Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

 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

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)

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 [[1]] 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 [[2]]. 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

List of Bianchi Cup champions

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