Talk:Heckler & Koch MP7

message: The mp7 will replace the RNAF's mp5 as a part of their modernisation of their armed forces.
they have already signed a deal with Heckler & Koch  for 6500 weapons of this type. It won against its competitor the p90 during selection. The RNAF put weight on its superior flexability.
source:  & 
Translated synopsis of source 2:
"A little bandit with a punch"
Some of the reasons the RNARF choose the MP7 was its superior ammunition (4.6 x 30 mm) and muzzle velocity (750m pr sec) in comparison to the older mp5 (9x19mm & 400m pr sec). It also has an advanced red dot sight and the ability to be used in conjunction with night vision goggles. Take into account that it has double the effective range (200 meters), weighs less ( 0.5-1kg depending on loadout), increased penetration and its retractable stock this is definantly a little bandit with a punch.
A pet peeve - when people act like older weapons (MP5) can't mount red dot sights or have a retractable stock (MP5A3). Is the MP7 easier to put a red dot on? Maybe. However the retractable stock argument is for the P90, not the MP5. The NVG argument does not make sense to me. The 60 year old M16 can be used with NVGs. (I know that red dots are easier than iron sights for NVGs.) 
I lament the fact that no one has cared to make another gun in 4.6. There are ballistic tests at Brass Fetcher (google it) that shows the 5.7 is not a glorified .22, but I don't think there is a source saying that the 4.6 is as good/better/comparative.Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New close combat and defense weapon for Royal Norweagin armed forces 

message: A short list of links to pictures of the mp 7:
*http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00095/MP7370_95077a.jpg
*http://www.hkd-usa.com/media/Products/Submachine_guns/mp7_03.jpg
*http://www.personaldefenceweapons.com/SCHV_PDWs/hk_mp7_MP.jpg
*http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/1180731204365_451.jpg--MediaMogul 06:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are plenty of images of it around, but you can't just use any. They should be free from copyright. X360 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got a pretty good picture if I can find it.  Took it at the SHOT show.  The replacement picture was skewed and not proportional.  For now, I have no idea where my picture is.  --Asams10 09:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MP7A1 Image

message: I don't know where the info came from, but I've confirmed that the police DO use MP7s although I am not sure when they adopted it or if it is their primary loadout.
(Metroplex 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP7 in UK 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Shadowrun a boardgame? If so, why is there an external link for it? (We are focusing on the real gun and not in video games, board games, movies, etc) X360 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shadowrun is an RPG. There may be a spinoff boardgame. 217.7.209.108 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadowrun? 

message: Can people stop changing all the MP7 to MP7A1? I have stated in article that the current version is called MP7A1 and wrote the variant section to help people understand. I am constantly reverting edits over this. MP7 is still the base name, much like MP5 (not A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 etc.), M4 Carbine (not M4A1 for latest version), M82 Barrett rifle (not M82A1) X360 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MP7A1

message: Maybe this isn't warranted in the article, but MP7 is featured prominently with the Marines in Battlestar Galactica. Should this get mention in the article?
:No, a great example was provided at the P90 page that i will use here. The MP7 is important to battlerstar, but battlestar is NOT important to MP7. So basicly its that while the MP7 could be metnioned on the battlestar page, battlestar shouldnt be mentioned Esskater11 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Include it in the BG page if you want. Koalorka (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MP7 on Battlestar Galactica

message: Does dual wielding this gun have about the same amount of control as dual wielding an Uzi? Malamockq (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dual wielding leaves no controllability, period. One can't use two sets of sights independently of one another with any accuracy or effectiveness. By the way, remember, this is not a forum, it is a page dedicated to discussing improvements to the article.--LWF (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, yes I know that already. But that wasn't my question. I was asking does it have the same amount of control as dual wielding an Uzi. Malamockq (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be more controllable than an Uzi. But it would still have little controllability.--LWF (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual wielding? 

message: This image has already been added on a Wikipedia article police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Customs_and_Border_Protection_officers.jpg
88.105.119.182 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, those are UMPs, not MP7s. The MP7's front sight is a flip-up, while those had fixed sights.--LWF (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MP7s do not have to feature flip-up sights, though they are usually standard. The MP7 can be fitted with similar fixed sights like that of the UMP. However, the firearms pictured are definitely not MP7s, they are easily distinguished as UMPs by their overly large boxy shape, a foregrip mounted on a Picatinny rail, and a magazine in front of the pistol grip. Hayden120 (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image nomination 

message: "Even though the round is much smaller in diameter than a 9 mm bullet, its special properties give it comparable stopping power[citation needed]. The projectile is designed to tumble in tissue after penetrating body armor, thus causing more damage than a bullet of this size would normally do[citation needed]. But this is still a point of widespread discussion since the MP7 and its specially designed ammunition have yet to prove themselves in action."
1. Do we really know that it actually IS designed and thought out to tumble? and 2. if it is so heavily debated and "a point of widespread discussion" (a good way to get your point across, that it is NOT "causing more damage than a bullet of this size would normally do" - perhaps "widespread discussions" should be cited too?) then why include it, or just both "points" to begin with? Nor that it causes comparably high damage or that it.. like the "nuancing" implies, doesen't, should, since it has "yet to prove itself in action", right? Ballistics can give some general indication, but it is not very indepth. It can to some point indicate if something is a cannonball or a pea, but other than that it doesen't tell you much, to push it a little. The anecdotal accounts on bullets of similar characteristics are far inbetween, if any. Fackler should always be mentioned but he still is of the first variation. Fackler doesen't compare if a tumbling bullet is more likely to offset over critical areas versus a fragmenting ones undebatably lethal micro explosion, or weigh the risk of overpenetration vs a tumbling bullets stop etc.
Why do I go into the specifics? Because I have seen the same thing in other articles and I know it might stem out of this. A fackler study can AND SHOULD be linked if available, but it is not truthful to use them as sources for how a given round works, practically all things considered, and in definite terms. Ah I dont know.
And to back up I understand if it is all left in as a combination to create that very "clinch" to communicate that it is not really laid out, in a less perfect but effective manner, so maybe it's all good, but it still bothers me. Just my input, and nothing definite - obviously.
Baga34 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping power 

message: Did I miss the discussion on moving the article under "MP7" somewhere? Koalorka (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, you did. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It was hinted at in Talk:Uzi#naming, which is exactly the same case. WP:GUNS has its own naming conventions, which is fine, but WikiProject-specific naming conventions only apply where the general naming guidelines don't. In this case, the short and common name ("MP7") is unambiguous, so that's where the article belongs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that the term, "Uzi" is not ambiguous so the analogy with the designation "MP7" is poor.  MP7 is fairly ambiguous. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: So... are we going to remove the manufacturer from the title of every firearm related article on Wikipedia? Or are we going to have a sloppy and inconsistent system where if someone believes it is unambiguous, it will be changed? Hayden120 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The former. This "sloppy and inconsistent system" is an enshrined part of Wikipedia policy. WikiProjects don't get to opt out of bits of policy that they don't like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Especially as MP7 is ambiguous when used outside of a firearms context. Heckler & Koch serves as a useful way of explaining what's being talked about without having to go into great detail. Most people recognize the name, if only because they can see that it is frequently abbreviated to H&K, or HK. And I really think this should be moved back the Heckler & Koch MP7, the move was never discussed, goes against WP:GUNS, and the rationale is quite debatable.--LWF (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Talk:Uzi#naming is a completely unrelated discussion. Such a unilateral and unrelated move such as this requires consensus especially as it requires a change to WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST naming conventions. Not to mention, who gets to determine what a "common name" is as Kolarka alludes to with the "Grease Gun" analogy. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Individual WikiProject naming conventions do not supersede the general naming conventions, as has been pointed out repeatedly. WikiProjects exist to help coordinate work on articles within the larger sphere of Wikipedia as a whole: they are not walled gardens with their own exclusive rules. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I am putting up a request to have the article moved back to the proper name. The move came about without alerting the wider community, is against established community guidelines and the name itself is ambiguous. I'm sure there's a Mario Party 7 in the works with its followers ready to pounce on this page and ignite a passionate notability debate. Koalorka (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And besides, no harm can come of having the article named Heckler & Koch MP7, it's perfectly understandable, impossible to mistake for anything else, and it is completely accurate. On the other hand, problems can come if we name the article MP7, for example, MP7 being quite simple, it is possible for things to come about in the future that also have some claim to the name. There's already MP7 (media format), and there is a distinct possibility of a Mario Party 7, and besides, MP7 already redirects to this page, so I see no problem with the old name.--LWF (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: What do you mean "start"? Outside of the WP:GUNS bubble, articles have been named like this since the beginning. It's an enshrined part of Wikipedia policy. I'm not even going to bother arguing against the false equivalences because those arguments have already been had on a wider forum. Frankly, the only argument given above that holds any water is that "MP7" is not in fact unambiguous (thanks LWF), though there was previously no indication of that (in the form of a hatnote) on the article. I've added a hatnote to point out the ambiguity, which should prevent this from happening again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll propose the new guideline sometime soon, since it is coming from WP:GUNS it's probably best if I propose it. Also, I don't think you intended it to be insulting, but the phrase "WP:GUNS babble" is rather insulting, so it would be appreciated if things like that weren't said. But after reading through the naming conventions, I may add a little bit to the current WP:GUNS naming convention, making a reference to WP:Naming Conventions#Be precise when necessary.--LWF (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I just gotta say that from an "encyclopedia anybody can edit", that's a pretty draconian set of hoops to jump through just to get "approval" for a WP to be able to make its own conventions.  This whole debate is "wikisnobish" if you ask me.  WP:GUNS has a convention decided by consensus and has a strong backing of active editors.  To come in and change THIS article citing your own belief about what a "common name" is and then to throw another WP guideline out as your defense doesn't strike me as productive.  The end result will be the same and the WP:GUNS convention will stand, I'm sure, but you could have gone to WP:GUNS and proposed that our group of babbling editors should have their conventions approved by the WP:CABAL. It's like going into somebody's home, picking up their kid, and cutting his hair because you saw an OSHA reg that said long hair causes workplace accidents. Not cool. No, not cool at all. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  From a wider perspective, it is just as "snobbish" for WikiProjects to make up their own rules for article content and to expect other editors to seek permission to edit articles under their purview. As has been pointed out time and again, WikiProjects do not own articles (so the "child" analogy is bogus). I've seen users bitten time and again by some WikiProjects for failing to follow guidelines which may or may not even be written down (the WP:GUNS style guidelines comes to mind). It is infinitely fairer to casual editors (who make up the vast majority of WP's content creators) to be able to follow guidelines given in a central place (such as WP:NAME) and not be bitten by exceptions which are only documented elsewhere. Yes, there are "hoops to jump through", but there are hoops to jump through to enforce any sort of consistency on WP. Once it's done you don't need to worry about it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  My apologies for the "bubble" comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move?

message: As it doesn't appear that most of the participants above have actually read WP:COMMONNAME, it is worth reiterating it here:
Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline)
There then follows a finite list of "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions". Note that the WP:GUNS convention is not listed there.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#How to propose a new guideline details the process by which new guidelines can be added to this list. I would ask that someone, anyone really, takes the time to propose the convention in question, which would ensure that WP:GUNS wasn't singing off of its own hymn sheet as regards naming conventions.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll propose the new guideline sometime soon, since it is coming from WP:GUNS it's probably best if I propose it. Also, I don't think you intended it to be insulting, but the phrase "WP:GUNS babble" is rather insulting, so it would be appreciated if things like that weren't said. But after reading through the naming conventions, I may add a little bit to the current WP:GUNS naming convention, making a reference to WP:Naming Conventions#Be precise when necessary.--LWF (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I just gotta say that from an "encyclopedia anybody can edit", that's a pretty draconian set of hoops to jump through just to get "approval" for a WP to be able to make its own conventions.  This whole debate is "wikisnobish" if you ask me.  WP:GUNS has a convention decided by consensus and has a strong backing of active editors.  To come in and change THIS article citing your own belief about what a "common name" is and then to throw another WP guideline out as your defense doesn't strike me as productive.  The end result will be the same and the WP:GUNS convention will stand, I'm sure, but you could have gone to WP:GUNS and proposed that our group of babbling editors should have their conventions approved by the WP:CABAL. It's like going into somebody's home, picking up their kid, and cutting his hair because you saw an OSHA reg that said long hair causes workplace accidents. Not cool. No, not cool at all. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  From a wider perspective, it is just as "snobbish" for WikiProjects to make up their own rules for article content and to expect other editors to seek permission to edit articles under their purview. As has been pointed out time and again, WikiProjects do not own articles (so the "child" analogy is bogus). I've seen users bitten time and again by some WikiProjects for failing to follow guidelines which may or may not even be written down (the WP:GUNS style guidelines comes to mind). It is infinitely fairer to casual editors (who make up the vast majority of WP's content creators) to be able to follow guidelines given in a central place (such as WP:NAME) and not be bitten by exceptions which are only documented elsewhere. Yes, there are "hoops to jump through", but there are hoops to jump through to enforce any sort of consistency on WP. Once it's done you don't need to worry about it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  My apologies for the "bubble" comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further note 

message: As another proof for the MP7-usage in the Bundespolizei, I would like to refer to the picture of 2006 which shows Bundespolizei officers, armed with the MP7, who arrested potential terrorists. 
The picture can be seen here: http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,960474,00.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.121.49 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture can be cited if you can find a version with a caption from a reliable source, identifying them as Bundespolizei. ROG5728 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The two citations you added are not suitable. The first citation (1) is not suitable because it does not say the MP7 is used by either GSG9 or Bundespolizei. It only says that the MP5 is used by KSK and GSG9, not the MP7. The second citation (2) is not suitable because it only says the weapon may be adopted in the future, it does not say it has actually been adopted. I will search for a good citation. Don't add the text back without a suitable citation. ROG5728 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP7 in use with Bundespolizei 

message: In light of the recent additions to this article, it must be noted that dozens of different guns, such as the SIG P226 pistol and HK416 rifle, are "reported" or "rumored" to have been used to kill Osama bin Laden. Rumor is not sufficient evidence for adding claims to Wikipedia, and that is especially true with regards to claims about a secretive DEVGRU operation. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article specifically mentions that the MP7 and M4 were used in May 1, 2011 raid:  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle 174.143.252.250 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Osama bin Laden 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:MP7A1 woodland camo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Could someone overwork the wheight specifications since I found them to be a little confusing.
Tarendas (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheight problems 

message: This image shows a 1999 OICW variant with the "2" configuration showing the interesting option of mounting an MP7 under it instead of the 5.56mm KE module (3 seems to be an early XM25). Is there any substance to the idea that the MP7 was designed in part as a component of the XM29 weapon system? Herr Gruber (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP7 and the OICW program 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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/20120311034656/http://www.fsdip.com/website/The46x30mmB2Fcartridge/tabid/405/Default.aspx to http://www.fsdip.com/website/The46x30mmB2Fcartridge/tabid/405/Default.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.independent.ie/national-news/quickchange-armed-gardai-hit-the-streets-1468916.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140124082839/http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/col_yr_bk_english.pdf to http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/col_yr_bk_english.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jieitaisaiyou.web.fc2.com/tokusyu.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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/20091129103959/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_2_49/ai_95680072/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_2_49/ai_95680072/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905220007/http://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/044_Snapshot.jpg to http://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/044_Snapshot.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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/20070927223310/http://www.mil.no/haren/start/article.jhtml?articleID=141475 to http://www.mil.no/haren/start/article.jhtml?articleID=141475
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326001713/http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/dmj/issue28/dmj28%200402%20s%20partridge.pdf to http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/dmj/issue28/DMJ28%200402%20S%20Partridge.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411212629/http://www.pfa.nrw.de/PTI_Internet/pti-intern/TagSem/Fachkonferenz/WuG-05/RUAG/Baum_4%2C6x30.pdf.html to http://www.pfa.nrw.de/PTI_Internet/pti-intern/TagSem/Fachkonferenz/WuG-05/RUAG/Baum_4%2C6x30.pdf.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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/20150929131826/http://hk-usa.com/hk-models/mp7a1/ to http://hk-usa.com/hk-models/mp7a1/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411212629/http://www.pfa.nrw.de/PTI_Internet/pti-intern/TagSem/Fachkonferenz/WuG-05/RUAG/Baum_4%2C6x30.pdf.html to http://www.pfa.nrw.de/PTI_Internet/pti-intern/TagSem/Fachkonferenz/WuG-05/RUAG/Baum_4%2C6x30.pdf.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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/20161220103800/http://mediapermata.com.bn/terima-anugerah-warga-kehormat-rpk/ to http://mediapermata.com.bn/terima-anugerah-warga-kehormat-rpk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jieitaisaiyou.web.fc2.com/tokusyu.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Heckler & Koch MP7's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
From YouTube: Todd Spangler, YouTube Terminates Toy Freaks Channel Amid Broader Crackdown on Disturbing Kids’ Content, Variety, November 17, 2017
From Germany: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Heckler & Koch MP7]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion