Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2014/May

Coatracking
Up until the addition (or conversion) of the Capacity section, this article was simply about a mechanical device. Now content has been introduced under the guise of "on topic information" that amounts to little more than a political debate. There are articles like High-capacity magazine ban and Gun politics in the United States that are far more appropriate for this kind of thing. Plain and simple, it is WP:COATRACK and it invites more.

The section dates back to at least 2009 and has had several names High-capacity magazines, U.S. Legislation, and now Capacity. Regardless of the label put on the section, its been a source of edit warring and coat racking. This is why I removed it and policy supports the action. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed and a very strong argument. It appears to be agenda pushing at its worse. I removed it as per your coatrack argument. I also corrected the sentences or more correctly non sentences. Some wording was also improved to be precise. Please seek consensus before placing that goofy section back in. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. As Scal notes above, capacity information has been in this article since at least 2009... before actually, because there are discussions about it dating back to at least 2008. Gun related articles are now under discretionary sanction, and removing appropriate, sourced material is contrary to WP:EDIT: Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Lightbreather (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lightbreather you have reverted 3X in less than 24 hours and you issue warnings about subject to santions? How does that not apply to your editing? The consenus here so far is againts your repeated addition. Please respect that and undo your revision until consenus changes your way. That shows respect for the process of consensus and other editors. If you gain consensus I will support you. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on coatracking or any of those fancy things, but IP, if you thought this was an improvement, you're sorely mistaken. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Meh. There is nothing that dictates that an article like this has to be strictly mechanical. The discussion over it is real. However, I think that two consecutive sentences (starting with "In 2011" and ending "high-capacity magazines") are wholly unnecessary. But that's just my editor's opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understood you, I agree, but when I went to the article to change it, I found one sentence that starts with "In 2011" and ends with "high capacity magazine" (by JPFO rabbinic director and pro-gun source who uses the term without qualms) and another that ends with "so-called high-capacity magazines" (by pro-gun sources who object to use of the term). Lightbreather (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See my article edit. :) Drmies (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I see what you mean. I could tell you why I included those two, but long story short, it has to do with how I've learned to edit from the kinds of challenges I usually get from my detractors. Sometimes I include things I wouldn't probably in a more collegial environment. Lightbreather (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What does "Sometimes I include things I wouldn't probably in a more collegial environment" mean? I hope that you've read and understand WP:GAMING. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just now saw your question. It means that I've come to anticipate some of the questions I might be asked or references/sources I might be asked to provide. Why did you ask me about gaming? Are you accusing me of "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia"? If so, please take it to the appropriate board and provide diffs - otherwise, keep it on content, please. (I am getting rather tired of having to remind you of this over and over again. Please stop.) Lightbreather (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)