This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heckler & Koch HK416 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References regarding the basis for rifles like this should really credit the Colt AR-15 rather than the Armalite AR-15 for a couple of reasons. First, the design Colt purchased from Armalite was significantly different in several ways when compared to the Colt AR-15 that virtually all modern AR-pattern rifles are copying. Realistically, the Armalite AR wasn't a finished design when Colt purchased it, and the Colt AR we have now represents the finished product. For example the redesigned charging handle, modified lower, and the forward Assist Colt added to the design that would become the semi-auto AR-15 as we know it are found on virtually all modern AR-pattern rifles, including those made by the new, and unrelated to the original, Armalite. The only companies that I know of which source their design from the unfinished Armalite rifle Colt purchased are an out of production weapon built in the Philippines and a handful of retro Armalite models built in small numbers as collector pieces. We don't typically credit the Colt Model 1910 when we reference where the vast majority of modern semi-automatic pistols borrowed sourced their Browning tilting-barrel design from, we reference the finished 1911 design, and for the same reasons. Syr74 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that using the "AR-15 style" is a misnomer, since this was designed for military, based on military rifles and not civilian rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.15 ( talk) 10:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "list of war is non-informative; excessive WP:CATALOG in infobox - ranges are sufficient". Please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, unless there is a consensus supporting the removal of this content, it should be restored. - theWOLFchild 02:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are samples of what was removed:
References
This does not meet WP:WEIGHT & WP:PROMO which are policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate web site. I would not have any objections if this material can be sourced to independent, reliable coverage. With the current sourcing, it would not be an improvement to add this content back in. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"Being factual is not enough. We would need coverage in independent reliable sources to establish due weight
" - First, in the context of what's being discussed here, that doesn't even make sense. Second, can you cite a specific Wiki-policy that states exactly that? And third, why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles? -
theWOLFchild
16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the material removed fails
WP:WEIGHT (part of
WP:NPOV) and
WP:PROMO (part of
WP:NOT). It may also fail "
indiscriminate amount of information". I don’t quite understand the comment why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles?
. Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to all articles, not only firearms.
Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations of policies. If this is the case here, I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:NPOVN or at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
...such and such a new option package in 1976, unless covered by independent reliable sources, is the definition of indiscriminate amount of information. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman; "Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations of policies
"
why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles?
"Sorry, local consensus does not override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
"
Having looked over the removed material I do agree that much was promotional without encyclopedic value. I think the following material should be restored:
Heckler & Koch
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm pretty sure the redesigned gas block increased the minimum barrel length to 11.5". It's the shortest length HK shows on their website. Spartan198 ( talk) 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Le Petit Chat, I do not think that you can say that the HK416 is the standard rifle of the French armed forces: the Army overwhelmingly uses the Famas-F1 (no the G2), and the Navy the Famas-G2. Furthermore, the Gendarmerie uses HK G36. The HK416 might be envisaged as a future standard, but stating that it is now is incorrect and unsupported by the sources of the article. Rama ( talk) 22:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heckler & Koch HK416 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References regarding the basis for rifles like this should really credit the Colt AR-15 rather than the Armalite AR-15 for a couple of reasons. First, the design Colt purchased from Armalite was significantly different in several ways when compared to the Colt AR-15 that virtually all modern AR-pattern rifles are copying. Realistically, the Armalite AR wasn't a finished design when Colt purchased it, and the Colt AR we have now represents the finished product. For example the redesigned charging handle, modified lower, and the forward Assist Colt added to the design that would become the semi-auto AR-15 as we know it are found on virtually all modern AR-pattern rifles, including those made by the new, and unrelated to the original, Armalite. The only companies that I know of which source their design from the unfinished Armalite rifle Colt purchased are an out of production weapon built in the Philippines and a handful of retro Armalite models built in small numbers as collector pieces. We don't typically credit the Colt Model 1910 when we reference where the vast majority of modern semi-automatic pistols borrowed sourced their Browning tilting-barrel design from, we reference the finished 1911 design, and for the same reasons. Syr74 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that using the "AR-15 style" is a misnomer, since this was designed for military, based on military rifles and not civilian rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.15 ( talk) 10:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "list of war is non-informative; excessive WP:CATALOG in infobox - ranges are sufficient". Please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, unless there is a consensus supporting the removal of this content, it should be restored. - theWOLFchild 02:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are samples of what was removed:
References
This does not meet WP:WEIGHT & WP:PROMO which are policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate web site. I would not have any objections if this material can be sourced to independent, reliable coverage. With the current sourcing, it would not be an improvement to add this content back in. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"Being factual is not enough. We would need coverage in independent reliable sources to establish due weight
" - First, in the context of what's being discussed here, that doesn't even make sense. Second, can you cite a specific Wiki-policy that states exactly that? And third, why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles? -
theWOLFchild
16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the material removed fails
WP:WEIGHT (part of
WP:NPOV) and
WP:PROMO (part of
WP:NOT). It may also fail "
indiscriminate amount of information". I don’t quite understand the comment why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles?
. Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to all articles, not only firearms.
Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations of policies. If this is the case here, I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:NPOVN or at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
...such and such a new option package in 1976, unless covered by independent reliable sources, is the definition of indiscriminate amount of information. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman; "Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations of policies
"
why does this seem to only apply to firearms articles?
"Sorry, local consensus does not override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
"
Having looked over the removed material I do agree that much was promotional without encyclopedic value. I think the following material should be restored:
Heckler & Koch
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm pretty sure the redesigned gas block increased the minimum barrel length to 11.5". It's the shortest length HK shows on their website. Spartan198 ( talk) 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Le Petit Chat, I do not think that you can say that the HK416 is the standard rifle of the French armed forces: the Army overwhelmingly uses the Famas-F1 (no the G2), and the Navy the Famas-G2. Furthermore, the Gendarmerie uses HK G36. The HK416 might be envisaged as a future standard, but stating that it is now is incorrect and unsupported by the sources of the article. Rama ( talk) 22:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)