Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 4

message: Name (mm/in)	Bullet Diameter	Case Length	Rim	Base	Shoulder	Neck	Round Length
Name (mm/in)	Bullet Diameter	Neck	Shoulder	Base	Rim	Case Length	Round Length
It seems to me the second form, as opposed to the current form (top), seen on the "caliber" pages, is more logical. Comment?  Trekphiler 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems logical to me.  What do others think?  I'll change it if there's enough support. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice, after a repeat post above (oops...), this conflicts with current editions of COTW. Mine (which is pretty old...) uses the second form, which is why I favor it...but also, I find it more intuitive. And the individual page infoboxes use a variant of it (see above). Trekphiler 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting organized 

message: 1.  When I left there didn't seem to be much of a concensus on what to do about the WPGUNSAWARD template I was working on.  The latest version was this one...
On behalf of the Firearms WikiProject, I hereby award
the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.
:What to do?
::A. Implement.
::B. Alter.
::C. Start over.
::D. Scrap the whole idea.
:I plan to run with option A if no strong objections crop up in the next 7 to 10 days. 
2. It was brought up that the WPGUNSMEMBER userbox caused problems for Firefox users in certain situations.  There is no fix for this as near as I can tell.  Someone mentioned on my talk page that it may be simpler just to go back to a standard static userbox (ie. kill the options).  Doing so would solve the problem.  What to do?
::A. Leave as is.
::B. Make static.
:I plan to roll with option A (ie. do nothing) unless there are strong opinions. 
So, there's that.  Comments, questions, complaints?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 10:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfinished business 

message: Hi everybody,
speaking of unfinished business, I recently took the liberty of adding a few sources to M1 Garand rifle, fixing it up a bit and nominating it as a good article. EyeSerene has been so kind to accept the article for review and has added some helpful comments to the talk page. The review is currently on hold. Unfortunately, I've been out of town on an unexpected trip for the last few days and I haven't really had the time to work on the article.
Long story short, any help at all is appreciated. I'll see if I find some more sources and make the necessary changes tomorrow. The last round of adding cites required a trip to the library which, unfortunately, isn't an option at this point due to time constraints on my part and I guess it probably won't be necessary anyway. Thanks. S up? 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did all the easy stuff I could find on that list. Still need some help for the two specific items mentioned on the talk page requiring references, as well as checking other areas of the article for potentially missing references. It's passed my knowledge of this particular firearm now. Arthurrh 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I think I'll be able to make time to go over the article tomorrow to try and work on any issues that may still need to be addressed. Cheers S up? 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well we did it. The article was just promoted Good Article status. Is there an appropriate place we should be listing this on the WikiProject Firearms page? Arthurrh 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a new section underneath the FA section on the project page. Thanks again for your great work. :) S up? 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[M1 Garand rifle|M1 Garand]] - Good Article? 

message: I happened to spot this.  Does this really fall under our oversight?  I'm for removing the project banner.  It's a project unto itself anyway.  Comments?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I wouldn't get involved in Airsoft guns as part of the project anymore than I would start working on toy gun articles. They're not firearms, they are firearms replicas. Just my two cents. I'm sure the airsoft guys would disagree. ;-) Arthurrh 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove the tag. We cover firearms, not replica firearms.--LWF 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airsoft 

message: Wouldn't it be nice to have automatic categorization to :Category:Firearms?  this would create a nice overview of the entire project. I think it is possible to implement this so that everywhere Template:WPGUNS is put in the talkpage, the article is added to the firearms category, much like the Template:WPMILHIST template. I think i could pull it off on the coding part, with enough sandboxing :)
any ideas? --Boris Barowski 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a cool idea. Arthurrh 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it :) now, every page the WPGUNS template is applied to, will appear in the firearms category. If you want to exclude a page from being put in the category, just add the parameter |categorize = no . I'm still looking into linking the article itself and not the talk page. -- Boris Barowski 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I updated the info page too: Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Project banner. If you have further suggestions, please let me know, I enjoy experimenting with new code. --Boris Barowski 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a quick update. All articles that are categorized can now be found at :Category:WikiProject_Firearms. This way the wikiproject page does not interfere with the general Firearms page. this was done after a chatsession with some seasoned wikipedia users at the wiki IRC chan. I'll come up with something new for the general firearms category. Please comment if this is OK, the whole thing should be dropped and reverted or suggestions to expand it. --Boris Barowski 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I like that even better, because of the non-interference. We can find everything if we want to, but normal categories still apply. Can you make it strip the "Talk:" portion out so it links to the main article? Arthurrh 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the wiki helpdesk and they told me that it is impossible to do that. I guess we'll have to go to the talk page first and then to the article. I might work on something to implement in the infoboxes, again, like in the MILHIST template, but adapted to our needs. Too bad that we share those infobox with them, but I'll try and coordinate. I was quite shocked to find out that we have 1300+ articles :). we might need another Drive to un-stub them and provide infoboxes. Anyway, It should be easier now to check all articles and add what needs to be done to the to-do list. greets --Boris Barowski 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your efforts. It will help to at keep track of what articles are there, so that people can categorize what needs to be done. I've been trying to do that as I find new links, by adding the WPGUNS template and by putting them on the todo list. I'm afraid it's growing faster than I fix things. Arthurrh 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. This will help a lot.--LWF 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic categorization 

message: I just recently created this new article to summarize all the tables of AR-15s on Wikipedia. Please thank Thatguy96 for his excellent work on these tables. Check it out. -- Hayden120 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AR-15 variants]] 

message: Just came across this article. Don't know the first thing about guns, and wasn't sure what should be done with it. Could someone familiar with the subject matter please deal with it? Thanks. J Milburn 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a toy, this is WikiProject FIREARMS. --Asams10 04:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct you are.  I just killed this article off the project.  Isn't there an Airsoft project someplace?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just added the appropriate airsoft tags. Heh heh, my first (and only) airsoft edit. Arthurrh 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hate these new airsoft gun articles, they are going to fill up Wikipedia. They are just toy versions of real weapons, why should they have their own article? Many brands will produce replications of the M4, so is an article for every one going to be created? Hayden120 05:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're fighting a losing battle, Hayden.  They need their own Wikipedia... say, WIKITOYS or something like that. I've fought some really stupid issues like people wanting to mention a "Transformer" toy under the Walther P38 article.  Toys are for kids to get interested in stuff Adults do.  Once you're an adult, you can DO things instead of pretending to do things. My arguments kind of lose weight when you consider most of these guns CAN'T be owned most places, thus the popularity of the toy versions.  BUT, they are still TOY'S.--Asams10 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently they do.  Maybe we should see about having the project deleted.  But I am mindful of the fact that someone once tried to do that to this project.  So maybe not.  Hmmm.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Government of Australia (and several other countries) disagrees with your assertion that Soft Air Guns are "Toys", I'm afraid, Asams10. I don't think they belong in WP:GUNS, but I don't think they should be dismissed as irrelevant "Kid stuff" either. The Soft Air reproductions are quite extensive and interesting, and there's a lot of places where people can't own firearms in the traditional sense, but can have a Soft Air replica.  The problem is when every. single. Soft Air replica of an M4 carbine or a Desert Eagle or a Beretta M92 or an AK-47 gets its own WP article. As long as it doesn't get to that level, I don't see why there shouldn't be separate WP articles for the major Soft Air guns. --Commander Zulu 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would just like to say I am not against the airsoft sport or airsoft guns, in fact I think its quite interesting. It’s the fact that an article for every brand and gun replica is being made, and there are going to be stubs and low quality articles everywhere. I mean, we don't have articles for every Lego set in existence. Hayden120 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a wikipedia article for every manufacturer of airsoft guns, where every product can be put in a separate subdivision or grouped with other products of the same line (because mostly the only difference is a handguard or stock). If there are too many products, one can group them on separate pages, like "manufacturer X AR-15 line". I strongly oppose the extreme fragmentation that will occur when every single product, often only made for one or two years, gets its own article. --Boris Barowski 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could become a problem. Of course if we did try and have them deleted it wouldn't be quite the same as the attempt to delete ours, as that one was someone's political agenda. I wonder if perhaps we could suggest to these people to move their articles on guns to the airsoft wiki-http://www.airsoftwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page . Or we could recommend that they consolidate these articles in the articles on the manufacturer.--LWF 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well they do have articles for each manufacturer, see Tokyo Marui, Classic Army and Western Arms for examples. Also see List of Airsoft Manufacturers. I don't think individual articles should be made for the guns as they are replicas; many brands produce replicas of the same gun. All guns made by a particular manufacturer should just be mentioned in the manufacturer's article. I have nominated an airsoft article to be deleted in the past, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring H&K 4 Pistol FPS-175 Airsoft Gun) and I think we should consider the same for this new article. Hayden120 05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bi 3681]] 

message: I'm back after taking a long work related "holiday". I've taking the liberty of removing the crossed out articles on the To-Do section, as the list is a tad big, and there really isn't any argument about the completion of these tasks. C0N6R355talkcontribs 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello (again) 

message: I stumbled upon some code that Kimon had taken from some other projects and worked on but apparently did not finish.  I spent a good chunk of the day refining it and came up with this.  Instructions here (which are incomplete at the moment).
Thoughts?  It does still need much in the way of supporting pages, which if we implement I will work on.  But I'd like to see what folks think.  As I said, much of this was done by Kimon.  I severely tweaked it as it was unfinished.  
Please advise.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far. We'll need to come up with some criteria and create a system for assessment, but now seems as good a time as any.--LWF 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I just used it for the first time. Huzzah. Arthurrh 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The old template had a link directly to the tasks section of the project page, but it seems to be missing in the updated template. Is there a way to fit it back in? Arthurrh 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to the open tasks. Hope it's OK this way. --Boris Barowski 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also if you like at the military history project box, if you use their "show" button, it not only shows the rating criteria, as the firearms does, but also gives the template for rating, making it easy to cut/paste. Just a suggestion. Arthurrh 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look at it. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality rating system 

message: I did a bunch of work recently on fixing and cleaning up .41 Action Express, but someone went ahead and deleted it. They said it wasn't notable, but I disagree. It's part of our ongoing work and is and will be referenced by more articles as we flesh out the firearms articles. I'm not sure where others stand on this, maybe I'm in the minority. And I'm not sure what actions can/should be taken. Arthurrh 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable?!  You gotta be kidding me.  Who said that?  I'd recreate that thing without blinking.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  I did.  I expect that the deletion was in good faith, but I could dig up a hundred articles on topics less notable than the .41 AE.  This round absolutely deserves an article.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A bunch is right.  I tend to follow peoples edits, but yours are always good and SO NUMEROUS that for the most part I tend to skip over them (depending on the edit summary).  You're a machine.  ;-)  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion seems to be arbitrary.  They didn't ask us.  There is lots on the 41 AE under this article: Jericho 941.--Asams10 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The original AfD was for .41 AE, which is an abbreviation and should have been fixed, as someone here did. But the .41 Action Express cartridge,though uncommon, does exist, and there are still firearms in that cartridge (i even know someone who has a jericho in.41AE). Many articles on a myriad of subjects (such as some persons, computer related specialties, ...) are way less notable than this one. Please let me know where I can contest this deletion. --Boris Barowski 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was .41 Action Express deleted 

message: This article is disgusting. I almost vomited when I read it. Luckily someone has removed a lot of the rubbish that was in it, but it still needs to be redone. The infobox needs to be removed and the proper one that is used in all the other articles needs to replace it. It is written in fragments; it just looks so tacked together. It even needs to be renamed. Just for historic purposes this is what it used to say until someone finally had the decency to delete it. I also bolded some of the great, professional encyclopedic writing as well as the highly accurate pieces of information:
"The Colt 9mm SMG is a machine pistol.It is more accurate than the famous MP5 and is easier to use. It also has a higher rate of fire than it. It looks like a mini M16.It has ablowback rather than a gas firing mechanism. It is used by special operations groups such as the U.S. Army Delta Force and the U.S. Navy Seals. It replaced the MP5 in a lot of places. It is one of the most highly accurate submachine guns in the world. Special training is not required. If you know how to use an M16 you will know how to use this. Empty cartridges come streaming out of this gun at such force that they put a small metal sheet behind the ejection port so that the cartridges don't hit the shooter. Oh, and this gun is not like most M16 models that clog up. It is known for still firing after getting out of some pretty messy places. This gun is so light that when first seen it was called the"plastic toy". That nickname was later replaced when troops started seeing it killing coldly and efficiently. Because of its blowback mechanism it can fire at any temperature here on Earth. It is one of the most powerful submachineguns on Earth. A 2-bullet burst will kill almost anybody."
-- Hayden120 06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Colt 9mm smg]] 

message: Is someone kidding?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I just put a delete tag on it. Arthurrh 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I was wrong. I found two solid references, probably there are more to be found. It looks like the darn thing exists, at least as a concept. More of a missile really at the point at which is has attitude control, IMO. Arthurrh 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: I'm new this is site so I apologize if I do something wrong. I have been working with my son to get him ready to hunt. And he brought up a good question that I need help with. What is the purpose for the naming of the Shotgun sizes? Why is a 10 ga. larger than a 12 ga., and so on? I would greatly appreicate some answers. I don't want to do him the way my dad did me. (Because it is! Now shut up and listen.) TAHNKS, Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.131.226 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 September 2007
Basically, the shotgun calibers were measured by the amount of lead used in the cartridge; a 10 ga was 1/10th pound, a 12 ga was 1/12th pound, a 20 ga being 1/20th pound. The only modern exception being the .410, wich is measured by the bore diameter. Hope this may help.Kalashnikov 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Gauge (bore diameter) for an article about it. Arthurrh 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shotgun sizes? 

message: I tried to work quite a bit on correcting the 9x57 article, adding links specs and breaking down the text. Please your appreciation; what else can be done to help the old lady staying alive.. thanks,Kalashnikov 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some more work and removed the notable tag, I don't believe it's applicable anymore. It would be better if there were more inline refs, I put fact tags for this. Plus if some of the mentioned firearms and cartridges had their own articles and referred back, it would also be of benefit. Arthurrh 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9X57 re-consideration 

message: I read and commented on what is going on here.  Thinking about it, I think I'd like to work on our policies regarding pop-culture and crime.  For pop-culture, I pretty much said there what I had in mind...
::Any popular culture item being considered for inclusion in a firearms article...
:::A) Must be able to be attributed to a source that is notable and reliable in the field under which the article topic falls; and...
:::B) Said source must be writing/speaking as a whole about the article topic (i.e. the firearm) rather than the pop-culture item as a whole.
::An item meeting these requirements should be able to be worked into the text of the article.  A separate section for popular culture items should be avoided at all costs.
For criminal use, maybe something like...
:Any criminal use of a firearm being considered for inclusion in a firearms article should meet the following criteria...
::A) A feature unique to the firearm in question was used by the perpetrator during the commision of the crime; or...
::B) The use of the specific firearm covered by the article resulted in highly publicized action by a government agency, corporation, or other notable entity. For example, "X happened because of THIS MODEL gun", not "X happened because of A gun which happened to be this model"
:Items meeting this criteria should be able to be attributed to a reliable source (e.g. a news organization such as MSNBC or CNN) that includes mention of why the specific model of gun used is notable for the criminal event.
Comments?  Anyone?  With some work (if people feel it needs work), I'd like to implement this at some point, community allowing.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty good, Thernlund. The only thing which bothers me a bit is the "Notable and reliable source" clause- What would you consider a "Notable and reliable" source? For example, I'd never consider a Blog to be a "notable and reliable" source, simply because I don't consider Blogs to be notable in any circumstances. --Commander Zulu 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta say... I agree.  That was bothering me too.  I'll think about better verbage.  Ideas?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other thing is that I think this might be setting the bar too high- my concern is that the bar is already too high, and that it should be lowered a few notches. I do, however, concede that "In Popular Culture" sections should be avoided- I'm all in favour of incorporating the information into the actual article itself instead. --Commander Zulu 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some researches done here (in Canada) regarding the criminality with firearms. The main problem with this is that anti-guns are using these to try to have some weapons banned (like semi-auto pistols, right now). I'm all for such a debate, but it depends how it can hurt... We do have a lots of trouble here....I would also say we have to show both sides of the medal; was it a legally registered weapon or was it a stolen or smuggled one?. Look at this; http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1990-95/explor_rpt_e.asp, it's an interesting study wich can give some very good points to it. Kalashnikov 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture policy 

message: This page has debate (?) starting over including detail-different spec charts. Seems to me they'd be valuable, or interesting, to the uninitiated, tho maybe not in the article itself. Perhaps better split off in a "Thompson specs" page? Or an "infantry weapons specs" page?  Trekphiler 07:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tommy gun specs 

message: Is there a standardized form for a new page for firearms and ammunition? I know there are infoboxes templates, but is there any for the entire work?Kalashnikov 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually paste in an empty firearms or cartridge infobox, then added one-line lead to start, and a few section headers, like "history", "performance", "Specifications", "See also", "References", and the category and by default I add a stub tag, then remove it when I'm finished. Arthurrh 01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page template 

message: In the project page there are guidelines for things like citations. There doesn't seem to be one for the use of external links, which sometimes is a problem. It would be good to know what the basic guidelines for including and excluding external links, for example I think that what's on .25 ACP should probably be removed. Arthurrh 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That article needs a once over.  What's under references and external links probably needs to go.  What did you have in mind as far as a policy goes?  I could probably conjure something (like I did above).  But comments are less than forth coming here on most days.  Ideas?  Maybe I'll work up an entire list of guidlines and RfC it.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link guidelines 

message: Pressure and volume params now available.  13½ hours late, but it's done.  Comments welcomed.  I can adjust if necessary.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firearms infobox - new params 

message: It was recently changed to a artical that looks as if it came out of guns and ammo. Can we get some people to revise it.(ForeverDEAD 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the to-do list.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  H&K 416 needs to be cleaned up 

message: It has occured to me that much of what goes on around here is, and has been, covered by other projects.  Often different projects are looking at different aspects of an article and as such their quality rating differ, which is ok.  But sometimes the overlap is so complete that it hardly makes sense to have two systems that are looking at a given article in the same light.  Often you'll see someone rate an article and simply tag both project banners with the same rating.  So I've added a rating value called "deferred".  This rating can be used to defer the article to other projects.  The example I used is Mikhail Kalashnikov which is covered by both WP:WPBIO and WP:MILHIST.  While this article certainly falls under our purvue, the other two projects much more than adequaetly cover the topic where quality is concerned.  I would even go as far as to say that WP:WPBIO is probably the most appropriate of the three to be rating that article in terms of quality.
So there's that.  I think more projects ought to have such a rating.  Maybe one day the stats will pick it up.  That'd be cool.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. Continue to be bold!--LWF 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Assessment for comments. Arthurrh 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the proper value was "def", but I changed the banner template to include "deferred" as a possible value.  As well, I fixed the issue you described.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be some confusion about when/where it's appropriate to use this. Anyone have comments, ideas, suggestions? Arthur 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I mentioned earlier, I've always seen this as generally applying to biographies, since they typically do not include much specific information on firearms (e.g. operation) and have more biographical and historical information. I'd always felt that firearms should be rated by us since they include information pertaining directly to the firearm.--LWF 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So you think we should take the lead over for example WPMILHIST if it's a strictly military firearm? BTW, can you remind me of the easy way to see what articles are currently tagged as deferred? Arthur 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily the lead, just to participate. To see which ones are deferred see :Category:Rating-deferred Firearms articles. Again, I'm not saying how it should be, just commenting to help build a consensus.--LWF 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New class value for project banner 

message: I was going through the .280 Ross and there's a wierd thing here; the .280, as far as I know, never saw the battlefield (not on a common basis anyways) but there is a sentence saying that it was popular among the snipers... As far as I know, and can find, it's not the cartridge wich was popular with snipers, but the rifle (Ross, Mk III, cal. 303 British). So, do we keep this allegation there with the request for reference or we just scrap it? Also, I will work up,slowly, the Ross rifle article, since it is very incomplete and not precise.
Last thing, is there still a reason to keep the 280 article as a stub?Kalashnikov 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the sniper reference. Arthurrh 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: After many researches and contacts with Ross specialists and collectors, it seems that the .280 was not in use at large and by many snipers; but some used .303 brit 1907 (Mk II**) commercial target rifles instead of military (wathever, it's really close one from the other, the difference being mainly in sight locations and type used. Unless someone has more proof of such military sniper use of the 280 Ross, I propose instead of "It was popular as a military sniper's cartridge" sentence, something like; "it was even (seldom?)used as a sniper cartridge". Kalashnikov 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am currently working on the Ross Rifle article and already added the commercial models and I am curently working on the Target (Match) rifles. I will atack the military models later. As for the Ross Rifle Co., I think, and it's my own opinion, if we should do so, it should not be to describe the rifles they've done, but showing all the different products they did; optics, bayonets, combat knives. Kalashnikov 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ross commercial rifles chambered for the (.354 Experimental, .354 Ross-Eley...  these were prototypes, and I did not see or heard of commercial rifles still existing and/or been made for this caliber. I did not mention prototypes, this can be added later in "developments". I only put the model wich are known to exist, still today. If you have reference on it, we'll go ahead. This is really a matter of development and or prototype and might be in this section. This can also be cited in an article about Ross or the Ross Rifle Co. I'm OK with that. Kalashnikov 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I'll pitch-in when I get around to it--I might create a prototype section, or separate the article's new info into different sections so that the military rifle info is coherent and the other rifles are covered.  If you build a Ross Co. article, I'll help build it up the best I can.TeamZissou 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .280 Ross and Ross rifles 

message: This page needs to be spit into other sections or reorganized like extremely bad. Its almost impossible to find anything.(ForeverDEAD 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For discussion see its talk page. Arthurrh 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of firearms 

message: What is the guideline for non-standard infoboxes, like the one in Savage 10FP? Should we leave it or replace it with the template? Arthurrh 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard infoboxes 

message: Hey, everyone.  I just finished slowly moseying through Wikicommons and uploaded a few cartridge pics.  Here's the list:
*6.5 x 52mm Carcano
*6.5 x 55mm
*6mm Remington
*7.7 x 58mm JAP
*7.62 NATO tracer rounds, in stripper clip
*7mm Remington Magnum
*8mm Mauser stripper clip, 1941 Turkish military production
*.22-250 Remington
*.22 Long, 22 LR, 22 Winchester Magnum
*.25-06 Remington
*.38 WCF
*.45-70 Government
*.222 Remington
*.250 Savage
*.257 Roberts
*.280 Remington
*.303 British stripper clip, civilian sporting rounds
*.338-06
*.348 Winchester
*.358 Norma Magnum
*.380 Auto vs. 9mm Luger
...and then there's a photo of the front cover of New Notes on the Red Army, published 1944--originally a restricted document for the use of officers of the British Army, I believe, in case anyone would know where that could go.  Wikimedia has been having some server problems, so I'm not sure when the pics will be available for articles--it usually takes a day for approval.  I'll start pinning them up as soon as they're available, but if anyone wants to jump the gun (no pun intended) I suggest using Mayflower and searching for the above cartridges. TeamZissou 07:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimedia had them available right away, and the photos are up on the pages that had none or poor(er) photos.  I need to write some additional info on the image pages to make them searchable, it seems.  I'll get on that tomorrow. TeamZissou 08:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good news: new cartridge photos on the way! 

message: There are a number of glossaries in Wikipedia (see here for a list of articles tagged as such) and I thought it might be worthwhile setting one up for firearms, to cover terms that are important, but can be summed up in a sentence or two, and may not be worthy of an article, as well as "see also" links for items that do have articles.  Some good resources to use as references would be the SAAMI glossary here and MidwayUSA's GunTec dictionary here.  
As for content, the rule of thumb for inclusion used by SAAMI was ONLY industry terms would be included which are unique to the firearms and ammunition industry directly. Optical terms have been omitted for the most part. Common metallurgical terms were not included because they are not unique to the industry. Where there is a common term with a usage unique to our industry, it has, however, been included.  That sounds like a reasonable starting place for here as well.
Just looking at a couple of random Wikipedia glossaries, like Contract bridge glossary and Golf glossary, I see a couple of different formats, and one commonality.  Each has a heading for a letter, so you can create a link to, say, Contract bridge glossary#D for,  dealer, and it will take you right to the appropriate section of the article.  scot 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. I've often felt when writing that having a simple explanation for some of the funny gun terminology would be helpful for readers. Arthurrh 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the idea of a firearms glossary, and I would be willing to help write and illustrate it. TeamZissou 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Id support one too if you guys made one. Mayby insted of a page we could have a seperate section of the project have the glossary there if some are opposed to just a normal page. ForeverDEAD 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all in favour of it, provided it isn't an exclusively American Firearms Glossary- we'll need input from other countries as well! --Commander Zulu 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm backing it up too Kalashnikov 12:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then, I'll create a stub today.  I'm thinking I'll harvest a bunch of terms from somewhere, edit and format them, put in links to the SAAMI and MidwayUSA glossaries as references, and then we can start filling out definitions in our own words.  Sound like a plan?  scot 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to start putting data in Glossary of firearms terminology; see the talk page for information and instructions.  scot 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firearms glossary? 

message: Should we mention tools and their "ammo" in the cartridge article, or some other article that falls under this project?  By tools, I refer to things such as "powder actuated nail guns" and cap stun guns used in meat processing. TeamZissou 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Powder actuated tools and the cartridges they use are already mentioned in the Blank (cartridge) article, so just put in a "see also" and point to that.  scot 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even think of that.  Thanks!TeamZissou 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-firearm firearm spin-offs 

message: Anybody else get weird posts from antigunners concerning their userboxes?  I got a few today on my talk page from a senior citizen calling me "obssessed with weapons" because I have "3 guns on my page and a reference to hunting and law enforcement".  He went on to tell me how barbaric he thought hunting was and how he doesn't own a gun, etc.  Anybody else get stuff like this or am I the project's lone weirdo-magnet?--Mike Searson 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: )
--Mike Searson 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: Is it against the rules to make your own userbox that says your a member of this project? Oct28th-myBday-sendregards 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if what you do is tasteful and well-done.--LWF 00:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If i make one should i pass it to the templetes or whatever or should i keep it to my we self.  Oct28th-myBday-sendregards 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See what the others think, then decide based on their opinion of the finished product.--LWF 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright and thnks for fixing my spelling mistake i didnt notice ForeverDEAD 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making your own userbox 

message: A recently added member put the comment "Guns don't kill people, i kill people." after his userid. I was wondering if this should be changed to something less offensive to people coming to look at and join the project? What do others think? Arthurrh 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member comments 

message: I noticed that some pages that are classified as stubs seem to be a bit further along, such as .257 Weatherby Magnum. I'd consider that a start rather than a stub. I would like to solicit some other opinions before I go and update the categories for some pages, though. I would think that any page that has a photo and infobox is at least a start. A stub would seem to be a page that just mentions the cartridge and maybe has one or two bare facts about it. Are there any specific guidelines for this? Tad Marko 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications 

message: *Some Wikipedians have argued that Debatepedia might be a good vent for arguments outside of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Any ideas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.82.172 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debatepedia's gun control debate 

message: The Project page is a bit long, any objection to moving the templates, especially the infoboxes, and the assessment criteria to subpages?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpages? 

message: I was looking at the SA80 article today and realised that it looked a lot shorter than it used to. I then checked the history and about 1/4 of the article had been removed on the 18th of November, and there were many parts of the new article that just looked low quality. The page had been like this for the last 2 days without anyone realising. Can someone please help me understand why this was done? I restored the edits (now), but see it before. (Comparison) Hayden120 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SA80 

message: I was always taught that a battle rifle was simply a rifle that fired a fully sized rifle cartridge, as opposed to the intermediate cartridges of assault rifles, and not it's own type of firearm. The articles on wikipedia do nothing to help avoid confusion. This is part of the article on automatic rifles, emphasis mine:
"In many cases, [automatic rifle] describes a rifle capable of self-loading and firing a single round for each pull of the trigger (i.e. firing semi-automatically). However, it is also used to describe non-intermediate firearms capable of fully automatic fire (a type of automatic firearm)."
and then these sentences from this article:
"The term battle rifle can have different meanings. Usually, it refers to rifles firing a "full-sized" (as opposed to "intermediate").........."
"During the latter half of the 20th century, the assault rifle, and later the carbine, (firing an "intermediate" cartridge) has gained in popularity and superseded the battle rifle as a general infantry weapon in most modern armies."
I understand this last sentence to mean that rifles firing intermediate rifle rounds (assault rifles) have replaced rifles firing full sized "battle" rifle rounds. --Philip Laurence 13:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that. I mean that there is an overlap in the definitions of automatic rifle and "battle rifles". I believe the term "battle rifle" to refer to non-intermediate firing rifles  (as opposed to the term battle rifle referring to a service rifle) to be a neologism. I haven't found any sources that use the term without referencing/sourcing wikipedia. --Philip Laurence 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, which is it? 

message: *
I made this after  looking at the old Uzerbox's. I wasnt to big a fan of them and made this one. comments on it? Esskater11 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, but I'd suggest not using 1337 speech on Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously. -- Tad Marko (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd use a lighter bg under the text; my system isn't showing the link (too little contrast).  Trekphiler (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentional new Uzerbox 

message: I just posted this at Talk:.32 ACP but I thought it might be appropriate here too.
"I think there is something wrong with the Specifications template. On the article page the bullet diameter is shown as .984 in (25.0 mm) which is the same figure given for overall length. When I click on edit the template shows the diameter as .309, which I assume is correct.
There are similar problems with (at least) the .380 ACP, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .50 Action_Express articles. I don't know how to fix this but maybe someone could take a look?"--Boreas 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been fixed now. Thanks to whoever took the time. --Boreas 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications template on [[.32 ACP]] and others 

message: I don't see how this fits in to gun politics seeing as it doesn't contain any infomation on Somali gun laws (if there are any) and doesn't seem to cover our scope. Remove it from gun politics? Goldfishsoldier (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Disarmament in Somalia]] 

message: I've been thinking about this for a few days now, and someone else has suggested it to me that WP:GUNS#"Target" versions be renamed as WP:GUNS#Variants, and be expanded to a degree. Any thoughts?--LWF 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree- it's a good idea, especially as there are variants of rifles that aren't target versions, but still not different enough to warrant their own article (I'm thinking of things like Folding-Stock versions of various autoloading Military rifles and Sniper versions of standard-issue rifles, especially). --Commander Zulu 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree - variants generally don't need a separate article, and our guidelines should make that clear. Variants definitely expand beyond just target versions. -- Arthur (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, my thoughts are that it would include: all folding, telescoping, etc. variants; accurized variants; ergonomic variants; bull barrels and the like; variants rechambered for a different caliber; and compact/carbines. The exceptions to this would be where large amounts of design or history would be lost in a merger. For example, this wouldn't apply to AK-47 and AK-74, or to AK-74 and AKS-74U. Any thoughts? Anything else that y'all think should be included, or shouldn't be included?--LWF (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  For example bull barreled 10/22's could be taken care of in a Ruger 10/22 article. However, if there is sufficient source material and historical significance (say an M1D or a Mosin Sniper)..I think the weapon could do with its own article. --Mike Searson (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a minor re-wording might be in order to provide some clarification? I suggest something like:Variants of a model of firearm- such as folding/telescoping stock variants, target versions, silenced versions, variants chambered in a new calibre, and compact/carbine variants generally should not receive their own article, having instead a section on the variant in the parent firearm's article; The exceptions to this are where significant amounts of design and/or history would be lost by merging the articles. For example, even though the Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk I "Jungle Carbine" is a carbine variant of the Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I rifle, a huge amount of re-designing went into the rifle, making it a unique arm in its own right, and eligible for its own article. Conversely, however, the The 9mm Parabellum ("Red 9") version of the 7.63x25mm Mauser calibre Mauser C96 "Broomhandle" pistol would not merit a separate article, as the only difference between the parent arm and variant is a change in calibre, which is best covered in a section within the main article. Thoughts? --Commander Zulu (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestions. I'll try to incorporate your ideas into the guideline as soon as I have the time.--LWF (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad to be of help!--Commander Zulu (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Target" versions 

message: I've noticed that the cartridge infobox really only supports one source of ballistic data, but sometimes I can't find complete ballistic data in one place. Is there anyway that the infobox could be made to support more than one source? -- Tad Marko (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be done. I can't remember offhand which articles already have it. Use something like source name 1this is the first ref, Source name 2This is the second ref and it should work fine. Arthurrh (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes and More than One Ballistic Source 

message: :Rename TDI KRISS Super V to TDI KRISS Super V XSMG
The correct name was being used TDI KRISS Super V XSMG then an editor named Asams10 moved the article without any discussion to the incorrect name TDI KRISS Super V.  The firearm is named by the company at their homepage here: KRISS Super V XSMG. The "KRISS Super V" refers only to the firing mechanism, which will be used in other firearms created by this company, so the XSMG, which the company included in the name of this specific firearm must be included at the end to differentiate from other firearms i.e.: it is the actual name being used by the company that manufactures the firearm.  I notified Asams10 at both his talk page and the article discussion page, but he is being stubborn and moves the article back, stating that is is advertising.  To avoid an edit war would other people, please get involved. Thank you Chessy999 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've started, what, 4 conversations in different places, Cheezy?  Look at the project page, read the section on naming conventions, and argue your case to a concensus before you go making changes. Thank you, BTW, for pointing out that the name I changed it to was also wrong, I've corrected my mistake. --Asams10 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TDI KRISS Super V XSMG]] 

message: As a result of multiple, massive, copyvio's, SKS has been gutted. Needs a lot of work from someone very knowledgeable on the subject. I've got a couple of 'em, but, never read up on 'em much... SQLQuery me! 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I wasn't aware of that when I posted here. SQLQuery me! 11:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I personally wonder is why people bother copying Wikipedia for anything. Prestige? Who even goes to those other websites when Wikipedia at least cites sources some of the time, instead of none of the time?--LWF (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found two of my articles on Wikipedia copied and used as adcopy on dealer's webpages for knives: Ernest Emerson and Strider SMF.  Wonder if someone copied it to sell SKS's?--Mike Searson (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up, [[SKS]] 

message: Should "fire forming" really be on the this list to have its own article?  I would think it should be a section in the Handloading article. Alfordap 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in Wildcat cartridge.  scot (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, so why does "fireforming" need its very own article if it is mentioned in Handloading?  If we want more info on Fireforming then shouldn't that information be added to the Handloading  article? Alfordap (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the unsigned comment earlier.  I am still getting use to the format. it is very different from forum sites.  I will get it sooner or later thought. Alfordap (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "To Do List" 

message: This is a mess.  Reading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants, it's obvious that the 23 Glock models that each have their own articles need to be combined into a single article.  Well, it's obvious but I'll state the obvious.  Unlike many other firearms, the Glock features interhangeability of a surprisingly large number of parts. Subvariants, though they have different model numbers, are essentially the same gun. Glock prides themselves on this and it's against the project policy and common sense to have that many articles for the same gun. Here's how I see the work progressing if anybody'd like to comment:
# Tag the Glock 17 article with "merge from" tags to all the various sub-models and have the discussion there. The concensus is already here, we're just going through the motions to ensure nobody is blindsided... the articles WILL be merged. Done.
# Tag the various sub-articles with "merge to" tags. Done.
# Move content from Glock to Glock 17.
# Make the Glock article about the company... short and sweet.
# Merge unique content, discussions, pictures, etc. from the various pistol model articles into the Glock 17 article.
# Redirect those articles to the Glock 17 article.
# Fix about 1,000 redirects. Anybody got a bot?
# Crack a beer. --Asams10 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of moving Glock to Glock 17, what about something else, like Glock handguns or something? SQLQuery me! 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a silly idea, actually. --Commander Zulu (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Glock handguns" or "Glock pistols" might be a more appropriate name than "Glock 17". — Mudwater 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, Glock pistols sounds much better to me, too. Not sure why I didn't think of it :P SQLQuery me! 12:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply having the title as ‘Glock 17’ is a little bias; anyone looking for the Glock 21, etc. won't be able to find it. A title that summarizes the whole range would be better, and Glock pistols satisfies that criteria. Hayden120 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It will still cause confusion under the name Glock 17; it needs to have a name to cover all variants. The Glock 17 is the 9mm variant, so why should all the others come under the same name? And don't say because all the other variants were derived from the Glock 17. We haven't named the Heckler & Koch USP article "Heckler & Koch USP9" have we? Hayden120 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glock]] article consolidation 

message: I have recently noticed that this talk page can frequently go long periods of time without being archived. If everyone agrees, I'd like to have Mizsabot or perhaps Cluebot archive everything in the page over a month old. Any comments or suggestions?--LWF (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds Good to Me!--Mike Searson (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A month sounds reasonable to me SQLQuery me! 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.--LWF (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving this talk page 

message: I designed a new template for inclusion in articles about John Browning designs. I have added it to FN M1900 as an example. Thoughts? --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it but some of Brownings rifles and a few shotguns are not listed.  I think if it were to be used it should include all of his firearms. Alfordap (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only added weapons that had articles. Feel free to edit the template if you have weapons to add. --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I've recently gotten into an edit war over the inclusion of user evaluations and feedback regarding the L85A1 or SA80 assault rifle. I'm of the conservative view that such evaluations even though properly cited through media sources will always be subjective, and do not belong in an encyclopedic entry that should contain no more than cold facts, design features and a history. The debate concerns the L85A1's reliability or alleged lack thereof. The article itself implies that there was an reliability problem with some of the weapon's features. However, in a paragraph about the revised version, the L85A2, I address the issue by acknowledging the problem  and listing the modifications done to the weapon, to improve this defect. I'm in no way defending the weapon's engineering faults, I just see the "Criticism" subsection as an opportunity to transform the article into a nightmarish "weekend warrior" debate. There are discussion forums for that. Can we get some somekind of consensus and possibly include this into our guidelines? Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps rather than having a section dedicated to criticisms they could be included in the general text. I personally believe that actual reported problems are more than worthy of note. Imagine if we didn't include anything on the troubles with the early M16s. The main thing I would say on criticisms is that there should be a reliable source for the statements.--LWF (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapon usage and user feedback mention? 

message: Well, one year ago today I started the WikiProject Firearms, and in that time we have accomplished a fair bit. We got a featured article. We now have a guideline for pop culture applying to all firearms instead of just military firearms. We've established a guideline of the notability a criminal use of a firearm. We made the decision on how to have variants of firearms in Wikipedia. Overall, not bad. Wouldn't y'all say? 
Now, I am wondering, what else have we accomplished, and how can we improve?--LWF (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool. We also added a ton of infoboxes to firearms articles, especially cartridges. Still more to do in that area. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our first anniversary 

message: I've got a user stating that the Denel PAW-20 Neopup should be called the Neopup PAW-20 and was designed and manufactured by Tony Neophytou.  But the existing sources and a google search indicate Gemaco Elbree Pty Ltd  and DENEL as being the design and manufacturing concerns.  Could someone with more resources check this and advise?  Mbisanz (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but the Denel PAW-20 Neopup is not within our project's scope. I recommend you go to WP:WEAPON for the proper project/task force.--LWF (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denel PAW-20 Neopup