Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 1

Ballistics project
I have a half-done project that I started a while back, and time is too tight for me to pursue it right now. It's a database of ballistics information, which I hope to use with a template to auto-generate a whole bunch of pages. I've never done any Wikibot stuff, but I am a software engineer, and writing code to parse the database (CSV stuff right now) is a pretty trivial task. To see the discussions I've had with others on the project, see my talk page starting about here, and the database data here. scot 23:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Civilian sporters
Thanks for the welcome to the project. If I could code, I would create a banner, but I cannot code for my life. My question is, on the civillian sporter versions of military firearms, does the Weapons task force or do we have jurisdiction? Iguess it doesn't matter to my, but I want to know what banner would be appropriate. JVkamp 03:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we have jurisdiction over civilian sporters, as they aren't used by the military. On the note of the banner, I can code some but it takes me a while, plus I code in a different language than the wikipedia text box.--LWF 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(taken from user talk:LWF)


 * I've created the article Sporterising, relating to the conversion of military surplus arms for civilian sporting use, in case anyone is interested or would like to add to it. --Commander Zulu 14:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

ammo-stub
I've just creating this stub type to cut down on overcrowding in firearms-stubs, so if you see any articles about specific cartridges, bee sure to sort them down. Also sort pistols with pistol-stub. there are several hundred articles in the main stub cat, it's getting unwieldy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A banner for our project
I would like to call on someone to create a banner for our Wikiproject that will go inside the existing banner that announces weaponry and military history, but will stand alone in civilian and police firearm articles.--LWF 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really possible, from a technical standpoint, and a bad idea regardless. This project is intended to be independent from MILHIST, so there's no reason why its banner should be placed inside the MILHIST one; just touble-tag the relevant articles. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked, and it seems my memory was flawed. I thought that in articles such as war planes, that the banner included Aircraft and MILHIST in the same banner. Turns out it was two similar banners close together. Although I still believe we need to get a banner for firearms articles, so my request stands: Could someone create a banner for this project. LWF 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to find some time to set one up for you guys; but if you want it faster (and it almost certainly will be faster than waiting for me to do it), just copy the code from WP:PROJGUIDE (changing "Tulips" to "Firearms", obviously). Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to get some code experience. I'll see if I can do something. —Thernlund (Talk 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very preliminary work. The image is one of my own.  I tried with the 1911 image and wasn't happy with the plain-jane look of it.  Not sure mine is gonna cut it either though.  It does speak more "civilian" to me, but I dunno.  —Thernlund (Talk 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite nice; but I would trim out the peer review stuff unless/until this project actually intends to set up a peer review department (which really ought to wait until there's rather more activity). Kirill Lokshin 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call. Done.  (heh heh)  I was worried about setting that up.  Don't know enough about it yet.  ;-)  —Thernlund (Talk 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Comments LWF? Anyone? —Thernlund (Talk 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice. I think it is quite excellent. And now everyone can see your pistol marksmanship. Thanks for making it. It should be useful. LWF 13:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * HA! Thanks!  Didn't consider the marksmanship angle.  ;-)  Anyway...  I'll take that as an endorsement to implement, and do so now.  Just gotta read up on how real quick, then done.  Unless the's an objection?  —Thernlund (Talk 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And done, plus I put the banner on all of these article talk pages. —Thernlund (Talk 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Member userbox

 * I posted this to the template talk page as well

The member userbox is a bit non-standard. As such, it doesn't really slide in with other boxes nicely. I'd suggest something more like this...



Does anyone mind if I change it? —Thernlund (Talk 05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No comments, so I'm assuming nobody takes issue with my suggested alteration. I'll wait another day, then "pull the trigger".  —Thernlund (Talk 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright then. Did this yesterday.  —Thernlund (Talk 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The more I look at it, the less I like the logo, I'm afraid. The colour scheme bothers me- Red & Blue are far too "American" for my liking, which gives the whole thing a somewhat negative tinge of NRA Flag-Wavery, IMHO. Personally, I'd prefer to see a hunting rifle or a shotgun there, with a blue/green colour background. Just a suggestion, though. --Commander Zulu 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that awhile back, but didn't mind so much. I do have some ideas.  Let me crank out some examples and I'll post them here.  —Thernlund (Talk 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perazzi shotgun manufacturer
Any help on this article would be greatly appreciated. i would like to add it to the topics that need expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.Mraz (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry about my previous post
that is the article perazzi J.Mraz 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration...
Happened upon this. What do you all think? Within scope? I'm sort of on the fence. It's a film, but the subject is arms.   Just dunno. —Thernlund (Talk 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a documentary I'd say it might fall into our project's scope. But I'm not sure either.--LWF 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

.300 Whisper
Seem to be having a problem with the .300 Whisper article. Any input would be appreciated.

An editor is trying to change a pamameter of the infobox (the case length parameter) with no reference to back it up, while I have proveded three references for my change.

I have also provided a reference for OAL, but the editor in question keeps changing it to "xx to xx". I have tried to explain that the parameter must be a single number without words or a dash (due to the auto-conversion), but I seem to be being ignored.

Lastly, he's posting his protest to my changes to the article itself rather that a talk page. I've removed them in each instance.

Check out the history and see what you think. Anyone? —Thernlund (Talk 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct to change it to cited information. What this guy has essentially been saying is, "I'm right, you're wrong, don't confuse me with the facts."--LWF 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that even though this person obviously has no idea how to edit Wikipedia correctly and Thernlund has cited sources to support his point of view, the sources that are cited may not be correct. I've addressed this in the .300 Whisper talk page. Raygun 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that is the problem with Wikipedia, we have to go with verifiability. Even though the other user may be right, we can't prove it, so we have to go with the cited information.--LWF 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my 2 cents...LWF is right. We have to use a print source for verifiability. In this case Cartridges of the World or a reliable loading manual. Ideally, you would want to consult multiple print sources. I'll give you an example...in working on an article about Ernest Emerson's knives I read in 5 sources that the CQC6 got it's name as it was the next knife made after the Viper 5. One source maintained that Emerson made 6 prototypes and the 6th one was the CQC6. I went with the version supported by the bulk of the print sources and included mention of the other in a footnote. Now, putting on my ballistician hat...this is an area of liability. Posting incorrect load information could get someone killed, hurt or at the least damage their firearm. I would consult the source...if you wish I can contact JD Jones and see what he says and get a source. In reading over the article and various source material, it looks as if some people may be publishing data based on what works well for them. In the case of a wildcat cartridge, you have folks buying from SSK or some other manufacturer and people doing their own chamber reaming on bolt guns or TC Contenders. This will give minute differences across the board. My suggestion is the infobox contains what the majority of published and reliable print sources say. The differences, otherwise can be cited in the article, itself. --Mike Searson 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the input. I'll keep an eye out for other info.  I plan to visit the gun shop here soon.  I'll have a look at some books.  —Thernlund (Talk 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I put in an e-mail to SSK yesterday asking if they would like to help clarify this info. No word back yet, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. Raygun 05:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. —Thernlund (Talk 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just got a pretty solid "no thanks" directly from J.D. Jones regarding any help with the article. He believes it will only serve to help his competitors. I sent a reply back, but at this point I don't think it will help any. Raygun 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson articles
I'm planning on standardizing all the Smith & Wesson articles. Near as I can tell there are three main versions... ...and some variations that change the case of the word Model. My plan is to make them all Smith & Wesson Model X. Anyone have any input or differing preference? —Thernlund (Talk 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Smith & Wesson Model X
 * Smith and Wesson Model X
 * S&W Model X


 * I think you're on the right track using "Smith & Wesson". Let me know if I can help out in any way! --Mike Searson 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an excellent idea!--Commander Zulu 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done pretty much. I couldn't move S&W Model 686 because the page I'm moving it to (Smith & Wesson Model 686) already exists. If there are any admins listening, could use some help. Otherwise I make a formal request tomorrow. —Thernlund (Talk 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If they are the same article (and they look it to me) just redirect S&W Model 686 to the new one. Is there a seperate article for 586?  Or should that be combined with this one (essentially it's the same gun only in blue steel or nickel as oposed to stainless). --Mike Searson 17:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, nevermind...I see what's going on; Smith & Wesson Model 686 redirects to S&W Model 686. Maybe as a matter of courtesy you should contact that editor: Mudwater and let him know.  I say this because he apparently was doing exactly what you were doing, only going the other way.  It might save alot of work and keep you guys from walking over each other's edits, etc.--Mike Searson 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't just redirect it. The page histories have to be moved as well.  That only happens through the Move function.  And I think what Mudwater was doing was just to make the redirect, not actually move the page.  If he had, the history would show that and I'd have been able to move it back without admin intervention.  —Thernlund (Talk 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Just made a formal request here. Once that gets done, they'll all be standardized. —Thernlund (Talk 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI... was done today. —Thernlund (Talk 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Break action or Break open?
I notice that the link Break action redirects to the article Break open. I'm thinking this should be reversed, as I'm not aware of anyone knowledgeable using "Break open" as a formal description of the type of action employed in double-barrel shotguns etc. Thoughts? --Commander Zulu 14:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I agree. —Thernlund (Talk 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project up for deletion
This project has been nominated for deletion. The easiest way to end this is by pledging to limit the project to guns themselves, and not include gun politics in our scope. What does everyone think of this? I should note that this would not prevent individuals from editing in those areas, but we will not cover it as a project.--LWF 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said on the MfD, I don't agree. There is much more to firearms than just the hardware.  It could be argued that community involvement is even bigger than the guns themselves.  Often legislation aimed at gun control has implications far beyond the guns themselves.  I will certainly bow to project concensus, and won't even pout, but in my opinion this MfD is nothing more than a strong-arm tactic to aid in a content dispute.  Case in point (from the MfD)...


 * "If the project pledges to limit itself to article about guns, and not about gun politics, and does so, I will withdraw this request. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)"


 * Concensus rules, but so I've said it... I will absolutely not bow to this attempt at blackmail. —Thernlund (Talk 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that removing the political aspects of firearms from our scope will not prevent a member from editing those articles. In fact it will make little difference at all if we remove them from our scope. Also it should be noted that nothing would prevent us from keeping people or things like that from being covered by the project. John Browning would still be within our scope. Basically it would only remove the political portion from the scope, which has never been a big part of the project.--LWF 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I know.  Regardless of formal scope, my editing habits won't chnage.  But I'm all bent out of shape now.  Had this guy not said something, I might have suggested laying off the politics myself, but I don't take kindly to being strong-armed.  If we give in to this, it paves the way for other similar tactics to sway the project.  So my position has become what it is.  I am however a singular voice among many.  What say you all? —Thernlund (Talk 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Noting that my position is motivated, in part, by adversity to bullying. But I also think the area(s) in question are within scope.  —Thernlund (Talk 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently I don't think we will need to change our scope. The majority vote is currently "keep". So it looks like that one point is moot.--LWF 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears the attempt to delete our project was the last spasm of an overstressed wikipedian. Hipocrite has retired. Jirt 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Standardization of articles
Is there any standard formatting for articles in the project? For example, all firearm articles could include sections for history or a list of variants, or a list of specifications must include such and such details, or something of the sort. There is currently a noticeable difference between articles. Wixteria 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The formatting isn't standardized but there are some rules for the articles: the article must include the infobox with all available information included, details of its operation must be included, information on history is a must, information on users is a good idea, information on variants, if available should be included, and at least one picture (not copyrighted) should be present in the article.--LWF 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On a somewhat related note, the project's talk page has become a bit cluttered. I think now would be a good idea to archive some parts of it. Instead of just going ahead, I figured I'd ignore WP:BB this time and ask if there are any objections. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Archive all old discussions with discretion.--LWF 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. :)-- Seed 2.0 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)