This is an
essay on the
reliable sources guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
WikiProject Firearms reliable source recommendations and advice on compliance with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines
This WikiProject guideline depends upon and is not intended to conflict in any way with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources criteria for reliability. Rather, it guides article creators/editors on the application of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifability, as they apply to the firearms articlespace and categoryspace. In particular, the intent of this guideline is to help editors avoid using sources that that are likely to be removed for failure to meet notability guidelines. It is entirely possible that a subject that does not appear to qualify as reliable under the terms in this document is in fact reliable under the WP:RS.
The purpose of this page is to provide a list of links that can be used to research Category:Firearms and Category:Ammunition information. Part of the aim is to enable more reliable accurate firearm and cartridge information by providing connections to websites which have reliable firearms information.
With books you need to look to the publisher. If it's self-published, it usually fails WP:RS. If it's from a mainstream or well-known firearms publisher, you're generally in good territory. Watch out for off-topic books that mention firearms - for example don't use a fictional or humorous work to detail specifications for the Colt 1911. Some broad helpful books in specific are mentioned below.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Nationally published magazines are generally presumed to be reliable. Do pay attention to columnists pieces versus regular articles, as there is a difference, especially when looking for technical information. Some examples are:
Web sites related to firearms come in a wide variety. There are many shooting, hunting and reloading sites that have an abundance of user-edited information related to firearms, cartridges, and firearm topics. Unfortunately, many of the sites fail basic wiki guidelines and policies, such as WP:RS and WP:V. This is an attempt to pre-list the most common ones to save people grief later on because of disuptes over reliablity, notability, verifiability, and deletion.
This list in no way overrides policy at WP:RS and questions can be directed at the firearms project talk page or the reliability noticeboard. This is just helpful hints and pre-assessment that hopefully will make editors lives easier.
There are some websites that are inherently reliable (as long as you're not talking about their forums). Some may be considered a primary source for issues like notability, but are accurate and verifiable for technical specifications. This generally includes major publication sites, major manufacturers, etc. IE you can use a major manufacturer for specs (10" long and green) but not for claims (fastest, best-smelling).
There are sites that are useful for certain things, but not for others. Many of the serious web commentators / web-based publications end up in this category either because they have user-contributed facts, or an unknown fact-checking and publishing process, or they are opinion pieces. Here are some well-known examples.
Some sites are interesting, fun, and full of information, but that information is partially or full user contributed such as forums. People say all kinds of neat stuff, but it's not reliable per wikipedia guidelines. Some common examples are:
Please add new firearms sites after either having discussed it at the firearms project at the RS noticeboard, unless it's a very clear-cut case. If you have questions, feel free to ask on the talk page.
This is an
essay on the
reliable sources guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
WikiProject Firearms reliable source recommendations and advice on compliance with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines
This WikiProject guideline depends upon and is not intended to conflict in any way with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources criteria for reliability. Rather, it guides article creators/editors on the application of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifability, as they apply to the firearms articlespace and categoryspace. In particular, the intent of this guideline is to help editors avoid using sources that that are likely to be removed for failure to meet notability guidelines. It is entirely possible that a subject that does not appear to qualify as reliable under the terms in this document is in fact reliable under the WP:RS.
The purpose of this page is to provide a list of links that can be used to research Category:Firearms and Category:Ammunition information. Part of the aim is to enable more reliable accurate firearm and cartridge information by providing connections to websites which have reliable firearms information.
With books you need to look to the publisher. If it's self-published, it usually fails WP:RS. If it's from a mainstream or well-known firearms publisher, you're generally in good territory. Watch out for off-topic books that mention firearms - for example don't use a fictional or humorous work to detail specifications for the Colt 1911. Some broad helpful books in specific are mentioned below.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Nationally published magazines are generally presumed to be reliable. Do pay attention to columnists pieces versus regular articles, as there is a difference, especially when looking for technical information. Some examples are:
Web sites related to firearms come in a wide variety. There are many shooting, hunting and reloading sites that have an abundance of user-edited information related to firearms, cartridges, and firearm topics. Unfortunately, many of the sites fail basic wiki guidelines and policies, such as WP:RS and WP:V. This is an attempt to pre-list the most common ones to save people grief later on because of disuptes over reliablity, notability, verifiability, and deletion.
This list in no way overrides policy at WP:RS and questions can be directed at the firearms project talk page or the reliability noticeboard. This is just helpful hints and pre-assessment that hopefully will make editors lives easier.
There are some websites that are inherently reliable (as long as you're not talking about their forums). Some may be considered a primary source for issues like notability, but are accurate and verifiable for technical specifications. This generally includes major publication sites, major manufacturers, etc. IE you can use a major manufacturer for specs (10" long and green) but not for claims (fastest, best-smelling).
There are sites that are useful for certain things, but not for others. Many of the serious web commentators / web-based publications end up in this category either because they have user-contributed facts, or an unknown fact-checking and publishing process, or they are opinion pieces. Here are some well-known examples.
Some sites are interesting, fun, and full of information, but that information is partially or full user contributed such as forums. People say all kinds of neat stuff, but it's not reliable per wikipedia guidelines. Some common examples are:
Please add new firearms sites after either having discussed it at the firearms project at the RS noticeboard, unless it's a very clear-cut case. If you have questions, feel free to ask on the talk page.