This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Firearms This page is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
  Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
      Discussions:    Forces canadiennes / Canadian Armed Forces
      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
      Discussions:    Portal‐ノート:軍事 / 
      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco
      Discussions:     بوابة:الحرب  نقاش البوابة
      Dyskusje:         Militaria / Broń
∑ Interntl. 1 <--> ∑ Interntl. 2

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to bring this page to your attention, as I think it may overlap with physics of firearms and internal ballistics, but I'm not an expert. I also wasn't sure what the protocol was for adding WikiProject banners to the talk page. Thanks for taking a look! Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 13:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just want to check in with some folks. I don't think the term assault weapons has been used correctly on a number of pages, and in the public discourse the term is politically charged and often used inaccurately. It might be best to put quotation marks around its use, or replace the term with "semi-automatic" weapons where applicable. There is a similar issue with "military-style" weapons being used to describe exclusively civilian-use firearms. 2601:444:382:FC20:1A4:401:E6E8:E98B (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handguards seem to be addressed in a stub article forearm (firearm component), but it is addressed in much more detail in barrel shroud. Should the articles merge or perhaps one should be deleted? Hi (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalashnikov rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently rated as low-importance. Considering that this platform (the AK) is the most popular military-power long-arm in the world, and likely the most widely produced firearm in the world, this seems odd to me. It's so popular it has been featured on the flags of countries. It's so legendarily widely known to reputedly to be never jam under any circumstances. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked a question about adding the WikiProject Firearms banner to crime-related articles that involve firearms use. I interpret the scope of this WikiProject to be about articles whose topics are about the firearms themselves, as well as related legislation, organisations, and craftspeople. While it does not explicitly say so, I interpret this cope as excluding articles about crimes where firearms are used or involved in the commission of the crime concerned. However, the section on criminal use appears open to mis-interpretation as it could be read as implying that crime-related articles that involve criminals using firearm are included in the project. I understand this section only addresses mentioning notable crimes that involve specific weapons to be mentioned in articles about those weapons, not a blanket inclusion of crime-related articles where firearms are used. What is actually intended here? Can the project scope have an explicit statement about whether crime-related articles that involve the use of firearms are excluded or included in this project. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own thought is that articles about mis-use of item are off topic from the item itself. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles is not listed at Drunk driving North8000 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: I take your point, but I don't think that really answers the question here. I notice that the banner for WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography is not listed on Talk:Drunk driving, either, when the article talks about imprisonment for breaking the law, which would make it a crime. The scope of WikiProject Automobiles is also rather broad and includes all "types" of vehicles, which could mean those (mis-)used when drunk driving. So the lack of a banner could simply be an oversight or omission, or someone deciding not to include the banner on the grounds of project scope or over-bannering. Personally, I would consider it reasonable for someone to add the banner for both WikiProjects. The issue here is that mis-use is considered in-scope for the articles about the firearms items, themselves, does it also mean that a crime-related article such as the 2023 Annapolis shooting is also in-scope where the weapons used are described in general terms as a "gun" and a "rifle", without reference to a particular make, model or calibre. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Olympian competes in a few hours .. in case someone may be interested in reviewing and perhaps creating her draft article -- Draft:Ada Korkhin. In advance of reader interest in her that is sure to come. Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C88D:848F:5F9A:6FA0 (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ammunition_calibre/length_naming_conventions - this may be of interest to members of this project.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related to that, what's with titles like "7.62×54mmR" and "23×152mmB" and "20×138mmB". How are these R and B suffixes to be understood? And why do we put them there, when sources more commonly use things like "7.62 × 54R mm" and "23×152B mm" (which are equally hard to interpret)? Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Rim and Belted, I see. Should we try to have a standard on how to present these? Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six letters have articles like this, and twenty do not. I did a pass of style fixing on (A), but the rest are as bad and need a lot of work. Do we really want to have these fragments of alphabetical listings, in a searchable encyclopedia? Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some case fixing on List of firearms (M), too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like these were pulled out of List of firearms, which continues to accumulate more unsourced stuff under those letters, too. I think I'll nominate the lot for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]