Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 9 October 2017

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Firearms and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:GUNS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Firearms NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Firearms and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
  Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco / Armi
      Dyskusje:        Militaria / Broń
      Обсуждения:   Военная история

References

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 03:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Term: Rifle "platform"

Please help resolve Talk:Platform#Missing entry. PS: Rifle platform is a redlink.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  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 . Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Misplaced Pages: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)

• NA-Class Firearms pages
• NA-importance Firearms pages
• WikiProject Firearms articles