This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Project scope
I know the scope of the project is firearms, but I'm wondering if we should expand that somewhat to include civilian firearms-related topics. Such as these...
...and others like them. I see one of the above is in ther To-do list, but articles of these type aren't included in the project scope. I, for one, think they should be. They are civilian firearms-related topics. Only one is part of another project, but that shouldn't matter. Comments? —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of funny. I was just thinking about making a statement on this earlier today. My answer is yes. I will be expanding the scope today to include topics like this. Thanks for asking. LWF 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Slap the banner on there. ;-) —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikipedia is about improving civilisation and in my opinion firearms - as necessary as they may be in responsible hands - are largely responsible for the opposite. I guess that Wikipedians here won't agree. I certainly don't want a controversy but would like to ask if it might not be better to offer less information on firearms on Wikipedia, as responsible people will be informed already and we don't really want to help out the others? --Theosch 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That is one of the most astoundingly ignorant, dangerously misinformed, and insanely naive things I have ever heard. Communism isn't necessarily a good idea, but there's plenty of information on that on WP. Religion and Atheism also have extensive and numerous articles here as well... Why should firearms- which, at their heart, are a tool or piece of sporting equipment no different from a hammer or a cricket bat- somehow have "Less" information offered on them? As a military historian, I find your comments in this regard quite offensive. --Commander Zulu 12:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between tools like hammers and firearms: the former are designed for peaceful use and only very seldomly used for injury or killing. Firearms are designed for injury and killing and are used for this, even though I do recognize their use in hunting and marksmanship. Why should a military historian find my remarks any more offensive than a pacifist would find yours?--Theosch 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
How would a criminal or malcontent even benefit from the knowledge offered here? A reliable and effective gun can not be made using knowledge obtained from Wikipedia. I am friends with a gunsmith, and he had to go to a gunsmithing school for years before he had the knowledge necessary to make his own gun. And even then he doesn't because of the sheer difficulty. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not some vehicle for your particular views. History will not be swept under the rug. LWF 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about a malcontent building his own gun, but rather of Wikipedia condoning to making firearms "commonplace". I agree that an encyclopedia should give some information about firearms, but I find the information given excessive; there are hundreds of articles and many read like sales brochures. --Theosch 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Theosch, Wikipedia is not about civilizing anyone, nor about improving civilisation. It is an encyclopedia, with the aim of making knowledge available to everyone. That would be all knowledge, not omitting any knowledge which does not meet with your conceptions of civilisation. For example, Category:Cannibalism has a great many articles which share knowledge generally considered to be uncivilised - and our aim there as in every category is to present verifiably accurate information. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this example. I see what you mean. However, let's say I created hundreds of articles with recipes for the above. These would certainly be deleted quickly. For me, many of the articles on firearms seem like these recipes. Nothing against general info on firemarms, nothing against historical info and even info relating to hunting and sportsmanship. It just seems to me that seen as a whole, all those articles are too much--Theosch 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Your hundreds of articles would be deleted under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Item 4, Instruction manual: "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." If you have specific articles in mind which you feel violate Wikipedia guidelines and policies, please feel free to post them on my talk page, and I will take a look. However, neither M1917 Browning machine gun nor Child pornography nor Cannabilism are how-to guides, and they are encyclopedic topics which are verifiable. Spring Heeled Jack has nothing to do with civilization either, but its a featured article. I really don't understand your objections. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Firearms are common, they are an important technology. Why wouldn't we cover firearms in detail? We do it for airplanes, companies, clothing, and everything else imaginable. So why wouldn't we do it for guns? Besides, sarin has no purpose other than to kill, yet we have an article on it. We have an article on the bow and arrow, yet it has no purpose other than to kill and wound. We have an article on everything it seems; and many of these things have no purpose other than to kill and wound. They are too important for that to happen. Besides, much of what you hear about guns is absolute lies. Firearms will not be removed from Wikipedia on the basis of their purpose, or for any other reason. They are too important for that to happen. I for one will not stand for it. LWF 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I simply cannot believe I just read what I read, the gist of which is that guns are responsible for the decline of civilization. I am utterly speechless. I am of the very strong opinion that this incredible level of ignorance is responsible for any regress in the quality of civilization. Your type would blame the sun for skin cancer, and then seek to extinguish it. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that guns were the major cause of the decline of civilisation, but they certainly have their part. I hope you would agree that a world where many types of guns were no longer required would be a better world. I lived in parts of Britain for many years where even the police were unarmed and I can assure you that this is a quality of life worth striving for. --Theosch 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely do not and completely reject the idea that the world would be better without guns. The world would be better without those individuals who seek to use guns during violent criminal acts against those who cannot defend themselves. In my opinion, in a world where guns never even existed, crime and violence would still exist in the same levels they do today. You'd have traded one type of violent crime for some other. But, in a world where EVERYBODY had a gun (or even any means to extremely efficiently defend themselves), mutually assured destruction would certainly reduce violent crime, and likely crime in general. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Theosch, you mentioned that some of the articles read like sales brochures. Could you tell us which ones so we can improve the articles? We are here to improve firearm articles, after all. LWF 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering, LWF. I realise that guns are a very controversial subject. For example, I regard the article on Kel-Tec as advertising this firm and its many products. My main point is this: in other parts of Wikipedia it seems that high standards of "notability" and so forth apply, e.g. also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as mentioned by KillerChihuahua above. Wikipedians spend hours debating whether this or that belongs or should be deleted. When I stumbled on this firearms project and followed some of the articles it seems to me that there are too many articles and some are too detailed. Why must every model and make of gun ever manufactured be described (I realise that there are probably many that are not described)? For me it is about the balance of Wikipedia as a whole. --Theosch 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, you're not a Golfer. Seriously, why should every make or model of car or aeroplane have a wikipedia page? You've obviously got some serious anti-gun issues you need to work through. If you don't like guns, fine. I'm not going to try and change you mind (that never works). I am, however, going to suggest you should probably just not read firearms related topics if they offend you so much. FWIW, I've had a look at the Kel-Tec page and I don't see anything unreasonable or advertising-esque about it- certainly not any more so than pages like Carlton & United Beverages, British American Tobacco, or Ford Motor Company. --Commander Zulu 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that these pages you mention are also excessive and I'm sure they cause many more premature deaths than guns do. However I wouldn't dare air any anti-car views, as I would be afraid of the reactions of car-enthusiasts, which might not be as controled and polite as the quite civil discussion here (considering the high degree of controversive potential). Thank you for listening. --Theosch 13:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, if you were to air any anti-car view, I think the most you would get are a couple filp comments and alot of giggles. And certainly you'd be labled a troll in mere seconds. Us gun owners are used to ignorance from those who'd blame the gun rather than the criminal using it. As such, we indulge to some degree out of a sense of standing up for our rights. (As a side note, I am suprised this has gone on this long without someone calling you a troll.) But I digress. I agree with the Commander. Go someplace else if you're offended. For my part, I'm done with this discussion due to the fact that I think I've taken the harshest stance toward your opinions, and as such (being aware that I'm only human) it won't be long before I say something I'll regret (or maybe I already have). —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Theosch, I have heard many anti-gun statements; and I think all here will agree, that we remain polite even when annoyed for several reasons: getting rude and angry only supplies anti-gunners with more ammo (pardon the pun), and because we know that we must control our tempers, as someone who carries with a gun has enormous responsibility placed on their shoulders.
I think this is correct: people who use guns, which probably includes all of us here (I did my stint in the military and had to store my military gun and ammunition at home for many years) have to be able to control themselves or they will eventually kill themselves or others. (Theosch)
But I will not support the removal of gun articles. The information within is very interesting to me and many others. In my opinion a malcontent could not benefit from information provided here, and someone can honestly benefit from information offered here. Now, that said, some articles on guns and their variants and such do need to be merged, and some articles deleted because they provide little or no information (ex. "it's a gun"). I personally support having very detailed gun articles. I for one find them interesting. Also, since Wikipedia has no real limits on space, there is no real harm done by having many detailed articles.
This might seem so, but the space is not unlimited and the resources cost and have to be paid for. A copy of the English version of Wikipedia is at present around 80 GB including histories. This is not much in terms of modern hard disks but represents an enormous amount of internet and human resources when you consider the high degree of activity. I make a contribution to Wikipedia every year proportional to the amount of text and images I have added.--Theosch 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have any constructive criticism to give I would welcome it, but if you have nothing new to say, I think it would be best if we end this debate before someone says something they will really regret.--LWF 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is sound advice and I'll "go" now and just sum up my points, which I do regard as constructive criticism and not as trolling:
In this Project Firearms, when editting and writing, please aim for quality and not quantity. (I'm not insinuating that many of the existing articles are of low quality, but do believe that quantity is a bit of a problem in this field.)
Please be aware that many people do believe that guns and other modern mortal weapons are at best necessary defense devices and respect those feelings even if not agreeing to them. By being especially meticulous with regard to NPOV, Project Firearms can be better be accepted even by such people.
If another wanderer happens to pass by here, please also meticulously respect Etiquette even or especially if the person might be an utter idiot. It is easy enough to get upset in totally uncontroversial topic areas. I sincerely believe that this and other Wikipedia five pillars are great inventions which if applied might be able to resolve conflicts in many areas even outside Wikipedia.
So, thank you for all your comments, the rather rough welcome, the intermediate reflection, and the threatening kick out the door! --Theosch 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I thank you Theosch for your advice, and acknowledge its validity. Quality is a must in our editting, and our conduct and ettiquette must be excellent if we are to dispel any stereotypes of gun and gun owners that others might have.--LWF 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the Joyce Foundation fall with the scope of this project? Kevinp2 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly no expert on 1911s and don't even own any Kimbers, but I've taken the liberty to add some information to the article. At this point, it's a not much more than a really rough draft (most of the stuff is from memory, lacks references and requires lots of clean-up) but I'll try to get to that and expand it in the near future. Hope that's okay. Cheers, --Seed 2.0 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a good start! Thanks...I'll do what I can as well. --Mike Searson 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is just an FYI for members... I'm working on a quality rating system using a bot similar to that of the Military History project. Unless someone thinks I should stop or that it's a waste of time? Anyone? —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea! Let me know if I can help out in any way! --Mike Searson 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a little too soon for that. We only have a few members. Perhaps when we have increased some more. Unless the rest of you disagree.--LWF 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have just short of half the number the Weaponry Task Force does. But looking at the way the MILHIST rating system is put together, I'm not left with the impression that only members could voice input on the matter. Firearms (specifically civilian firearms) is a much neglected area on WP. Many of these (newly tagged) articles are in a woeful state. That of course is the point of this project, eh? But without some form rating concensus, it seems aimless.
What brought me to begin looking at this was some toying I was doing with the project banner. I worked out a way to gleen from the To Do list whether or not a given article was on it, and what it was listed as needing. Then the project banner for a given article would show dynamically what may need to be done to it based on where it was listed on the WP:GUNS To Do list. Pretty damn cool, eh? Then I discovered that the functions I needed aren't yet implemented in the Wiki. Bah! I'm still looking at it, and I've worked out a way to do it anyway, but the new way I've worked out involves replacing the current To Do list with custom code. Not sure that's going to be acceptable to everyone. Anyway, while working on this, I gave some thought to a quality rating system. I wasn't really planning on a carbon copy of the MILHIST system. I have some ideas for changes that would better suit us. But some aspects must stay the same.
Any comments on any of this would be apperciated. Especially on my To Do idea. Still working out the kinks though. Maybe this isn't the best use of my time, but it sounded like a good idea to me. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point Thernlund. Go ahead.--LWF 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Userbox
Here are some samples of ideas I came up with. No color yet. These are for layout only. However I must note that the images I'm using do not have transparent backgrounds, so the image backgrounds will stay white regardless of the userbox background color.
(samples cut out)
Here are some other things I'm going to put together...
I'm going to edit the images to make the backgrounds transparent
Once the above is done, I'll make some background colors.
I'm going to make one just like #5, but with the addition of a cartrige image to the right of the rifle.
I'll post these other variations once I have them done. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I like #1, most "standard" box format. — xaosfluxTalk 00:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Check these out. Let me know what you all think. If anyone has ideas, please advise. I'm now leaning towards #1 or #2. Mostly #2 because it speaks more civilian than #1. Can't decide on the color. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like #5 best, but I think it would look better with the Sig P226 instead of the Colt Python as the handgun, though. --Commander Zulu 11:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably going to need more input from members though. What we have now doesn't constitute a quorum. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
hmmm, i like this one. sry if this is in the wrong place! -- Cannibalicious!
I have a better idea. Stay tuned! —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Now anyone can have whatever they want (within a set, that is). Check out the project page. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, but it seems something has been broken, since the change the box doesn't position like it used to (inside all the other user boxes, between Template:Boxboxtop and Template:userboxbottom)? --Deon Steyn 07:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm having the same issue - the only way I found to "fix" it was to have it as the first userbox. Ancjr 09:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See right... can't find the problem. Maybe I don't understand what you mean?
Could be a browser idiosyncrasy, but evident nonetheless: Error: userbox doesnt display inline with rest of pageAncjr 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been troubleshooting this and although I can see the problem in Firefox, I can't identify what's causing it. The final HTML produced in the browser is standards compliant. I tried extracting the HTML and placed it in a local (non-wikipedia page), and it rendered just fine in Firefox. But the exact same HTML when put into a wikipage causes the contents to jump to the right.
IE + local page = no issue
FF + local page = no issue
IE + wikipage = no issue
FF + wikipage = issue
I even stripped out ALL the parsing code and used a simple HTML (non-wiki) table. Still did it in FF on a wikipage.
Near as I can tell this is some disagreement between Wiki and Firefox. I don't know what to say. Without ranting on about my dislike of Firefox, all I can suggest is that a) we can revert back to a static userbox; or b) use a less sensitive browser. Comments?
I will note that on my user page I've used a normal wikitable rather than the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates and mine displays fine in both browsers. This could indicate an issue with those templates. I did notice that the way it works is to put the title and all userboxes into a single cell. The one on my userpage puts each box in its own table cell. That could be it, in which case the fix is to not use the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates . —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
infoboxes completed
.17 HMR, 7.62x54R = up, please proof, correct, expand them. Should we post the ones completed here so that the project page can be updated, or...? Ancjr 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just been editing the to-do list myself. Am I not suppose to? <face turns red> —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, I've been doing it myself and nobody has smacked my hand. IMO, if you feel the given task is adequately accomplished, just remove it. That's what I'd do. To my mind, if someone feels it's lacking, I expect they'd put it back on the list. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw "phosphorous-tipped ammunition" on the to-do list, and being the busy beaver that I am, immediately pulled up the article on tracer rounds (Which is what phosphorous-tipped ammunition is) and rerouted it accordingly. Then I removed phosphorous-tipped ammunition from the list. The next day it was back on there. The article looked adequate. It certianly wasn't a stub, at least. The same thing happened with an article on Davy Crockett recoilless weapons. So, now I've just assumed I've been doing something wrong and haven't touched the to-do list since then. If anyone can confirm what's going on, I know I'd appreciate it. MVMosin 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the policy we have right now is fine (ie. if you've fixed an article, you remove it from the to-do list; if an editor disagrees, he or she is free to add it again). I assume most, if not all, project members have the project page on their watch lists so, as far as potential abuse goes, it's not much of an issue. Having a vote everytime someone needs to modify the to-do list seems unpractical and sort of silly and I, frankly, I think having a central maintainer is neither necessary at this point nor keeping with the spirit of this wiki. The only compromise I can think of is, instead of removing the article from the to-do list, the editor just crosses it out. If noone objects within, say, three days, it gets removed. But even that seems kind of excessive. -- Seed 2.0 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new rule to the to-do list, if you add something be sure to say what you added in the edit summary with it linked. I never did this in the past but when I looked at the history I couldn't really read it. So now we have this rule to make it easier to keep track of. Also, the crossing out is a good idea. I'll add that to the rules of use now.--LWF 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposed policy on merging target versions of guns
I would like to propose a new policy for the WikiProject Firearms. I would like to propose that rather than having separate articles for target versions or accurized models of a gun or anything of that nature; that we should instead create a new section in the same article, covering the variant. Now one thing I should state is that this would not be limited to so-called 'Target' versions, but also 'Expert' or any other variants that simply constitute the same gun with some measures taken to accurize it or improve other parts of the gun.
What does everyone think?--LWF 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at my watchlist today and I made the observation that some guns manufactured by Heckler & Koch are labeled as HK, H&K and Heckler & Koch in Wikipedia. I am proposing that we standardize this to the full, proper name Heckler & Koch. Does everyone agree?--LWF 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects I'll go ahead.--LWF 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Granted I'm a month late, but FWIW, I did this to the Smith & Wesson articles. Seemed to work well. So I agree. Standardization is a good idea. —Thernlund(Talk | Contribs) 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting legal situation...
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire, April 13, 2005. Assuming the policy is still in effect, what does this do to the University's accountabilty in today's shooting? They created a "gun free zone", and when was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at, say, a gun show? scot 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've always said that the best way to make firearms safe is to make sure everybody has one.MVMosin 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for Switzerland.--LWF 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That it does. If more nations went that route, this world would be okay. MVMosin 23:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Cartridge Infoboxes
Hello all, I've added infoboxes to the following articles:
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
