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. |
How's this?
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. :-)
Comments? Implement on project page? Make changes? Give up? Hmmm? — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's with a border. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I, Thernlund, hereby award Some User the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia. |
Here's one that's more like a plaque with some additional wording...
On behalf of the Firearms WikiProject, I, Thernlund, hereby award |
Some User |
the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia. |
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. MVMosin 17:15, 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.
MVMosin 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
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?-- LWF 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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 l0v3 16:25, 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.-- LWF 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You will notice I was specifically referring to usage in crimes. My opinion stands.-- LWF 23:02, 30 April 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 l0v3 17:36, 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 Zulu 01:29, 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. LWF 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Does everyone agree with the policy as it stands?-- LWF 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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. LWF 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
Rifles
Handguns
Thoughts, suggestions, etc? -- Commander Zulu 10:06, 8 M S.C.F.ay 2007 (UTC)
I would like to help, I'm very knowledgeable with guns and own quite a few myself, how can I become a member? -- Semper Fidelis 20:07, 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.-- LWF 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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 2.0 16:22, 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.-- LWF 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can crank out in the way of a custom template. Shouldn't be too hard. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 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.-- LWF 23:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It would probably work better if the firearms are ahead of the cartridges, not in a section for other infoboxes.-- LWF 08:28, 21 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. Arthurrh 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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. scot 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
WOW! That's bloody awesome. Homefill 23:30, 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.-- LWF 15:12, 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.-- LWF 15:26, 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?
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. scot 21:20, 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)
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)
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! C0N6R355 talk contribs 21:19, 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
(~Expression error: Unexpected * operator J)
For example see .223 WSSM Any help will be appreciated. Arthurrh 00:32, 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. Arthurrh 00:57, 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.-- LWF 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a section to add for Firearms companies like Thompson Center Arms that need infoboxes. Arthurrh 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the place for this, but... This is the current form:
Name | Case type | Bullet diameter | Case length | Rim diameter | Base diameter | Shoulder diameter | Neck diameter | Cartridge length |
---|
I recommend changing it to this:
Name | Case type | Bullet diameter | Neck diameter | Shoulder diameter | Base diameter | Rim diameter | Case length | Cartridge length |
---|
The latter seems more logical to me. Comment? Trekphiler 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
.500 S&W Magnum | |
---|---|
Type | Centerfire (.50 caliber) |
Specifications | |
Bullet diameter | .500 in (12.7 mm) |
Neck diameter | .526 in (13.4 mm) |
Base diameter | .526 in (13.4 mm) |
Rim diameter | .556 in (14.1 mm) |
Case length | 1.625 in (41.3 mm) |
Overall length | 2.10 in (53 mm) |
I've nominated the Webley Revolver article for FAC status after extensively citing it, rewriting bits, and generally improving it. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver- support or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! -- Commander Zulu 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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.-- LWF 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, does Wikipedia contain an article on the German Modell 1879 Trooper's revolver? Thanks in advance. Dreadnaught 13:43, 13 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? Goldfishsoldier 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
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... -- SXT40 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Arthurrh 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Arthurrh 20:37, 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. Arthurrh 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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? Tocharianne 17:59, 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 Zulu 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.-- LWF 21:48, 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 "~".-- LWF 14:59, 20 July 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. |
How's this?
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. :-)
Comments? Implement on project page? Make changes? Give up? Hmmm? — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's with a border. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I, Thernlund, hereby award Some User the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia. |
Here's one that's more like a plaque with some additional wording...
On behalf of the Firearms WikiProject, I, Thernlund, hereby award |
Some User |
the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia. |
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. MVMosin 17:15, 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.
MVMosin 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
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?-- LWF 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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 l0v3 16:25, 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.-- LWF 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You will notice I was specifically referring to usage in crimes. My opinion stands.-- LWF 23:02, 30 April 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 l0v3 17:36, 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 Zulu 01:29, 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. LWF 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Does everyone agree with the policy as it stands?-- LWF 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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. LWF 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
Rifles
Handguns
Thoughts, suggestions, etc? -- Commander Zulu 10:06, 8 M S.C.F.ay 2007 (UTC)
I would like to help, I'm very knowledgeable with guns and own quite a few myself, how can I become a member? -- Semper Fidelis 20:07, 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.-- LWF 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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 2.0 16:22, 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.-- LWF 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can crank out in the way of a custom template. Shouldn't be too hard. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 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.-- LWF 23:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It would probably work better if the firearms are ahead of the cartridges, not in a section for other infoboxes.-- LWF 08:28, 21 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. Arthurrh 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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. scot 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
WOW! That's bloody awesome. Homefill 23:30, 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.-- LWF 15:12, 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.-- LWF 15:26, 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?
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. scot 21:20, 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)
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)
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! C0N6R355 talk contribs 21:19, 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
(~Expression error: Unexpected * operator J)
For example see .223 WSSM Any help will be appreciated. Arthurrh 00:32, 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. Arthurrh 00:57, 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.-- LWF 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a section to add for Firearms companies like Thompson Center Arms that need infoboxes. Arthurrh 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the place for this, but... This is the current form:
Name | Case type | Bullet diameter | Case length | Rim diameter | Base diameter | Shoulder diameter | Neck diameter | Cartridge length |
---|
I recommend changing it to this:
Name | Case type | Bullet diameter | Neck diameter | Shoulder diameter | Base diameter | Rim diameter | Case length | Cartridge length |
---|
The latter seems more logical to me. Comment? Trekphiler 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
.500 S&W Magnum | |
---|---|
Type | Centerfire (.50 caliber) |
Specifications | |
Bullet diameter | .500 in (12.7 mm) |
Neck diameter | .526 in (13.4 mm) |
Base diameter | .526 in (13.4 mm) |
Rim diameter | .556 in (14.1 mm) |
Case length | 1.625 in (41.3 mm) |
Overall length | 2.10 in (53 mm) |
I've nominated the Webley Revolver article for FAC status after extensively citing it, rewriting bits, and generally improving it. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver- support or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! -- Commander Zulu 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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.-- LWF 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, does Wikipedia contain an article on the German Modell 1879 Trooper's revolver? Thanks in advance. Dreadnaught 13:43, 13 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? Goldfishsoldier 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
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... -- SXT40 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Arthurrh 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Arthurrh 20:37, 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. Arthurrh 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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? Tocharianne 17:59, 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 Zulu 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.-- LWF 21:48, 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 "~".-- LWF 14:59, 20 July 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. |