Talk:U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company

message: I clipped it here but left in the See also reference to DC v Heller which includes a footnote to the company's press release on the decision.  I believe this removal helps narrow the focus of the article, which you mention as being too-inclusive of additional material.
The tables I made collapsible to reduce their bulk on the page, yet keep that information handy for research.  Thank you for your collaboration.  Newportm (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: MatthewVanitas, how would you like to write something about the Woodsman? Newportm (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes for further reading 

message: Your shrinking down the lists is an interesting idea;  I still think they are redundant, but at least this way they aren't cluttering, so we can count that as a fair compromise.
I still believe there are significant legibility issues, and that the footnotes are far too extensive to be easily digested.  I'm going to make some major mods, not to be hostile, but to demonstrate how I believe parts of the article can be better brought into line with Wikipedia standards, particularly in terms of wiki-linking information (such as the history of Colt) rather than re-stating in within the article.  Rather than simply reverting my changes, I'd appreciate it if you could compare them side by side and dispute or change individual points rather than revert.  There's no point in us getting involved in revert wars, and I'll likewise refrain from simply reverting your edits, instead bringing up the issues here for debate.  If we hit an impasse, we can bring in more folks from WP:Firearms to give opinions.  Works for you too? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit diff left the section on Representative commissions with somewhat redundant paragraphs.  I gave that section some help. Newportm (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstration heavy edit

message: The category [Category:U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.] lists a number of Wiki articles on firearms made by the US Fire Arms Manufacturing Co, and I'm really not sure they're necessary, as they all appear to be versions of the Colt Single Action Army and not really that different from one another in any major respect. As per  WP:GUNS#Variants, it would seem better that the articles could be better condensed into a single article- U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Co. revolvers, for example. Any thoughts? Commander Zulu (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been nearly a week with no response; at this stage I'm increasingly of the opinion the individual gun articles are a form of advertising and qualify for deletion on those grounds, unless someone has a compelling reason as to how the USFA revolvers are noticeably (and in some tangible way that the "average reader" is going to care about) different from every other Colt Single Action Army reproduction on the market? Commander Zulu (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the individual USFA gun articles at AfD; the nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USFA Custer Battlefield Gun. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does every gun this company produces need its own Wiki article?

message: This article cites a 2007 press release from USFA that it would produce for Remington Arms several historic products.  This agreement is dead, according to USFA via telephone.  That's original research, so I can't post it in the article; not sure what to do about the related sentence in the article.  It is consequently merely a historical footnote.  Suggestions? Newportm (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally wouldn't consider it OR to acknowledge that an agreement supposedly reached in 2007 hasn't yet eventuated, which allows the reader to draw the same conclusions. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we still need some documentation that it hasn't happened. cmadler (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of reproduction Remington Arms being made by USFA would be pretty clear evidence of that, I think. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point is: how do we know they're not making Remington reproductions? If it hasn't been mentioned somewhere else, it's OR. cmadler (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The USFA website does not list any Remington reproduction arms for sale- they're all Colt Peacemaker or M1911 copies, as far as I can see. That seems to be pretty clear evidence they're not making copies of any of the Remington arms, I'd say. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing agreement 

message: I reverted an edit a few weeks ago by an anonymous IP that added a plaintext URL to the body of the article, which in addition I felt constituted original research. This revert was in turn reverted by an anonymous IP, who then proceeded to add a paragraph arguing for why the user felt another separate article should be made. I have just now reverted both to the earlier version.
I feel pretty confident in saying both these reverts were justified. Anonymous IP user, if you'd like to argue your case here please do so. Will the Great (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent edits