Talk:Small arms

message: It must be noted that non military small arms like pistols, revolvers, rifles and shootguns in private hands provide a deterent to radical government movements if freely available in a stable society. They reduce the risk of genocide and mass murder in such environments. They are the source of many hunting and shooting competitions."
Hi there - I took this out for the moment - can you back this up with any evidence, or opinion from someone knowledgable? I'll grant that they are essential for hunting and shooting competitions, but the other statement sounds questionable. Thanks, Mark Richards 22:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive small arms effects

message: At the moment it starts with "The term small arms describes any weapon that a person can easily transport and fire..."
Shouldn't it be singular? "The term small arm describes any weapon ...", or is it always plural like trousers?
Does it really cover any weapon [that is portable] - e.g. is a knife, or a javelin, a small-arm (or should it be a small arms?)? Or is it just guns and bombs?
Jll 09:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically "small arms" are any guns below .60 caliber. 220.235.166.177 14:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, turns out it's 20mm or .78 caliber. 220.235.166.177 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of the article

message: The current picture seems a bit out of place.  The RPGs in it seem to clash with the list of commonly included small arms.  I suggest either adding RPGs to the main list, or get a more selective picture. -Whursey 02:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current picture 

message: Eh, that should a) be rewritten, sans typos, plus more info and a Video Game banner, and appropriate flags, and b) be removed from this page. Its a RINO (Related in name only). Aevangelica 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Arms (Xbox game) 

message: I am wondering why the reference I entered is not displayed at the bottom of the article Bokkie 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference 

message: This is a very one-sided article. It references a film which makes the case that small arms are bad for civilians in developing countries (when seems to contradict what actually happens in these countries when their civilians are disarmed), but it does not reference any studies or scholarly works that claim the opposite (such as a history textbook). And is an encyclopedia article about small arms really the place to bang the "let's disarm (or arm, for that matter) the civilians" drum, anyway? I think this article should describe what small arms are, and leave the political agendas for political articles. -- 76.104.46.56 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the anti-small arms documentary

message: Shouldn't this and 'personal arms' be combined or merged and redirected?  There's already a pretty big article at 'personal weapons', when it seems the definition is simply an expanded version of the definition of small arms to include all man-portable single-crew weaponry, including archaic melee weaponry.
69.210.34.101 (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible merge?

message: I have add dictdef tag because if something is "a term of art" used by a sub group (by armed forces), its dictionary definition per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This needs referenced material to show this is encyclopedic or it needs to be redirected/merged to Firearm since its a duplicate description. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am taking off the dictdef tag because I don't see why this article on Small arms is any worse than Side arm or Ancillary weapon, two other weapons articles. WP:NOTDICTIONARY says an article should be moved to Wiktionary if it only does what a dictionary does, which is to discuss "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." That is not what the Small arms article is like. I also can't find any discussion about "term[s] of art" used by sub-groups being dictionary definitions in the WP:NOTDICTIONARY guide.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already removed that tag . I applied a different tag, Template:Copy to Wiktionary.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). What we have here are things that are grouped by what they are called as defined in the lead sentence re: an "international arms control" grouping, that's a prime reason for deletion/move off to another project. "General and Complete Disarmament: Small Arms" ref simply shows usage of a word (not a sufficient ref), "Definitions of Small Arms and Light Weapons" is weak (anonymous article) and states thare "is no universally accepted definition", and we have an unreferenced United Nations quote. The United Nations quote and "Definitions of Small Arms and Light Weapons" both have a definition that is exactly the same as "Firearm". We do not have two articles in Wikipedia covering the same topic, one (this one) should be a redirect. Per Side arm and  Ancillary weapon, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST rationals are not good reasons to keep any particular article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

text: There is obviously encyclopedic info in this article that doesn't belong in a dictionary article.  So IMHO the template should be removed.  The alternative view is that article should be deleted from the encyclopedia with relevant definitional info transferred to Wiktionary.  I don't support such deletion but the place to have such a discussion is WP:AFD.  I'm going to remove the template again: if Fountains of Bryn Mawr still thinks this is not an encyclopedic article then I ask that he or she open an AfD rather than edit warring over the template.  That's the proper place to resolve a question like this. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

text: In addition, there are dozens or hundreds of books about the topic.  That means at worst that the article could use expansion, not that it should be eliminated. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting a words usage is not the same as referencing an encyclopedic topic. Added to WP:AFD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's the best way to handle it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definition 

message: I think we should merge this page with Small Arms and Light Weapons. Both pages cover the same subject matter. However, the Small Arms and Light Weapons page has better coverage.--RAF910 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Small Arms and Light Weapons]]