specifics of make, model, & displacement prominently included; a shooting, you can be damn sure the mag capacity will be in there, & barrel length if anybody can find it by airtime...
♠Which does leave the issue of the disconnect unresolved.... I hadn't thought about that. I'd far rather there be a way to link out & avoid giving the trolls opportunity to cram in every minor crime that makes page 17 of the Hooterville Mercury... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that and am likely to support this proposal but I think it would be good to get this well-worded and well thought out because I imagine that this will be challenged at some point requiring community review. I went through the archives reading previous discussions on this yesterday and still reflecting on other possible alternatives. We need to make sure that this project guideline is kept inline with WP policies and guidelines as well. Getting this discussion in is as much for the uninitiated that come along to review the situation. We all know and understand the problem but from what is written, I'm not sure that the general editor would. I believe getting rationale(s) laid out for them would be beneficial here to bolster the position of the proposal so that it will stand up under review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I should point out that Ansh666's request to add definition to our scope about what doesn't belong hasn't been addressed either and that may be helpful here to develop that as well for the benefit of others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd add, not encountering the problem isn't limited to non-Project members; my own experience hasn't included it: I'm aware of it, where others may not be, but I've never actually seen it. A guiding principle for even the likes of me wouldn't be a bad thing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)