This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Besides VERY compact PDW's, weapons like the MP5 don't belong in combat anymore. The M4 (and more recently, even weapons like the FN SCAR CQB system) achieve the same desired effects as SMGs, only with more flexablility in improvising during combat situations. I mean, unless you are shooting on a plane, and don't want to punch a hole in it, what's the point of a 9mm round going up against modern Kevlar? 24.15.64.119 ( talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)jake
Wikipedia is not a forum.-- LWF ( talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry LWF, its just that since it says "discussion" and I had an on-topic question I thought it was OK. Most of the other sections here seem very similar. 24.15.64.119 ( talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)jake
I think I see what happened. For future reference, go to the very top of the page. Once there, you will see a box, and in it it says that the discussion page is for discussing ways of improving the article, and is not for discussion of the general subject. Although I will admit, it is a common mistake.-- LWF ( talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with your opinion. Submachine guns are for use with special forces, self defense of pilots, tank crew (p90 development aim anyone?), Unconventional warfare, CQB, the list goes on. submachine guns are light, compact, simple, and just as deadly as any rifle. Somtimes it is even better to have a submachine gun! (again p90's ss190 ball round for use against body armor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 ( talk) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do some reasearch on the ss190 and you will se exactley how well it penetrates body armor. It was desinged for that. There are some videos on youtube that explain this common assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7_x_28_mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 ( talk) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
the gun pictured is an MP5F not an A3, the F model is the newest one, made for the French military, it is like the MP5A5 minus the burst setting, and with a new butt stock design with ambidextrous sling hooks.. Archangel17 ( talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the information on the Brügger & Thomet MP5 be added to this page? Unfortunantly it seems that some people want a separate page for every firearm varient under the sun even when it's not needed. Paulwharton ( talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, While I do aprove of articles on significant derivatives of firearms. I can't justify a page that is on a cosmetically modifed design. Paulwharton ( talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
is it avaluable for civil use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.131.77 ( talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the TAG East MP5 image.
No other images on this article show the weapon being carried in a way which would be difficult to manage with other firearms. i.e. climbing a ladder
Please change your tone, it's unhelpful.
It appears that you are clutching at straws for reasons to remove the image from this site. Please stop discarding the contributions of others, they are not infringing on your territory - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.
I propose a new idea: we have a gallery at the bottom of the page and all images go there. We can order them chronologically from date added to page (making my image last, because it is obvious what upset you was my image going in front of yours)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute over the inclusion of a referenced statement that the MP5 has been used in the Red Army Faction's insignia. See here and here. Neutral, commonsense- and policy-based input from uninvolved editors welcome. Everyme 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This is a very weird topic to get into a fight over. The only reason I have ever heard of the manufacturer is precisely because of the RAF logo. Based on this personal experience I would consider it normal for this fact to be mentioned in some way. On the other hand, I am not sure how notable the RAF is (was) internationally, and I don't care at all. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:GUNS#Criminal use was not the best guideline or policy to cite when debating against inclusion of the RAF in the article. A better policy to cite is WP:UNDUE, a part of WP:NPOV. My question is, how significant is the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their logo to the MP5? If not very significant to the MP5, then it should be given little to no weight in the article; and if it was very significant to the MP5, then it should be given appropriate weight in the article.
Oh, and by the way, thank you for bringing up WP:NPOV, for a while I've been meaning to make mention of WP:UNDUE in the policies, as that is one of the underlying policies behind the Criminal use and Pop culture guidelines, but I hadn't gotten around to it until you mentioned NPOV.-- LWF ( talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: For the various reasons states above. Barely notable, had no influence on the MP5, did not affect the perception of the MP5, promotes criminal use of the MP5, promotes a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics. 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka ( talk • contribs)
Here is one of the fundamental problems with your argument Everyme: you have not shown us how the RAF's logo is significant to the MP5. You've told us it is plenty of times, but you have given us little to nothing to back up your argument that it is significant to the MP5. Now, if it were shown that it were significant, then it would be different; but as of yet, you have not shown us how including it would not go against WP:UNDUE by giving excess weight to something that isn't significant to the MP5.
Now, I wouldn't mind a brief mention in the section on users, as that would be brief, concise, and accurate, without being given undue weight by being in its own section or inside the main text body.-- LWF ( talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh*. I don't care a bit whether the RAF, one of the most notable and most embarrassing left-wing terror groups ever, is mentioned in this disgusting article. (Disgusting because it is obviously written – "unpolitically" – from the perspective of people with an unhealthy obsession with killing devices, or from the perspective of actual users. I am not sure which of the two is worse.) In my opinion Everyme has given a single, somewhat convincing but not absolutely compelling, argument for inclusion of such a sentence (very notable depiction), and Koalorka has given a single, somewhat convincing but not absolutely compelling, argument against (did not affect the perception). The rest is misunderstandings, inappropriate rhetorics (trees and herrings), obvious false claims (RAF not notable), and personal attacks (dishonest POV editor vs. propagandist for a criminal Marxist organisiation).
Koalorka, you are not helping your case by writing before thinking. Everyme, you are mistaken about the strength of your argument and the meaning of WP:UNDUE. If you want to get this fact in you need to convince LWF, who AFAICT is arguing from policy rather than ideology. The fact is mentioned in the German Wikipedia, and I am convinced that that's correct there. But notability in the English-speaking world and worldwide notability are different from notability in the German-speaking world. You might have managed to convince me, and perhaps LWF, that the threshold is met even for the English-speaking world, but you didn't even try. This is my last comment here, I will unwatch this article now. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the MP5 smg as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 ( talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The specifications box is huge and remarkably hard to read. Given that the 'variants' section simply says: 'see variants', why do all the other sections spend 7-19 lines listing the stats of every variant, and which variant it applies to? It seems like it would be appropriate to either a) list the specifications of a single basic variant, e.g the A3 (which could include listing both expanded and unexpanded lengths, etc) or b) specify the range - for example, 2.0-3.6 kg weight, 50-60mm width, 700-900 rpm, etc.Full specifications for all the variants could then be listed in a table later in the article. For an example of this in practice, see the m16 article, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Summary_2.
The 'length' section is by far the worst. Some lines start with the length, others start with a descriptor ('Fixed Stock'), even when both belong to that same descriptor (680 vs 790), and there's again no clear indication of where a given weapon will fall in the list. I understand it's sorted by stock type, and ordered so that the first types listed is for the main A variants, but the result is that the list is the A2,A4,/10,/40, then the SD2,SD5, then the A3,A5, then the SD3,SD6 - a jumble. Again, I understand the reasoning behind it, but the end result is just bad.
Even without shortening, the specs box should have the entries reordered to a consistent standard. Compare ROF to MV sections - the first lists the A2-A5, then the SD's, then the PDWs. It doesn't list some variants at all, eg the MP5/40. The MV section lists the A2-A5 first again, then the PDWs, then the SDs, then the /10 and /40. At a minimum, all the sections should use the same ordering (A, K/PDW, SD, /10 and /40) where possible - and that's certainly possible for the muzzle velocity section, it's just different than all the others for no apparent reason. Perhaps even more useful they could be listed in relevant order for the property - like for muzzle velocity, 285m/s SD's, then the 315, 375, 400, 425. This would provide a way for people at a glance to see the range of values, provide an obvious ordering that could be followed as new variants are produced, and even provides for grouping the variants that share a feature together without disrupting the overall ordering scheme (as happens with 'length').
As it stands, attempting to group by type (A, K/PWD, SD, other) really isn't useful. The types are split by necessity in some categories while rightly remaining grouped in others, and that ordering system isn't immediately obvious from the contents of the infobox (-especially- not to a user unfamiliar with the weapon), isn't consistently followed. The infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of the critical stats, useful for comparing and understanding the weapon at a glance. That's impossible here.
The order that's used doesn't even make particular sense. The HK website lists A, then SD, then K. The SD models are more similar to the standard than the K models are, but here they're typically 3rd, not second. And, the HK site lists by model number - A2,3,4,5 or SD1,2,3,4,5,6,N - which is makes sense. In a table it's immediately obvious that A2/4 or SD3/6 etc have similarities, even when they're not contiguous.
And, a table would allow for EASY citations for the information and more space to elaborate - for instance, why does the K-PDW weigh so much more than the other K models, almost as much as the integrated-silencer SD1/4? Is the K-PDW weight 'loaded' and the others 'unloaded'? Are those from the same source? Are we positive that every single one of the 11 listed weights are all the same (either all loaded, or all unloaded)? Which? (Yes, after reading I understand that it's because the K-PDW has a folding stock, but in infobox list format, that's very hard to determine).
Seriously, put all the extra information in a table and limit each stat to 3 lines at most. "2.54-3.08kg (typical), from 2.0kg (compact) up to 3.6kg (silenced)" is far more useful. I'd do it myself but I don't want to ruffle feathers, and I'm not sure whether the consensus would be to list the ranges or a specific weapon (and which that would be).
Tofof ( talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a minor point, but perhaps there should be a reference to the MP-5/10 magazines being of a different contructions, etc. [1] 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
\
The lead section is a bit long; most of that information should be moved to a new "history" section. Some guy ( talk) 09:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Besides VERY compact PDW's, weapons like the MP5 don't belong in combat anymore. The M4 (and more recently, even weapons like the FN SCAR CQB system) achieve the same desired effects as SMGs, only with more flexablility in improvising during combat situations. I mean, unless you are shooting on a plane, and don't want to punch a hole in it, what's the point of a 9mm round going up against modern Kevlar? 24.15.64.119 ( talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)jake
Wikipedia is not a forum.-- LWF ( talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry LWF, its just that since it says "discussion" and I had an on-topic question I thought it was OK. Most of the other sections here seem very similar. 24.15.64.119 ( talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)jake
I think I see what happened. For future reference, go to the very top of the page. Once there, you will see a box, and in it it says that the discussion page is for discussing ways of improving the article, and is not for discussion of the general subject. Although I will admit, it is a common mistake.-- LWF ( talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with your opinion. Submachine guns are for use with special forces, self defense of pilots, tank crew (p90 development aim anyone?), Unconventional warfare, CQB, the list goes on. submachine guns are light, compact, simple, and just as deadly as any rifle. Somtimes it is even better to have a submachine gun! (again p90's ss190 ball round for use against body armor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 ( talk) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do some reasearch on the ss190 and you will se exactley how well it penetrates body armor. It was desinged for that. There are some videos on youtube that explain this common assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7_x_28_mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 ( talk) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
the gun pictured is an MP5F not an A3, the F model is the newest one, made for the French military, it is like the MP5A5 minus the burst setting, and with a new butt stock design with ambidextrous sling hooks.. Archangel17 ( talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the information on the Brügger & Thomet MP5 be added to this page? Unfortunantly it seems that some people want a separate page for every firearm varient under the sun even when it's not needed. Paulwharton ( talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, While I do aprove of articles on significant derivatives of firearms. I can't justify a page that is on a cosmetically modifed design. Paulwharton ( talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
is it avaluable for civil use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.131.77 ( talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the TAG East MP5 image.
No other images on this article show the weapon being carried in a way which would be difficult to manage with other firearms. i.e. climbing a ladder
Please change your tone, it's unhelpful.
It appears that you are clutching at straws for reasons to remove the image from this site. Please stop discarding the contributions of others, they are not infringing on your territory - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.
I propose a new idea: we have a gallery at the bottom of the page and all images go there. We can order them chronologically from date added to page (making my image last, because it is obvious what upset you was my image going in front of yours)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute over the inclusion of a referenced statement that the MP5 has been used in the Red Army Faction's insignia. See here and here. Neutral, commonsense- and policy-based input from uninvolved editors welcome. Everyme 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This is a very weird topic to get into a fight over. The only reason I have ever heard of the manufacturer is precisely because of the RAF logo. Based on this personal experience I would consider it normal for this fact to be mentioned in some way. On the other hand, I am not sure how notable the RAF is (was) internationally, and I don't care at all. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:GUNS#Criminal use was not the best guideline or policy to cite when debating against inclusion of the RAF in the article. A better policy to cite is WP:UNDUE, a part of WP:NPOV. My question is, how significant is the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their logo to the MP5? If not very significant to the MP5, then it should be given little to no weight in the article; and if it was very significant to the MP5, then it should be given appropriate weight in the article.
Oh, and by the way, thank you for bringing up WP:NPOV, for a while I've been meaning to make mention of WP:UNDUE in the policies, as that is one of the underlying policies behind the Criminal use and Pop culture guidelines, but I hadn't gotten around to it until you mentioned NPOV.-- LWF ( talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: For the various reasons states above. Barely notable, had no influence on the MP5, did not affect the perception of the MP5, promotes criminal use of the MP5, promotes a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics. 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka ( talk • contribs)
Here is one of the fundamental problems with your argument Everyme: you have not shown us how the RAF's logo is significant to the MP5. You've told us it is plenty of times, but you have given us little to nothing to back up your argument that it is significant to the MP5. Now, if it were shown that it were significant, then it would be different; but as of yet, you have not shown us how including it would not go against WP:UNDUE by giving excess weight to something that isn't significant to the MP5.
Now, I wouldn't mind a brief mention in the section on users, as that would be brief, concise, and accurate, without being given undue weight by being in its own section or inside the main text body.-- LWF ( talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh*. I don't care a bit whether the RAF, one of the most notable and most embarrassing left-wing terror groups ever, is mentioned in this disgusting article. (Disgusting because it is obviously written – "unpolitically" – from the perspective of people with an unhealthy obsession with killing devices, or from the perspective of actual users. I am not sure which of the two is worse.) In my opinion Everyme has given a single, somewhat convincing but not absolutely compelling, argument for inclusion of such a sentence (very notable depiction), and Koalorka has given a single, somewhat convincing but not absolutely compelling, argument against (did not affect the perception). The rest is misunderstandings, inappropriate rhetorics (trees and herrings), obvious false claims (RAF not notable), and personal attacks (dishonest POV editor vs. propagandist for a criminal Marxist organisiation).
Koalorka, you are not helping your case by writing before thinking. Everyme, you are mistaken about the strength of your argument and the meaning of WP:UNDUE. If you want to get this fact in you need to convince LWF, who AFAICT is arguing from policy rather than ideology. The fact is mentioned in the German Wikipedia, and I am convinced that that's correct there. But notability in the English-speaking world and worldwide notability are different from notability in the German-speaking world. You might have managed to convince me, and perhaps LWF, that the threshold is met even for the English-speaking world, but you didn't even try. This is my last comment here, I will unwatch this article now. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the MP5 smg as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 ( talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The specifications box is huge and remarkably hard to read. Given that the 'variants' section simply says: 'see variants', why do all the other sections spend 7-19 lines listing the stats of every variant, and which variant it applies to? It seems like it would be appropriate to either a) list the specifications of a single basic variant, e.g the A3 (which could include listing both expanded and unexpanded lengths, etc) or b) specify the range - for example, 2.0-3.6 kg weight, 50-60mm width, 700-900 rpm, etc.Full specifications for all the variants could then be listed in a table later in the article. For an example of this in practice, see the m16 article, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Summary_2.
The 'length' section is by far the worst. Some lines start with the length, others start with a descriptor ('Fixed Stock'), even when both belong to that same descriptor (680 vs 790), and there's again no clear indication of where a given weapon will fall in the list. I understand it's sorted by stock type, and ordered so that the first types listed is for the main A variants, but the result is that the list is the A2,A4,/10,/40, then the SD2,SD5, then the A3,A5, then the SD3,SD6 - a jumble. Again, I understand the reasoning behind it, but the end result is just bad.
Even without shortening, the specs box should have the entries reordered to a consistent standard. Compare ROF to MV sections - the first lists the A2-A5, then the SD's, then the PDWs. It doesn't list some variants at all, eg the MP5/40. The MV section lists the A2-A5 first again, then the PDWs, then the SDs, then the /10 and /40. At a minimum, all the sections should use the same ordering (A, K/PDW, SD, /10 and /40) where possible - and that's certainly possible for the muzzle velocity section, it's just different than all the others for no apparent reason. Perhaps even more useful they could be listed in relevant order for the property - like for muzzle velocity, 285m/s SD's, then the 315, 375, 400, 425. This would provide a way for people at a glance to see the range of values, provide an obvious ordering that could be followed as new variants are produced, and even provides for grouping the variants that share a feature together without disrupting the overall ordering scheme (as happens with 'length').
As it stands, attempting to group by type (A, K/PWD, SD, other) really isn't useful. The types are split by necessity in some categories while rightly remaining grouped in others, and that ordering system isn't immediately obvious from the contents of the infobox (-especially- not to a user unfamiliar with the weapon), isn't consistently followed. The infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of the critical stats, useful for comparing and understanding the weapon at a glance. That's impossible here.
The order that's used doesn't even make particular sense. The HK website lists A, then SD, then K. The SD models are more similar to the standard than the K models are, but here they're typically 3rd, not second. And, the HK site lists by model number - A2,3,4,5 or SD1,2,3,4,5,6,N - which is makes sense. In a table it's immediately obvious that A2/4 or SD3/6 etc have similarities, even when they're not contiguous.
And, a table would allow for EASY citations for the information and more space to elaborate - for instance, why does the K-PDW weigh so much more than the other K models, almost as much as the integrated-silencer SD1/4? Is the K-PDW weight 'loaded' and the others 'unloaded'? Are those from the same source? Are we positive that every single one of the 11 listed weights are all the same (either all loaded, or all unloaded)? Which? (Yes, after reading I understand that it's because the K-PDW has a folding stock, but in infobox list format, that's very hard to determine).
Seriously, put all the extra information in a table and limit each stat to 3 lines at most. "2.54-3.08kg (typical), from 2.0kg (compact) up to 3.6kg (silenced)" is far more useful. I'd do it myself but I don't want to ruffle feathers, and I'm not sure whether the consensus would be to list the ranges or a specific weapon (and which that would be).
Tofof ( talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a minor point, but perhaps there should be a reference to the MP-5/10 magazines being of a different contructions, etc. [1] 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
\
The lead section is a bit long; most of that information should be moved to a new "history" section. Some guy ( talk) 09:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)