Talk:Joint Venture Protective Carbine/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/news/news104162.html
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Modern Sub Machine Carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving the page. There has been no evidence given that the proposed title is the most common name, regardless of what the official name is according to primary sources such as official websites and tweets. (non-admin closure) Surachit (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern Sub Machine Carbine → Joint Venture Protective Carbine – For precision as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Offical website states this to be the gun's actual name and we should stick to that. Since 2014, virtually every official document have used JVPC as the gun's name.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 17:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisted. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Relist note: members of WikiProjects Military history, Firearms and India have been notified of this request. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 17:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Postscript: I am fairly surprised that people are even thinking of opposing the move. This should ideally have been an unambiguous move. Not even a single official Indian government document calls this "Modern Sub Machine Carbine" (emphasis purposefully added; not WP:SHOUTING) for quite sometime now. All of them call it "Join Venture Protective Carbine".— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose – I don't understand the rationale. What provision at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is nom relying on here? Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: Precision: MSMC has been renamed JVPC sometime in 2014. It would be imprecise to call it MSMC now. All Offical press releases since 2014 call it JVPC. Here's another official website.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 18:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I missed where you said "precision" before. So you're saying the current title is ambiguous? And the first-cited 2015 article uses both names. We don't usually go so much by official as by common names, so that's what you need to provide evidence of. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    - I guess if new documents and articles have more prevalence of use of JVPC instead of MSMC, it qualifies to be the new common name. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 05:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    - MSMC was a concept study; JVPC is the final product.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
      - Sounds plausible. Do sources support that? Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        See my reply to DTM below. Best,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Support - In case we have an official name, its shift is supposed to be reflected. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 05:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- My point is that that's not what WP:OFFICIALNAME says. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  - @Dicklyon: I am assuming you understand the difference between offical name and rechristening.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Though it seems simple enough, please could someone take the time to simplify this discussion a bit more. Thanks! DTM (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- DTM, It is simple. The primary opposition to this move is WP:OFFICIALNAME. That isn’t valid since “Modern Sub Machine Carbine” is no longer even a nickname. It has been subtly abandoned without much publicity, even though it sounds cooler than “JVPC”.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  - This line currently in the article gives me an indication the two (MSMC & JVPC) are not the same thing, not even a renaming - "The MSMC also was unable to clear the Indian Army's requirements and DRDO and OFB jointly started development of a carbine from scratch called the JVPC which showed promise in the initial round of trials." The CLAWS site to which this is cited also gives a 404 error. Vaibhavafro, please help explain this. DTM (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    - Yes. As I wrote above, MSMC appears to have been a concept study (a prototype). JVPC is the final product. Read the reply by Sandeep Unnithan to this tweet by him.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 18:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose unless evidence of the common name in reliable, independent sources is presented. It is written above that "The primary opposition to this move is WP:OFFICIALNAME. That isn’t valid since 'Modern Sub Machine Carbine' is no longer even a nickname." However, whether one or the other name is official or a nickname or neither is immaterial. There has been no evidence presented that the proposed title is the common name in English, which is what the naming criteria prefer. "Precision" in this case refers to what is necessary in order to distinguish this article's title from the topics of other articles. It does not refer to the "correctness" of a particular title, an issue on which Wikipedia takes no position. Dekimasuよ! 10:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose~~Comment~~ I am with Dekimasu. Could we have evidence of COMMONNAME please, form either side of the debate. In the lack of either I think that the name defaults to the established one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: After reading the article and reviewing the comments, it appears that the MSMC is a different topic from the JVPC. The MSMC was a prototype, and the JVPC is a different weapon. So why not just create a new article about the JVPC instead of trying to change the topic of this article? We seem to have more information here about the MSMC than about the JVPC. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt the prototype and production version are notable enough to justify separate articles. The former can be covered in a subsection of the article since it is background. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Per Dekimasu, Gog the Mild, and others. Usual waste of time by "official XYZ" promoters. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes to call weapon PDW?

I think this weapon is a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), as opposed to a submachine gun (SMG). I think the article should reflect it being a PDW.

The reason I think this is because it fires a PDW cartridge and, what is basically the definition of a PDW, was fired a higher caliber to beat contemporary body armor.

It’s even called a SMG Carbine.

If people think I’m right, then I think the page should be changed. If I’m incorrect, well, it won’t be the first or last time I was wrong, no problem. Didn’t want to change the article without making sure these changes are ok, though. Doobiedoo86 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Over-cited

Article has unneeded duplicate citations. When several sentences in a row are ended with the same cite, the final cite in the series is the only necessary one. Still, better over-cited than non-cited.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)