![]() | This page 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. |
I know the scope of the project is firearms, but I'm wondering if we should expand that somewhat to include civilian firearms-related topics. Such as these...
...and others like them. I see one of the above is in ther To-do list, but articles of these type aren't included in the project scope. I, for one, think they should be. They are civilian firearms-related topics. Only one is part of another project, but that shouldn't matter. Comments? — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikipedia is about improving civilisation and in my opinion firearms - as necessary as they may be in responsible hands - are largely responsible for the opposite. I guess that Wikipedians here won't agree. I certainly don't want a controversy but would like to ask if it might not be better to offer less information on firearms on Wikipedia, as responsible people will be informed already and we don't really want to help out the others? --
Theosch
08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I simply cannot believe I just read what I read, the gist of which is that guns are responsible for the decline of civilization. I am utterly speechless. I am of the very strong opinion that this incredible level of ignorance is responsible for any regress in the quality of civilization. Your type would blame the sun for skin cancer, and then seek to extinguish it. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Theosch, you mentioned that some of the articles read like sales brochures. Could you tell us which ones so we can improve the articles? We are here to improve firearm articles, after all. LWF 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For any of those "wanderers". — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I thank you Theosch for your advice, and acknowledge its validity. Quality is a must in our editting, and our conduct and ettiquette must be excellent if we are to dispel any stereotypes of gun and gun owners that others might have.-- LWF 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the Joyce Foundation fall with the scope of this project? Kevinp2 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd love some help cleaning up Taurus (manufacturer), if we could put that on the to-do list. Thanks! -- SXT40 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Another addition... Stubs... Hi-Point .45 ACP Thanks! -- SXT40 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Kimber Manufacturing needs alot of work.-- Mike Searson 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is just an FYI for members... I'm working on a quality rating system using a bot similar to that of the Military History project. Unless someone thinks I should stop or that it's a waste of time? Anyone? — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea! Let me know if I can help out in any way! -- Mike Searson 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a little too soon for that. We only have a few members. Perhaps when we have increased some more. Unless the rest of you disagree.-- LWF 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point Thernlund. Go ahead.-- LWF 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are some samples of ideas I came up with. No color yet. These are for layout only. However I must note that the images I'm using do not have transparent backgrounds, so the image backgrounds will stay white regardless of the userbox background color.
(samples cut out)
Here are some other things I'm going to put together...
I'll post these other variations once I have them done. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Check these out. Let me know what you all think. If anyone has ideas, please advise. I'm now leaning towards #1 or #2. Mostly #2 because it speaks more civilian than #1. Can't decide on the color. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions taken. More samples here. Please advise. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm fine with what I already have. Feel free to proceed though if you would like.-- LWF 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I have recorded...
Probably going to need more input from members though. What we have now doesn't constitute a quorum. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This user is a member of WikiProject Firearms |
I have a better idea. Stay tuned! — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This is top text
|
I've been troubleshooting this and although I can see the problem in Firefox, I can't identify what's causing it. The final HTML produced in the browser is standards compliant. I tried extracting the HTML and placed it in a local (non-wikipedia page), and it rendered just fine in Firefox. But the exact same HTML when put into a wikipage causes the contents to jump to the right.
I even stripped out ALL the parsing code and used a simple HTML (non-wiki) table. Still did it in FF on a wikipage.
Near as I can tell this is some disagreement between Wiki and Firefox. I don't know what to say. Without ranting on about my dislike of Firefox, all I can suggest is that a) we can revert back to a static userbox; or b) use a less sensitive browser. Comments?
I will note that on my user page I've used a normal wikitable rather than the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates and mine displays fine in both browsers. This could indicate an issue with those templates. I did notice that the way it works is to put the title and all userboxes into a single cell. The one on my userpage puts each box in its own table cell. That could be it, in which case the fix is to not use the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates . — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
.17 HMR, 7.62x54R = up, please proof, correct, expand them. Should we post the ones completed here so that the project page can be updated, or...? Ancjr 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new rule to the to-do list, if you add something be sure to say what you added in the edit summary with it linked. I never did this in the past but when I looked at the history I couldn't really read it. So now we have this rule to make it easier to keep track of. Also, the crossing out is a good idea. I'll add that to the rules of use now.-- LWF 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new policy for the WikiProject Firearms. I would like to propose that rather than having separate articles for target versions or accurized models of a gun or anything of that nature; that we should instead create a new section in the same article, covering the variant. Now one thing I should state is that this would not be limited to so-called 'Target' versions, but also 'Expert' or any other variants that simply constitute the same gun with some measures taken to accurize it or improve other parts of the gun.
What does everyone think?-- LWF 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at my watchlist today and I made the observation that some guns manufactured by Heckler & Koch are labeled as HK, H&K and Heckler & Koch in Wikipedia. I am proposing that we standardize this to the full, proper name Heckler & Koch. Does everyone agree?-- LWF 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects I'll go ahead.-- LWF 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire, April 13, 2005. Assuming the policy is still in effect, what does this do to the University's accountabilty in today's shooting? They created a "gun free zone", and when was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at, say, a gun show? scot 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I've added infoboxes to the following articles:
Some need minor expansion, but 7.62x38R is in particular need of fact checking, etc. Thank you! C0N6R355 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
I know the scope of the project is firearms, but I'm wondering if we should expand that somewhat to include civilian firearms-related topics. Such as these...
...and others like them. I see one of the above is in ther To-do list, but articles of these type aren't included in the project scope. I, for one, think they should be. They are civilian firearms-related topics. Only one is part of another project, but that shouldn't matter. Comments? — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikipedia is about improving civilisation and in my opinion firearms - as necessary as they may be in responsible hands - are largely responsible for the opposite. I guess that Wikipedians here won't agree. I certainly don't want a controversy but would like to ask if it might not be better to offer less information on firearms on Wikipedia, as responsible people will be informed already and we don't really want to help out the others? --
Theosch
08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I simply cannot believe I just read what I read, the gist of which is that guns are responsible for the decline of civilization. I am utterly speechless. I am of the very strong opinion that this incredible level of ignorance is responsible for any regress in the quality of civilization. Your type would blame the sun for skin cancer, and then seek to extinguish it. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Theosch, you mentioned that some of the articles read like sales brochures. Could you tell us which ones so we can improve the articles? We are here to improve firearm articles, after all. LWF 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For any of those "wanderers". — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I thank you Theosch for your advice, and acknowledge its validity. Quality is a must in our editting, and our conduct and ettiquette must be excellent if we are to dispel any stereotypes of gun and gun owners that others might have.-- LWF 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the Joyce Foundation fall with the scope of this project? Kevinp2 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd love some help cleaning up Taurus (manufacturer), if we could put that on the to-do list. Thanks! -- SXT40 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Another addition... Stubs... Hi-Point .45 ACP Thanks! -- SXT40 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Kimber Manufacturing needs alot of work.-- Mike Searson 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is just an FYI for members... I'm working on a quality rating system using a bot similar to that of the Military History project. Unless someone thinks I should stop or that it's a waste of time? Anyone? — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea! Let me know if I can help out in any way! -- Mike Searson 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a little too soon for that. We only have a few members. Perhaps when we have increased some more. Unless the rest of you disagree.-- LWF 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point Thernlund. Go ahead.-- LWF 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are some samples of ideas I came up with. No color yet. These are for layout only. However I must note that the images I'm using do not have transparent backgrounds, so the image backgrounds will stay white regardless of the userbox background color.
(samples cut out)
Here are some other things I'm going to put together...
I'll post these other variations once I have them done. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Check these out. Let me know what you all think. If anyone has ideas, please advise. I'm now leaning towards #1 or #2. Mostly #2 because it speaks more civilian than #1. Can't decide on the color. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions taken. More samples here. Please advise. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm fine with what I already have. Feel free to proceed though if you would like.-- LWF 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I have recorded...
Probably going to need more input from members though. What we have now doesn't constitute a quorum. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This user is a member of WikiProject Firearms |
I have a better idea. Stay tuned! — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This is top text
|
I've been troubleshooting this and although I can see the problem in Firefox, I can't identify what's causing it. The final HTML produced in the browser is standards compliant. I tried extracting the HTML and placed it in a local (non-wikipedia page), and it rendered just fine in Firefox. But the exact same HTML when put into a wikipage causes the contents to jump to the right.
I even stripped out ALL the parsing code and used a simple HTML (non-wiki) table. Still did it in FF on a wikipage.
Near as I can tell this is some disagreement between Wiki and Firefox. I don't know what to say. Without ranting on about my dislike of Firefox, all I can suggest is that a) we can revert back to a static userbox; or b) use a less sensitive browser. Comments?
I will note that on my user page I've used a normal wikitable rather than the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates and mine displays fine in both browsers. This could indicate an issue with those templates. I did notice that the way it works is to put the title and all userboxes into a single cell. The one on my userpage puts each box in its own table cell. That could be it, in which case the fix is to not use the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates . — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
.17 HMR, 7.62x54R = up, please proof, correct, expand them. Should we post the ones completed here so that the project page can be updated, or...? Ancjr 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new rule to the to-do list, if you add something be sure to say what you added in the edit summary with it linked. I never did this in the past but when I looked at the history I couldn't really read it. So now we have this rule to make it easier to keep track of. Also, the crossing out is a good idea. I'll add that to the rules of use now.-- LWF 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new policy for the WikiProject Firearms. I would like to propose that rather than having separate articles for target versions or accurized models of a gun or anything of that nature; that we should instead create a new section in the same article, covering the variant. Now one thing I should state is that this would not be limited to so-called 'Target' versions, but also 'Expert' or any other variants that simply constitute the same gun with some measures taken to accurize it or improve other parts of the gun.
What does everyone think?-- LWF 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at my watchlist today and I made the observation that some guns manufactured by Heckler & Koch are labeled as HK, H&K and Heckler & Koch in Wikipedia. I am proposing that we standardize this to the full, proper name Heckler & Koch. Does everyone agree?-- LWF 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects I'll go ahead.-- LWF 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire, April 13, 2005. Assuming the policy is still in effect, what does this do to the University's accountabilty in today's shooting? They created a "gun free zone", and when was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at, say, a gun show? scot 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I've added infoboxes to the following articles:
Some need minor expansion, but 7.62x38R is in particular need of fact checking, etc. Thank you! C0N6R355 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |