Talk:Vertical forward grip
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Foregrip page were merged into Vertical forward grip on 1 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
"Legality" section[edit]
In Sept 07, an anonymous user added information on the legality of foregrips in the US. User Batman2005 removed it in Jan 2008 claiming that it was contradictory and confusing. I read the information, researched the issue, and created a section that was clear, NPOV, non-original research, and cited. This new section was removed by Koalorka immediately after creation, with the claim "This is not an article about US regulations and interpretations". No comment was left here or provided to myself.
I agree the article is not focused on US regulations and interpretations; I also state for reasoning that if the article can existing on its own without discussions on legality, then the article can contain discussions of legality and not be about legality. Numerous articles in the wiki can serve as examples of this, especially firearm articles.
While it's true the article was a stub prior to the addition of a legality section, hence making it look unbalanced, that does not mean the section in question was unfit for the article. Rather, additional work must be performed to the remainder of the article. I am restoring the revert and open the floor to discussion on how to improve the article. - Davandron | Talk 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to revert this again. I read your comment above and don't understand why you returned this information to the article. This is a global site, US BATF regulations aren't entirely relevant, furthermore, VFG's on pistols are rare, uncommon and unpractical, which makes the information entirely irrelevant. Koalorka (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you read my post and I'm sorry if it was difficult to understand. Let's see if I can explain my thoughts a little better, and I'll also discuss some of your specific concerns.
- What was added? To be clear, the text added was a information regarding the legal application of the article topic in the USA. It contained the result of a legal challenge and the posted interpretation of a legal branch of the US government.
- Why add this information? If one does a search on the topic, a point of discussion frequently found concerns whether a forward grip can be used only on a rifle, or also used on a pistol. For discussions involving those in the USA, the topic includes the legality of such application. The content added concerns the facts of this issue and therefore, with regards to the topic, appears to me relevant and noteworthy.
- Now, since the article already existed for some time, I assumed the topic (Vertical forward grips) was considered notable by the community at large. As such additional information itself does not need to be notable, but personally I feel it should be relevant and add to the article if included.
- What are the concerns of other editors?
- My understanding of the first concern is that the information is misplaced; that this article is somehow not the correct location for a discussion of legality in the US. That might be; and I'd appreciate help in locating the correct location. As it is, legal application of an item seems to be something is frequently inside the item's topic not somewhere else. (examples inside the firearms topics include AR-15#Legal_status_in_the_United_States, Sawed_off_shotgun#Legal_issues, Short barreled rifle's primary text)
- A second concern that "VFG's on pistols are rare, uncommon and unpractical, which makes the information entirely irrelevant" is difficult for me to understand directly. The Wikipedia is a source for all information and seems to contain a great deal of rare and uncommon items, so if that was the case I don't see it making the info irrelevant. As for impractical, this appears to be an opinion. Why would the department of justice make a specific and targeted statement about it if it was rare, uncommon and impractical?
- What next? I'm not sure. I doubt I've convinced you, but I feel I've offered critical information to show why its removal is not appropriate. Perhaps we can find agreement on a better location? Or perhaps your concern is balance/portion in the article and we can work on expanding the original stub? - Davandron | Talk 02:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge?[edit]
Isn't this the same as the Foregrip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.200.38 (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)