Talk:CornerShot

message: Original version: "The hammer, barrel, and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge. There is a camera and a flashlight attached where the bayonet was attached in the 1700s. On the other side of the hinge there is the trigger, the camera screen, and the camera and flashlight controls."
My version: "The hammer, barrel, magazine and most other moving parts are all on the muzzle end of the weapon, which bends horizontally at a mid-gun hinge. There is a digital camera and a flashlight attached to the barrel in the bayonet position. On the butt side of the hinge are the trigger, camera screen, and controls for the camera and light."
My edit fixes all of the following:
1) Outright factual inaccuracy: "all other moving parts" are not at the front of the gEun; the trigger is a moving part
2) Factual inaccuracy by way of poorly constructed phrase: "the hammer, barrel and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge" is absurd.  The barrel cannot possibly bend, or the ammo could not be fired!  
3) "and twist at a hinge" i.e. vertically - unsource and frankly implausible claim, that is not supported by the photos nor any citation to published facts. This "twist" claim was not actually removed, simply commented out with a note that it was too implausible without citation to more evidence.
4) Which end is what is now clearer.
5) Ludicrous claim that bayonets are a solely 1700s technology removed.
6) Now says where the hinge is in relation to other parts of the gun.
7) Informal language cleaned up, and made clearer/more specific (and grammatical as to plurality): "on the other side .. there is the..." -> "on the butt side ... are the..."
8) Clarified that the camera is digital (this is a significant fact; an optical system would be rather complicated and require mirrors; some SWAT equipment DOES in fact use purely optical systems to look around corners, so this point isn't silly or trivial)
9) Made closing phrase less repetitive and easier to read ("camera ... and ... camera and" is hard to parse).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant it in a different way... but yours does make a whole lot more sense. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keen.  PS: Please indent your replies; it's hard to tell whose saying what otherwise. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How it works" edits 

message: The only thing that seems missing to me is a subsection on, and info about, the "version that can fit existing automatic weapons such as the M16", which is mentioned but has a notable absence of deets.  Great that a clear pic of the anti-tank model was available.  Schweet.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finishing touches 

message: Where is the beef? Get some details and info on the standard edition. We got plenty of features told that is for all the weapons, but I'm sure there's one on the standard that isn't on all the weapons. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard details 

message: This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references. Tarret 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the current status?  Has a GA tag, but the to-do list seems to indicate a problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat my question.  Anyone home?  Knock knock. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: I was surprised there was no mention of recoil. Ordinarily a weapon's recoil if focused at the operators shoulder. This gun sends most of it's energy perpendicular to the standard, doesn't that make it possible and or likely that the gun will be 'knocked' to the side after each shot? Even for a strong person this kind of leverage would be very difficult. Vicarious 07:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recoil 

message: I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Krummlauf Attachment, which was the German attempt to do exactly the same thing during WW II, using the technology of the day. KTo288 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now addressed by article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Krummlauf Attachment

message: it's not designed to take on tanks, so why would it be under that catagory?
:Eh, please actually read the article: There's an anti-tank version that fires panzerfausts. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this system linked to in the Anti-tank weapons catagory? 

message: I guess terrorists hide behind corners, but still...
I noticed it had there under "Wars" that it has been used it. I didn't think this was appropriate as I haven't seen the War on Crime or the War on Drugs listed in this way, and that's the sense of the word in question. I had a look around the article on the 'War on Terror' and didn't see anything to the contrary so I've removed the reference here.
Gregory j 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this linked to the War on Terrorisim article? 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. At first glance, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. There may be more problems but these are the most obvious.
*The lead does not introduce the article - Who designed the gun? Who deploys it? Has it been considered a success? What previous weapon, if any, is the design based on? etc. Much more needed to properly introduce the subject.
*All the references are improperly cited. See below for instructions on how to do this properly.
*"Its designers were " - never start a paragraph this way. Properly introduce the topic e.g. "CornerShot was designed by . . ."
*In popular culture has to be represented as prose, not as a list.
*How has the weapon been received / deployed?
*Fair use is not properly claimed for the animation.
There are other problems, but these are the most glaring issues. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see that the "in popular culture" list is gone, but the other problems have not been addressed and as a result, this is no longer a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps

message: Should a popular culture reference be added here linking to its usage in the movie Wanted_(film)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampus (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted? 

message: Y'all might want to include that the Mexican Special Forces, I think, are using the Israeli-made Cornershot with Glock attachment.
Seen here: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/Moyocoyatzin/6e680b87007da94800yt2.jpg
Brody Kennen (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: If we end up with an "In popular culture" section again, a CornerShot was used (just this week) in The Last Ship, season 2, episode 4, starting at about 00:20:57 into the show (not counting commercial breaks).  This may well be the first glimpse most viewers have had of the CornerShot. In the show, it's in the possession of a highly trained unit of mercenaries, British, Spanish, etc.  Not much has been revealed about them as of yet in the show, and it's unclear if the CornerShot reappear.
We should probably come up with other cases, and please write it as a prose paragraph, not a list of trivia.  Such sections are not  trivial if they're written well. The aforementioned use of the CornerShot in Wanted leading directly to Mythbusters devoting time to it is a case in point; it's a mainstream secondary source responding, with detailed coverage, to the public reaction (mostly with disbelief) to the film usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film/TV use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on CornerShot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060710194942/http://www.military.com:80/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Corner,,00.html to http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Corner,,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405024742/http://1news.az/politics/20091118043128069.html to http://1news.az/politics/20091118043128069.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified