Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms. 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

→

Merge comment needed

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)

Fire Modes

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)

Barnes references for 1500 cartriges

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)

AN-M50 (series)

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 , Category:Selective-fire shotguns , Automatic shotgun

"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)

Gun law topics

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LongGunAction

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)

IMFDB

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)

Naming guidelines?

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)

700 rounds per minute?

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)

They are reporting the cyclic rate, not the semi automatic rate. The gun would physically allow you to fire that fast, it doesn't mean that a human can actually do it. Rate_of_fire#Cyclic_rate Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

M60 in black ops listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

KRISS KARD

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)

Interchangeable parts

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)

You should also inform the other related wikiprojects -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to bullet abbreviations in ballistic performance infobox

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)

This makes a lot of sense to me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ode to Mateba

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)

Bechowiec-1

I've improved this article. Could someone re-asses it? Pibwl ←« 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this is a C-Class article. You only use one source throughout and missing a citation from the last paragraph in the History section. Besides that you are doing extremely well for a gun that will be extensively difficult to find information for. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily aiming at B, but I've supplemented citation in last paragraph. I have no other sources, but this one is sure the best exisitng - a monographic article, analyzing a construction of an existing exhibit. The weapon was peculiar due to conditions, in which it was produced, and high originality of its features. Pibwl ←« 20:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Jamison International

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)

pop culture / crime information in ams articles

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)

Renaming "Lead shot"

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)

Add selective fire to specs block

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)

Walther

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)

INDIVIDUAL FIREARMS LICENCES

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)

Shouting in caps will get you nowhere. You didn't mention what article you are talking about either.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Black powder cane gun

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)

This is a page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia articles, not a general forum. I would suggest www.thehighroad.org as a good general firearms forum to post your question (and ideally a photo of the gun at hand). Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You also might try the Internet Movie Firearm Database. Those guys are pretty good at identifying guns. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Barrett BORS

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)

In the article shown BORS appears to just be a modern scope thus lacking any notability. I wouldn't consider it notable unless it is being used in a military capacity. --Molestash (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Barrett MRAD (Multi-Role Adaptive Design)

Just created an article for the Barrett MRAD. I would love some peer editing/review. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Legislation passed

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)

The rule doesn't mention the U.S. in specific, nor does it say that the legislation has to be "specific to a certain gun type." A lot of people may be talking about this rifle right now (of course) but it remains to be seen if this incident has any real impact on the gun's notoriety. ROG5728 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The expired federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), and the AWB still in force in Connecticut, define an assault weapon primarily by specific model #, or features. The defining characteristic for 99% of "Assault weapons" is a removable magazine (of any size), plus 2 or more "evil features", with the usual culprits being a pistol grip, and a telescoping stock (of the 3 only the magazine would have an impact on deadliness/effectiveness). Some states have seperatly limited magazine size as well, but that is for handguns and rifles, regardless of assault-weapon-ness or not. bullet energy etc are generally not included, because a core feature of the "Assault weapon" platform is the modulatiry, in that they can be used with a wide range of calibers, bullets, etc - almost all of which are also used in bolt action hunting rifles. For the purpose of the wikiproject, I think passed legislation in any major jurisdiction, which can be directly identified as a result of the gun could be used, but I would doubt that would apply specifically to the bushmaster in this case, as the fact that it was a bushmaster is irrelevant - any ar15 would have had the same effect. However, if an AWB is renewd, then certainly that would be notable to the ar15/m4gery articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the rule applies worldwide, are you saying that "criminal use" may only be included in a gun article if a legislation has been passed _because_ of that criminal use? The 100+ countries that ban these kind of weapons do it because they want to _avoid_ its criminal use, and mostly successful, so then the rule would be .. somehow paradox. --Edoe (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NEW Articles (FN FNS & FN P-12)

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)

New lists, redirect and category created

I have recently added:

Help would be appreciated in extending both lists. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahr pistols

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)

Proofreaders/Copy-editors needed

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)

RFC at Assault weapon

There is an RFC at Assault weapon but apparently only a different project was notified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Assault_weapon#Lead section. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Remington

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)

Sub-MOA

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)

C.I.P. TDCC online

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

File:Rem 597.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok.... And....??? --Zackmann08 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a firearm, this is the wikiproject about firearms. It's the photo used in the article on the gun, so if it's deleted, then the article will not have a photo. You know, the standard thing. (or does it not matter if gun articles don't have gun pictures?) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The file was kept -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Remington 51

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)

Request for help with the NRA article

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)

TAFI

Hello,
Please note that Poaching, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Red dot sights page

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)

Hi, as the editor who reverted your edit I thought I would give some pointers/reasons why. In a nutshell Wikipedia does not consist of original research such as basing the claim "first" on examination of patents and making claims of undue significance based on a tangential mention in the media[3]. You need to find third party (other peoples books, publications, etc) that make these claims and that citations has to make that claim specifically. So yeah, you will find a problem posting material about your own products based on your own research. I would suggest a reading of Wikipedia guidelines. There is no rule against your editing.... when in doubt... add it. You just have to edit within the concept of an overall encyclopedia that is based on secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. The issue I am trying to address is that the current article gives prominence to a single manufacturer, Aimpoint, without any third party references to support that. I would like to balance the article, not just for Shield, but companies completely unrelated to us, such as Trijicon, Ringsight and others, who made equally notable breakthroughs. In the industry, the patent I referenced is known as the single patent from which all mini red dot sights followed, but I doubt that is recorded other than in the license fees that manufacturers pay to the current patent owner, Leupold. If you have an opportunity to see the patent, you will find that it covers the key technical issue that allowed size to be reduced, but again that is not documented by any third party in the public domain. I think this part of the history is interesting and worth documenting as it dramatically affected the International Pistol Shooting community at the time. Before the patent, no mini sights, after the patent, an increasing array of mini sights following the Firepoint. In general, how are subjects that are known within an industry, but not documented formally in books or papers, get included in Wikipedia?

A particular Aimpoint product is attributed to the US military, so I thought it would be reasonable to document the red dot sight used by the UK military, backed up by a press article. There are many other articles that I could reference about the FIST equipment that is supplied to the whole UK army and there are no other red dot sights within the programme, so I suggest there is evidence supporting the significance of the CQB to the UK military. If I reference more third party articles about the FIST CQB, or a Ministry of Defence document, will I be able to include it?

Alternatively, I see that notable firearms and sights have their own pages, so is that a better route? Can anyone guide me on how the decision on 'notable' is made, for example, volume sold, military use? Thanks for any advice MSadlerSPD (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

With your permission/indulgence I am copying this talk to Talk:Red dot sight. It would be better there so other editors working on the topic can see it/comment. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Any advice gratefully received. MSadlerSPD (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Red dot sight#Unverified edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

9X25mm Dillon pistol cartridge.

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)

Cleanup of firearm and gun articles

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)

How sizes, "guages," are calculated for shotguns.

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)

Pop Culture - Video games not notable by default? Only if realistically displayed? What if there is a consistent display of a weapon that is unrealistic?

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)

Hi Cyber, here's my 2 cents on the matter. First off, I think what you are suggesting (documenting appearances of firearms in video games) is perfect for a site like IMFDb.com, the Internet Movie Firearms Database. In fact it specializes in it among other things. Second, realistically its tough to keep track of anything that's fictional. Since its "made up" there really is no standard or hard specifications for it. for example, the Stormtrooper blaster rifles in Star Wars have an article at IMFDb.com because they are based on an actual firearm. A real gun was used as the platform for the creation of a fictional one.

By the way, IMFDb addresses your points regarding a "man portable version" of the mini-gun. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

On the article for the game, weapons can of course be listed. On the article for the weapon, only highly notable instances in media(or even in real life) are appropriate for mention. (For example James bond's gun). Popular guns are used hundreds and thousands of times in movies/tv/games/books and we are WP:NOT a database for that. A 3rd category would be a article dedicated to the fictional weapon (or class of weapon), which would be the case for BFG9000, light-saber, etc. The concept of miniguns as presented in movies etc could conceivably be notable, but the main issue I would see would be sourcing to avoid Original Research. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The "problem" I have with other sites like the IMFDB.com is that all I want is a broad overview - like the minigun example. I don't want to see each and every depiction, just the bare facts (if applicable) of the genotype(? is that the word?). I don't suggest detailing every item conceivable, but like I said the minigun is a rather special case. I didn't think about the Original Research angle, though.--Cyberman TM (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin does make a good point about Original Research. In my zeal to "categorize" information, I sometimes start to skirt this line. But to your point about your desire for a "broad overview". I see no problem with a very small section in the Minigun article about its "usage in media" and how its promoted awareness of its existence. Of course, you just need a WP:RS. You might try episodes of any of the gun shows on the Outdoor channel, I think Shooting USA might be a good place to start. For that matter, I think a similar section would be appropriate on the IMFDb.com/minigun site as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Winchester Model 1890 .22 caliber pump action rifle

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

Boxlock

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)

Wikidata + Infobox FYI

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

File:Smith and Wesson M76 Small.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:N for firearms

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, Ansh666 22:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture section at Welrod

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)

Now, I'm not part of this project, but by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Pop_culture, neither mention (there are now 2) is notable enough for the page. And besides, IMFDB says it's a Type 67 silenced pistol. Ansh666 04:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is, sadly, typical of the kind of cruft that gets added to weapon pages. (A lot of crap like it on song pages, too.) Any time it turns up somewhere, somebody thinks it bears adding. Delete with extreme prejudice. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cartridge Infobox

I would like to see some standardization of the ballistics information in the infobox on the various cartridge pages – two items in particular:

Some pages show SI units first, with English in parenthesis, while others list English with SI in parenthesis. This makes it difficult to compare e.g. muzzle energy between two pages. I am not familiar with the MediaWiki infrastructure but it should be possible for the data to be entered in either units, and the template (via script in it?) to automatically compute the other units and display them in a standard format and order.

More important, it seems to me (and others) that muzzle energy is often incorrect. The cited data sources will almost always give bullet weight and muzzle velocity, and it is up to the person editing to compute the energy. Aside from the unnecessary inconvenience, I unfortunately find that the accuracy of these computations is, to be kind, "inconsistent" for multiple cartridges. Once the weight and velocity are entered, there should be no need to add what is redundant information which is computed following a simple formula. Again, I don't know much about how MediaWiki works but there must be a simple way to have this auto-computed either when the page is saved or much better, when it is rendered (perhaps via the new Lua scripting facility? I confess ignorance but there surely must be a way).

David F (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the sources I've seen include bullet weight, MV, & ME as part of the description, & I just reproduce those, rather than recalculate them. I've never caught Barnes (who I've primarily used) in an error. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:58, 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)

Phyllis Yes, "Mrs. Johnson's Gun".jpg

image:Phyllis Yes, "Mrs. Johnson's Gun".jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Model 59

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)

Rapid creation of problematic articles

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)

Importance

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)

I'm new to Firearms Project, so I may be wrong, but it does in fact appear to not have an importance rating. I can't find a reference to it in any of the templates at any rate, and I don't recall seeing it on any Firearms-related articles (and neither of the articles I created uses it, either). Can't say that I see a pressing need for it. Bardbom (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Only members are supposed to add importances to wikiproject banners... are you a member of WPFIREARMS? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not in there, previously. It is now. Thanks for pointing that out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:30, 18 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:

Top: Broadly descriptive firearm or ammunition types, features or components representing at least ten percent of military or civilian firearms or ammunition inventories at some point in history.

Other topics by consensus on the project talk page.

High: Civilian firearms in production for more than a decade.

Civilian cartridges produced by more than one manufacturer for more than a decade.

Firearms inventors and gunsmiths associated with High-importance firearms and cartridges.

Mid: Police firearms.

Military firearms with notable civilian ownership.

Military cartridge calibers commercially produced for sale to civilians by more than one manufacturer.

Civilians notable for legal use of firearms.

Low: Other military firearms and cartridges.

Civilian firearms and cartridges in production for less than a decade.

Manufacturers of firearms and ammunition.

Firearms related legislation and organizations.

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)

Good initiative, but I think I might disagree on manufacturers being low. Companies like FN Herstal, Winchester, Colt, Smith & Wesson are responsible not only for general production, but much of the innovation in firearms over the past 100+ years. I could see manufacturers like Barrett, Wilson Combat, Noveske and other "niche" firms going lower, but would think that some should be rated mid or higher. What's more important the Colt Detective Special article or the Colt's Manufacturing article? I would propose manufacturers of high importance firearms especially several (1911, SAA, M16, AR15, Python, New Service, Walker, Dragoon) be rated at the same level. I think some of the more basic articles: rifle, gun, handgun, etc should be top importance. The legislation should definitely be at the low priority level as well as some of the shooting sports.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree on the importance of basic articles regarding fundamental firearm and ammunition types and components. I also understand your perspective on successful manufacturers, and could go either way on it; but I would suggest manufacturers might be of higher importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies and get appropriate links within this project's high-importance articles about their inventors and the firearms they produce.Thewellman (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles by importance

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)

Captain Samuel Walker / Colt Walker Pistol.

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 alexisasl009@yahoo.com 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)

Hello Debbie, on the left column as you read any article there should be:

Print/export

 *Create a book
 *Download as PDF
 *Printable version

You can explore the various options for you there. If you don't have the ability to print, you may have a printed copy sent to you by following the directions under those links. You may want to explore the "create a book" option which allows you to cluster articles together as you wish. You may need to create a Wikipedia account (free) to see the links that I'm referring to.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Firearms categories

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)

How about "AR platform" and "1911 platform"? The use of the term "platform" to describe the numerous AR and 1911 variations seems to be well established, and "AR platform" encompasses both AR-15s and AR-10s. - Bardbom (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, as I commented at WP:AFC/R, the AR-15 and AR-10 platforms really cannot be considered assault rifles. They are almost universally semi-automatic only, where as an assault rifle needs to be capable of both semi-automatic and multiple-round burst or fully-automatic fire. - Bardbom (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Poaching, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 02:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Template:Modern Gatling guns

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)

Weatherby Vanguard

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)

That's what I did for my articles. Just make sure that when you grab the code you don't accidentally change the existing page. - Bardbom (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

For infoboxes & such, I'd copy-paste existing ones & just change the names. I'd also copy the categories (but look also for related ones, if those aren't complete). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:24, 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)

The article looks like a good start, although I wonder why you include information with a citation needed tag in the Design and Features section. Rather than publish an unfinished job for someone else to complete, I suggest you leave that information out of the article until you can find a suitable reference citation. If someone else perceives that information as missing, they may add it worded to conform to an appropriate reference citation.Thewellman (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I included the details because they are fairly common knowledge but the knowledge is shared in web forums and difficult to document sources. The fact that M1500 variant scope mounts and rails are not compatible is a critical piece of information. I explained it in the talk page as well. I will old off moving the article untill I can find the reference. Thanks Economic Refugee (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gun political groups Category?

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)

I didn't find such a category, but I suggest something like "Category:Firearms organizations" (possibly limited to "of the United States") might be a subcategory of the existing "Category:Political organizations by issue".Thewellman (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

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)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Weapons - Skysmith (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deer Gun - Vietnam Pistol.jpg

image:Deer Gun - Vietnam Pistol.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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)

gun control rfc

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)

Naming question

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)

Including "12 GA" in the title and not using its manufacturer used name does seem a little odd. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The manufacturer doesn't call it that and its also offered in 20-gauge.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Done

Update assessment system to standards equivalent to that at WP:WEAPON

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)

I would suggest you work with an experienced editor who actually knows something about firearms before you attempt this. We work with the military project on certain things, but this is a completely different project with a different goal. I would also advise that political leanings be left at the door.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing it here, because I'm assuming most of the editors here know something about firearms and that all of them are interested in firearms and firearms-related articles. Even so, this proposal is less about knowing about firearms and more about best practices for editing (using Wikipedia and a related project as a reference). I will post a draft proposal here when I'm done. Lightbreather (talk) 21:23, 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.

Assessment criteria for prose articles
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: A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. 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: Proper referencing and citation throughout the article. Adequate and correct coverage of the article topic. Proper structure as per the Manual of Style and project guidelines. Proper grammar and spelling. Adequate supporting materials such as external links and See also items.	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria: B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.	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: a useful or descriptive image an infobox proper headings or properly named headings proper section order	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: A particularly useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article.	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)

Also, check out the latest at WP:ASSESS Grades. Under B-Class, I think #6:

The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible.

... is worth adding to our criteria. Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Global gun cultures for deletion

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)

Popular pages tool update

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)

Images of punt guns and wildfowl hunting

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)

What's this?

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)

It looks very much like a modified HK 69A1. Intothat darkness 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks to be one of these, which is indeed a modified HK69A1 grenade launcher (I think it has a rifled barrel, reducing it to 37mm from 40mmm smoothbore) and is known as the L104A1 in British police usage - Dumelow (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask the press office for you ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. So, any idea how it should be categorised on Commons? (ping User:Intothatdarkness, User:Dumelow). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You could go with grenade launcher based on the parent weapon and then law enforcement non-lethal weapons or something similar. Intothat darkness 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Commons:Category:Heckler & Koch HK69 and Commons:Category:Less-lethal weapons? - Dumelow (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

ITM Model 3

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

ISBN 90 366 14899

87.63.132.110 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Armtech SMOLT

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)

Army .45 caliber automatic -> M1911?

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)

Considering the time period and the other firearms the company produced, I think the article is mentioning the M1911 and the link would be correct. --Molestash (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Update Table of Handgun and Rifle Cartridges by Year

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)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Firearms At Wikimania 2014

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)

Verify Krag-Jørgensen pistol?

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)

They really seem to have existed, although they’re admittedly very obscure. They are supposedly mentioned in the book Kongsberg-Colten by Karl Egil Hanevik. Edit: US Patent 954.441. Rgds _•

_{• hugarheimur} 03:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Advise noob on merge of Draft:Springfield's Socom 16 & II into M1A rifle

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)

Question about source

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, Ansh666 17:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from it. It doesn't add any real information that cannot be found elsewhere and is dubious with where it gets its information. --Molestash (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Firearms At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

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)

Robert Spitzer

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spitzer_%28political_scientist%29#Gun_control_advocacy

--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Old image of flintlock grenade launcher/thrower/discharger?

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)

We even have 16th century wheel lock grenade launchers ;) Btw., "Katzenkopf" is cat’s head in English. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 15:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unit conversions

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)):

"armaments include a co-axial {{convert|7.62|mm|in|adj=on|abbr=in}}7.62 mm (0.300-inch) FN MAG 60-40 general purpose machine gun..."

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)

7.62x51mm NATO and .308 Winchester are in fact almost exactly the same cartridge, which is not surprising given that 7.62 NATO was derived from the .308 Winchester. The main difference is that .308 Winchester can be loaded to higher pressures; they are dimensionally almost exactly the same, firing the same .308 caliber bullet, and most firearms can safely fire either one (though care should be taken to choose lower-powered cartridges when firing .308 Winchester out of firearms designed to fire 7.62 NATO).

As for the conversion, my only problem with it isn't the conversion itself, but rather that it's inaccurate. It should, IMO, either be "7.62mm(.30 caliber)" or "7.62(.308 inch)". However, I wouldn't mind too much if the conversion was dropped altogether, so long as it was specified that they are in fact talking about the 7.62x51mm cartridge, and not some other cartridge. - Bardbom (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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)

What this project covers

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)

I just saw this, after deleting a tag on Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System. I figured that's more of a military weapon. I can put it back if that was a mistake. Rezin (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Think small arms: Handguns, rifles, shotguns, machineguns, grenade launchers, muskets, carbines, etc. Mortars, navy guns, tanks, cannons etc. (while still fun in their own right) are probably better suited to the Military project.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Thewellman (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool, that is exactly my position as well. The clarification on the main page of the project looks good. I will begin the task of removing the artillery currently tagged. --Molestash (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the term "man portable" apply? That's how I define the scope. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We may define the term differently, but my definition of "man portable" would include team operated weapons like the 2nd world war Type 11 70 mm Infantry Mortar transported through the jungle in pieces. As I recall, one man carried the barrel, another the base plate, and the remainder of the unit packed one shell apiece in addition to their small arms and ammunition. Thewellman (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I forgot about "team weapons". So maybe "single man portable"? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Weapon identification please

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)

This is my guess here but, if that is a finned barrel like it looks to be, I would say it is an early model Vickers-Berthier without the clip. I know Britain sent these everywhere and they were heavily used by Indian soldiers but I never heard of those being exported to China. --Molestash (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be right - the offset sights suggest a top-feed magazine at any rate. Thanks for your guess! Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories - 'Law' vs 'Legislation'

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)

Question: laws vs politics

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)

Selective fire

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)

I am sure there are some other countries in which possession of automatic weapons like yemen, pakistan, or others is legal. You could add something about that. - SantiLak (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, do those countries have legislation specifically about selective fire weapons? I'm happy to add it, but it helps to know what I'm looking for in terms of sources. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its necessarily selective fire but automatic weapons legality. - SantiLak (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I've added a "main article" link for Overview of gun laws by nation in the Legality section. I thought this would be a better solution than to "copy/paste" a bunch of text from an article and create a section that may need updating in the future. If you know of other countries that have legislation specific to selective fire, please let know or feel free to make the addition yourself. Thx! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Importance rankings

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:

Firearms related legislation, organizations, and competitive events. (To which I added "court cases" since that seems to follow from "legislation".)

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:

Articles may be assessed higher than these guidelines after reaching consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms.

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)

Exception - I feel that the rating scale and descriptions are appropriate (as well as the majority of your edits), but with regard to these articles I feel that they should be considered "exceptions". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Given my topic ban that expires in January, that's likely as much detail as I can go into.
Exception - For now, those articles should be exceptions. The 2A article is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The NRA is the leading advocacy group regarding the RKBA. So those articles should be ranked "high". Reform or abolition of the guidelines should be left for a later, more in depth, discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Exception - But I would restate my concern expressed in the earlier discussion that tying this project to these articles has a possible consequence of making our project a target of vandals. While United States regulation of civilian ownership of firearms may be an important topic to some American editors, it may be less important to editors from other countries and/or to editors interested in technical or historic aspects of firearms design, manufacture and use. Interested editors should focus on whatever articles they choose, but we may discourage international participation in this project by placing high importance on time consuming articles of limited international interest. Thewellman (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thewellman, I wholeheartedly share your concerns, but my friend its already happening and occurs on a daily basis. Luckily for articles like 2A and such, we also have the support of the Editors who are interested in Political and/or Legal articles. But this is something that is patently unavoidable whether in the StG 44, the AR-15, or NRA article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with unintended US bias in WP:GUNS articles. Here's a fresh complaint that popped up on my watchlist: [4]. But I don't see how these importance ratings would affect vandalism. The ratings are buried on talk page templates, which are sometimes collapsed. While I wish that something as easy as changing a rating there could impact vandalism, I'd be surprised if vandals check the ratings before making edits like this: [5]. Unless I'm missing something, the only purpose for these ratings is to help this project focus its attention on the most important articles. Rezin (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, Rezin, the importance ratings are more internal to the project, or at least that's how I have always seen them. Personally, I would not mind seeing them go away. I think "importance" is subjective.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Going forward

@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)

Bossu and velo-dog

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)

Some unreliable sources which may help:[6][7]. And a reliable but brief one: [8]. It seem like they're the same revolver. Rezin (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, given the shaky evidence, I've tweaked the Bossu Revolver article rather than redirect or merge. It probably ought to be at Bossu revolver or Bossu (revolver)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

ALFA - as in ALFA Defender, Combat etc

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)

I see that the 'history' and 'about us' pages list a few other companies or brand names, all of which are capitalized. I think it's a Czech thing. Nowhere that I can find do they indicate the name is an acronym. On the home page they slip once and write, " Introduction of the Alfa steel model series improved the quality...". Rezin (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "proprietary cartridges"

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)

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but what is the "problem" that we are fixing by making this change? I think its OK to associate a particular cartridge with a particular company if they are known for introducing it (ex. Winchester and .44-40). Is there a serious problem where the average, non-gun informed, reader is being mislead? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking 300 whisper and 300 blackout are not identical. Its a somewhat similar situation to .223 and 5.56. There are both neck length and pressure differences. In any case proprietary is correct. They personally maintain the spec and manufacture the rounds. That doesn't necessarily mean its exclusive (anyone can handload) but in this specific case 300 whisper is a trademark of SSK, so proprietary definitely applies. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a little different than .223/5.56 because on the wildcat side you are dealing with a lack of standardization. The concern is similar though, that a maximum length, maximum pressure 300 Blackout round might jam the bullet into the lands of a short chamber (221-300/Fireball/Whisper) throat increasing pressure.

Scalhotrod, just the word proprietary and it's connotations. It seems to me to imply that they have more protection than they often really have. I wonder if there's enough to write on the topic that we could just have an article on Proprietary firearm cartridges, which could have an introduction explaining that often the only legal protection is trademarks, with the rest of the article serving as a list article. Then we could link the word to it. It's not a big deal I guess, just a thought. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this piped link to proprietary would explain the situation without the need for a new article; although a paragraph about cartridges might be added to the Generic trademark article. Thewellman (talk) 19:09, 6 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)

I'm always in favor of clarification, so I'll always agree to the use of something like proprietary in the respective articles, but lets not get carried away. Gigs, now you're talking about IMO changing the article(s) base on an "impression" which is a potentially dangerous thing since "impressions", "viewpoints", "opinions", and the interpretation of vocabulary and/or grammar vary greatly around the world. This is something we need to keep in mind in order to avoid misinformation of any kind, and it is what I think you are attempting to do/fix, but we have to approach it from a global mindset. How I think about firearms and cartridges (whether I try to avoid or not) because I'm from the United States might be radically different from how someone from the England, Australia, Italy, or China might think about the same things. Cultural bias is everywhere. Make sense? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod: I understand that argument, but it's kind of a logical dead end taken by itself, since we can only edit based on what we understand words to mean. Gets pretty philosophical.

Gaijin42: There are ammo related patents, but they generally are on very novel types of ammunition. As an example, the electronic primer system that Remington came out with (that was a flop) had a patent [10]. A lot of novel military/large arms cartridges are patentable as well (grenade launcher video cameras maybe, or things like that). I do see applications for wildcat type small arms cartridge patents on a regular basis, but I'm not seeing any of them in the approved status. They are probably failing on novelty.

So to answer your question; yes there can be truly proprietary cartridges that are protected by trademark, patent, and trade secret (or military classification). To me that's a good argument for us to be more careful in our use of the word to apply to small arms wildcats that only have a trademarked name. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Gigs, fair enough, and for the record from a Project perspective I agree that we should have specific naming guidelines that explain things like what a proprietary cartridge is (or is not). I guess I'm just saying lets keep it as simple as possible. How many articles are we talking about? Is this worth a Sandbox list somewhere or is there a category that covers it? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of the scope of it or how best to approach it. As far as I know we don't have broken down categories for that sort of thing. See Category:Ammunition for what we have. There would be considerable overlap between "widely used Wildcat" and "trademarked name" though, c.f. most all the JD Jones wildcats.

Another minor issue to consider, CIP allows trademarked names, whereas SAAMI does not. CIP will also accept registrations for very similar cartridges and SAAMI does not. Part of this is because in CIP countries, it's basically impossible by law to manufacture cartridges that aren't listed, whereas SAAMI is a voluntary industry standard. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Another factor: I've always taken "proprietary" in this context to mean "meant specifically for a maker's weapon", whence .460 Weatherby or some Rems. Isn't that really what it's about? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Category proposed for deletion (AR platform)

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)

WikiProject X is live!

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)

Source discussion 3

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.

Intro: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. ... Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. ... All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
Responsibility for providing citations: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
Reliable sources: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. ... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. ... Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria.
Self-published sources: ...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. [Footnote 7: Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources] [Emphasis in original]
Notability: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

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)

Great summary Rezin! My only addition is that the rule of thumb, for better or worse, is that "verifiability trumps truth". So unless its something like "the sky is blue", it needs to be cited, BUT like we've found in several firearm articles, sources can be outdated or just plain wrong. That's were the work gets created. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Source discussion 2

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:

Firearms are just tools, developed by humans and for humans through centuries to accomplish various tasks. These tasks may vary, but in my opinion firearms are as legitimate for civilian purposes as anything else, and according to statistics on accidents in many countries, firearms are less dangerous than automobiles.

Of various uses of firearms, I put the self-defense as most important for civilians. Self-defense is an essential human right...

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)

The relevant guideline seems to be WP:BIASED. It says "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ...Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source..." My take on it would be that all sources are biased in some way. The two issues for editing are whether they are reliable based on external factors, like editing process, and whether it would be appropriate to attribute the material to the source. The discussion above concerns the first issue. The second issue probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the exact material and context. Rezin (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Max R. Popenker's self-published website: like any SPS, that source is only usable as in areas where the author has previously published material. So he's likely an expert on revolvers or WWII infantry weapons for example, but I don't know that he's ever published on general gun control/RTKBA issues. I'd started including the limits on individual SPS sources in the discussion above, but stopped because it's tedious to track down everything an author has ever published. However those limits are still implicit, and can be made explicit wherever it matters. Rezin (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I share Mike's preference for keeping the focus of this project on technical aspects of firearms rather than the social aspects of firearms use; but I question the validity of assumed correlations between authors' social perspectives and knowledge of technical details. Those who may have winced at the preceding comment should consider the difference between writing about day care centers and writing about how to run day care centers. I don't perceive a problem about an author's social perspectives for articles focused on firearms rather than how to use firearms. Perhaps articles falling into the latter category should be tagged:
```
{{howto|date= }}
```
Thewellman (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikiproject members are free to define their projects however they like. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Define the scope. The guidance suggests finding a scope whose definition is natural, whose size is large enough to draw in a sustainable group of editors yet narrow enough to avoid excessive overlap with other projects. Inclusion of an article or subtopic within a project doesn't really affect the article directly, it just means that it shows up on the project's watchlists, etc. Project members don't need to work on articles where they have no interest.
As currently written, there's nothing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms page to show that articles about laws, policies, regulation, advocacy groups, etc, are within the scope of the project. The page limits itself to firearms themselves. I don't know how or when or why the de facto scope grew to include non-technical topics. If editors here care enough, we might start a new thread to get a fresh consensus on what the scope of this project should be. Rezin (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction: I was reading too hastily. The "scope" is "Topics encompassing both broad concepts and specific models, ammunition, manufacturers, organizations, legislation, and historical figures such as inventors and notable gunsmiths associated with such firearms." Regardless, that's not set in stone - we can change it anytime we like. Rezin (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't we also need to keep in mind the context of the source and what is being used from it? If we happen to get a technical detail from an article with a heavy political slant, does it matter if we're not using any of the political content? We already know better than to state opinion as fact or in Wikipeida's voice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I encourage that approach, but recognize such differentiation would be easier if all of us understood the various dialects of English being written. Sources may rely upon language from legislation or regulation specifying a significantly different definition from widely understood use of a term. Some consider one definition superior and disregard differing definitions in other legislation, dictionaries or documents as mere opinions. The concept of political correctness suggests vocabulary is being legislated. Those who doubt it might recall newspeak from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four to realize how many of today's editors cannot remember the world before that date. Thewellman (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

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)

No response here, so I opened a thread at one article for openers. Talk:6.5mm_Grendel#Self-published_sources Let me know if there's a better way to proceed. Rezin (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And Talk:Remington Model 1858. Rezin (talk) 18:59, 27 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)

Most of the writers at TFB are experts. It's more like a web magazine than a "blog" really, despite the name. I'd say it's as reliable as any gun magazine, which is to say, you have to consider the author of the particular article, the claims being presented, and the nature of the article. Like any magazine there's opinion pieces and opinion claims that shouldn't be cited inappropriately. Gigs (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure how we know that "Nathaniel F"[13] or "Alex C." (to pick the first two on the main page) are published experts.[14] What about the owner, Steve Johnson? Does he have a reputation as a published expert? Rezin (talk) 23:29, 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)

Sightm1911 is a harder case. The author looks like he might be an expert, but as long as he's anonymous, it's hard to really say. Gigs (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Rezin (talk) 23:29, 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)

I'm a bit unclear on your intention. Are you proposing to delete the citation of a self-published source or delete the article content covered by that reference citation? Thewellman (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends. The bad source citation could be replaced with a ^{[citation needed]} template in most cases. If it says "The K7 is the finest 9mm on the market", then maybe it'd be better to just delete the content too. What do you think would be the best way to fix the problem? Rezin (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree replacement with a citation needed template might be appropriate in many cases. Removal of article content should include talk page discussion. Focused discussion can be initiated by "temporarily" removing questionable content to the talk page rather than deleting it. Deciding exactly how much text content is covered by the self-published source may be difficult. Does the self-published inline template have this option of highlighting the content in question?^{[citation needed]} If not, could initial placement of the self published source template follow this citation needed template for clarity? Thewellman (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It would only be one extra step to leave a note on the talk page saying something like, "Source X appears to be inappropriate because it may be self-published and the author may not be a published expert. The citation, and any material that is derived from it, may be deleted. If you have any information showing that the source is in fact suitable for Wikipedia, please add it here. If you can find a replacement source, please add it to the article." I might be able to automate some of this with one of the special editing programs.

I agree that deciding which unsourced text should be removed is more complicated, but that's the same question faced routinely. There must be thousands of articles in this project tagged for a lack of sources. Tackling those would be a much larger effort. For now, I'm just looking at reducing the reliance on all these one-person hobbyist websites. We can't build great articles on poor foundations. Rezin (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For example: [15] and Talk:Wonder_Nine#Sources. Rezin (talk) 16:21, 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)

It's a daunting task, but I try to work away at some of them when I get time between paid writing jobs. We're all volunteers here, so I just suggest improving th eones where your personal expertise or interest lies and staying in that group. I try to delete SPS when I can and use reliable sources in their stead, granted it often means wiping out a great deal of text, but I'd prefer no information to poor information.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See #Source discussion below. I've started this process, creating a structure which I hope will bring in the objective information to help us sort through which sources are reliable and which aren't. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Since it will quickly grow very long, maybe it should be moved to a separate page. Rezin (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "Source discussion" subsections: those reviews require frank assessments of sources and in some cases the people who created them. However I don't know that we need to keep those discussions where search engines will pick them up. So my plan is to delete the discussion block of older entries and replace it with a link to the history. Everything else, including the "outcome", will stay on the page. Does anyone see a problem with that? Am I being over-sensitive? Rezin (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with this. We can undo it if it's counterproductive. Rezin (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Video game references in firearms articles

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)

It's worse than I thought. I'd assumed that maybe, in some cases, there might be sources to support an occasional entry. The guys over at the video game project tell me that they're not aware of any. That's different from the situation with movies, where I've seen reliable sources discussing things like James Bond guns, etc. In light of that, I think it's appropriate to assume that no content on firearms video games has a realistic chance of being sourced and should be deleted routinely if no source has been provided. That's a stricter level of scrutiny than might apply to other popular culture content, where sources may indeed be found. Rezin (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One problem I perceive about this is that the subject matter is fictional, so much of a material about it is based on direct observation of the game itself as a WP:PRIMARY source. This seems to happen often with articles about cartoons, movies, comic books and any other fictional material where material in the subject can literally just be made up. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and that point was also made on the video game page (using the example of a game that lets players reload a machine gun while firing). WP:UNDUE would seem to suggest that a game which has been played by millions that features guns might be worth mentioning, but since the depictions are so unrealistic and since video game publications don't talk about them, the bottom line is that the primary sources are fictional and the secondary sources are nonexistent. The situation with movies, where they usually have to have an actual physical gun for a prop, is different but also problematic. To make up an example, they might refer to something as an "AK47" while holding a different rifle, or ascribe to it unrealistic capabilities. But there are far better secondary sources on movies (and, to a lesser extent TV shows) and often real guns are shown realistically, so I believe there are occasional instances where the specific firearm can be shown to have affected popular culture. Mare's Leg is an extreme example where a TV show inspired manufacturer's to build and sell a type of rifle. Anyway, I think we can adjust the WP:GUNS MOS guideline to alert users to the fact that sources for guns in video games are virtually nonexistent and it's pointless to apply "citation tag" notices in the hope they'll appear. Rezin (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Popular culture"

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:

Appearances of firearms in popular cultural should only be listed if they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The depictions themselves (films, TV shows, video games, comic books, novels, etc) are primary sources and are insufficient~~not sufficient references~~ for inclusion. Video games frequently depict firearms unrealistically and their use is rarely covered in secondary sources. For that reason unsourced entries concerning video games should be deleted without requesting a source first. Replicas, such as Airsoft and toys, ~~versions of real firearms~~ are not notable to firearm articles unless they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Where sources are available, popular culture appearances should be treated in articles with coverage appropriate to their significance to the subject of the article; as per WP:UNDUE. The material should explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. See WP:MILPOP for the guidelines on pop culture pertaining to military history, excluding firearms.

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)

I think this is better, the only thing that I think would be helpful to add is examples of "good", "better", "best", and "unacceptable" applications. I don't know what those are off the top of my head, I'm sure they exist. We should be including links to the main MOS sections that govern the content as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to work up a quality scale. I think the aim here, so far, is simply to differentiate "acceptable" from "unacceptable", with the criterion for acceptability being adequate sourcing. One more thing which might be worth adding, which I saw on some MOS advice page somewhere, is that prose is better than bulleted lists in these situations. A prose format encourages editors to actually say something about the significance of the appearance. Bulleted lists invite trivial entries that don't describe relevance. But that'd probably be a recommendation rather than a requirement. Actually, all of these Wikiproject MOS entries are just recommendations, which apparently have no more standing than personal essays. WP:Advice pages. But to the extent we have them they should be clear, useful, and consistent with WP rules. Rezin (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On further reflection, it's probably possible to find an article with a decent or even pretty good "pop culture" section. We could link to that as an example to aim for. Rezin (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the old text with what's above, with some minor copyediting. I added a couple of links to what might be model entries, but I'm sure better examples can be found. Rezin (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks Rezin, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)