Talk:Glock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unmerged?

A user went through and reverted all of the individual articles. I've undone these. The discussion went through and was up for comment for a while. Objections were raised. In any crowd, you aren't going to get 100% support, but there was significant support in the firearms editing community, and their objections were heard. What little objection there was came from outside of the firearms editing community or from anon's/new/puppet accounts. The merge was done, now improve this article, please. --Asams10 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional point: I jumped the gun before I read the accusations in the latter part of your comment above. There's no meritocracy on Wikipedia - to implicate that "outside" views are any more or less valuable than those of a Wikiproject, even one as old and well-organized as Firearms, is simply irresponsible. Allegations of sockpuppetry aside (if you have them, why haven't you asked for a checkuser to be run yet?), we're all Wikipedians, and that's all that matters.

I, of course, assume that by "community" you mean "Wikiproject" - if not, please correct me. MalikCarr (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If by "heard" you mean "ignored" or "reported to administration for being personal attacks," then sure. A consensus is not a majority vote, in spite of what some Wikipedians would believe, and I fail to see the consensus that was established being carried on in this article.

At any rate, it's not as if I'm trying to have your article removed from Wikipedia or anything; in fact, I put a link to it in every page I reverted, so a Wikipedian who "isn't interested in the details of the individual models" [sic] can take a look at it. I believe that a positive flow of information is what Wikipedia should be about. If you believe that one article can suffice for over twenty, that's great - make it happen, then we'll remove the others that are no longer needed. The inverse should not be true, because it leaves an information deficit that is paid for by Wikipedia users.

I happen to believe the project is better served by an article for the individual models in question; some users agree with me. You believe one article will suffice (except for the Glock 18, which makes no sense whatsoever to me); some users agree with you. As the prime mover behind this merge, I doubt I'll be able to convince you of my point, but maybe you can convince me of yours. If one article is fine, then make it fine - I don't believe just taking your word on it would be doing a good service to Wikipedia. MalikCarr (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you're going unilaterally without voting or concensus building to revert everyting? All of the dissenting views were heard in the merger, you're just upset you didn't get your way. Stop your reverting and discuss it. Ask for admin intervention, but stop undoing everything unilaterally. --Asams10 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The dissenting views were heard in the merger - patently false. At least one tentative support of the merger was placed in lieu of each gun not being relegated to an entry on a table, which has not happened.

• Yet.--Asams10 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting everything - maybe if this article was AfD'd right now this would be a point. It isn't, and none of your work has been removed from the project. Positive flow of information! It's a good thing!
• Discuss it - I did. You wrote off my complaints as if I were some kind of troll. Moving right along...

MalikCarr (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if it was a troll, it worked. Good job. --Asams10 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is that Wikipedia Firearms guidelines, which you had nothing to do with, call for keeping variations that are caliber changes, target models, and barrel length differences within the parent article. The main reason for having all of these different articles was vanity. Whoever owned one of these guns wanted their particular model number to have its own article. Which Glock do you own? At any rate, that's not anywhere near a good enough reason to have 23 separate articles for the same gun. Nor does the merger of articles that shouldn't have been separate require a unanimous vote or even a concensus. It's enforcing the Firearms project policy. --Asams10 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How were my objections outside the firearms editing community, Asams10? I've created quite a bit of content here...

I believe that you are asserting a consensus that didn't actually exist here. There's nothing wrong with doing something boldly ... "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is a Wikipedia unofficial guideline, after all. But someone reverted, and so it should go back to discussion.

The three revert rule applies to you just as much as it applies to MalikCarr. Beyond the strict three reverts limit, it's intended to prevent edit warring - it's not an entitlement to make three reverts per article, but a hard limit of "No more than...". The two revert cycles on the articles that you two have done so far, given the number of articles, qualifies as an edit war. I could probably justify 24 hr blocks for both your accounts for this behavior to date, even though no single article is at 3RR yet.

Both of you, please stop the reverts right now. Please go back to discussing here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Concensus was already built in the Wikiproject Firearms community. That's what I've been getting at. Building a concensus on the Glock 17 discussion page was not required, the discussion was about how to get the Glock pages to conform to the Wikiproject firearms concensus. --Asams10 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the consensus on the Wikiproject Firearms

• Doesn't say what you said it says ("significant redesign went into model" - Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine vs Lee Enfield Rifle as two separate articles as the stated example). It supports that a merge might be a good idea - it does not mandate one.
• Even if it did mandate one, Wikiprojects do not make policy on Wikipedia. Guidelines on those pages do not trump normal article improvement policy. They're given deference as the normal consensus of those most specifically interested in a topic, but they do not form enforcable Wikipedia policy.

You cannot fall back from failing to get legitimate consensus here to a Wikiproject guideline, whose interpretation is not even clearly supporting what you claim it does. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. For my reasons, reread everything I said in the first two discussions on this matter. --Asams10 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "I'm right you're wrong" response - this is a "We're not at the point that this is settled in your favor". They're not settled in the non-merge favor either, and there's a lot of support for merging, but I don't see a consensus. Given that someone cared enough to push back on the merge, and lacking clear consensus here, we talk more here. Perhaps that talk gives you consensus here to merge, in another few days. But that has to happen. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of support for a merge, no matter how much I think it is a bad idea. What I object to, to the point of "unilaterally" bringing the old articles back (they call this being bold in terms of policy), is a merge that is really more of a "brief mention" - merging implies that information is preserved, which it isn't. An entry on a chart or a passing mention on a bullet point is rubbish compared to a sourced and factual article. If a merge can be done that results in no net loss of information, I'm all for it. Until such a time arises, I believe Wikipedia is better served with the individual articles, and will let WP:IAR be my guide. Make a real merge and I'll be more than happy to drop this annoying business entirely. Just because I've been involved in revert wars for months on end doesn't mean I like doing it. MalikCarr (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you object to doing what you're doing. Instead of improving this article, as LWF and I are suggesting, you are bringing back the old articles, killing all the redirects, and refusing to help this article. Play nice. You were warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert and, less than an hour later, you continued on your edit warring rampage. Talk out of one side of the mouth and edit against your own words on the other side of the mouth. You're really ignoring all rules, aren't you? --Asams10 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a 3-hour block on MalikCarr's account for edit warring (re-reverting changes after the warning to stop last night). I also am going to give Asams10 a warning for personal attacks in the comment above and being uncivil. The tone of this conversation has to return to reasonable polite discussion and not further edit warring, on both sides, or further sanctions will be forthcoming. You both know better. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I find this to be ridiculous - if you're going to be assertive about policy violations, you should really be more proactive in administering appropriate recourse based on the nature of the violation in question. I'm not going to try and tell you how to do your job, but I do protest at the current handling of things. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka and User:Librarianofages have both been warned to stop edit warring on this or face blocks as well. Everyone: Please stop and discuss. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

Ok, how about for now we all focus on improving this article, rather than all of this debate. I personally think that editing the article to add more of the information that we have agreed is lacking would be more productive in this case.--LWF (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is getting out of hand, I too am now being threatened for the arbitrary and destructive actions of MalikCarr. I assure you, I am working on a comprehensive overhaul of the article, and NO information will be lost in the process. We have a database of older splinter Glock articles which we will occasionally draw information from to preserve all the unique and useful content. WRT to the reasoning behind the merge, Asams10 has presented the argument rather effectively, no one has been able to refute it. The integration will proceed forward. Koalorka (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Destructive actions"? After all the work you and I did on the SVD article, I'd figure you'd have been more understanding than to make such an accusation. Believing in a positive flow of information is destructive? A poorly-executed merge that leaves sloughs of information lost to the page history (or histories) is destructive. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my concerns:

1. Significant information was lost when the merge happened. Given the time available, this was not good - everything should have been left alone and content merged into the central article here until everyone at least agreed that it had reached full content parity first. Blasting the other articles then merging info in to the central one is very bad process.

Agreed. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The central argument for merging - that the pistols are more alike than different - is unresolved. At least two of us believe rather strongly that the written policy on the Firearms wikiproject page doesn't support doing a merge - that the models are different enough to justify different articles. Asams10 and I have had some rather interesting arguments about the degree of similarity, which never got resolved. My position is that some models have some parts interchangabilty, but most don't; the designs are clearly all based on the same basic design, with size scaling for cartridge size requirements and detail changes here and there such as subcompact recoil spring guides. I think this is enough variation to justify different model articles (per Lee Enfield rifle and Jungle Carbine having separate articles, per the wikiproject page).

Or the AR10, AR15, M16 family and M4 family. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. We do not have a solid enough sense of how many people support a merge at this time versus how many oppose. A poll would be useful to gather a better sense of things and get more people on the record for merge/don't merge/somewhere in the middle.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at a few of the articles that were merged to form this article does not seem to back the claims of 'information is being lost'. The former articles that I viewed had very little material that was supported by WP:RS. I would favor this single article as a place to gather material that meets WP sourcing guidelines with spin off sections getting their own articles as they acquire enough sourced materials to merit notability for individual coverage.GundamsRus (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're ridiculous, GundamsRus. I thought you were only putting me on edit probation on fiction articles? I'm just going to have this account deleted and make a new one so you'll stop following me and supporting every argument I don't on every article I edit. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the charge of "being ridiculous." Was my sampling skewed and I only saw the few articles that had no WP:RS and if I had sampled others there were many sourced pieces of information that did not make it into the merged article? Can you point them out? GundamsRus (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is difficult for me to fathom because this conversation took place already and the concensus was built. A discussion went back and forth and people voiced their opinions:

1. There was no significant information loss. I explained this when I merged. I went through all the articles for unique information and there was none. The few examples that have been presented were bunk.

It's bunk because you say it is? MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Their beliefs and the arguments muddy the truth. The truth is that there is not only a high degree of interchangeability but that where parts aren't interchangeable, it's because of unique caliber differences. For instance, of course the barrel and magazines don't interchange between the .40 and the 9mm. The information on the subcompact springs takes up about a sentence, "With the shorter barrel came nested recoil springs for reliable function."

See AR10/AR15/etc rationale above. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. This has been going on since the 4th of December. I'm reminded of an old political addage I heard, "If you're in the minority, talk. If you're in the majority, vote. If you're not a politician, ACT!" That means that those in the minority will continue to talk until they're blue in the face because they don't want the action. This fillibuster has gone on plenty long enough. We built this article separately as part of the concensus and people stopped editing it. It wasn't and isn't perfect, let's stop talking, start acting and improve the article we have. I utterly fail to see how ANY of the separate articles had any info that can't be seamlessly integrated into this article. --Asams10 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, not a majority vote, and it has been unequivocally proven that there is not a consensus to destroy information. I reiterate, if you believe a merge is warranted, preserve information and consolidate pages - a table or chart is not a substitute for a well-written article MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand both sides of the issue here. I know why Asams10 conducted the merge. By and large they are the same pistol. Do we have a seperate entry on Wikipedia for the SAXD 9, SAXD 40, and the compact and sub compact and target models? No, we do not. At the same time I fully understand what MalikCarr is talking about. We do have seperate pages for guns that have differences that are comparable to a Glock 26 and a Glock 22. My personal opinion on this is such. The articles by and large should be merged. That said, the merge that was conducted is poorly done. Asams10 conducted the Merge then told everyone else it was their responsibility to add the lost information. This is absurd. The Glock pistol page should have all information added, then redirect the old pages. We can't loose information here. For starters, the Glock 22 page has a great deal of information about just the Glock 22. What does the Glock pistol page have? A single sentence describing that there is a full sized .40cal pistol. With that said, we are left with something of a problem here. The Glock pistol page might become extremely large if we include every minute detail. Then again, these details shouldn't necessarily be lost. And pages are split when they become too large. As I said from the begining, I fully understand both sides of the coin on this issue. Alyeska (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 22 page had lots of information that the Glock 17 page didn't? Really? REALLY??? I just re-Re-RE-looked at the page and saw the same thing I saw the last three times. It has an incorrect list of agencies that use the pistol. Incorrect? Why? It's missing two. That's off the top of my head. It's actually missing about 2-300 by my recollection. So, it's an incomplete list of agencies that use the Glock 22 you're looking for? First, I don't think you're getting a complete list of agencies EVER. I've already, about 10 times, argued this point and all the nay-sayers sorta gloss over that little fact. Now, look at the rest of the Glock 22 article. Go ahead, I'll wait... Now, paragraph by paragraph:

1. The Glock 22 is a pistol manufactured by Glock. It is a Glock 17 modified to fire .40 S&W ammunition. It uses a modified slide, frame, .40 S&W barrel and magazine but is otherwise near identical in looks to the Glock 17. It has a 10, 15, or 17 round magazine capacity. Anything new?
2. The Glock 22 has undergone three major revisions since its introduction in 1990 and current models are called 3rd generation Glock 22s. The Glock 22C is a version of the Glock 22 that has a ported barrel and slide to reduce muzzle climb while shooting the pistol. Ooohhhh, a generations sentence.
3. The Glock 22 is one of the most popular law enforcement pistols in the United States, and compares favorably to other .40 S&W pistols. Wow, shockingly unique info here.
4. One notable feature of the Glock 22, and indeed many modern .40 S&W pistols, is the ability to change the caliber to .357 Sig with a simple barrel swap. Really? I thought they weren't interchangeable?
5. This is possible due to the similar operating pressures of both rounds, and the fact that the .357 Sig is based on a .40 S&W case, necked down to accept .355 inch bullets. Cool, but this is a discussion about the .40 model right?

And that's all you got? That's what you've got? That's your argument for keeping this a separate article? It says, "The Glock 22 is a Glock 17 in .40 caliber and you can change the barrel to .357 Sig." Wow. I'm floored. Actually, I'm not. I'm confused. I think that there are a few people who gloss over the article, see lots of content, and think, "wow, it'd suck to lose all of that content." But, when you go over the articles, there is no real content there. It's all fluff, conjecture, and analysis of changes in dimension. Those items that are not this account to about four or five paragraphs in this article, that's it. Go to 23 different articles and try to sort it out or go to one and figure it out quickly. It's a tangled web of confusion otherwise. --Asams10 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My earlier comments about you acting overly hostile and insulting stand. I guess you missed the part where I said ultimately I agree with you. You just had an argument with yourself. Alyeska (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with me, eh? My response was to this statement you made, "For starters, the Glock 22 page has a great deal of information about just the Glock 22." My point was that it doesn't. You might have come to the same conclusion, but you were espousing the incorrect views of others to get there. I'm not willing to concede the point that there is significant volumes of information in any of the old articles. I'm glad that you agree, but I was nailing down the same point you were. Perhaps I jumped into my diatribe without analizing the content of your post. If so, mea culpa. --Asams10 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't concede anything. So your opinion is meaningless to me. On the other hand Koalorka agreed that information from previous pages needs to be integrated. Alyeska (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear you're keeping an open mind. Why should I concede a point if I disagree. I don't debate if I agree, there's no need to. Here's how it works: I make a point. You disagree and make a counter-point. If I am swayed by your point, I concede that your argument was stronger than mine and we move on. The reason I don't concede is that I disagree with your points. We might agree on some level; however the point you hoped that I'd concede was central to my counter-argument. It follows that since there is little unique information in the individual articles, they should not be listed separately. If I agree with you that there is significant information in the individual articles, then it weakens my whole argument. Maybe it's my debate background that's getting the best of me. I'm engaging you in a debate and rather than disagreeing with me and responding, you're saying that I'm being hostile. If you consider disagreement with you "hostility," I don't know where to go from there. If your intent is to sway me, you're not going to have very much luck. I've laid my case out and it's rock solid. Feel free to counter me now. That's how it's done. --Asams10 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your trying to cloud the issue now. You are openly hostile and insulting to other people. Your reporting me to admins is an example. You treat others like dirt, but cry foul when people call you on it. You've been repeatedly warned by administrators over this issue. Stop hiding behind your opinions. Alyeska (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with your argument? I'm not being hostile towards other people. I may tear apart their arguments, but please don't confuse that with hostility. Instead of countering my arguments, you're attacking me (AGAIN) personally. It's a shameful debate tactic. You assert that I'm hostile and further assert that others think I'm hostile and therefore my arguments are invalid. To use your terminology, you're ignoring my points and attacking me. How many times now have you said I'm hostile? Read poisoning the well if you don't understand where I'm coming from on this one. How can I cloud the issue by engaging you in this side-argument about whether or not you feel I'm being hostile towards you? --Asams10 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your points? I said I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE MERGE. That is the ultimate topic at hand. Your throwing out red herrings left and right. I am again pointing out your agressive, hostile, unwanted attitudes in these discussions. Your attitude that only you are right. Back in the M1 Carbine thread you managed to get the page protected all because you refused to accept group consensus. You need to learn how to work with people, not belittle them. Alyeska (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Most of the derivative articles are worthless gun-babble, irrelevant half-truths and some photos from peoples personal collections. Not one effective argument has been presented for their preservation. Those that argue to maintain the current setup have contributed little or nothing to the Glock series. As promised I am working on the main Glock page and every single variant will be mentioned in greater detail with a higher accuracy than any of the splinter articles ever did. This will occur most likely over the weekend. Koalorka (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head? I agreed with him and he argued with me about it. He has a hard time grasping what people say. Alyeska (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, not alluding to the exchange between the both of you, that is also my perception of most of the Glock derivative articles. I agreed to integrate unique and relevant content, so no valuable information is lost. Koalorka (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged again? The last time I came here was to find information on a specific triad organisation, only to find that the article regarding the group in question had been merged into an "all-encompassing" article about triad organisations in general. Completely useless as a research tool when it came down to it. At least they had the good sense to change it back. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only person who actually uses Wikipedia for research, as any others in my place would also surely be wondering what sort of encyclopedia removes information from its articles. Can somebody please direct me to a website where I can find a more detailed analysis of the Glock 19? A paragraph of description and a general overview of Glock pistol history is of little use to me. Like looking up "Excalibur" and being redirected to "Sword". 203.221.33.238 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Following your diatribe, it's difficult to take you seriously. Still, the Glock 19 is just a shorter verision of the Glock 17, that is why it was merged here. It's like a knife and then the same knife with a slightly shorter blade and handle... no significant difference in history. Still, you can see what Wikipedia HAD before the merger at the top of the page. Either that or, uh, maybe do a Google search like the rest of us? Wikipedia is NOT a good place to do research, though it can certainly point you in the right direction. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the vitriol and sarcasm, I believe there was actually an attempt at helpful advice in there. Thanks, I suppose, but I've already tried a Google search and turned up nothing that wasn't pushing a selling point. I'm somewhat surprised that you've told me not to rely on Wikipedia as a research tool. It's something I'd expect to hear from the site's detractors rather than it's registered editors. Might I ask the point of the Wikipedia project if the ultimate goal is not to create a valuable tool for research? 203.220.81.20 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Around this article, IP's and anon's tend to be sock puppets. I could care less what Wikipedia's ultimate goal is, I'm just stating the facts. WP is not a research tool. You criticized the merger, why? You're not just an anonomous guy coming along to toss accusations and claim he knows how to do things better. Then you say that the editors that supported and/or nurtured the merger (as I did) lacked good sense? You then criticize my reply? So, what do you have to add? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, it seems. Sounds like you've got me figured as a sock puppet, so there wouldn't be much point anyway. I didn't come here to argue with you. I came here for information. I do believe the merger lacks good sense, and I've already stated why. It's right there in my diatribe. 203.220.81.20 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Glock 38

I have re-reverted Glock 38 to it's original unmerged form, please do not re-revert, if you do so, what you are doing is tantamount to deleting a page without taking it to AFD. If you want this to be done, you will have to take this to AFD, achieve consensus after arguing that this product does not by itself meet notability guidelines per wp:product, then you may delete and redirect. If you wish to reply, reply here and not on my talk page. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you have provided to wp:product counters your claim that the article should not be merged. There currently is no source provided that shows this particular product has had any outside material written specifically about it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can actually read. I'll put article in progress tag on Glock 38 I'll do some work on it, but right this second i'm strapped for time. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're strapped for time, why is it you're thwarting the concensus and efforts of those who are trying to add the two sentences of uniqueness that the .45 GAP pistols have to THIS article? --Asams10 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's removed anything or impeded anything on this article. The idea that there should be a separate article per-model is not diametrically opposed from the central Glock pistol article having the info, too. It might not be a bad idea to have both the per-model and a strong central article, in fact. It's not like we're running Wikipedia out of diskspace. If there's anything missing here now, please by all means add it! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've noticed, when I revert the other Glock models to their original intact formats, I included a link to this central page so that a user could have it however they so desire. I think that is the best course of action until such a time as this article can suffice for the needs of Wikipedia as relevant to this firearms family, if it ever develops to that point. I am opposed to a merge, but will not rebel against it if the merge is actually that (as opposed to the sad state of the article now; consolidate then redirect, not the other way around!). MalikCarr (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

re User:Librarianofages "Don't worry, I can actually read." I did not question your ability to read, but I do question your interpretation of a guideline that says, essentially, "If a specific product doesn't have independent sources written about it, the article should probably be merged into an article about mulitple products the company produces" as somehow supporting this product having a seperate article when you had included no independent sources in that article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, if we were to remain with the spider-web format for the Glock and its variants each of the variants would be no longer than a few sentences mentioning ported barrels, different springs and smaller/larger slides/grips. It's ridiculous, and I'm astounded that even an admin would subscribe to this misinformed irrational view. If you've ever handled a Glock pistol you would know. People opposing the integration have either contributed photos of their pistols in the derivative Glocks or draw their experience from Counter-Strike or Metal Gear Solid. Koalorka (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

0H Y4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! d1d 1 5@y c0un73r57r1k3 p|4y3r 700!!!!!!!!!!!! oO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, I invite you politely (once) to go read the discussions up above from before the merge actually happened. I am an engineer, have been the owner of a number of Glock firearms over the years, and have both measured and performed fit/function tests on interchangability of parts between models. Your assertion is unfounded. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you owned a Glock, it would be supplied with a manual, which on page 17 would reveal the following statement: "GLOCK pistols (note, plural) consist of similar/identical components. Those identical/similar components have the same functions as illustrated on the attached exploded drawing". As one example of the near identical commonality. Sorry to say, but you are completely out to lunch on this one. And I heave read this page in its entirety. Obviously if you measure the chamber or bore of a Glock 21 and 17, you will have differences.... Koalorka (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The gen-2 Glock 19 photo that formerly was on the Glock 19 page was one I took of one of my weapons. I formerly owned a 21C and 26, and have had extensive access to (I think) everything but the .380s and .45 GAP and Glock 18 models. I do firearms engineering in my spare time and, as I said, have measured and test-fit a number of parts interchanges, for my own curiosity.

I have never claimed that the models don't have the same design concept. Other than the .380s, they clearly are all the same configuration with appropriate slide width / barrel width scaling for the caliber and slide and barrel and recoil scaling for the barrel length.

All M1911 models are the same basic design too. But we do in fact have articles for a number of variants of those. And the guideline you and Asams10 point to shows the Enfield Rifle vs Jungle Carbine articles as being different, despite the fact that the changes there are nearly entirely cosmetic.

Blowing me off by trying to make it sound like all I am is a gamer dork is not going to work. I understand that the operating mechanism and design configurations are all identical on everything but the blowback .380s. I don't particularly feel like letting overly broad assertions about identical parts slide given the context here.

The reason that there isn't consensus is that you, and Asams10 before you, blew off my concerns and the concerns of others. If you would like to actually try talking to me we might get somewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What then are your concerns? Is it your intention to create a couple dozen splinter articles with a personal photo of each of your Glocks to illustrate it and have a sentence or two stating that it is chambered in something other than 9x19mm and has a longer/shorter barrel, longer/shorter grip/frame and has a compensator or not? What is it you're trying to achieve. We're simply attempting to enforce some standards and bring some ordnung to the gamer-inspired chaos. My Counter-Strike comments were directed at MalikCarr who seems to specialize in Manga/Anime... Koalorka (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When did you become so hostile towards non-project members? It's true, my area of expertise is in fiction, but it's not like that should be of any consideration when it comes to how or why I edit things. Gamer-inspired chaos? Ugh... I don't own a Glock (11+ capacity magazines are illegal in California, and why get a handgun with no external safety if the chief benefit of a large magazine capacity is denied to you?), but I am a firearms owner, thank you kindly. Is it always in vogue to have such bad faith of dissenting views on WP:Firearms-related articles?

Incidentally, if you really want to get down to gamer accusations, I made the first one in relevance to the Glock 18 having its own article. Now that we've all accused each other of being Counterstrike fanboys, can we move along? MalikCarr (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a couple dozen articles for each of the separate models. Each one went into some greater or lesser depth into that specific models' characteristics and usage.

Your comment about "a personal photo of each of your Glocks" is inappropriate. If you want me to take you seriously, please communicate in an adult manner.

Implying that gamers led to the proliferation of model articles is silly. Most of the Glock models don't appear in games. Most of the articles were created by owners of those specific models, and went through a common clean up a couple of years ago to make them moderately consistent.

The standards you're asking to enforce are all fine and good, but they don't necessarily say what you're asserting they do. Why does Colt Commander have a separate article from M1911 pistol? Why does the Lee Enfiled Mk 5 Jungle Carbine have its own article separate from Lee-Enfield, which is even listed as an example in the Variants guideline from Wikiproject:Firearms?

There was in fact a decent discussion about how many articles should we really have, whether grouping by length (standard, compact, subcompact) or caliber (9mm, .40, 10mm, .45, .357 SIG, .380, .45 GAP) or some other configuration made sense. LWF and others and I discussed quite a bit, to some consternation as I think we determined that all the ideas had problems.

If you are going to charge into this asserting the guideline and trying to assert a consensus or policy here that doesn't hold up looking back up at the record, then you aren't helping. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Colt Commander or Jungle carbine exist on their own. I have not stumbled into those pages, yet.. But they do require some attention. Most errors of this nature that persist on Wikipedia are simply out of convenience, or some fanboy having an irrational interest in one particular model. So you're now familiar with our intentions, what do you propose? Maintain the status quo? Koalorka (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, The Jungle Carbine article is the exception bounding the variants guideline listed in the guideline itself. How can you possibly argue that we should delete a variant article that's part of the guideline on what variants to keep and what to unify??? As I said, the Wikiproject:Firearms guidelines on what is supposed to happen with Firearms articles don't even entirely support what you're saying here, and you appear unfamiliar with them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

George, IIRC, the reason that the Jungle Carbine article was given as an example was because the discussion at that time was focused on that as a dissenting view. The editor who wanted it kept separate made enough of a fuss that the example was used. I, for one, think it's a horrible example. The Jungle Carbine is a simple variant so, mechanically, it's a bad example. Operationally, it had a distinguished history, though nothing more than a paragraph or so is necessary.

I think a better example would be the Ruger P series. This article, I feel, is a great (though still a bit crude) example of how the Glock article should be done. The layout is clear, models that are significantly different are given enough space. Everything is clear and you can find what you need when you need it. --Asams10 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have been considering changing the wording. When I actually took a very close look at Jungle Carbine looking for the differences I discovered that they weren't very significant. I'll look for a better example of the guideline's intent.--LWF (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another example - why is there a Browning BDA article? It's only a DA version of the High Power, otherwise the same size/dimensions/etc, right? And look who created it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A merge has already been proposed.--LWF (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet none for Colt Delta Elite, Colt Commander into M1911 ? And the MEU(SOC) pistol, Ballester-Molina, Kongsberg Colt, Kimber Custom, Kimber Eclipse, Kimber Aegis ... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's considered a different firearm using a tilting barrel/locked breech mechanism and does not interchange with the HP. It was designed from the ground-up by FN in 1983 to compete for the American 9 mm service pistol competition with significant ergonomic improvements, influenced obviously by the HP, it spawned it's own line of variants. That's a poor example, as was your reasoning with the Jungle Carbine. If it were an HP variant I would have included it in the browning HP article.... So I ask you. What do you propose? Koalorka (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that that actually be mentioned in Browning BDA. When I read the article it made it sound like a double-action Hi-Power. What you just said about the tilting barrel/locked breech mechanism is no where to be found in it. If it had said it operated off of different principles, and was only based off of the Hi-Power, I wouldn't have proposed.--LWF (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the other merges, I will say this, I am tired, and need to sleep. I'll look at those tomorrow. Although I will point out that many of those are made by different manufacturers, which is a different case entirely.--LWF (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Picking this up tomorrow is fine by me. I will leave with a comment, though... I don't see how the same (parts interchangeable) gun from different manufacturers justifies multiple articles, when different guns (parts not interchangeable) from the same manufacturer don't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I should have expanded the article when I created it, but other "priorities" arose. I will do so over the weekend. George, I don't understand your comment about parts interchangeability. The BDA is different altogether but is based on the HP operating principle and design layout. The HP and BDA are both made by the same manufacturer (FN) and are treated by them as different firearms, and not just for the sake of marketing. Koalorka (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that was unclear - We have two unrelated article sets in discussion, the "interchangeable parts" discussion is referring to the proliferation of Colt M1911 variant articles that I listed above. I don't have a BDA to take apart and compare with a High Power, and I'm not familiar with it generally, so I have no idea in the technical engineering specifications/design sense how it relates or doesn't to the High Power. I had made an assumption based on the wording in the BDA article earlier, but I don't have outside knowledge on that point, and if the article was unclear in a way that misled me, that the BDA is not a High Power minor variant (trigger mechanism changes only) then I agree the article should be fixed to be properly clear, and not merged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think for the sake of openness we should move all the debate that isn't directly pertinent to the Glocks to WT:GUNS. That way we can get more people to weigh in on this and come to a consensus.--LWF (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. So it would appear that there is no real consensus "on the ground" regarding issues similar to this one. At any rate, I stand by my actions to prevent the loss of information until such a time (if ever) as this article can replace the "spiderweb" of other models. Consolidate then redirect, people. MalikCarr (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I will ask you to substantiate your claim that there is material that is being lost. I have not seen any information that was sourced per WP:RS that did not make the merger. And anything not substantiated by RS should probably be deleted anyway or at least tagged for refernces.GundamsRus (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two different discussion points here that should not be mixed together. One is whether or not any material was left behind in the merge. The answer is definitely yes, so, assuming the merge is still on, it should be copied to the new article. The second question is whether some of the material did not have references. Definitely yes to that also, but in general on Wikipedia, unsourced material that is known to be true should be left in, and references should be added if possible. Also, specific to the Glock 38, how's this for a reference? — Mudwater 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)