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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Should Accuracy International AW50 be merged with Accuracy International AW50F? Please comment at Accuracy International AW50F D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Has there ever been any discussion about adding a "fire modes" section to the Weapon Infobox? This would be helpful, particularly for rifles. It would denote whether they were Semi-Auto, Full-Auto, Burst, etc. Thoughts?? -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Howdy! If anyone needs references or data concerning 1500 cartriges which are listed in this 12th edition you may put your request here [1] or (better) there [2]. Regards -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 22:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
If anyone feels to work on AN-M50 ? Have prepared article which is free to be translated to en:WP. See de:AN-M50 Regards -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 22:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"Category:Machine shotguns" has been proposed to be merged to "Category:Selective-fire shotguns", and that "automatic shotgun" should be renamed. Please note there is also Category:Semi-automatic shotguns -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 06:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gun politics#Duplication and article title concerns what to do with the overlapping articles: firearms law, gun politics, and gun control. Marcus Qwertyus 00:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:LongGunAction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This may or may not qualify as part of the WikiProject Firearms but I wanted to draw peoples attention to IMFDB. If you haven't seen the site before it is pretty cool. It would also be interesting to add links from firearms pages to this site. Just like when you look at an actors page there is a link to their IMDB page, it would be nice to have a link from say the Beretta 92FS page to the page on IMFDB. This can be done with the help of the IMFDB Title Template. -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 14:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice that this project links to a missing naming guideline, which got disappeared in this diff. The said that the generic name part of a title (like rifle, musket, carbine, etc.) should be lowercase, which agrees with the rest of WP style. I've found a few violations of that and have been fixing them. Comments? Help? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Tha article on the Sig 516, a semi-automatic rifle, states that it's rate of fire is 700 rounds per minute. Really? With 1 round per pull of the trigger? 70 would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.207.210 ( talk) 13:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect M60 in black ops. Since you had some involvement with the M60 in black ops redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 11:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I found KRISS KARD, the gun designed by Renaud Kerbrat (patent 20070214699) redirecting to COD:BO2 videogame. Should we delete this redirect, or make an article out of it? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I am about to slowly redo this entire article. I think it can use great improvement.
I believe the use of interchangeable parts is one of the greatest inventions possibly second only to the invention of the transistor. This needs great improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethaldred ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The ballistics data tables are difficult to process partly because there are so many abbreviations (e.g. FMJ, LFN P+, WFNGC, XPB, and the list goes on). I would like to request that a link to Bullet#Bullet_abbreviations be placed below this table in the template. This would make the information somewhat more accessible.
Ideally, the abbreviations used would be linked (with a named anchor) to a glossary entry so that clicking on XPB would take the reader directly to the expansion of that acronym, much like Glossary of nautical terms. This would probably be harder to implement and require a new page to be created, but would be much more useful. Attys ( talk) 02:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Since The Captain Beatty insists on adding poetry refs to Mateba Autorevolver's pop culture section, with no defense, I thought I'd bring the matter here in hope of getting uninvolved editors opinion or intervention. His defense is, these are "professionally edited" journals. I don't see any cultural impact here, certainly not enough to merit inclusion, & IMO, this is cruft. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I've improved this article. Could someone re-asses it? Pibwl ←« 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You should note that this company has been dissolved. They have also been indited for illegal exports. ref Rapid City Journal rapidcityjournal.com/…0-11e1-b453-0019bb2963f4.html
Rustylee — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.159.246.54 (
talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! We have had similar discussions as mentioned obove in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Ode_to_Mateba in de:WP. In certain (very limited cases) relevance may be given as for the FN Model 1910 which was used for the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria or the Carcano which has its special article John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. It is impossible to mention all peoples which have been murderd by any type of weapon - only in cases with relevance as mentioned before it can be reasonal in encycopaedic context. For pop culture the situation is similar. f.ex. to mention James Bond in all (fire-)arms articles of weapons he used in films is useless. A better place for this can be maintained in James_Bond#Guns,_vehicles_and_gadgets. A small hint (not a section) with wikilink as given in Walther_PPK#Overview can be acceptable in cases with comparable receiption. Best -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 07:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The article "Lead shot should be renamed to "Shot", and the article needs to be re-written to discuss "shot" generically as a projectile, with expansion on the different shot materials. While traditionally lead, shot is now made in a variety of materials which should be expanded upon. I don't think each of these materials requires a separate page e.g. "Bismuth shot", "Tungsten shot", etc., but can be comprehensibly handled on one "Shot" page. BBODO ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The term selective fire appears zero times in for example the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle article, which might lead readers to assume that it has only a fully automatic mode. (And presumably maybe some sort of safety.)
Where in the specs block does this information belong? (Under action with a list which for some weapons would go like: safe, single, 3-round burst, full auto) Hcobb ( talk) 05:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Do we have any Walther arms experts in the house? If so, please drop me a message? -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 19:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
THE CURRENT CONTENT IMPLIES THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE LICNECE, THE "POSSESSION AND ACQUISION" (PAL) LICENCE. IN FACT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LICENCE. THE OTHER LICENCE IS THE "POSSESSION ONLY" LICENCE. THIS IS THE LICENCE THAT IS DEPICTED IN THE ARTICLE.
THE POSSESSION LICENCE ALLOWS OWNERSHIP BY DOES NOT ALLOW THE ACQUISITION OF FIREARMS. AT LEAST IN THEORY. IN PRACTICAL TERMS,ONCE THE REGISTRATION IS DESTROYED, GUN OWNERS CAN ACQUIRE FIREARMS FROM OTHER OWNERS AND THERE IS NO WAY TO KEEP TRACK OF THE TRANSACTIONS. STORES AND AND MOST DEALERS WILL UNLIKELY SELL A FIREARM TO SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PAL HOWEVER TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS WILL BE BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE THE REGISTRATION WAS INTRODUCED.
DOUG EDWARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.32.235.36 ( talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I picked up a blued, black powder cane gun with a wooden handle, in the Chicago area in the 1980's. It has no identifying markings. The wooden handle which is approaximately 6" long and 4" deep, contains a firing spring and uncrews from the chamber. The chamber is 4" long, has a nipple for a percussion cap, a sleaved locking mechanism for firing and a caliber which seems to fit a .36 caliber ball. The chamber screws into a 25 1/2" barrel with a rubber tip at the barrels end for walking. At local gun shows, vendors unanimously agree they have never seen a duplicate.
Any ideas?
Kent in Wisconsin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.93.45 ( talk) 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I am considering making a page for the Barrett BORS. Anyone have any thoughts on this? It isn't exactly a weapon but seeing as it is used with most of Barrett's sniper rifles I think it deserves a page. Any thoughts? -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 18:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Just created an article for the Barrett MRAD. I would love some peer editing/review. :-) -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 04:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
On the occasion of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting there is current discussion on the application of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use for the Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine. The chapter asks for "legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage". Where should that legislation have been passed - in the US? Let's consider that WP-en is not exclusively used and edited in the US.
Secondly, I question the concept behind that rule. A legislation specific to a certain gun type is merely ever going to pass, and makes little sense, instead it would rather refer to a segment of weapons, like "assault rifles", probably specifying a range of parameters like bullet energy, magazine size etc. In the current formulation this rule can be interpreted, like it was in the current discussion, that half of the world is talking about the use of this gun at that event - and WP hides that information. Does that make sense? -- Bernd.Brincken ( talk) 09:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Just created 2 more new articles ( FN FNS & FN P-12). Once again, I would love some copy-editing. :-) -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 17:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have recently added:
Help would be appreciated in extending both lists. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am starting to revamp pages for the Kahr Arms weapons. Just finished the Kahr P series and would love someone to look it over for typos. -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process of revamping and creating dozens of pages in the project. Is there anyone willing to basically go along behind me and proofread? This wouldn't be a lot of work, I will be doing the bulk of the work actually creating the page but having a second set of eyes come along behind me would be great! Anyone interested please drop me a message. :-) -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 21:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Assault weapon but apparently only a different project was notified. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyone here knowledgeable about or interested in Remington firearms?? Their articles are in desperate need of updates. I would love some help. -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 21:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I created a new redirect for " Sub-MOA". That now links to a description. :-) -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 01:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The C.I.P. just published their current C.I.P. TDCC datasheets online. This database and the sheets can be accessed for free and provides technical data and dimensional drawings regarding many chamberings that can be used in Wikipedia articles.
About C.I.P.:
The Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (Permanent International Commission for Firearms Testing - commonly abbreviated as C.I.P. or CIP) is an international organisation whose members are 14 states, mainly European. These member states have a total population of 529 million people. The C.I.P. formally distributes established data and decisions to the member states through diplomatic channels for publishing in their official journals. After official publication C.I.P. established data and decisions obtain(s) indisputable legal status in all C.I.P. member states. Only governmental organizations, like military and police forces and other firearms bearing public power agencies, from the C.I.P. member states are legally exempted from having to comply with C.I.P. rulings.--
Francis Flinch (
talk) 11:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Rem 597.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 05:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm the author of the German article about this pistol and have been refered to you from the German Portal:Waffen.
Does anyone have access to the Donald Simmons essay („The Remington Model 51“) from the 33rd Ediotion Gun Digest (1979)? Regards, The Great Zaganza ( talk) 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Folks, Another editor, Justanonymous, and I (along with others) have been diligent in trying to protect the article about the NRA since the Sandy Hook shooting incident in December. We have fended off quite a few attacks (vandalism, POV pushing, etc.), but its taken its toll on article, and in our opinion, damage has been done.
We are asking for help in making it a good article (again?) as well as for your input as to what its lacking or could use. For starters, how many feel that we should take a "clean slate" approach and copy the article to a Sandbox page so that it can be reconstructed and then moved back en mass? Thank you in advance for your comments, advice, and/or assistance. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Apologies in advance if I inadvertently trip over the guidelines - I am new to Wikipedia and somewhat overwhelmed by the reaction to adding material to the 'red dot sights' page. I noticed that the History section talks about Aimpoint but none of the other red dot sight pioneers so I'm keen to balance things up. I recognise a potential conflict of interest as I work for a red dot sight manufacturer, but I am hoping it is possible to contribute as we have the history physically on our shelves in the form of prototypes, tooling etc. It is possible to see the evolution from the original Firearms Research patent in 1996 to many of today's mini red dot sights, not just Shield, but the existing page doesn't cover this at all. The page also talks about the US military but not UK, which I suggest needs fixing. What is the best way forward? Thanks for your help. MSadlerSPD ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ladies or Gentlemen. I wish to point out an error in this article. The mechanical drawing is that of a high powered rifle cartridge and not that of a 9X25mm Dillon cartridge. I also want to commend Wikipedia for their fine articles and information. They are well written.
Wayne H. Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.185.158 ( talk) 14:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, There seems to be some interest in cleaning up these two articles. "Gun" is the more generic and general of the two terms with the term "firearm" being a subset of guns and referring primarily to " small arms".
Anyone have a problem or issue with this course of action? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it easiest to explain how the guage, or size, of a shotgun's bore is meassured is by counting how many round balls the same size as the bore it takes to equal one pound. I know that in the case of a 10 guage shotgun it takes 10 balls to make a pound, which is the same as saying each ball weighs 1/10th of a pound, but like I said, peaople seem to understand the 10 per pound better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.222.244 ( talk) 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are video games not notable by default? Are they somehow inferior to a book or a movie?
What if a weapon is consistently shown (across all media) in an unrealistic way, that is not obviously so? Case in point: Minigun . In quite a large section of various media, be it movies or games, or comics, a portable(i.e. pick up and fire) minigun (as a blanket name for any such weapon) is shown - AFAIK (might be wrong, though - the article doesn't talk about it), no such weapon exists or will in the near future. According to the rules this is not notable? Why not? I wouldn't consider it to be as "obviously wrong", as many other fictional weapons might be, so at least a mentioning of that would be helpful to readers.-- Cyberman TM ( talk) 13:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ref the description of octagonal barrels, my family has two of these rifles. Each has a round barrel. One has the serial no. 358555 and the latest patent reference on the barrel is Nov 27 1906. Doesn't fit with the description in the text. 69.72.39.14 ( talk) 21:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC) R Clarke
Folks the current entry for boxlock is very incorrect. Read it and then have a search for flintlock boxlock pistols. The definition currently listing is incorrect and misleading and basically incorrect and you would be better of deleting it than leaving it in place.
E.g the boxlock actually appeared a *lot earlier and has nothing to do with being hammerless it is the positon of the hammer in alignment with the centre of the bore...pretty much everything in the article is incorrect. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
176.61.61.99 (
talk) 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Pls. note http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Infoboxes_task_force#Phase_2_on_hold_f.C3.BCr_military.2Bweapons_templates Regards -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 08:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Smith and Wesson M76 Small.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 13:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
Is there a notability guideline for firearms? While it's nice to have all these various articles on cool weapons, some of them are quite obscure and not up to wiki standard (for example, the various
Project Abakan failed prototypes, like
NA-2). If anyone could point me in the right direction, or really any direction at all, I'd be much obliged.
Thanks,
Ansh
666 22:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Can I get a second (or more) opinion at Welrod? A pop culture section ( Welrod#Representation in culture) keeps getting added, with a single, trivial, unreferenced mention. I've tried discussing this with the editor on his talk page but he won't reply, only revert. Woodroar ( talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see some standardization of the ballistics information in the infobox on the various cartridge pages – two items in particular:
David F ( talk) 03:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, many of the sources that I've seen cited on various cartridge pages only state the mass and velocity, but that's beside the point. They are redundant data: even if the source contains them, why introduce even the possibility of a transcription error when there's no need? Normally in computer engineering we abhor redundant data, for example when normalizing database structures; and that's effectively what this is: a database of ballistics data. Computed values (which is what energy is) are redundant and typically just computed when needed (e.g. when rendering a page) rather than storing as separate values which can be incorrect, inconsistent, take up extra space... there's simply no need. Even if there were no incorrect data on current pages (and there are), why allow the possibility? There's no effort involved in calculating them if MediaWiki does it automatically via the template (analogous to a "formula" in a spreadsheet), and even if you have a source from which you copy them, that's still some effort (and many editors apparently lack such a source and _are_ forced to compute them). I cited one page with several incorrect values on it in my original description of the problem and proposed solution; and were I to crawl all cartridge pages, I'll bet I could find more. David F ( talk) 00:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Phyllis Yes, "Mrs. Johnson's Gun".jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 05:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could help me regarding this handgun? My model 59 does not look like the picture at all. My magazine holds 14 rounds, and it does not stick out of the bottom of the grip. I live in Canada and purchased it over 30 years ago, it came in a blue box with the Smith & Wesson logo stamped on the front. The box came in a blue velvet type material, and inside were two magazines and a small belt holster. Currently under Canadian law, it is not only a restricted weapon, but due to its length from chamber to the end of the barrel, it falls under a category where I am not able to sell it to a Canadian citizen or pass it on to a relative upon my death. Because I owned it long before some of the rules were changed, I am able to keep it and use it under a " grandfather clause". I was wondering if anyone could tell me how many of these were manufactured? When I dig out my paperwork that I have to have with me in order to possess it, I will have more details regarding the length. Would I be able to post a picture here, in order for experts to figure out? I hope I can figure out how to get back in here to see any answers! Thank you. 71.17.89.34 ( talk) 18:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
At least two of the articles by Special:Contributions/Uayoa are problematic. Another one I checked turned out ok, although it's a WP:PERMASTUB. Someone experienced should check the rest of his contributions. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 03:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I was pressing random article, until I found Cylinder (firearms). I went to its talk, and added importance, but nothing happened! Is it possible you don't have importance? I was confused about that. Darrman ( talk) 06:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Although the project now has the capability to assign an importance, are there any guidelines? I have roughed out a few suggestions; but I am hesitant to apply these ideas until we have some consensus reflected in tabular format on the project page:
I assigned firearms legislation and organizations low-importance to minimize probability that anti-gun vandals may use this project's importance assessments as a target list, and assigned low-importance to manufacturers and new models to minimize inappropriate advertising. I suggest specific provisions within the guidelines that any article could be given a higher importance than suggested by the guidelines upon consensus within the project talk page. Thewellman ( talk) 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Category:Firearms articles by importance hasn't been created. I took the liberty to create it along with all its subcategories. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello my name is Debbie Richardson i live in Marshall,Texas and i'm a descent off Capt. Samuel Hamilton Walker. I was just reading about the Colt Walker Handgun,how do i get a copy off what i just read.I'm so very proud off my Ancestry's Back ground. These Walker's have a very interesting Background. We also have the Walker's @ Hunt Mill. Please could u tell me how i can get this article i was reading if my printer was working i could off print it out. My email is [email protected] Samuel Hamilton Walker dad was Nathan Walker, Samuel was born Feb.24,1817 Toaping Castle,Prince Maryland,US, Georgia.Died Oct. 9,1847 in San Antonio, Bexan ,Texas. So please could you tell me where i can get a copy on the History i was reading on the Colt Walker largest and most powerful black powder gun creadted in 1840's. Samuel was a Texas Ranger. Thank you for the history i just learned about my kin folk Capt.Samuel Hamilton Walker. Your's truly Debbie Richardson and my Grandmother's mother was a Walker and out line off Walkers does along with Samuel Hamilton Walker. I live at 2400 Sledge St. Marshall,Texas 75670 Debbie Richardson if there is a book out where can i get it and how much is it i apericate everything or any information u can lead me 2 so i can put it on his family tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.166.205 ( talk) 15:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
*Create a book *Download as PDF *Printable version
At WP:AFC/R an IP editor has proposed three new firearms categories: Category:AR-15 variants, Category:AR-10 derivatives and Category:1911-style pistols. The first two are obviously redundant, but we do have Category:Kalashnikov derivatives, so there's some precedent for categorizing firearms by provenance, and both the AR-10 derivatives and the M1911 derivatives seem likely to be numerous enough to make a category worthwhile. Opinions? What should the categories be named? Huon ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Pretty horrible isn't it? I think it should be reworked, but not sure exactly how. Perhaps grouping by just by some caliber ranges? Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to work on an article for the Weatherby Vanguard. I have some small experiance with other markup languages and I am picking up Wiki markup. I am a fair writer, once I get going, but I am having a difficult time figuring out how to use the templates to get started in my sand box for editing. Is it appropriate to use preexisting articles code as a starting point so that the layout conforms to the guidlines witout having to learn Wiki-markup from scratch? Economic Refugee ( talk) 01:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have started a draft article on the Weatherby Vanguard User:Economic_Refugee/draft_article_on_Weatherby_Vanguard Please let me know if I should announce or post this anywhere else. I would like to allow input and comments as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economic Refugee ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I beleive I have the article ready to be moved. Would someone please take a look and let me know how if it has any noticable problems. Thanks Economic Refugee ( talk) 19:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a catchall Category that includes all of the gun rights and gun control organizations? Purely from an academic standpoint, I think it would be beneficial to have this category in addition to ones such as "Gun rights advocacy groups in the United States". The closest thing I could find was this portal template... Gun interest groups in the U.S., but the Title links to Gun politics in the United States. For example, it would be useful in the 2nd Amendment article. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 23:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Federal Assault Weapons Ban talk page and respond there for Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans
My apologies if I'm making this request wrong. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Weapons - Skysmith ( talk) 12:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Deer Gun - Vietnam Pistol.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 08:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 13:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The following RFC may be of interest to members of this board. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I've had a question about the naming of H&R Pardner 12GA. What do others think? -- John ( talk) 00:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Done
I would like to propose updating the WP:GUN Collaboration and review system - especially the Quality scale - to the standards in the WP:WEAPON Assessment system - especially its Quality assessment scale and Criteria.
I will put together a draft for review. Having never made a proposal to the project before, what's the process. Is there somewhere in the project space I should put the proposal? Just here on the talk page? Thanks. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Draft for discussion:
The following table summarizes the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the table lists the assessment process used at each level and provides an example of an article previously assessed at that level.
Class | Old criteria | Merged/New criteria | Assessment process | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
FA | Reserved exclusively for articles that have received " Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. | The article meets all Wikipedia featured article criteria. | The featured article candidacy process is an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment and the only way an article can receive a "featured" rating. Full instructions for submitting a featured article is provided on the WP:FAC page. | M249 light machine gun as of September 2009 |
A | Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length that suitably covers the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. Sufficient external literature references should be provided from (preferably) reliable third-party sources. Any third-party sources should have a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Should be well illustrated when appropriate and have no copyright problems. Any article be considered for featured article candidacy should be an A-Class article before being submitted for FA status. | The article meets all of the A-Class criteria:
See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ at the Military history WikiProject. |
A-Class review: A-Class may only be assigned following an A-Class review. The review is closed by a firearms coordinator, who determines whether consensus to promote exists. Promotion typically requires that a minimum of three uninvolved editors confirm that the article meets all five A-Class criteria. | Lockheed D-21 ( as of June 2011) |
GA | The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. | The article meets all Wikipedia good article criteria. | Good article review: The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria. | Enfield revolver as of September 2009 |
B | The article has been reviewed by an editor and accepted to meet the following criteria:
|
The article meets all of the B-Class criteria:
|
The Individual review process is used for all assessments through the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.
Article authors may assess their own articles. However, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the project talk page. |
Equipment of the United States Army (as of September 2009) |
C | No criteria defined From WP:ASSESS Grades: The article is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. | The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria (above). | Individual review (see above). | Incident at Xuanwu Gate (example from WP:WEAPON as of June 2011) |
Start | The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack one or more key elements. For example, a Start-Class article may have much useful content but lack:
|
The article meets the Start-Class criteria:
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
|
Individual review (see above). | Heckler & Koch HK21 as of September 2009 |
Stub | The article is very short lacks and great deal of information, or the information is incoherent or severely disorganized. | The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria (above). | Individual review (see above). | Rotating bolt as of April 2011 |
Deferred | Quality ratings on this article are deferred to other projects covering the article. | Not defined at Military history WikiProject | Any editor can assign this rating, but it should be used only when project coverage is completely redundant. | Nighthawk Custom as of September 2009 |
NA | Is not an article, and fits no other classification. | Not defined at Military history WikiProject | Any editor can assign this rating, but only to non-article pages such as project pages and templates. | None available as of September 2009 |
I added an extra column to compare existing project criteria with Military history project criteria. (The A-Class criteria are much more clearly defined - and therefore easier to assign and assess - in the Military history project criteria.) I also added a row for a C-Class, including criteria using the Military history project criteria as a template. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:AR15etc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global gun cultures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global gun cultures until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 172.129.246.164 ( talk) 05:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, PatHadley here. I'm Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust ( project pages). I've recently uploaded a set of images that include many of punt guns and other early 20th century hunting practices and weapons: Category:Images from The Sydney Harold Smith Collection. I hope they're useful for firearms articles! The trust has a large antique firearms collection so if I might be able to help with other images or resources please get in touch! Cheers, PatHadley ( talk) 10:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anybody recognise the baton gun in these images? It would be handy to know the manufacturer and model.
Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
not being acquainted with Wikipedia editing I would just like to draw attention to the article on the ITM Model 3 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITM_Model_3):
Firstly it is listed as having a main caliber of 7.62x39 mm.
Secondly the SMG barrel's length is listed as being 7.8".
Thirdly the weight is listed as 9.7 lbs.
I do not know from where the information on caliber comes (presumably a misunderstanding of the information provided by the second link), but the second link states both 7.62x51 mm, 7.8", and 9.7 lbs (and he sounds well-informed). In an English translation of the book he references the ITM Model 3 is listed as being ".308 Win", "20.3 cm (8")" and "4.4 kg (9.8 lbs)".
Technically .308 Winchester is not the same as 7.62x51 mm, but the book does not distinguish between the two, and most likely the difference of 0.2" barrel length and 0.1 lb weight is lost in translation as the weapon is US made, the book written by a Dutch (metric using) author, and then translated back into English. Nevertheless it is NOT a 7.62x39 mm according to the book, though the weapons shape seems to indicate inspiration from the AK-series of weapons.
Furthermore link number three shows a picture of an ITM Model 2 - it might be appropriate to note that and that the ITM Model 3 is pictured on the lower left-hand picture on the fourth link in case the second link should go dead.
The book I reference is:
The Complete Encyclopedia of Automatic Army Rifles
by A.E. Hartink
1999 Rebo International
87.63.132.110 ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have had Armtech SMOLT nominated for deletion. If anyone would like to comment in the deletion discussion they can do so here. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
In
Maco (toy company), we make reference to an Army .45 caliber automatic. Would it be correct to link that to
M1911 pistol? --
RoySmith
(talk) 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Firearms Project,
I've been making myself a similar table at home to help compare cartridges, and I'd like to improve this existing page with additional data and references. At some point, I think "By Year" might no longer apply, since the table is sortable, but we can talk about that when we get there.
Eastsidehastings ( talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Do drop by and have a look - the table is re-ordered by name, new data fields have been added, and a bunch of data from reloading sources has been referenced in. Still plenty of missing fields, but I'm working on backlinking the cartridge pages to the table, next.
Eastsidehastings ( talk) 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not able to find any evidence this firearm exists, at least under this name. I removed some links to Photobucket and the like, which you can see in previous versions. Not finding anything on Google. Anyone got WP:Verification that such a thing actually exists, perhaps under a different nomenclature? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 22:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are correct, sir. Unless the same factory made some type of pistola for a military contract, but I can't find anything.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm swamped doing Draft reviews, but if anyone is feeling mentor-y and has a moment, can you help this fellow merge his materials? He's creating a standalone article on the SOCOM 16 rifle, but since it's just a variant of Springfield's M1A (just cut-down barrel and tweaked op system) I think they should be merged. Thanks! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Dunno if anyone's brought this up before, but is Modern Firearms considered a valid source? I generally don't touch articles that link there, but I recently completed an IP nomination for deletion ( WP:Articles for deletion/Fort-15), and noticed it had an entry (but isn't cited). Thanks, Ansh 666 17:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I invite everyone here to participate in a discussion regarding Robert Spitzer. I would like to hear opinions from both sides of the issue. Is he an advocate for gun control, or a political scientist, neutral on the issue, as many are asserting?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Robert_Spitzer_%28political_scientist%29#Gun_control_advocacy
-- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I want to improve the page Grenade launcher to discuss at least briefly the 18th-19th century flintlock muskets adapted with big bronze cups to lob small hand-bombs, as one of the earlier forms of grenade launcher. I can find a number of photos online of museum-pieces, reproductions, movie clips, etc but haven't found any pre-1923 images such as old engravings, etc. I'm sure at some point there have been depictions of British or French soldiers with these curious fat-stubby little muskets, but probably just not keyworded with that term so they come up in a Google search. Does anyone recall ever seeing an image of a grenadier with such a device? It'd be great to extend grenade launcher back a few centuries with a cool image. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I've observed a general problem with unit conversions in many articles. I'm talking about this sort of thing (this example is from TAM (tank)):
I don't think it's appropriate to even use a convert template here. No one would ever use inches to describe this round, and if they did, I think they would probably call it a .308, but that's not right because it's not the same as the .308 Winchester.
Do we have any kind of consensus on handling this? My inclination, as I said, is to not even try to give a US units equivalent. Even the Americans use metric terminology when talking about this round. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Does WP:Firearms use a strict definition of a firearm that limits the projects scope to portable small arms like pistols, rifles, and shotguns, or a more broad definition of; a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles driven by an explosive force? The latter would include howitzers, mortars, and basically all artillery into the project's scope. I plan on tagging and untagging articles in the project and think a more clear cut definition is needed. -- Molestash ( talk) 00:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
A bit of a long shot, but I was trying to find an image to go with a brief article that I put together on the SIG Neuhausen KE7. Thousands were sold to the Chinese National Revolutionary Army in the 1930s, and I found this image which I am hoping might be one of them. Can anybody confirm this please? Alansplodge ( talk) 17:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I posted this request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, but it's also of interest to this project. Please post any comments there.
There are (at least) two categories with unclear distinctions: Category:United States federal firearms law and its subordinate Category:United States federal firearms legislation. Some articles, like Gun Control Act of 1968, are in both. While I can imagine that 'legislation' would refer to acts and bills, while 'law' would refer to regulations and general articles, in practice the two categories seem to be used interchangeably. It'd be very helpful to define their scope so that articles can be properly categorized. Can anyone provide a useful distinction between these categories that we can add to their pages? Rezin ( talk) 18:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Question: laws vs politics, but it's also of interest to this project. Please post any comments there.
Politicians pass laws. Is every article about a law also an article about politics? Many articles, like the 1968 US law, are categorized as both. Some articles, like the one about Canada above, is almost entirely about laws yet its title defines its scope as politics. Is there any rhyme or reason for how we delineate articles and categories covering politics vs laws? I'm trying to clean up some categories but I'm not sure how these concepts are meant to be split up. Rezin ( talk) 23:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I just added a History section and did a variety of other edits to this article. I welcome comments and critiques especially if I left out a firearm that should be mentioned. Thx, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
After noticing some articles which seemed to have their WP:GUNS importance rated too highly, I checked the ratings for other articles, starting with those listed as having 'top' or 'high' importance. My guide is the project's assessment page. The guide has some criteria which are hard to determine, but some are simple. From reading the overall guideline, it appears that these rankings are really of use only to the project which uses them, and I believe they're intended to help determine which articles should receive the most effort. Given that there are thousands of articles that have never been assessed, going through the list seemed like a worthwhile gnoming effort. FWIW, the rankings were created as a result of this discussion in 2013.
But there's already some complications. The 'low' importance ranking includes this category:
Editors have objected to having National Rifle Association and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ranked as 'low' importance. I understand the objections. The assessment page says:
Should we consider altering the importance scale or just make exceptions for these two articles? Any new criteria should be neutral and easily determined, and it may be easier just to make exceptions for these two articles. (A third option is to get rid of importance ratings entirely, which the MILHIST project did back in 2006. That'd save a lot of work!) What's the consensus? Rezin ( talk) 22:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Thewellman: and I have been discussing this issue on our talk pages. These importance rankings mostly exist to help project members decide which articles deserve the most attention. The current ranking scheme is difficult to implement because deciding which items are of 'top' importance requires extensive research. I am planning to work on improving the sourcing of WP:GUN articles, and naturally want to focus on the most important articles first. So, for the sake of practicality, I'm going to start by checking unranked articles to find those which should be in the 'top' or 'high' rankings. However I'm going to set aside the formal criteria and use my best judgment, taking the criteria as well as page popularity into account. I think requiring a consensus here on rankings is overly bureaucratic. If anyone disagrees with my rankings they're free to change them. I'm not going to worry too much about re-ranking over-rated articles, or about deciding which articles are 'low' versus 'mid'. My aim is just to prioritize the list of articles to work on. If anyone is smart about cartridges I'd appreciate their help ranking those - it's tricky remembering which are which. Later, we might revisit the value of these rankings and either rewrite them or delete them outright. That's my plan. Rezin ( talk) 18:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the Bossu revolver the same, or similar type to the Velo-dog? And/or is it a generic type rather than a brand. The Bossu Revolver article has a picture of a revolver which is very similar in appearance to the Velo-dog, and the source website given identifies more than one manufacturer as making "Bossu" revolvers eg Lincoln-Bossu from HDH, Lepage Bossu etc. I notice in trying out google translate on the image description for file:Bossu.jpg that Bossu may translate as "hunchback" - a reference to the curve of the hammer enclosure? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Me again, quick one this. Is ALFA -PROJ [9] an acronym or just the manufacturer's name writ in capitals for branding purposes? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
We have some ammo articles that call something a "proprietary cartridge". I've recently come to learn that most of these merely have a trademark on their name, there's nothing else proprietary about them. It doesn't seem like the patent office is issuing patents on ammo that isn't radically different from what's been around since smokeless powder was invented. As with most things firearms, "it's all been done before".
As an example, .300 Whisper was "proprietary"... that is until a completely unrelated party just sent the specs to SAAMI and changed the name to something not trademarked.
Should we use this term on anything not listed by CIP or SAAMI? I feel like we are misleading our readers a little, implying that there is more intellectual protection for these cartridges than really exists. Gigs ( talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Are all proprietary cartridges only protected by trademark? Its conceivable some of them could be protected by patent (or in the future DRM, like printer ink is?) Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Members of this wikiproject are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_13#Category:AR_platform. DexDor ( talk) 08:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy and I could be wrong about how all of this works, but I have been reading up on this issue. The main policy on sources seems to be WP:Verifiability. Let me quote some text that may be applicable to this discussion.
There may be something more in the policy which I've missed but those seem like the most relevant points. I've been trying to find something that covers the issue of topics (or facts) which can only be found in sources that don't meet the reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there's no "best availabel" exemption for less-than-reliable sources.
As I understand it, citations to less-than-reliable sources should be removed. Unverifiable material may be removed. What happens in between is less clear. My assumption is that it's helpful or polite to leave a "citation needed" tag in place of the deleted citation. At some later point, if no sources are added or found, the unverifiable material may be removed. (Sooner if it's about a living person, but that's probably not a common issue with this project.) Does that sound right?
To answer @ Faceless Enemy:: editors should neither cite the less-than-reliable source nor copy from it. They should leave the information out of Wikipedia. If a topic is so obscure that reliable sources don't report on it then Wikipedia shouldn't report on it either. That's harsh but it looks like how Wikipedia is meant to operate. Rezin ( talk) 22:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to come in later here - apologies especially to Rezin and Mike Searson - but I would like to see in this project's source list(s) some indication of whether or not the source is biased. Are they pro-gun/anti-control, pro-control/anti-gun (for lack of better words), or neutral? Are they strictly technical/tactical in nature, or do they politicize their comments?
For example, the World Guns site by the Russian man. His Civilian rifles page says:
His technical expertise may be fine (I dunno, the technical stuff is not my area of expertise), but editors should be aware of his politics on the issue of firearms when selecting and citing him as a source. Afterall, not all of the articles under this project are purely technical - in fact, some focus on politics over the technical/tactical facts. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
{{howto|date= }}Thewellman ( talk) 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Two sourcing questions for project experts:
In the debate over terminal ballistics, the work of Marshall and Sanow has been impeached by FirearmsTactical.com [11], who make arguments that many people respect. The authors or editors of the publication don't seem to be listed anywhere, and I can't tell whether it's a reliable source for articles here. Does anyone know more?
I see a lot of articles that are mostly based on what look like one-person websites. Does Wikipedia:self-published source apply to those? Rezin ( talk) 23:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thefirearmblog.com is written and published by Steve Johnson, so it appears to be self-published. It's used in many articles.
[12] Does anyone know if Johnson is a recognized and expert in some field? If not, then it probably needs to be removed too.
Rezin (
talk) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sightm1911.com/ doesn't have an "about" page, but a number of pages use the first person singular, like "contact me" or "... other stuff that I can’t think of another place for", which leads me to believe it is a one person operation. It does carry reviews and articles written by others, but they're sometimes identified only by nicknames. Reprints from previously published articles would be fine, though there may be copyright issues. Does anyone know more about this site and whether it'd qualify as a reliable source? Rezin ( talk) 19:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In the course of reading articles I've compiled a list of apparently self-published sources which has grown quite long. Also, I found this template: self-published source?. Rather than laboriously starting talk page discussions on each one, it seems like it'd be more efficient to use the template to mark the sources, and then follow up at a later date by deleting any that haven't been fixed. Any objections or better ideas? Rezin ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I'm still working on this. However I realize that many of these SPSes are used on multiple pages so having multiple discussions would duplicate effort. It seems like a better process would be to use inline citations on the articles accompanied with talk page postings that point to this page or some other central discussion page. There, we can list all the suspected invalid sources and work through them methodically. Instead of taking over this page, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to create a new, ad hoc project page for the purpose. 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Sources', or something like that. Rezin ( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI: I've started a thread on a different page to see if there's any solution to the problem of unsourced content about firearms in video games. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Video game references in firearms articles. Feel free to join the discussion on that page. Rezin ( talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The current "pop culture" MOS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture, is overly complicated. In almost every case, the lack of secondary sources is all that's needed to exclude inappropriate entries. I suggest this as a simpler guideline, more in line with general Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the verbiage at Template:In popular culture:
Replica guns, like toys and Airsoft, are somewhat of a separate issue but can be squeezed in. Does anyone see any problems with this guideline replacing what's there now? Rezin ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks Rezin, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)