I hereby award you the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.
I, Thernlund, hereby award you the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.
I, Thernlund, hereby award Some User the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.
It'll work like this...
{{subst:WPGUNSAWARD}} - Gives first example {{subst:WPGUNSAWARD|Giver}} - Gives second example {{subst:WPGUNSAWARD|Giver|Recipient}} - Gives third example
Automatically wikifies the user names so all that it needed is the name, no markup. For example, use Thernlund instead of [[User:Thernlund]]
Side note... that silhouette is of me. Took it today and Photoshoped it to what you see. :-)
Good idea and it looks good, but some might have reservations on the subtle distinction between firearms and "shooting". Perhaps the image could be something more neutral or less threatening like crossed pistols... maybe even flintlocks :-) --Deon Steyn07:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... lemme think on that. But I gotta say right off the top that I'm not terribly concerned about people being offended. Firearms are controversial. Anyone making truely constructive edits to firearms articles have likely already taken a position on the subject, and as such are very unlikely to be so offended I think. Especially anyone who has done so much as to get the award. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs)18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinon, you just blew every other project award out of the water. I think you are really on to something here.JVkamp14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.
How about a trophy of some kind, or perhaps an antique revolver? I have to say I'm not a huge fan of "Modern" guns, and the certificate is a nice touch but missing something, IMHO. Nice work, though! --Commander Zulu12:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As Mike deduced, I was going for the competition shooter look. Maybe I could try one with the silhouette hold a rifle instead of a handgun. The only long guns I have though are an AR-15 and a tactical shotgun. I have a buddy with a scoped Ruger 10/22 so maybe that'll work.
I gather you mean a trophy as the whole thing, and not just in place of the silhouette. Let me see what I can do. It'll be a bit tricky though. I am going to be out of the country until Monday so if I can't crank it out today it'll be next week.
At any rate, I felt that the plague-type look had more of a distinguished feel to it. A trophy gives me feeling of those little gold-colored plastic things you get on your birthday cake. Just doesn't push the right feeling over the web. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs)19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How does the firearm project classify national origin? Are there established rules about this? Logically, I would think it would either be by the citizenship of the engineer(s) at the time that the weapon was designed, or alternately by the nation(s) in which the weapon was produced.
Due to the fact that some weapons are produced all over the world, or at least, in more than a few countries, it would be better to go by the citizenship of the engineer(s) at the time of the weapon's design. It would be easier to verify and more accurate.
One other thing, on the issue of categorising weapon origin. Just because the weapon is of slavic origin doesn't mean it belongs in the "Russian weaponry" category. I just removed a misplaced weapon from "List of Russian weapons" because it simply didn't belong there. When I was there, I immediately saw numerous entries which I know for a fact originate outside of the Russian Federation. MVMosin17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent question. To be honest, I never gave this issue much thought. For many weapons, the choice is quite obvious: for instance, with the M16/AR15 and the AK-47, it's obviously a non-issue and as far as other firearms that are widely used all over the world go (like e.g. the MP5), it's probably safe to just use the country of origin (in this case, Germany). Hence, I'd suggest that, in accordance with WP:BB, we just go ahead and fix any obvious mistakes and if we come across any articles where a change of category/edit would be controversial, we try to use this page to reach some kind of consensus before we make any changes. How does that sound? -- Seed 2.018:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be categorized by the original producing/designing country. For example, despite the fact that the AK-47 was produced both inside and outside of the U.S.S.R. it should be categorized as being of Soviet origin. To quote the infobox explanation, "origin – optional – the country or place where the weapon originated or was first manufactured." As a rule it should be the original producer.--LWF22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the decision for each article will, of course, be left to consensus, but perhaps we should lay out some guidelines to make suggestion on what to do.
One such guideline might be, for example, concerning weapons that originate in countries which no longer exist, the origin should list what the country was at the time, and maybe in parenthases list the nationality of that region in the present day. This would apply to, for example, the Mosin-Nagant. I just checked its article, and the origin is listed as "Russian Empire/USSR." What in God's name? Why is the USSR mentioned there? It's not what the former Russian Empire is now, and it certainly isn't interchangable with Russian Empire. Some such guidelines would keep these things from happening. I don't think it would help catch every mistake, but it'll help catch a lot more of them.
Note: in hindsight, I see that this is for the M91/30, which explains the /USSR, as the M30 is indeed a Soviet weapon. My mistake.
I would say the original producer should be used for the origin. If it was the U.S.S.R., then it should be listed as U.S.S.R. Now, mistakes confusing the U.S.S.R. and Russia are common, I made one myself earlier, so for those, my best guideline is to check your data, and correct errors that you find.
So for now the policy on origin is the country it was first produced in, especially since some guns are designed and produced by one person or country then copied somewhere esle. In which case the copied version would be of the copying country's origin.--LWF18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Featured content
I was looking around today, and I found that we only have a handful of featured articles, and that the only specific featured article I could find was AK-47. If anyone finds additional featured articles within our scope could you please add them in the featured content section of the project's page?--LWF01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
On including mentions of firearm's usage in crime, appearance in works of fiction, trivia, and so forth
Would anyone else be interested in establishing some standards for inclusion or MOS for mentions of a firearm's use? These questions arise about individual articles every time a big murder story comes around and from those talk pages it seems time to start a thread here. K1ng l0v316:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested (I think you just volunteered to do the heavy lifting, though :) ). In most cases, I don't think it's useful encyclopedic information, and I think it's often used as an attack on the gun manufacturer (people love to claim that Glocks are designed to escape detection), but there are cases where it's legitimately part of the story (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, which led to a ban on mail-order gun purchases). If the gun model is just listed as a cosmetic detail, it's probably not encyclopedic information unless the weapon in question is uncommon. Gavia immer(talk)16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The way the airplane crash articles do it seems nice. While the articles about the crashes will mention the specific airframe involved and provide a wikilink to the airframe's article, the airframe articles only mention crashes if the airframe has a pretty bad history of crashes or some sort of design flaw inherent to it. I would even go so far as to say that mention of the Kennedy shooting has no place at Carcano because Oswald's rifle already has its own article- John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle. K1ng l0v316:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If the use of a specific gun leads to legislation then I would support the mention of the incident in that gun's article, or if significant media attention is drawn on that gun. Otherwise I don't see much point.--LWF22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is already a concensus on pupular culture, fiction, video game, etc. entries for firearms here. The key distinction is that usage of firearms in high-profile historical events is NOT trivia and it is NOT pop culture. Prior to the VT murder spree, dozens of firearms articles (where were these editors in 2005) had such references and they were never challenged. Now without putting in the work, several editors are fighting against inclusion for whatever agenda. Interesting, pro-gun and anti-gun opinions are all over the board on this one. The same logic used to keep mention of "Battlefield IX" or whatever out of the entry for the MP5 machinegun holds no weight in this article. When John Kennedy is assasinated with a Carcano rifle, that deserves mention in the rifle article. It's telling that this was NEVER a subject prior to the VT killings and the long-time editors of firearms articles did not object prior to this. The point of mentioning firearms USE in firearms articles is one of factual, encyclopedic reporting. --Asams1023:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And if Cho was wearing Levis jeans during the shootings, should that be mentioned in the article on Levi Strauss? Certainly he wouldn't have succeeded in killing anyone if he'd been wandering around campus without pants. The fact that Cho was carrying a Glock and a Walther during the shootings is well established in the article on the shootings, and it is very relevant to that topic. But what impact did the shooting have on Glock, or Walther? If the shooting leads to a lawsuit that puts Glock USA out of business, or leads to a change in their retail policy (such as S&W's deal with the Clinton administration), then the shooting is relevant to Glock, otherwise I'd have to argue that the relevance is only one way. The test for pop culture references is, as I recall, "did the pop culture referece impact the firearm in some way?". In the case of the Dirty Harry movies and the S&W 29, for example, the answer was "yes". Why should criminal misuse of a product be held to a different standard? scot14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Asams10, this debate predates the VT shooting. This came up with the Dawson College shooting, the Amish school shooting, and some other CA college shooting as well. K1ng l0v300:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, and many of these examples (Beretta CX4 Storm, Intratec DC-9, Ruger Mini-14) were specifically discussed in the Walther P22 and Glock 19 talk pages during the recent VT discussions. So I can't imagine why anyone would claim that "prior to the VT murder spree, dozens of firearms articles (where were these editors in 2005) had such references and they were never challenged." PubliusFL16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Asams10, would you be so kind as to help me understand your position? We all agree, I think, that an article about a crime should contain information about that crime such as type of weapon used (if the weapon type is central to the event.) What I would like to know is what value do you see in the mention of an individual firearm in an article that is intended to be a broad overview of an entire model of firearm. If the weapon used is important enough it should have its own article like John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. The bar for inclusion must be set very high if such articles as Hatchet and Axe make no mention of say Lizzie Borden or the Axeman of New Orleans. Likewise, while North Hollywood shootout links to 11 articles on specific firearms, those 11 articles make no mention of the North hollwood shootout.K1ng l0v317:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As one of the people who helped draft the current guidelines on "Notability", I have to say I'm getting more than a little frustrated with people randomly deleting every mention of guns in movies or popular culture without bothering to read the sections or check for notability. The reference to the Browning M1917 being the centrepiece- and indeed a rather important plot point- in the film "The Wild Bunch" keeps getting removed, which tells me that the people removing the reference have never seen the film. We can't have lists of every piece of obscure anime in which a character brandishes a Desert Eagle, but when a Major and Critically Acclaimed Film makes a point of having a gun as the focused centrepiece of the climax of the film, I think it qualifies as "Notable". IMHO, we've got too many people running around with their fingers on the "Delete" button and not enough discussion on whether or not the content of a particular article merits inclusion. The guideline wasn't intended to remove all references to Pop Culture/Trvia in articles, it was designed to prevent lists of "Every Z-grade Made for TV Movie, Obscure Anime, and unremarkable TV Show in which (gun) has appeared". -Commander Zulu01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That might be a good indicator that that sort of trivia is not well suited for an encyclopedia. That is to say that while an article about a crime or movie may do well with a link to an article about a firearm that plays a central role in the crime or movie. The reverse does not automaticaly hold forth and the bar for inclusion must be set very high. K1ng l0v302:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree- I find it fascinating to read articles and discover those sort of facts. To me, that's exactly what an Encylopaedia is all about- sharing knowledge, no matter how big or small (provided it's relevant, of course!).--Commander Zulu11:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The question of relevance being the issue we are trying to discuss here. While an article on Escape From New York might do well to mention that the "futuristic weapons" carried by the govt. troops are nothing more than M16's with the handguards removed, a mention of the movie would not be relevant to the article on the M16. Likewise, while the article on the VT shooting is enhanced by linking to the P22 article for more info, the reader of the P22 article gains no more understanding or insight into the P22 pistol by having a link to a single crime commited with one. K1ng l0v313:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the standard for inclusion be that the incident makes a difference towards the firearm used. For example, the Carcano's use in the JFK assassination led to the ban on mail-ordering firearms, or how the Intratec TEC-DC9 was banned as a result of the media attention drawn towards it after Columbine. Others, that make a difference to the crime, but not to the firearm itself should probably not be included. LWF02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll stand by what I've always said (or at least alluded to). My personal policy is this...
Movies - Mention of a movie in a firearms article should only be made when...
The weapons noteriety is greatly impacted by the film (James Bond, Dirty Harry)
The weapon in question is a major plot point in the film
The appearance has already generated many questions (Bruce Willis' "Glock 7" comment).
Games - Mention of a game in a firearms article should only be made if...
The weapons noteriety is greatly impacted by the game. (I can't think of this ever being even close to the case with any game/gun combo. I guess maybe if the BFG 10K were real.)
Events - Mention of an event in a firearms article should only be made if...
The weapons noteriety is greatly impacted by the event (Intratec DC-9, Osward's Carcano)
A very unique feature of the weapon was used in such a way that no other similar weapon would accomplish the same task.
I'm not sure I agree with "The weapon in question is a major plot point in the film"; that just means the firearm is very important to the film, but doesn't mean the film has any meaning to the firearm. Also, I think that the policy is good for firearm models and company articles, but not necessarily articles on a specific instance of a firearm, such as Hitler's PPK, or Oswald's Carcano, or Ruby's .38, or even the .45 ACP Luger pistol mentioned in "Wall Street" (if for no other reason than to point out that only two were made, not six, and one was destroyed in testing). Obviously references would have to be to the specific instance in question--you don't need to point out that Bond carried a PPK in an article on Hitler's PPK, since Bond didn't carry Hitler's PPK. scot15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I wonder if it's a workable idea to include a link to this discussion though (seems nicer to show that there is consensus than to point out that it's the case) but it's probably better not to (new editors might follow the link in a while and miss that it's been archived, etc.) IOW, that's a yes from me. -- Seed2.008:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that there should be a general catch-all to the effect that the firearm appeared in the movie/game for a reason beyond "That was what the Armourers had available". For example, it would not be appropriate to mention every single time a Luger has appeared in a WWII film, for obvious reasons- but it would be appropriate to mention its appearance inMidnight In The Garden of Good and Evil, because certain characteristics of the gun are key plot points. It's going to be hard to find a balance here, I think, between the Delete It All brigade and the Include Everything Including Obscure Anime supporters. --Commander Zulu08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna put in my C$0.02 (US$0.01?). I just took out a ref to Stevens guns being used at Columbine from the Stevens Arms page, 'cause it ain't relevant to the article. On the Columbine page, yeah, but AFAIK it had no effect on the company. On principle, I object to these mentions, because they seem to imply the gun is at fault for the crime (a familiar refrain for anti-gun loonies). On other pages, such as "Dirty Harry" or something, where it's a trademark or memorable item, a back-ref to the gun page is OK, IMO, esp if it affected sales (& I have to think "Dirty Harry" boosted the M29, even as it killed off the .41, which had sim performance... Too bad Joe Copp hadn't been created yet.) Otherwise, it's trivial cruft, & I'd tend to delete all trivia in any case. Trekphiler18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration with the Weaponry Task Force
I would like to propose that we the members of the Firearms project make a joint effort with the members of the Weaponry Task Force of the Military History project to bring the M16 rifle up to Featured article status, sort of as a Featured counterpart to AK-47. Both of these rifles have been very influential in the history of the world, so I think it is only fitting to bring M16 up to the same status as the AK-47. LWF02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A most worthy suggestion- I'd also like to propose that we select 20 firearms (10 rifles, 10 handguns) for the same treatment, in order to increase the profile of both projects here on WP. --Commander Zulu09:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggested Articles for FA Status
My suggestions for the 20 Articles that could be collaborated upon to reach FA status, in chronological order. The list is just something to start with, but I've tried to strike a balance between historic importance and recognisability.
I think the M14 is worthy to be a featured article too. Maybe the Stg 44 and Springfield 1903 can be considered also. Maybe not "world shocking" rifles, but the Stg was the first true assault rifle and jump-started the evolution towards current modern combat rifles. The K31 is also quite known, and the straigt pull bolt is "different". For the handguns, you already made a very good selection, but I would maybe add the Glock-range to the list. They were not the first to use polymers, but ignited the "hype" and started the "tupperware revolution" --Boris Barowski22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat new here
I would like to help, I'm very knowledgeable with guns and own quite a few myself, how can I become a member? --Semper Fidelis20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to write an article on Criticism of the M16/M4 rifle family and alternatives, do I have permission to do that? --Semper Fidelis20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You can become a member by adding your name in the participants section. A better idea than writing a new article would be to include the criticisms in the relevant article (with citations from reliable sources). No permission is needed.--LWF22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Pictures / To Do-list
Hi, I just noticed that we have quite a few articles that are within the scope of the project but don't feature any pictures.
Since finding images that don't violate the IUP can be a bit frustrating time-intensive and considering that most project members probably own a few firearms, how about adding a Image Requests section to the to do-list? Anybody who needs an image just adds it to the to do-list, and if you own or have access to the firearm in question and feel like helping out, all you need to do is take a picture, upload it and strike the item. Then, somebody else checks that the image is properly tagged and removes the article from the list.
That way, we don't have to rely on fair use/relicensed/used with permission images. Any comments or objections? --Seed 2.016:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I own over 100 different firearms. I've also spent my entire adult life in the USMC and in the firearms industry, so I have pictures and access to even more. Let me know what pictures you need and I will more than likely have one or be able to get one. --Mike Searson13:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Then stop shooting those guns and start shooting a camera! I'm joking of course, but any pictures you can give us would be great. If you need to know what to get pictures of, just look in the image section of the to-do box, it's the second set of links from the top, right beneath all the redlinks.--LWF13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried to do that a while ago, but I couldn't get it to work. If anyone could add a picture section to the to-do list I would be grateful.--LWF18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I just went through the code and here's what I've learned.
I'm out of Mountain Dew. ;)
We obviously shouldn't mess with the global preloads. Since we can't just pipe a paramter to the template that it doesn't know what to do with and since I don't see a way to pass additional parameters down to the template (well, this ain't OOP so that's not entirely unexpected ;)), at this point I think we have three options:
use a custom template
modify the Todo template to take the default Preload as a parameter (something I'm extremely uncomfortable with as I just started looking at this template and since we're talking in-use templates here, we'd have to thoroughly test it before making any changes to the template anyway)
wait for the caffeine to kick in or for someone more knowledgeable to look at this.
It's entirely possible that I've just overlooked something. I'll update this when I find something. -- Seed 2.020:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The other obvious quick-and-dirty fixes would be to just not use the preloads (unnecessarily messy) or to pass the Image requests thingie down as an argument (q&c but expect for the slightly different layout, ie. a couple of extra spaces, no problem). -- Seed 2.020:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've asked Thernlund if he could figure it out. He added the infobox section, so at this point he has the most experience in the matter.--LWF21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks. Right now, I don't see a better way to do this - there's a good chance that I just overlooked something really obvious though. ;) (Pre edit-conflict text follows unchanged).
Since all of the above mentioned isn't perfect (messing with the global preloads to accommodate us is probably out of the question; #2 and #3 would work but both are a bit excessive) and since I don't see any other way to do this at the moment, I went ahead and added Image requests as a subcategory (q&d solution #2). There are two drawbacks: it's a bit clumsy (eg. no if checks) and, therefore, the Image requests subcat shows up even when there are no requests.
*glass half-full mode on* I suppose in some ways, that's a feature because it encourages people to use a non-standard subcat. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert the changes though. Cheers, -- Seed 2.021:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So there's that. It's based on the main one, but now it can be customized as needed by this specific project. For example, maybe a line for disputes needing attention and the like? Or whatever. Comments? —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs)01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's not a big deal to ask, could we seperate the infobox section into a section for firearms, and a section for cartridges. I think that would make it easier for everyone looking for an article in need of an infobox.--LWF23:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning on taking some pictures of various cartridges I have. I'm hoping to help show not just the cartridge but also some perspective on the size of the cartridge.
Some people seem to use pictures of multiple cartridges. For example, if you put a .223 next to a .223 WSSM next to a .300 WSM, you show some interesting comparison. But I also like the style some have used of a case lying on it's side and the head of a case showing next to it, so you get different views of what it really looks like.
In either case however you don't get any clear feeling for size, unless you're already familiar with the cartridges. Who can tell that a .50-90 is really big without some kind of perspective. Should I include a small scale or ruler in the picture? A well known coin? Looking for suggestions. Arthurrh18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a ruler, marked in inches on one side, centimeters on the other. Or, if you're feeling ambitious, you could draw a sort of grid in a graphics program, and print it out, with, say, .25 inch squares on one side, and .5 cm squares on the other, and photograph with the cartridges lying in the middle of that. The grid lets someone take measurements along both photographic axes with a greater degree of precision. Ideally you'd want the graph to be parallel to the centerline of the cartridge, so that any scaling issues cause by perspective would be reduced. If you want I can rig up an image for you, along with some tips on taking the photos to minimize distortions. scot19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, let's see what you have and go from there. If we had some kind of pdf or other image people could download and print reliably at the proper size, it'd make life really easy. Arthurrh20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
AAAAAHHHH! Sorry about that, I'm having negative PDF reactions, but that's a long story involving lots of gory software development details... What I did for online target shooting competitions was to create an image designed to be printed at a certain size, generally 6.5 x 9 inches, which you can get scaled correctly by printing with given margins. The guys in the UK (it was an airgun oriented group) had no problems getting printouts of the right size, so that should be an acceptable solution. The targets were 96 dpi, as that was enough precision for that application, I'll probably go 300 dpi for this, since a decent camera should be capable of resolution approaching that for close up shots. scot20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular love for PDF, just a random suggestion. I'd be just as happy with tiff, etc. I think 300 dpi is a good choice since it seems to be supported and even default setting on lots of printers. Let me know when you have something and I'll give it a try. Arthurrh20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Done, check out it out and let me know what you think. I picked PNG because it's compact and portable. scot21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried printing at work, but I don't have any useful image printing software that will let me set the appropriate parameters, I'll have to try it at home. In addition, should we be adding cartridge image requests to the main image To-Do section, or should there should be a separate cartridge-image section made on the to-do list? Arthurrh18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think for now, having one section is fine. A more clear arrangement might be the better long-term solution but it's easy enough to just add another section when there's a need and/or consensus to do so. -- Sup?10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
To do list / archiving
Hi everybody,
I just spend the better part of the morning adding articles to the to do list. So if you're bored and/or looking for a new article to work on, be sure to have a look.
I'll be archiving some parts of this talk page in a minute. I'll report back when I'm done.
I'm wondering if there's an article out there that would be suitable for inclusion of the Dardick Tround. This popped into my head when thinking about caliber conversion sleeves, which are somewhat related, as some of the trounds were available as conversions to adapt .22 LR and .38 Special to the triangular chamber. Also probably deserves mention in other places, as it was a very radical concept (I mean, how many other magazine fed revolvers are there?). Anyone have any thoughts? I'm not sure I can dig up enough solid info for more than a stub article. scot14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, hadn't thought to look for just "Dardick"--the tround is the only reason he's notable, and that's what the article is about anyway... Well, since it's there, I suppose I can move it to "Tround" and have a go at it. Still not sure I can come up with enough to expand it past a stub, but I'll try. Maybe if I go to the patent(s) I can pull out enough content to flesh it out. scot20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Blech, the link in the article lists patent 2885125, which is NOT the right one. Have to do a patent search on Dardick. scot20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
At the shooting, FBI agents were outgunned by a criminal armed with a Mini-14 rifle, which influenced their decision to adopt a new, more powerful cartridge. This is pretty settled and included in all of our articles related to the incident (1986 FBI Miami shootout, 10 mm Auto and .40 S&W), but Homefill doesn't want to accept any of the sources I've found to support it in Mini-14.
Plus he just removes sources and doesn't add anything to the article besides {{fact}} tags. Is there something I'm missing here? Is homefill just being obtuse? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say given the effect it had on the FBI and by extension America, it is notable enough. You have sources, and I have one too, although it is just from a firearm magazine (Combat I believe) so you have the high ground, since you have reliable sources where he just has stubborness.--LWF15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not being obtuse and I apologise if it seems that way. I'm just a stickler for sources. I'm sorry it took several tries to get a proper source on there but it is a better article for it. You're not missing anything, that is exactly what the {{fact}} tag is for. Before I tagged the section it contained sensationalist, POV language in the description of the school shooting but no assertion of relevance (it is corrected now, thank you) and a claim that was just bogus (the Ruby ridge thing). Then the first few sources cited failed WP:V and WP:RS(being opinion pieces and self-published websites.) If someone had practiced proper sourcing from the start, there would be no issue here. Again, I'm sorry if my demand for sourcing seems bothersome, but without such basic editorial standards as WP:V and WP:RS Wikipedia will never be taken seriously. Homefill15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Now that we know it was just a problem of getting good sources for it, and not just deleting the ones you disagree with.--LWF15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. The claims themselves are not an issue, the Mini-14 was used in both incidents. There connection and relevance was not explained so well but it looks great now, thanks. Also, Night Gyr, I truly am sorry for giving you the agita. I spend a great deal of time with articles on fictional topics (television shows and the like) where sourcing is just abombinable, so it is extra-painfull to see a real article (if that makes any sense) with sourcing problems. On the plus side the nice young man from UPS just showed up with my Para Ordnance 12-45 with fancy new springs, trigger, hammer, et al. So I'm off to go play in the backyard and see how many cans and bottles I can kill. Homefill15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Alloy or steel frame? I've got one of the first generation steel frame P12.45 models--stock, save for the trigger work I've done on it. I had one of the alloy P14 models from back when Para only sold frame kits, and I decided that it was just too whippy for heavy 230 grain loads, so I grabbed the first steel frame model I ran across at a gun show and sold off the alloy one. The steel frame makes it behave much better. It even made it into an article, to a small extent--the barrel is pictured in recoil operation. scot15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have the alloy frame in black. In hindsight I should have gone for the steel, but at the time it was my primary carry weapon and after a 12 hour shift with a big hunk of metal down the back of your pants you start to feel every ounce. Years later, different job, now I just collect for fun. I'm about to go try out these CCI Shotshells, each .45 shell contains 1/3 oz. of #9 shot, take that rattlesnake/ intruder/ beer bottle. Homefill16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Weight vs. shootability is always a hard tradeoff. On the other hand, a good holster can help spread the weight, and I've always thought the widebody .45--any make--was on the bulky side for concealed carry. As for shotshells, I tracked this article down for the rat-shot article. I think you're pushing it on the beer bottle, much less the intruder. RCBS actually makes a die set that will make the .45 ACP shotshells out of .30-06 or the like, and reload them, but the set runs $150. On the other hand, at $1 a shot, it wouldn't take long to pay for it if you used them. What is really needed is for someone to come back out with the old style paper shot capsules, like this. Gas checks for .45 bullets are pretty cheap, all you'd need is a way to produce the papier-mâché capsules. scot18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Too bad there are some whimps that say, "oh no, guns are bad, guns kill people". Just so you know, I'm not among those people. Anyway, I saw the MG42 project. I know there was a type of gun in the 1500s, was it a cannon, or something else? Are cannons mentioned in this project?
When you say "I know there was a type of gun in the 1500s, was it a cannon, or something else?" what do you mean? The arquebus goes back that far, though it wasn't until the [flintlock]] mechanism came about that small arms got to be practical enough to have a signficant impact. scot21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've wondered about cannons and the like before, and what I decided was that when a gun gets to that size it crosses a line and isn't covered by the project. In my mind it boiled down to: we only cover small-arms.
The article on the Dardick tround (and various other related stuff) is written, to replace the stub on the Dardick pistols. Take a look, and feel free to tack on additional categories--I haven't done that bit, and it's going to require a bunch of 'em. scot21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! An anonymous contributor has made a proposal in today's (27 May) entries that I believe requires an expert's opinion. If this is no longer today, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-27. I'd appreciate it if you could review the request, and either accept or decline. Alternately, if you are uncomfortable with the process at WP:AFC, please let me know here or on my talk what you recommend and I will do the grunt work! Thanks again for your help.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Firearm cartridge naming conventions
Hello! Is there some policy on how to name firearm cartridge articles? Currently it does not seem like that. There are articles like 7.62×51 NATO, 7.62x39 and 5.56 × 45 mm NATO. I think you need to decide whether to use "x" or "×", spaces around it or not, whether to add the "mm" to it and whether to add "NATO" or some other words to it? I don't have a preference either way and I'm not a member of this project, I just spotted the case and decided to bring it to your attention! --ZeroOne (talk | @) 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is, I believe, for the use of "x", no spaces, and without the "mm"- ie, "7.62x51", "7.62x54R", "5.56x45", and so on. --Commander Zulu11:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Infobox Drive
Good job on the infobox drice everyone, we still have three days! While we've done most of the firearms articles, the cartridges still need a lot of infoboxes. Please keep it up! C0N6R355talkcontribs21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be having a problem with the infoboxes. When I put in data for Ballistic performance, I get an error that says
You need to fill in the en1, en2, etc. fields; all three data points are required when providing ballistics via this template. Kirill00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll be darned, I didn't realize all fields were required if you used any of them in that area. It required some work, but I filled in the muzzle energy fields and that did the trick. Thanks.
On another point, I'm not sure how the infobox drive is going, I can't tell if the list is actually getting longer or shorter ;-) In fact, I'm not sure that the list is even complete. But what I'd like to do is encourage everyone to take care of one infobox per day and then we'll finish in a pretty good time without impacting anyone too much. Arthurrh00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The drive ended a while ago, but there are still articles in need of infoboxes. If you find one but don't have the time and information then you can just add it to the appropriate section.--LWF02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The latter I believe matches what is used in the xx caliber pages, such as 7 mm caliber, but the former order currently in use matches the order used in firearms literature such as Cartridges of the World. I don't know why they use that order, but it sure makes it easier to work on the pages if the dimenions are in the same order. Arthurrh02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Then something's sure changed, 'cause my edition of COTW uses the latter form, which is why I follow it, 'cause it really does make it EZr... Also, I find it more intuitive, kinda like this:
Good work. This is our first true FA. All that came before came before our project, but now our project has a true accomplishment to its name. Let's keep going. I personally would still like to see M16 rifle as an FA.--LWF16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing research on both and I think its worth making them into articles. Help would be appreciated. Any thoughts?Goldfishsoldier02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think NZ or Japan had any gun politics- I'm not aware of any influential anti-gun groups in NZ or pro-gun groups in Japan, but I'd be interested to see an article on the subject all the same. --Commander Zulu11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Banner Ads?
Might be useful, to make a WikiAd for this project... What do you guys think? I stink out loud with art, or, I'd consider doing so myself... --SXT4004:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
An interesting idea, although I am not sure of how helpful it would be. Something I've noticed is that some people come to the project, but never contribute to firearms, perhaps because they enjoy them but don't have any information to add, whioch is not necessarily a bad thing, but we are in need of more users that will be knowledgable contributors to the area of firearms. Which leads me to wonder if a banner would bring more knowledgable people to the project, or more people who like firearms but don't have much to add to Wikipedia in the area, or a mix.--LWF21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ackley wildcats - variants
What is the best way to handle the Ackley cartridges, such as the .243 Ackley. Should they get their own pages, or are properly listed as variants on the parent case, since they are just improved rounds and not true wildcats. Arthurrh23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this has been discussed before. Any cartridge with reasonable commercial availability should probably have its own page, but wildcats are probably best handled in a separate section. On the other hand, Ackley has enough wildcats that he might be worth an article; it could touch on the basic features of the "improved cartridges" (sharper shoulder, less case taper) and provide a list with some ballistic comparisons. scot18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest giving them their own page, grouped together in this situation. Could you give me more context though?--LWF19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Parker O. Ackley was a gunsmith, handloader, and author of handloading books. From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_8_51/ai_n14694926An Ackley improved cartridge is distinguished from the original by a neck angle of 30 degrees or more and the virtual elimination of any taper from the body. The idea is to simply increase the powder capacity and most of Ackley's wildcats hold at least 10 percent more than the parent case and The most comprehensive data source is Mr. Ackley's Handbook For Shooters & Reloaders, which is still available. It is, however, not without peril for the unwary. The second volume was written in 1966 (the first in 1962)... Most of his cases were easily fire formed by firing a commercial cartridge in a custom chambered firearm, and the resulting case, with its greater capacity, would allow greater power than the original. J. D. Jones is another wildcatter who has produced a significant number of cartridges, most for the Thompson/Center Contender. scot20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on what you've said, I think that the best idea would be to put the improved ones in their own group article.--LWF20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
243 Ackley, 243 Winchester
What about an "Improved Cartridge" page (not Wildcats) with a list, and then maybe a mention in variants on the appropriate pages, for example .243 Ackley on the .243 page. Arthurrh20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Which begs the question, what exactly is an "improved" cartridge? I don't think all cartridges labeled "Improved" are by Ackley, and not all Ackley cartridges go by the name "Ackley Improved", some, like the .243, are just called "Ackley". I think families of wildcats that can be linked by some strong factor, such as the inventor, could be grouped together. If you want a more generic page than just "Ackley wildcats" or the like, then you could have a "Wildcat cartridge families" page that has sections with info on various families (Ackley, JDJ, PPC, BR, and what have you) like a brief inventor bio or motivation, followed by a list of relevant cartridges. I think it's essential when starting an article to have a clear set of criteria in mind for what is and is not within the scope of the article. scot20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - do we want an "Improved Cartridge" page, or is that simply a section of the PO Ackley page, or both? Or is it a section of a Wildcat page. So potentiallyl 3 pages, 1 for Ackley, 1 for Improved, 1 for wildcats. Personally, I think it would fit fine as a section of a wildcat page, with an explanation of the differences. This covers both bases for those who feel that Improveds are wildcats and those who dont.
Yes, not all Ackleys are Improved, and not all Improveds are Ackleys, and many are called by different names, such as the .223 Ackley and the .223 Ackley Improved and the .223 Improved 40 degree. According to Ackley and others, improved cartridges are not wildcats, because a factory round will still fit in an improved chamber and fire properly and accurately. It's just an improvement over the factory cartridge, such as blowing out the body for more powder space, or sharpening the shoulder angle to reduce case stretching and pressure problems. Arthurrh21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Question about daewoo DP51 /K5
Someone proposed that K5 9mm and Daewoo DP51 be merged. I looked online and some sites list a "Daewoo DP51/K5" while others use only one of the names. A google image search also shows guns that sometimes look different from each other. Does anyone know if these are the same? Tocharianne17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Two other editors have taken it upon themselves to delete any reference to the Lee-Enfield in film; regardless of notability. For example, one user as removed references to Breaker Morant invoking "Rule .303" as it "might refer to a Bren Gun or a Lewis Gun" (despite the fact that neither gun existed during the Boer War), and references to the incorrect use of the Lee-Enfield in film (only citing two examples, The Blue Max, and Lawrence of Arabia, in which the inaccuracies are blatantly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with WWI firearms, have also been deleted for being "Trivia". My understanding of the "Popular Culture" consensus is that lists of every. single. appearance. of a gun in films is to be avoided, but discussion of a firearm's notability (or, in this case, blatantly incorrect use, and also near total absence from WWII themed computer games) is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Some outside opinions would be appreciated, especially since some people seem to have twitchy delete button fingers and are deciding ALL Cultural Impact sections are delete worthy, which isn't helping article quality or stability. --Commander Zulu08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"Naming Convention" is making firearm pages non-uniform
As per consensus, it states that firearm articles are to be named as they are widely known, by manufacturer, or military title. Currently there are many conflicting pages that have not adopted this format. Some of these include but are not limited to: M1 Garand, AK47, K31, and M16 rifle. This is the result of conflicting terms used and made by the 'consensus'. Firstly, many military rifles are known more by name than their military model and designation, such as the M1 Garand, K98, K31, etc. In pages where rifles are given the term 'rifle' after their name, such as M1 Garand rifle, this is an incorrect term both in regards to its common name and correct usage. Either military rifles are to be called by their actual model and designation (U.S. Caliber .30, M1) or what they are commonly referred to as, because instances such as 'M1 Garand rifle' or 'M16 rifle' is incorrect for both formats. ~ Brenden July 19th 2007, 1050.
I think in the case of M16, it's simply one of disambiguation. I kind of agree with changing the M1 Garand, however, what happens when some non-gunny watches Band of Brothers and types in "M1 Garand" instead of "U.S. Caliber .30, M1"? Are we building an encyclopedia usable by anyone, or just collections of information sorted by proper US military nomenclature?--Mike Searson20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
M1 Garand, M1 rifle, M1 Rifle, Garand rifle, M-1 rifle, M-1 Garand, M1 Garand Rifle,and Garand all redirect to the same page: M1 Garand rifle. At one time, all of the pages that redirected to any or all of those were corrected to read M1 Garand rifle. This was intentional to allow for a simple, predictable, and uniform method of naming US Military firearms. The exceptions to this redirect were items requiring disambiguation like M1. Additionally, the simplified process allows a logical inclusion of weapons using the older M-year method of naming and for logical and clear disambigution of similarly named (to the laymen) or easily confused types like the M1 Garand rifle, M1 carbine, and M1 Thompson submachine gun, and M1 bayonet. Deathbunny08:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't we use redirects on the "improper" names to point them to the proper names? That way people will find what they're looking for? Arthurrh21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, for starters, it is M16 rifle because their are other things that are designated M16, so it's easier to just add rifle. In the case of AK-47 that is what it is most commonly known as, M1 Garand is up to debate, although I will say this, you should have discussed the possibility of moving the article before you moved it.--LWF21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as nomenclature goes, the way the weapon is known or its military designation should be used for the title. As far as Average Joe watching BoB and looking for 'M1 Garand', Arthurrh already gave a good response. Redirecting pages will work. LWF, the reason for it being moved was to comply with both with the currentconsensus which had changed since months prior and to make it uniform with the majority of the firearm pages. -- Brenden 20:51, 19 July 2007 (PCT)
That may be true, but if you had mentioned that in the talk page prior to the move there wouldn't have been a problem. Personally I think that the common nomenclature should be used for article name, and the military designation should go in the name portion of the infobox, sort of like in M16 rifle. By the way, best way of doing your username is with four of these symbols "~".--LWF14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
