Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Misuse of "Criminal use" section

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use is an advice page. Per WP:ADVICEPAGE, it has the same level of authority as an essay:

• However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

In other words, the "Criminal use" section is neither a policy nor a guideline. Yet editors routinely refer to it and treat it as one. Further, they extend its advice to extremes in order to prevent inclusion of criminal use material even when the advice page's standards are met.

For example, at Talk:Ruger Mini-14, editors have called it a "guideline"[1] and have misstated the advised standard.[2] There are many, many other examples of material being summarily deleted or this advice page being represented as a guideline or policy.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• More to be added.

This is an ongoing problem which needs to be addressed. Either the section needs to be brought into compliance with actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it needs to be deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. At the top of the 'guidelines' section, near the top of the project page, there is a box ("WikiProject style advice") that clearly identifies all of the material following as being an essay:

"This section is an essay on style. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. I checked back in history, and it's been there since at least August of 2011.

This advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style. It might not provide valid criteria for failing a Good Article or Featured Article candidate, nor for a noticeboard action or other dispute. However, it may be consulted for assistance during any discussion about the style used in an article. The degree of consensus that went into creating this essay (a potential measure of the reliability of the advice) can be judged by consulting the history and talk pages. WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on style. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."

(sorry, my formatting skills are very rusty, if another editor wants to reformat for better readability, feel free).

The material *is* in compliance with policy, as it's been identified as being advice, not rules. You seem to be suggesting that if an individual editor misinterprets or misunderstand the clearly written and identified text that I just quoted, the project must remove the essays - I guess on the theory that the project bears some responsibility for what editors (members of the project or otherwise) think is a policy? Does the project page anywhere *insists* that editors follow the advice, or misrepresent them as policy? If so, I don't see it.

Your first example ends with the editor stating "Seems very reasonable to me". The editor did not say "based on these guidelines, this shall/shall not stand".

The second example says nothing at all about the Firearms project, the guidelines, or anything else. It's merely an assertion, without any suggestion that it's backed up by a policy.

The third example does mention the project guidelines, but does not assert that they _prohibit_ the material in question, which would be an assertion of policy.

The fourth example gives some history, but nowhere does it state that the guidelines are policy.

What am I missing here? Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added more examples. When a user deleletes sourced material from an article with no talk page discussion, citing this material as the basis for their action, they're effectively treating it as a policy.

The material is not couched as advice and it's not treated as advice. The disclaimer says "This section is an essay on style", but this material is about content, not stye. My efforts to discuss the style issue have been ignored - see # Where should criminal use information be included?. Editors have claimed that criminal use material "violates" the standards in that material, and therefore can't be included. They've argued over minute details of a criminal use to see whether it would meet the standard, almost inevitably finding a reason to reject it.

Note that I asked above, repeatedly, how members of this project view this material. See #Users, criminal and non-criminal, for example. While there may be a disclaimer at the top of the page, that language is ignored in practice.

Let's turn the question around. What purpose does this material serve? Why does this project need to set an unenforceable standard for this specific type of information that is not consistent with Wikipedia policy? Felsic2 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see a lot of opinions above about the material in question, but absolutely no policy basis to back them up. Are you suggesting that your opinions regarding the group's essay supercede some policy in some way, and therefore...what, exactly? The project be barred from posting an essay that is identified as an essay, because some people refer to it when editing? Again - describe the policy that the essay violates. It's a simple question. Everything else is reaching. I read through your 24 additional examples - of them, only six rise to the level of suggesting that the project essay constitutes actual WP policy or guideline. Four are by one editor, each of the other two by other editors. What this suggests that those three editors could be reminded that the project essay is an essay, and not formal policy or guideline. It does not support anything further. Anastrophe (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that this material is purely style advice? Would you object if I added that to the paragraph itself, such as "Note: This is advice on style, not content"? Felsic2 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's already identified as an essay, that it offers advice, that it is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. You want that stated again on the same page, to protect us from a grand total of three editors who mistakenly represented them as something more than that? Anastrophe (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, just so it's clear, I'm not a member of this project. Anastrophe (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do want to prevent this style advice essay from being misused as a content policy/guideline. (Note that the list above is not exhaustive). Do you object to clarifying its status? Felsic2 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The status is clear, as I described. I do object to adding a redundant message to "clarify" its status, when the "problem" appears to be vastly overblown. Again, is there a wikipedia policy that the essay violates? If not, lets move on to more productive matters. Have editors violated wikipedia policy? Then those are matters that are dealt with elsewhere. I don't see any actual wikipedia policy violations either by this essay, or by the editors. If an editor misrepresents something as policy, then you call them on it. You don't add extra safety labels just because three people aren't clear about something they read. Anastrophe (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I get current editors who keep calling and treating this as a policy/guideline to stop doing that? "Calling them" on it doesn't work - they just keep doing it. Note that while I didn't include older edits, the editors who drafted this materual routinely referred to it as a guideline. The error is "baked in".

Short of adding a reminder that it's just an advice page, I'll move it to a position just below the disclaimer to make it clearer. Felsic2 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: It violates the WP:NPOV policy, which says that material should be weighted based on prominence in sources. Felsic2 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's an essay. It isn't presented as anything more than that, and it is within project space. It violates no policies as far as I can tell. If a small number of editors misunderstand that, it's a problem with those editors, not with the essay. Anastrophe (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are countless 'guidelines' on wikipedia that editors understand are not *formal* guidelines. Referring to something as a guideline in colloquial speech is common, and legitimate. A review of this page might be in order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Anastrophe (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, how do you suggest I/we deal with editors who habitually misuse this essay/style advice page? If the misuse stopped then changes to it wouldn't be needed. Felsic2 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this is just advice, maybe it'd be appropriate to change "must" to "should". Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"Again, how do you suggest I/we deal with editors[...]" - as you know, there are myriad mechanisms in place for dealing with editor conduct. Insisting that an essay in a project be changed isn't one of them. "it wouldn't be needed [...]" - correct language, please. It is not a need, it's a want. Again, in 24 instances you cited, only six rose to the level of actual misrepresentation, and those were by a total of three editors - and we have precisely one editor who sees this as a problem. I'm sorry, this "problem" seems vastly overblown. Anastrophe (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're saying that this project is helpless when its advice is misrepresented. I don't see you giving any defense or justification for this material.

Is there any objection to changing "must" to "should"? How about adding a line that the matter should be decided on article talk pages? Felsic2 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"So it sounds like you're saying [...]" Please reread my last comment. I'm not going to repeat myself. What I wrote is quite clear. Anastrophe (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, if there's no objection I'll reword it to indicate that these are suggestions instead of mandates. Felsic2 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you would find editors who object just as they objected the last time you tried to edit the essay. You have already been told people object to your changes. This is a good time to get buy in FIRST. Please head the advice you are being given here [[25]]. Springee (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If there's no actual objections I'll reword the material to indicate it is a suggestion instead of a mandate. Felsic2 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: No, you will not reword anything until you have express support from a number of other editors here. You've already been told on WP:ANI that there being no express objections does not equal there being support for what you propose, you were also told that continuing doing what you've been doing would result in at least a topic ban, so you're on thin ice... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I'm working to build a consensus. WP:BRD is a widely honored way of proposing changes. Do you believe that this project can mandate content decisions that bind editors? Because that is how this material is worded and how it's being used. Felsic2 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: It's clearly marked as being an essay, and that is all that is needed. And no, BRD is not a widely honoured way of proposing changes in a controversial area like this, the widely honoured way to do things in such areas is to propose a change, wait until you get explicit support from a majority of other editors for the changes, and then make the changes. If and when you get such support. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

While it may be marked as an essay, it's not written as one and it's not treated as one by many editors. I'll create a fresh section to draft changes. Felsic2 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: Your "Gun use" thing is also marked as an essay but not written as an essay, and not treated as one by you (as evidenced by you linking to it in posts without telling other editors that it's just an essay and written by you yourself...). So what's the difference? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There are several differences. The main one is that I do not go around saying that content must be added or deleted based on my essay, or alter articles citing it in edit summaries. FWIW, I think there should be a better mechanism of differentiating essays from guidelines and policies. For an example of someone who clearly seems to think that this material governs content, see Miguel Escopeta's 19:05, 19 October 2016 posting, below. Felsic2 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Object. @Felsic2:, I do find the status quo, established over many years, to be a guideline that is worth preserving. It avoids the introduction of minor crime cites for every misuse of a firearm in firearm articles. It would be the same as putting in another drunk driving accident in the Honda article, every time a Honda is involved in a drunk driving accident. No. The WP:Firearms consensus has remained in place for many, many years. It works to keep the firearm articles bereft of trivia. It also avoids the introduction of trivia every time someone uses a firearm to defend themselves, too. It works both ways. If we put in a mention every time someone is killed with a particular model firearm, then, for POV purposes, we would have to include every successful defensive use of the same firearm. This would be chaos. We should not clutter WP articles with petty crimes whenever a product is illegally misused, or successfully used in lawful defense, unless there is some larger impact of the crime or usage that results in major changes in laws, or major changes in notoriety or other noteworthy changes in status, as noted in reputable sources. This seems very clear to me. And, it seems to be the WP:Firearms and WP consensus, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Are you aware that this material does not actually have any affect beyond just being advice? Have you read WP:ADVICEPAGE? You are one of the editors who most frequently misuses this material by treating it as a policy which mandates Wikipedia content decisions. This Wikiproject does not own articles about firearms and has no special authority. Do you understand that fact? Felsic2 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Section move

@Springee: What was objectionable about this edit? [26] The purpose was to move the controversial material closer to the disclaimer to clarify its status as an advice page/essay. Felsic2 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• You're being disruptive, in addition to engaging in tendentious editing, and edits like the one you made, moving the section you want to change to the top of the page without discussing it first, are now being seen as being made only to irritate others. You know very well that noone here supports the changes you want to make to the page (or at least ought to know that by know), so just stay away from it, and make no changes at all to it without prior explicit approval from other editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly how did the move disrupt anything? I discussed it here.[27] You appear to be opposing anything I do on personal grounds rather than on the merits of the edits themselves. Felsic2 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • How is "Short of adding a reminder that it's just an advice page, I'll move it to a position just below the disclaimer to make it clearer" discussing anything? What you did was telling others that you intended to do it, which is very far from trying to start a discussion. And, as you've been told many times, there being no explicit opposition to what you wrote does not mean that other editors support you. Because silence does not equal support, other than in an essay that carries no weight whatsoever here, and never has. And no, I do not oppose anything on personal grounds, because personally I couldn't care less which order it's in, what I do is try to make you understand how things work here. In what is supposed to be a place where people not only collaborate but also edit from a neutral point of view. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I thought that was a legitimate way to have a discussion. I don't see any other occasion in which explicit approval has been required for a minor change to the project page. What is your objection to the move? Felsic2 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
        • To me, your edit looks like you are deliberately trying to increase the prominence of the subject your interested on editing. It looks a bit like POV pushing, to be frank. There was no issue with the way it was before, and there seems to be no reason for it to be moved higher up on the page other than to conform with your particular POV. — Bardbom (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't think it's "POV pushing" to want this material to be recognized as an essay rather than a policy/guideline. My sole intention was to move the material closer to the templated disclaimer to emphasize that fact. That was instead of adding a brief sentence to the material itself, which Anastrophe objected to. I'm sorry that even the most minor improvements to this advice page are being blocked ad that no compromises are being offered. Felsic2 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

NRA Eddie Eagle - Should the article mention a pop TV show's attempt to buy a Eddie Eagle costume?

Please take a look at this recent discussion regarding the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. [[28]] Springee (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Style discussion

There is a relevant discussion at talk:Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle. Felsic2 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Broaden scope to include BB guns, etc.

In accordance with this statement: by state laws, bb guns are considered firearms. in the UK, bb guns are considered firearms, too, depending on ft-lbs rating, too.)[29], I've broadened the stated scope of this Wikiproject by adding this line: Also included are weapons regulated as firearms, such as air guns and BB guns.[30] If other members disagree they can revert the change and remove the project tags from Talk:BB gun and similar articles. Felsic2 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• BB-guns etc are air guns, not firearms, period. Regardless of what ignorant lawmakers say. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • So then BB gun and similar articles are not part of this project? Felsic2 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice try. The edit summary in the diff you linked to is something you'll have to discuss with Miguel Escopeta, since it's just his opinion, and can't be used as an excuse for changing the scope of the project on the project page without a prior discussion here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Either BB guns, etc, are within the scope of this project or they aren't. If they aren't. Tom, you say they aren't and Miguel says they are. I see the logic of including them, since they are treated as firearms for many purposes. But it's up to a consensus of members to decide. I don't care either way, just let's be consistent. Felsic2 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Felsic2: We should always stick to technical definitions of things, and not the constantly changing definitions used by lawmakers, both because technical definitions are more correct and because there isn't one single "legal" definition of "firearm", used by lawmakers in all jurisdictions. As for Miguels' edit summary the blanket statement that "by state laws, bb guns are considered firearms" is patently false since U.S. state laws regarding air guns (according to Air gun laws#United States) vary widely, and only three of the 23 states (plus DC) who regulate air guns classify them as "firearms", the rest classify them as "non-powder guns", while the remaining 27 states don't regulate air guns at all (and thus have no reason to define them as anything other than just air guns...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This project isn't limited to the US. Air gun laws indicates that many countries regulate air guns as firearms. I don't see any reason to limit ourselves to technical definitions. Or legal definitions, for that matter. But again, it's up to this project to decide its scope. If BB guns are omitted from that scope then the tag should be removed from talk:BB gun. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Air gun laws indicates that some countries regulate air guns as firearms, just like some U.S. states do (three out of 50, i.e. 6%...), not that many do. And considering that there are 150-200 countries around the world some countries doing something isn't enough of a reason to bypass a (long-standing) technical definition, in favour of what the lawmakers in some jurisdictions say. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Some/many, whatever. If you don't think that BB guns should be part of this project then would you please remove the tag from that article? I'd do it myself but Miguel would probably revert me again. Felsic2 (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if it's there (so if you feel it matters you'll have to remove it yourself), I just don't want people to change the scope of a Wiki Project without discussing it first... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll wait a week to see if there are any other views on this issue and then if no one else wants BB guns and air guns included I'll delete the project tag again. Felsic2 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and FWIW, I count many countries that are described in Air gun laws as regulating air guns as firearms in some or all situations: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Isle of Man, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom- almost all of the countries included in that article. We don't know about those that aren't included. Felsic2 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Firearms typically considered small arms and carried by an individual rather than vehicle-mounted and team-served military weapons. Topics encompassing both broad concepts and specific models, ammunition, manufacturers, organizations, legislation, and historical figures such as inventors and notable gunsmiths associated with such firearms.
  • It would appear that hunting is not within the scope of this project either. Felsic2 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• I would tend to say don't include BB guns but I would be interested in seeing what previous discussions said. I would tend to say no even though there is clearly an overlap. My objection would be scope creep. Eventually too many things would get dumped under the project heading. However, I can understand the argument for so I would suggest that previous arguments (anyone have links?) be considered. If none exist then this might be a good RfC topic. Springee (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Air guns are, by definition, clearly not technically firearms. That being said, many air guns are considered to be an equivalent to firearms according to usage, history, and even modern-day regulatory laws, both in the United States and in many other countries. For example, Lewis & Clark carried an air rifle when sent by Jefferson on their expedition across America. It was an Austrian-made .46 caliber Girandoni air rifle, that served as a repeating rifle with a 20-round tubular magazine and was powerful enough to kill a deer. It was used to convince Indians not to mess with the members of the expedition, as it appeared to be capable of firing continuously without ever reloading, in repeated demonstrations that were made before Indian tribes as the expedition crossed America. (By the way, this Girandoni article is already tagged with the WikiProject Firearms tagline, incidentally!) I would argue that the WikiProject Firearms project should include such rifles, both from an historical usage standpoint, and for completeness. This has been the case in the WikiProject Firearms tradition for many years, now. A case could be made that Olympic class 10 meter air rifles should probably also be covered by the project. (It is already tagged with the WP:Firearms tagline, too, see: 10 meter air rifle.) On the other hand, air guns are clearly not firearms. Therefore, I would oppose any wording of including the WikiProject Firearms to include topics of "weapons such as air guns that are regulated as firearms" for several reasons. First, I do not consider it proper to describe the topic of the project as "weapons". The topic is just firearms. "Weapons" carries a connotation that is negative. "Firearms" do not. On the other hand, I see no problem in including topics such as the Girandoni Air Rifles, Olympic 10 Meter Air Rifles, and similar, in the scope of the project. However, all this is just my personal opinion. I recommend an RfC be conducted to define the scope of the project either to include or to not include air rifles, air pistols, and similar items, to provide guidance and further clarification. That way, the views of the members of the WikiProject Firearms project would ultimately be best represented. As for whether this has been discussed previously, I cannot say. I personally do not recall any discussion. But, for me, I personally consider the project to include air rifles, and air pistols, that have either been used as substitutes for firearms, or that are regulated as if they are firearms. That way, we follow the legal definitions that vary around the world, regarding what is considered a firearm, without getting bogged down in what is technically a firearm. This is a case of just going with what references say, without making any a priori' determinations based on personal opinions. I would recommend a change to the scope of the project to add, "The WikiProject_Firearms project also considers air guns that are considered to be an equivalent to firearms according to usage, history, and even modern-day regulatory laws, both in the United States and in many other countries, to be within the scope of the project." My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Whichever the project decides on. Until it decides differently, though, BB guns are not within the scope. (Nor is hunting). As for firearms not being weapons, that's a highly POV claim that's contradicted by countless sources, laws, etc. Let's not make that part of the decision-making process here. Felsic2 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Firearms/Archive 10 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Noteability guideline and sources?

What makes a specific firearm suitable for inclusion on wikipedia and what are appropriate sources to use? Sephiroth storm (talk)

WP:Source guidelines describe appropriate sources. Within the guidelines of WP:Notability notable firearms include those pioneering significant technical innovations, those making important contributions to significant historical trends or events, and those manufactured in large numbers. Perhaps it might be more useful to focus discussion on the specific firearms or sources which generated your question to get the perspectives of experienced editors. Thewellman (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about weapons is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

AR-15 rifles & Direct impingement

My understanding is that one of the characteristics of AR-15 rifles is their direct impingement gas operated system (though a few manufacturers opt for a short stroke piston instead). I haven't seen any controversy over this. Yet twice now an editor has come through related articles and deleted the phrase, sometimes replacing it with "Stoner designed gas-system".[31][32] I've reverted him both times and left questions on the IP talk pages asking for an explanation, but received no response. If the IP is right and I'm wrong please let me know. Otherwise I'll continue to revert these deletions or changes. Felsic2 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion started. See User talk:50.92.178.152 if you have any input. Felsic2 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breechblock

Please participate in decussion re revision to Breechblock. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)4

Minor help requested

Hi WP Firearms! I'm currently working on the article lead, and we've got a good sentence there that I want to stay but (annoyingly) can't find a good reference for:

Lead is sometimes alloyed with tin or antimony: this increases the cost and time of making the bullet, but increases its hardness (thereby making the bullet more effective against hard targets), reduces tension on the gun barrel and does not contaminate it with lead, as simple lead bullets do.

If anyone can suggest something to cite, it will be much appreciated. This will also eliminate the last obstacle before the upcoming FAC.--R8R (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The alloy you mention was most widely used for typesetting, and is described in some detail as the eutectic alloy at type metal. I would not describe its application to cast bullets exactly as you did, but you might look at the articles consolidated in the National Rifle Association's 1979 publication Cast Bullets by Col. E.H. Harrison for ideas. An explanation of the various alloying elements is found beginning on page 43 of Lyman Products Corporation's 1980 Cast Bullet Handbook in Dennis Marshall's article entitled "The Metallurgy of Molten Lead Alloys". Thewellman (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I was able to find both sources you mentioned online. Will see if I can get any good ideas from them.--R8R (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Milhist March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC notification, Smith and Wesson M&P15 article

There is a RfC related to the Smith and Wesson M&P15 [[33]]. The topic in question is

Should the following content be added to the article?

The Smith & Wesson M&P15 was used in the 2012 Aurora shooting,[1][2][3] the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting,[4][5] and the 2015 San Bernardino attack.[6][7][8]

Please see the talk page for additional details. Springee (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Garand M0

Discussion underway here on the worth of restoring a deleted page on the M1919 Garand prototype. Comment is invited. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)~

On the topic of pictures

I have noticed one MAJOR problem with many firearm related pages and lists, and that is a lack of pictures. this is completely understandable for very scarce/rare/prototype firearms, but for others that can be found with a quick google images search it isn't as much so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillcat222 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not every pic online is free to use.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, most aren't. You need to make sure that you get either the permission of the photo's copyright owner or find photos that are in the common domain or are under something like the GNU or Creative Commons license, which is much more difficult. Or take a picture yourself and release it under the CC license, which I've done for a few guns I own. — Bardbom (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 10/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Firearms.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Firearms, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Colt Manufacturing

In the Colt's Manufacturing Company article, the number of employees is listed as five in the infobox. What is the correct number? Thanks! –Zfish118^⋉talk 04:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Bianchi Cup champions

Why are the senior cup winners the only ones not listed?Skyecrescent (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't shoot

I've run into some trouble with User:Bellerophon5685, who is categorizing .22 Win Auto (&, AFAIK, only that round) as a weapon. I've rv'd a number of times, to no avail. Now, he's categorized the Ross rifle under ammo, suggesting the problem is getting worse... May I suggest someone (with more patience than I) have a chat with him? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll try. Perhaps you might consider the consequences of your recognized lack of patience. Reversion of edits seems unnecessarily dismissive of the efforts of other editors in comparison to span-of-text insertion of citation requested templates, followed by a waiting period allowing the editor to make appropriate revisions. If you don't have the patience for that approach, you might consider focusing on alternative means of improving Wikipedia. A more tolerant view of contributions by less experienced editors may foster a spirit of cooperation encouraging contributions by new editors. Thewellman (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't perceive a problem with the edits you find objectionable; but you may perceive a problem with the category being used (Weapons and ammunition introduced in a specific year). Reversion of edits using that category seems an inappropriately confrontational means of addressing this issue. I consider that a reasonable subcategory appropriate for both weapons and cartridges introduced in that year. If either the original broader category or two or more subcategories (one for weapons and another for cartridges and possibly others for bullets and propellant formulations) might be considered more appropriate, I suggest the issue might be better addressed at the category level -- and preferably through discussion in advance of destruction. Thewellman (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to narrow down the "introductions" cat into more specified cats. Grant it, this means that I am working on some subjects that I do not normally work on and am less familiar with. However, with patience and discussion I have been able to work out the issue re typefaces and fonts. OK, so ammo isn't technically a weapon, but this seems like hairsplitting, as the point of of bullets and cartridges is that they are going to be used for guns. Wouldn't putting them in a cat about weapons be more useful to other users than just the general introductions?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The word "weapon" implies intent. Automatically lumping firearms and/or ammunition into a "weapons" category tacitly implies intent on how the specific firearms and ammunition will be used. Is a target gun really a weapon? Not really. It is simply a firearm used for sport to punch paper. There are numerous nuances such as this and similar with regards to firearms that make firearms and ammunition a rather difficult area in which to contribute, at least until all the nuances are learned. Yet, by insisting on categorizing firearms and ammunition as being somehow automatically lumped into a "weapons" category automatically sends a rather strong negative message where perhaps none was intended. Or perhaps a negative attempt to denote something was intended. Hard to tell from the typed words. It is much like TYPING ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH TO MANY IMPLIES SHOUTING. IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE TO TYPE ALL IN CAPS WHEN THERE IS NO INTENT TO BE SHOUTING. Likewise, it is very offensive to automatically consider all firearms and ammunition to be in a category of weapons. It would be much the same as putting up a category of "Whores of 1916" for all women born in 1916. Very, very offensive. The choice of category name cannot imply intent nor should it denote a negative image. Yet, by proposing putting "them in a cat about weapons (to) be more useful to others...", a very negative message is what is being sent. Hope this makes it more clear. I am assuming good faith, in that no negative message was what was meant by proposing such a category. My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how categorizing something as a weapon conveys a negative meaning. Nor do I consider it misleading to add target guns to a weapons category. If, say, a sword is made primarily for show or for sport, it is still a sword, and therefore a weapon. Same thing with nunchucks or sais.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not connotation that concerns me. It's accuracy. A rifle is a weapon; the ammo it uses isn't. That's the simple basis for my objection. Calling a rifle "ammunition" is equally mistaken. If somebody has a problem with the connotation, let them deal with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Like Bellerophon5685, I don't find the term weapon offensive. However, I realize my generation's vocabulary with respect to intelligence or racial, ethnic, and gender identity seems to include many archaic terms presently considered politically incorrect; so I assume my understanding of weapon may be similarly outdated. Perhaps the subcategory might be revised to firearms and cartridges? As a practical matter, many other personal weapons like clubs, spears, swords, and nunchucks have been in use so much longer they are unlikely to have an identified date of introduction; but a subcategory like cutting implements might be created to include modern models of edged weapons, scissors, cooking utensils, woodworking tools, lawnmowers, and hedge trimmers. Thewellman (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO, if you can put a cavalry sabre in the same category as a hedge trimmer, you have created a monster... There is clearly a difference in intended use. If firearms, generally, were reclassified, distinct from artillery & such which have no non-military usage, I'd have no objection. I do, however, dread the creation of a "semiautomatic assault weapon" category to encompass the likes of the AR-15 and Mini 14... That said, a "cartridges" cat wouldn't handle the issue I started with, namely, misuse of the category: listing the .22 Win Auto or .25 Rem Auto as "firearm" is still wrong... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Though my tongue may have been in inappropriate proximity to my cheek while suggesting the cutting implements category, I might mention among the last official military uses of United States cavalry sabers was as machetes during the Pacific island campaigns of World War II. Machetes seem similarly well suited to use as sabers by irregular militia. Thewellman (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I might not have done so, I can understand why Trekphiler reverted Bellerophon5685's original recategorization edit of the .22 Winchester Automatic cartridge to Weapons introduced in 1903. I do not understand why Trekphiler persisted in deleting Bellerophon5685's recategorization edits after Bellerophon5685 changed the category to Weapons and ammunition introduced in 1903. Thewellman (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

An insistence on implying evil intent on all firearms is much worse than even a microagression. (For what it's worth, mandatory classes in microagressions and microaffirmations and a whole collection of similar such topics are currently being taught at all US Government facilities for managers. Consistent with this, implying evil intent is what happens by calling all "firearms" "weapons". Presently, I happen to be certified to teach several types of firearms classes by several national organizations. The current policy is actually to fine students in civilian classes $1 per usage, each time they use the word weapon, instead of rifle, shotgun, or pistol or firearm in some organizations. Only in military classes are firearms always called "weapons". There, the reverse is often the case. Unless a firearm is called a weapon, it is usually "drop and give me 10". So, unless the intent is to paint all civilian firearms with the military "weapons" brush, with an intent to evoke an automatic strongly-induced negative response to all firearms, with a further tacit intent to remove all firearms from civilians, then we should not be using "weapons" except in the case of military firearms, or martial arts weapons, which again implies military type usages, i.e., "martial" == "military". Civilian firearms should clearly not be called weapons. The very idea of a 22LR target rifle being called an assault weapon because it happens to have a pistol grip stock or a thumbhole stock is highly offensive to many in the gun culture. Yet, that is the clear intent of all those who wish to eliminate all firearms from civilian hands. To maintain a neutral POV in writing firearms articles, it is very important not to call all firearms weapons, as doing so takes a side in the current political debate, and we should always strive to maintain a neutral POV in our wording in our firearm articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I also understand Miguel's concerns about the term weapons; although Trekphiler, whose reverts were the source of this discussion, denied such connotations were the cause of his reverts. Would a subcategory firearms and ammunition be satisfactory, or do Trekphiler's persistent reverts of Bellerophon5685's recategorization attempts reflect a combined category problem I have not yet perceived? Thewellman (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"I do not understand why Trekphiler persisted in deleting Bellerophon5685's recategorization edits after Bellerophon5685 changed the category to Weapons and ammunition" I keep saying it. What part of not a weapon is unclear? If the cat had been applied to the rocket used in a bazooka, I might have left it, because you might reasonably say the rocket, of itself, is a weapon. (I also might not have.) In the case of firearms ammo, there is, AFAICT, no reasonable case to describe it as a weapon in its own right. I don't know how many other ways I can say it.

"we should not be using 'weapons' except in the case of military firearms" I'm less sure about the intent to subconsciously or subliminally demonize civilian firearms, but I have no problem with that proposition otherwise. Made-up terms that do, deliberately & consciously, smear civilian firearms based on their appearance & the biases of opponents must be excised from WP & resisted whenever they appear. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand why it might be inappropriate to put an article describing the .22 Winchester Automatic cartridge into a firearms category. If that category were expanded to also include ammunition, however, it seems reasonable to put that article in a firearms and ammunition category; because, although it might not be a firearm, it fits within the ammunition part of that category. Shall we, then, leave it up to Bellerophon5685 to decide whether a firearms and ammunition subcategory would meet his goals for rifles like the .280 Ross because it is a firearm using ammunition and for cartridges like the .22 Winchester Automatic because it is ammunition suitable for use in a firearm? Thewellman (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've said it as many ways as I know how. If you can't get my objection, I can't help you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't the one who asked for help. This thread started with Trekphiler's request for assistance resolving a difference of opinion with Bellerophon5685 regarding recategorization of WikiProject Firearms articles. Trekphiler's frustration with this situation may result from fixation on Bellerophon5685's initial edit, and a failure to perceive the change Bellerophon5685 made in subsequent edits to address Trekphiler's objection. Trekphiler's seeming inability to recognize Bellerophon5685's change to a combined category may not reflect any absence of good faith, but persistently reverting edits while failing to acknowledge good faith attempts to address the objection seems unnecessarily disruptive. Thewellman (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added "and ammunition" to all the weapons introduced in year cats. Cartridges are ammunition.The are in the ammunition cat. Therefore .22 Winchester Automatic, which was previously under 1903 introductions, is now under weapons and ammunition introduced in 1903. I do not see what is so controversial here. In the weapons cat I have also added knives - when there was evidence in the article that they were used as weapons - missiles, heavy artillery and even nukes. I am not a hoplophobe, I am just narrowing a category down to a more specific category.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what other subcategories you might have in mind for the (year) introductions categories; but, as described above, weapons seems an inappropriately subjective category. As the lead section of Wikipedia's weapon article explains ...weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary. Your proposed limitation on the categorization of knives illustrates the problem. WikiProject Firearms has seen previous discussions about the probability articles might mention use as weapons. Very few of the articles describing motor vehicles used in vehicle-ramming attacks or as car bombs, for instance, have any mention of use as a weapon. Perhaps we might offer alternative suggestions if we had a better idea of the scope of your recategorization effort. Thewellman (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Firearms and ammunition" cover a large enough field to have an year introduced cat, but not with just the firearms that were in the generic introduced category.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been informed of a change to a combined category, which, if anything, is worse. It's a stupid solution that equates firearms & weapons. Does anyone genuinely believe an M1911 is the same as .45 ACP? If they are the same, why, pray tell, do they have separate pages? Since they most assuredly are not the same thing, why, pray tell, would they be categorized together? This amounts to categorizing Canadian & American politicians together because they live on the same continent (or something). How does that make sense? How is that a good thing? And going out of your way to create categories that put two disparate things together, & then using that as an excuse to justify an rv... Did I rv from a change like that? Yes. Would I again? Yes. Do I think this kind of combined cat is a plague to be avoided? Unquestionably. Will my opposition make the slightest damn difference? Not when the comments can't get past complaining about civil firearms being called "weapons". So tell me: is the Colt Single Action Army to be included in the same category as the .45 Long Colt? If not, why not? Is the Smith & Wesson M29 to be included in the same category as the .44 Magnum? If not, why not? Is the Colt Python to be included in the same category as the .357 Magnum? If not, why not? Is the Colt M16 to be included in the same category as the 5.56mm? If not, why not? And when someone searches in the firearms categories & keeps coming up with ammo pages, & they think everyone at WP is an idiot who can't tell one from the other, what do you propose telling them? Y'know what, while we're at it, lets put jet fighters & birds in the same category; they both fly, right? Let's put hand grenades & baseballs in the same category, & spears, too. Let's... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:08 & 01:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If I understand the attempted edits correctly, they would be a subcategorization of the year of introduction categories rather than an overall combination of the firearms and cartridges categories. This seems a reasonable grouping, because many new cartridges have been introduced with new firearms designed to fire those cartridges. Although it has not yet been mentioned in this discussion, a combined year of introduction subcategory for aircraft and aircraft engines might be similarly useful. Thewellman (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, if firearms (and/or aircraft) seem inappropriately narrow subcategories, perhaps a military weapons introduced in (year) subcategory might be appropriate for weapons specifically identified as having passed acceptance trials and been adopted for use as weapons (rather than training aids or survival tools) by a military organization large enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. The year of introduction in such cases would presumably be the year of military adoption or acceptance, which might be different from the year of civilian release or military trials. Thewellman (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to connect (some) firearms with ammo by year of introduction, including, frex, the S&W M29 & .44 Mag, or the Colt Trooper & .357 Mag. Doing it for all ammo is inappropriate. Doing it for Fritz X is ridiculous, yet it has been done. The rationale for calling a guided bomb "ammunition" escapes me, & the notional connection to anything else does, too, since, AFAIK, no aircraft was specifically designed or introduced to carry or launch it, in any year. So what's next, the Mark 14 torpedo should be categorized "weapons & ammunition introduced in 1931"? Which, perforce, means Dolphin must be categorized "ammunition". Am I the only one who thinks this whole joint categorization is absurd? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I created the title of the cat so it would include both weapons and ammunition. So Fritz X is meant to be considered in the "weapons" part of the description. I created the cat specifically because Trekphiler rejected to a cartridge being put in the weapons introduced cat. This is getting to the point that I would like to take this up with an Wikipedia:Arbitration, as Trekphiler has repeatedly reversed my reasonable edits after I had expanded the cat to include his concerns. He even deleted the cat off of Thompson gun. I know one cannot prove a negative, how is the inclusion of a Thomson machine gun in a category for weapons inappropriate?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You've created a category to include two things that are not the same. What part of that do you not understand? After I have repeatedly stated it, in edit summaries & here? Arbitrate all you like. Fritz X is not ammunition. Neither is the Thompson SMG. And .22 Win Auto, .22 Rem, & any other ammo are not firearms. They will never be firearms. You can create all the joint categories you like. I notice you don't address the logical extension of your creation of a new category for Fritz X. Does that also include Razon? Azon? Felix? CBU-87? Cluster bomb? (Which is the weapon & which the ammunition in that case? Or are both parts weapon & ammunition?) How about Tallboy? Is that "ammunition", too? And, I repeat, if Fritz X is, why isn't the Mark 14? And, thus, why isn't Dolphin "ammuniton"? Why wouldn't the Lanc that delivered Tallboy be jointly categorized with it? Pray enlighten me as to how that is sensible categorization. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've taken this dispute to mediation. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Thompson_submachine_gun--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is an obvious attempt to create a category structure for "firearm related stuff by year". As such I would fully support it.

There is a question as to naming. "Weapon" is indeed a problem, as it does not clearly include ammunition, or indeed sights, bipods or an improved cleaning brush. So some other name is needed.

There is also a question as to scope. Does this include small arms, or ordnance up to and including air-dropped bombs? There is a case to be made for either, but it would seem that here, the first editor has been addressing the small arms problem alone. That's fine - if anyone else needs a category for battleships and rabbit rifles, they can create that later.

So within those two needs, Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in 1919 is working for me, with the assumed and implicit meaning of small arms. If anyone wants to make a case that it ought to be "fireams" or "small arms" and ammunition too, then I can see a case for either. Discussion could easily resolve that in one place, and then we could use a 'bot to make a bulk change and save wasting a whole load of time. I certainly don't find the idea of categorization for weapons and their ammunition as "absurd", as has been claimed.

Page by page edit-warring though, as has been happening at Thompson submachine gun, we have no place for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If the goal is a structure for firearms-related by year, I'd be fine with that. What this does is categorize two disparate things under the same rubric, which makes as little sense as listing battleships & pellet guns, simply because they both shoot things. Which also raises the question, are pellet guns to be included with .22LR? With .17 WMR? .22 BB Cap? And what does the editor or reader unfamiliar with firearms do when confronted with this? If you'd call the category "firearms-related inventions of [year]", or something... Instead, this. I repeat, for the zillionth time--ammunition and weapon is not the same thing. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC) (BTW, I do expect the arbitration to go against me. It always does.)

Listing two separate things in the same group makes a lot of sense, if each one is useless without the other. 196.52.16.16 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Listing two separate things in the same group makes a lot of sense, if each one is useless without the other." Excellent, let's categorize cars & gasoline together, then. Let's categorize television & money together, or money & politics. Any others "useless separately"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope persistent sarcastic blather about what is admittedly a lost cause doesn't distract the mediator's attention from the remaining issue of the subjective term weapons. Thewellman (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll pardon me if I don't see "weapon" & "ammunition" as subjective terms any more than "night" & "day" are subjective. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope - if anyone cares

Are attacks and incidents where firearms are used part of this project's scope? It's not explicitly stated in the section where the project's scope is defined, but there are many listed among the featured content section. ansh666 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. That would be like WikiProject Automobiles fitting cases of vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter within their scope. Most attacks or incidents will either fall under WikiProject Crime or the Military History Project. As far as Scope, yes, that belongs to us. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that a lot of people seem to think that it does - and I'm sure they'd think the same of the automobiles thing. I've come across the same issues in deletion sorting too. Should they be removed, or is it okay if they've been there for so long? And maybe there should be a statement in the scope definition about what isn't covered, like WP:WikiProject Death? Admittedly many of the events triggered debates on gun control and gun politics, which are covered by this project, so it's a bit of a gray area there. ansh666 21:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Are those people members of WikiProject Firearms? Vehicle-ramming attack is not part of WikiProject Automobiles. I seem to recall a majority of WikiProject Firearms members have previously expressed a preference to exclude most firearms attacks and incidents from WikiProject Firearms. The subject is addressed by the Criminal use and Popular culture guidelines. I suggest firearms attacks and incidents might better be included (with vehicle-ramming attack) in WikiProject Terrorism or WikiProject Crime. Thewellman (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I also have a problem with this. There are too many firearms articles that start with “ACME introduced firearm ABC in July 2000” then spend the rest of the article talking about how it was used to commit mass murder XYZ and terrorist attack 123. While these incidents may be notable. They should not dominate the firearms ABC article. A “see also” link to the mass murder XYZ and terrorist attack 123 articles should suffice.--Limpscash (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

They are definitely not members (nor am I, though maybe I should be); they go around adding random project templates to current events articles' talk pages. There seems to be lots of politics involved, which I think is silly, but it is what it is. ansh666 07:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Limpscash, these incidents, criminal use, mass shooting, terrorist attacks, whatever you want to call them, should be limited to the "See also" sections. More often than not, the addition these incidents on firearms pages is little more than sensualism or political propaganda. I vote that we rewrite the guidelines to limit the silliness--RAF910 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

That the follow sentence be added to the Criminal use section... Therefore, criminal use of firearms should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section of said article.

Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section.
Sorry, minor rewrite for better clarity...no change in meaning or intent.--RAF910 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Criminal use

• In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". Therefore, the criminal use of firearms should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section of said article. Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section.

• SUPPORT--RAF910 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support (if I understand correctly the "see also" links to a page describing an incident involving said weapon). "Criminal use" smells like an effort to demonize firearms. There's no similar moves when a Ford is used to escape a bank job.... (Not since Clyde Barrow, anyow...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• SUPPORT For reasons already stated. While it may be impossible to prevent the addition of this information. We can limit it to a very simple and very neutral "See also" link.--Limpscash (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• "Oppose" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and per WP:NPOV includes all positions and uses neutrally. The proposal is non neutral and is against including a position/use, criminal use, and therefore violates WP:NPOV and the proposal is invalid. The Carcano rifle use in the Kennedy assassination is an example of a notorious criminal use description in a gun article and has been for years. No other uses are being proposed to be limited to a See Also, which is a demonstration of a non neutral proposal and so violates WP:NPOV. Per WP:NPOV Local consensus is not allowed to override WP:NPOV.

The criminal use guideline was created years ago to limit trivia in gun articles, not to violate WP:NPOV and exclude criminal use in articles; for example, to not include text like "person X was fined $100 for banging Gun x on a trash can making a loud noise violating a community noise law." Criminal use is also included in other subject articles, like cooking tools-Pressure cookers and chemicals- Ammonium Nitrate per WP:NPOV; and per WP:NPOV is to be included in gun articles; which has been done, for at least 10 years for the Carcano, and per RFCs with outside editors; in order abide by WP policy to provide all neutral points of views/uses to readers.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but probably not quite as written. I think there is room for more than just "See also" but I firmly agree that many of the articles seem to be too over the top with focusing a crime the gun was used in. I think this is especially true when there is no evidence that the rifle was uniquely picked for a particular crime. Certainly in cases where there is a primary article on the crime we should simply link to that article. In some cases I think a one or two sentence mention may be appropriate. Springee (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support to keep articles on topic and prevent content forking and coat racking to which these articles are prone. Linking to notable events allows the reader to follow if they wish.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• SUPPORT conceptually. This isn't a neutrality issue. It is a matter of keeping the article focused on the operational features, production, and distribution of the firearm in comparison to other firearms. A See also link should be adequate unless the source explains how features of the firearm used made it more or less effective than other firearms might have been. In many cases, such features will apply to a range of firearms rather than a specific model; and, in such cases, the expanded description would be more appropriately made part of a broader article describing that type of firearm. Please see the discussion below for an anecdote illustrating the significance of availability rather than features. Thewellman (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Lately this has been a recurring issue with a couple of editors that hop from article to article, trying to make the same changes and demanding that the same issue be rehashed over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. In most cases, the choice of any specific gun in any particular criminal incident is entirely happenstance. It is what the store had in the display case on the day the future criminal made his gun purchase. Or, it happens to be what was in the car or truck that was vandalized, and what was stolen. Or, it happens to be what the relative had bought and had, before the mother was killed and her guns taken, such as in Sandy Hook. To make any more of this than pure happenstance is attempting to imply something that is counter to what actually happened. This is not a neutrality issue. Rather, it is simply an issue of keeping articles on focus, and placing such happenstance criminal use details in the article on the crime itself. That way, the gun articles can focus on the details of the firearm itself, not of what happened to happen once upon a time. The existing guidelines have served well for many years. They can be strengthened through this change. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - sounds good in theory, but in practice the links in the "see also" (examples below) don't make any sense. Better to just keep them out altogether unless it's significant enough (deciding which is a whole other issue), in which case it should get its own section. ansh666 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This could be an improvement but that still seems odd to me. The parallel example would be looking at the S-Class 430 Mercedes-Benz article and then in that 'See also' section, you stick a link to the Murder of David Lynn Harris. Somehow, that murder doesn't seem germane to an article about the car...not even in a see also section. I note that our article on the murder itself only ever mentions a Mercedes but no model so I had to go digging to find the exact type. That seems to have not occurred to many of the journalists covering that murder either as they seem content to just call it "a Mercedes". Few would think that the specific model would be that significant after all, she killed him with a car; does it matter what type? No one seems to have wanted to stick that into the article but if she had used a firearm instead of a vehicle, they would have beaten a path to a firearm article to shoehorn it in. Mentioning the vehicle is germane to the article on the murder but not the other way around...that is the problem.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

♠That reflects a problem in the media coverage, too, tho. When there's a killing with a vehicle, there's not specifics of make, model, & displacement prominently included; a shooting, you can be damn sure the mag capacity will be in there, & barrel length if anybody can find it by airtime...

♠Which does leave the issue of the disconnect unresolved.... I hadn't thought about that. I'd far rather there be a way to link out & avoid giving the trolls opportunity to cram in every minor crime that makes page 17 of the Hooterville Mercury... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that and am likely to support this proposal but I think it would be good to get this well-worded and well thought out because I imagine that this will be challenged at some point requiring community review. I went through the archives reading previous discussions on this yesterday and still reflecting on other possible alternatives. We need to make sure that this project guideline is kept inline with WP policies and guidelines as well. Getting this discussion in is as much for the uninitiated that come along to review the situation. We all know and understand the problem but from what is written, I'm not sure that the general editor would. I believe getting rationale(s) laid out for them would be beneficial here to bolster the position of the proposal so that it will stand up under review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that Ansh666's request to add definition to our scope about what doesn't belong hasn't been addressed either and that may be helpful here to develop that as well for the benefit of others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd add, not encountering the problem isn't limited to non-Project members; my own experience hasn't included it: I'm aware of it, where others may not be, but I've never actually seen it. A guiding principle for even the likes of me wouldn't be a bad thing. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this would have to be worded carefully. There are several examples of RFCs resulting in clear consensus for inclusion. However, there are also examples of editors rejecting mention of crimes in various product pages. The pressure cooker page was mentioned above as an example where crime uses was added. I don't think that example was debated so I wouldn't consider it a firm consensus of group opinion nor editorial direction for other articles. Here are a few relevant examples I can think of. Ruger_Mini-14 and Sig MCX [[34]] where a RfCs resulted in inclusion of crime uses. However, there are other examples where RfC said no to adding a crime to the product page (non-gun). Two car crime examples were discussed and rejected in this RfC [[35]]. Springee (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would have to review some wiki guidelines but when considering inclusion perhaps we should follow the leads of external references. I've basically made this same suggestion on the past. If external articles about the wiki article subject mention a crime event then we have grounds for inclusion. If an external article about the crime/event mentions the gun that means there is grounds for mentioning the gun in the crime/event article but not necessarily the other way around. For example, an automotive article about the Ford V8 coupe often mentions Bonnie and Clyde so the pair can be added to the car's article. The same is true of the Tommy gun and use by Chicago mobsters. When looking at more recent gun crime it seams plenty of articles about a mass shooting will say model X rifle was used but those are about the crime, not the gun. In the recent Sig MCX article we had an interesting variation. An article "about the gun" was more a generic intro that was somewhat rifle specific then followed with material that was clearly gun politics vs information about the rifle. At least one editor tried to cite the article for a minor fact in what appeared to be coatracking via citations vs article content. Springee (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Availability is the critical element for use of firearms. In the early years of the Great Depression, my father was working part time in a large gun store to pay his college expenses. A white hunter came into the store to sell his collection of big game hunting rifles after a career of guiding wealthy clients on African hunting safaris through the 1920s. It was an impressive collection of European double rifles and magnum bolt actions in such exotic calibers as the .505 Gibbs and .600 Nitro Express. These rifles had taken all of the African big five game animals. With an opportunity to get first-hand information about rifles and hunting species most of us have only read about, my father asked which rifle the hunter had used for most of his trophies. From the dozen or so, the hunter selected a comparatively drab .30-06 Springfield. This is the rifle I used hunting antelope to feed the camp, he said, and while carrying it, I encountered and killed every species I hunted, and my most impressive trophies of several.

A simple list of See also links will provide an appropriate illustration of the historically notable uses of most firearms. The length of the list will provide a uniform comparison, which might otherwise be distorted by descriptive text of variable length. These lists are likely to reflect production and distribution more than design features of the firearm. Thewellman (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO, Springee captured the fundamental difference necessary for inclusion: impact. The Thompson sees mention of use by gangsters because it was a significant (even major) cultural effect. The Ford gets Bonnie & Clyde for the same reason: they're famous enough on their own, & Clyde was brazen in writing Henry. Most crimes since have not, do not, & (I wager) will not (ever) rise to that standard. If ever a crime use gains as much individual notoriety as Clint's "Do you feel lucky?", I'll add it myself; I don't expect to ever have to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have attempted to implement this change on the Bushmaster XM-15 article. By moving 4 separate sections (all devoted to the same crimes) that dominate that article into simple links in the “See also” section. However, my edit was reverted by CuriousMind01. The only editor to opposes this change. As this change clearly has overwhelming (8 to 1) support now. Is it now appropriate for me to restore the edits?--Limpscash (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Coming from a note left at WP:NPOV/N, I think that just listing the notable crimes a weapon was used in as bullet points seems reasonable, though I would expect that if something as a result of that crime impacted the weapon (not just the specific model but similar types), it should be given more prose discussion. Eg a case of a semi-auto being used in a crime that directly led to legislation to ban sales of semi-auto weapons under certain restrictions. That needs prose discussion of how important the crime and resulting response was for that specific weapon. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• By my count we have a 9 to 1 consensus in favor of listing crimes as bullet points. So, I will make the change myself. However, CuriousMind01 has a habit of endlessly arguing his position, Wikilawyering and ignoring consensus that opposes his position. So, it will most likely be reverted again.--RAF910 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • RAF910 I consider your statement a personal attack and harassment.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As predicted Curiousmind is ignoring consensus and reverted the changes to the Bushmaster XM15 page, as well as the SIG MCX. He clearly does not care what any of us think, and is pretending that this discussion where an overwhelming majority of his fellow editors disagree with him is meaningless. And as usual, he is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him by accusing them "personal attack and harassment." He is apparently unaware that constantly accusing your fellow editors of personal attacks and harassment is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Accusing others of harassment.
      • So, this is how it is. RAF correctly predicts that Curiousmind would ignore an overwhelming (9 to 1) consensus, that he would Wikilawyer, and unilaterally revert the changes. Then Curiousmind has the gall to accuse him of "personal attack and harassment". I wonder how many times he has pulled that stunt? I wonder what he will accuse me of doing?--Limpscash (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think a change like this would stick if an RfC were opened and came to the same conclusion. Without that how can people here claim this consensus supersedes some of the previous article based RfCs that favored inclusion? Springee (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK...If you start it, I will vote for it.--RAF910 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• I will also vote for an RFC on the Bushmaster XM15, SIG MCX or any other page.--Limpscash (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see:

• • Local consensus is not binding, Per WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages
  • "...in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, ... An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."

• • Consensus is not just the result of a vote, policies also apply Per Wikipedia:Consensus
  • Community consensus on the Sig MCX wording was determined in 2 Request For Commentss
  • 1. Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_1#RFC:_Is_the_Orlando_shooting_relevant.3F
  • 2. Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_2#RFC
  • Bushmaster criminal use and legality wording community consensus wording has existed since 2016.CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Was this what was intended?

I've just seen the first edits citing this project guideline with this and this. Without prose, it lacks apparent relevance and leaves the reader having to guess. Are we sure that this is the way that the recent amendment was intended?

I also point out that I can envision these See also sections as becoming undue weight towards crimes. That H&R article only had one link in the section. With just a few of these type links added, it'll be mostly about criminal usage. (The IP looks like someone evading scrutiny but that is another matter)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits don't meet guidelines. No change in notoriety. No change in laws. Seems like trivia. Have removed the content. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking aim at the scope (again)

So since my original intent on refining the scope of this project (to avoid politicization of the WikiProject label, in case anyone was wondering) was kind of lost in the discussion above, let's try again.

Here is the scope as it reads currently: Firearms typically considered small arms and carried by an individual rather than vehicle-mounted and team-served military weapons. Topics encompassing both broad concepts and specific models, ammunition, manufacturers, organizations, legislation, and historical figures such as inventors and notable gunsmiths associated with such firearms. Due to confusion and misapplication it would perhaps be a good idea to include a list of things that do not qualify under the scope - for some examples of other WikiProjects which do this, see WP:DEATH or WP:MILHIST. For example, topics such as events which involved firearms (shootings, arms deals, etc.) and individuals or groups who notably used firearms typically should not be in the sights of this project.

There's also a bit of gray area that I think would best be cleared up - if there was a shooting incident which led to significant legislation, would it qualify? Thanks, ansh666 21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC) (and sorry for the gun puns, I couldn't resist! )

I concur with listing things not considered part of the project. My preference would be to exclude shooting incidents, as the significance of legislation is fairly subjective and a likely source of disagreement. Thewellman (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I also concur. However, how do we deal with editors who are on a mission to add as much derogatory information as possible to as many firearms articles as possible? I don't see how we can enforce the rule change, unless we as a group, start to ruthlessly vote editors off the island when they violate the rules--RAF910 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I really concur as well. I feel this project should be really stripped down to just guns, their parts, and their ammo. There is so much subjectivity in everything else I don't think the articles fits. Then we could get down to other nitty gritty stuff like removing the "importance" field in the assessment logs. --Molestash (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I will vote for it. However, we currently have one editor on this very page who refuses to acknowledge a (9 to 1) consensus against him. I don't see how we can make it work.--Limpscash (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Question: Would that remove listing (or not listing) criminal uses in firearms articles from the scope? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Years ago I tried that. Removing criminal usage, anti-gun organizations, etc. This should be just about small arms, ammunition and firearm sports and activities.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Err, that has nothing to do with the scope. That defines what types of articles this Wikiproject deals with, not the content within those articles. Would it remove, say Criminal use of firearms (redlink, thankfully) as an article that the project deals with? Perhaps. But it shouldn't affect the content of, say, the AR-15 article. ansh666 21:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? If so I was talking about someone several years ago putting the brady group and other anti-gun organizations under the scope of this project. Sometimes they tagged "criminal shootings" with our project banner. In the bigger picture I guess it doesn't matter as anyone who disagrees with us says that Wikiprojects don't mean anything anyway.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I was talking to Niteshift. (And yes, that type of tagging is exactly what prompted this discussion.) ansh666 00:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree that it has nothing to do with the scope. It's clearly an issue that takes up a lot of time from editors in this project on firearms articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I will vote for it. However, we currently have one editor on this very page who refuses to acknowledge a (9 to 1) consensus against him. I don't see how we can make it work.--Limpscash (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You sure you're in the right section? ansh666 05:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern with "stripping down" is the risk of excluding things like custom stocks, 'scopes, and other accessories, which (presumably) wouldn't be shut out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion

Hi folks, it's me again. There's a discussion that may interest you members of this WikiProject at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Articles copied from Wikia, and your input would be welcomed. Thanks, ansh666 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I created .41 Swiss, not knowing aobut this, which is poorly sourced & inaccurately titled, so I propose merging into .41 Swiss. Comment here is requested. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Term: Rifle "platform"

Please help resolve Talk:Platform#Missing entry. PS: Rifle platform is a redlink.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

NRA as a civil rights org

The topic of the NRA being the oldest civil rights org is under discussion again [36]. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

CuriousMind01 attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms meaningless. So that he can add "Criminal use" sections to as many firearm pages as he can get away with. I encourage my fellow editors to comment there --RAF910 (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding User: CuriousMind01 vs User:RAF910 and issues with which editors to this project may have been involved. ----RAF910 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:9×19mm Parabellum#Requested move 22 October 2017 that members of this project may be interested in. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Colt AR-15

Predictably, there are editors coming to the Colt AR15 article, trying to add in criminal use info about "AR15's". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Sub-caliber round

This article is exceptionally poorly written though I doubt whether WP:PROD is the way to go. Could people with more expertise in this subject please take action? I could handle the cleanup but afterwards there might not be substantial content left. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Subject article seems more applicable to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history than to WikiProject Firearms. Most of the text relates to grenade-launchers and team served military weapons rather than small arms. It might better be merged and redirected with the Saboted light armor penetrator, Kinetic energy penetrator, Armour-piercing discarding sabot, and Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot articles. Subject article's text applicable to small arms is already covered in the Sabot and Caliber conversion sleeve articles. Thewellman (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Bit late, but I've removed and revdel'd some copyvio, which still leaves a short, unreferenced stub. ansh666 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Wade michael page police handout.png at FFD

The image File:Wade michael page police handout.png is relisted twice in FFD into the 2017 October 19 log. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with firearms at all. ansh666 09:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Firearms

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC related to NRA article

There is a new RFC on the NRA article's talk page. [[37]] Springee (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be a move to call the NRA a racist organization because they didn't immediately condemn a police shooting to satisfaction of anti-police, anti-gun, anti-NRA writers. I encourage everyone to comment of the NRA talk page.[[38]] --Limpscash (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Valid Sources

After reviewing WP:FIND, I'm still not sure what sources are valid. Guns are an interesting subject to try to source, because many of the publications are very blog-like, and heavy on the subjective reviews, but still contain a plethora of technical data. Websites like americanrifleman.org, range365.com, shootingillustrated.com, and guns.com are what I'm wondering about, specifically. Anyway, if any of you all would kindly help me out, that would be appreciated. Mr.1032 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

AR-15s in California

I recommend that AR-15s in California article be merged with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 page with appropriate redirect. Please comment at Talk:AR-15s in California.--Limpscash (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)