Talk:Ruger P series

message: I think Ruger P97 should be removed and redicted here. - RevRagnarok 02:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with one caveat.  The P97 article contains a table with specifications (size, weight, capacity) and I'd like to see that table moved before P97 goes away, and tables provided for the other P series models as well.  scot 13:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that information is just taken directly from Ruger's web site, which is a reference at the bottom. It might take a good chunk of work to copy it for every model, and if we did, it may be a copyright issue...? - RevRagnarok 00:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that a list of specifications is really copyrightable; but that point aside, yes it would be a bit of work to gather all the specs together, but all the info should be on Ruger's website.  Perhaps a 2-D table would be best--then not only is the info more compact and readily readable, but you work around potential copyright issues by using a far different format.  Maybe something like:
Model
P-85
P-89
P-90
P-91
P-93
P-94
P-944
P-95
P-97
P-345
Caliber
9mm
9mm
.45 ACP
.40 S&W
9mm
9mm
.40 S&W
9mm
.45 ACP
.45 ACP
etc. for weight, capacity, length, etc.  I can get some specs for out of production models (the P-85, P-91, P-93) from the Blue Book.  Things like safety/decock/DAO, finishes (blue, SS, two-tone), availability of pitcanny rail can be noted in an "options" row, as can the CA and MA approved status.  scot 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal from Ruger P97

message: Shouldn't this page be retitled "Ruger P Series".  Afterall, other manufacturers use a "P" prefix for their pistol models as well: Walther, HK, SIG, etc. --D.E. Watters 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should be.  The reason it is named as it is, I had created articles that referenced "P series" pistols and created links, and I just filled in the blank article.  It'd be easy to change the links, there aren't many.  On the other hand, Rugers are the only make I've heard refered to generically as "P series", so it might be worth keeping "P series" as a redirect.  scot 13:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Issue

message: My Ruger is stamped P89DC, as it is the decocker variant. Is is D or DC for the decocker?--BohicaTwentyTwo 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "DC" on the guns, as you've seen, but "D" in the Ruger catalog, such as:  http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=3072&return=Y  scot 17:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I wrote it pretty clearly in the article... ;) "However, many catalogs put DC instead of D, incorrectly listing the previous example as KP95DC or even P95DC w/SS slide. This confusion likely stems from that model's slide being stamped P95DC, but Ruger's official web site and catalogs use only the "D" suffix. " -- RevRagnarok 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it "D" or "DC"? 

message: There is/was a variant called the KP89X that was a convertible stainless steel model that was supplied with both 9x19mm and 7.65x21mm Parabellum (.30 Luger) barrels.  Any thoughts of adding it to the table?--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  KP89X Variant? 

message: The lead paragraph of the article asserts that this weapon is "designed for military, police, civilian self defense and recreational use". More is needed here to explain how the manufacturer can design a gun that is serviceable for defensive use but somehow will reliably fail when used by civilians for other purposes. Alternatively, the word "defensive", which certainly looks more like a subjective hope than a fact, should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter D'Eustachio (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first statement is correct. I don't understand what your second statement means..could you please elaborate?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: civilian defensive use

message: Under "P93, P94 and P944" the article list the P93 production ending in "1994".  While this may be true, the Ruger web site shows shipments through 2004, of both the DC and DAO models.  The serial # listings given on Rugers site tend to support the P93 being manufactured through 2004.  The above info can be confirmed on the Ruger web site, customer service drop down, Instruction Manual and Product History selection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5DE:5510:9D43:AD19:C61:9E52 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  P93 manufacture dates 

message: The P345 doesn't have a magazine release like the one described here. The P345's isn't ambidextrous and has to be operated from the left side of the weapon (push-in button like the M1911A1). Is that something that needs to be changed? Intothatdarkness 18:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  P345 Magazine Release 

message: The difference between the Oklahoma city bombing situation and a mass shooting is that a weapon (bomb) was placed inside a truck, to weaponise it, creating a "truck bomb", also known as a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED).  P89 did not need to be weaponised to carry out a crime; it's already a firearm / weapon. That's why I don't believe that the RfC you are citing applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would say it doesn't apply since WP:OSE but I don't think your logic holds.  Consider the Chevy Caprice that was used in the DC area sniper attacks.  That was the other part of the RfC in question.  Again a strong consensus against inclusion.  What you are trying to do is argue that despite that in both the truck and the P-series article we don't have RS's about the article subject making the connection we should make it in the gun case but not in the other case because, well one is a gun and the other isn't.  That means we are applying a level of subjectivity here.  Perhaps that's the right thing to do but call it a subjective call.  Springee (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Truck bomb vs firearm

message: Re: "No reply to the issues I have brought up?-72bikers (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: adding ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus to include it, and more of one to not include it.  Yoo have not shown or disproved any of the rebuttals to your points. Ass the controversial content is recently added would it not be appropriate to first come to some neutral middle ground first. -72bikers (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and "controversial material" can be included if reliably sourced. I also fail to see how one section would create an NPOV / balance problem. I've already suggested WP:NPOVN; this would be an appropriate venue to seek more input on the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Where might we find the consensus you referred to? –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail - uncited or self-cited; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you not address the content under the discussion of criminal use. You have no consensus to include the content, but fail to remove it. Can you show were you think the consensus is? You have not shown or disproved any of the rebuttals to your points. You have now induced a error in citation and removed sourced content with your knee-jerk action.-72bikers (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the broken reference. K.e.coffman's removal of overly-detailed material was appropriate, and editors do not need to seek consensus before boldly adding or removing. Do you have any concerns with the content? –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was clearly stating the criminal content that has not been addressed above. -72bikers (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: This could use a clean up and placed into regular format.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 03:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users section ...