Jump to content

Talk:Glock: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mr.1032 (talk | contribs)
425 edits
Line 100: Line 100:


Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - [[User:Mr.1032|Mr.1032]] ([[User talk:Mr.1032|talk]]) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - [[User:Mr.1032|Mr.1032]] ([[User talk:Mr.1032|talk]]) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
:Agree... it should be limited to state and federal entities in the US. (my opinion) <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<b style="color: #990000">''Gtstricky''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 15:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:16, 15 May 2018

Serbian army pistol

Serbian army does not use the Glock pistol but the CZ99, I don't know who put it there and as evidence an random page that describes the Glock 17 pistol is used as a proof, in the text itself it was no where mentioned that Serbian army uses the Glock pistols. It is also not listed in their equipment you can find on internet not even in the Special brigade inventory. Also you can search internet and you will not find a single photo of any serbian soldier holding a Glock pistol. Police specail forces and Gandarmery do use them but they are not part of the army. Also if you insist on puting it there please provide actual proof not some randome page that describes a certain pistol. Thank you 14.03.2017

Minor Edit

It's nice to see the family under one roof, but a lot is lost in detail that way; I'd recommend under each model including at minimum barrel length and standard magazine capacity. (I honestly don't know most of these; I only know that the 22 is 4.49 in. (114 mm) at 15+1 and that the 27 is 3.42 in.(87 mm) at 9+1.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glock pistols

Template:Glock pistols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — xaosflux Talk 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Glock. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

I don't see a recent discussion on the criminal use as alluded to here; I will restore the edit. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To address one issue raised here (see edit summary), perhaps "used in the following crimes" could be changed to "used in the following notable crimes" or something similar? If you think it's unnecessary that's fine, just wanted to throw the idea out there. - Mr.1032 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This content does also have many of its own articles devoted to it. Should it not all just be merely in a see also or perhaps in certain circumstances main article at such and such. -72bikers (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's appropriate to include a few words explaining the context of the link and the weapon used, since this article covers several models. I don't see a way to pare it down any further without losing that context. –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit 2

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "convert list to prose; WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the many improvements! Just a couple things; the Model comparison chart was the only location of some technical information for several models, if the chart remains absent I think that information ought to be integrated back into the article in other sections. Also, was there any particular reason to remove the Regional variants and Training variants sections? It seems to me those could have been kept. - Mr.1032 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The model comparison chart was unsourced and struck me too much as WP:CATALOG. If readers want to do model comparisons, that's what manufacturer's website is for. The content in the other two sections was sourced to blogs / personal websites, again: too much intricate detail cited to non-RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about a company that manufacturers and markets a line of pistols that is used by so many police and military organizations around the world, and sold to so many millions of civilians, that it's beyond notable, but you feel that listing the different models and calibers is somehow prohibited by WP policy? You really believe an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain this kind of info? Can the GM or Toyota articles here list the different models of cars and trucks they have? Can they list the different engines available? Or does this strike you as too much as WP:CATALOG? If reader's want to do model comparisons, that's what the automaker's websites are for...? Do you also feel that such large sections of articles should be removed based on a single editor's opinion? And your comment about "What the readers want"... isn't what we're here for? I could swear I saw that "it's what the readers want" was an argument for adding the "criminal use" sections to firearms articles, but if they want any info about the article subject itself, or it's legitimate use, they must go elsewhere? Anyway, please don't take anything personal from this, I'm just curious about some of the edits you've been making and the reasoning for them. Thanks - theWOLFchild 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly should have been a conversation about such a substantial content removal. Or at least [verification needed] or [citation needed] tag first. These actions seem to be following a pattern. -72bikers (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with editing an article. However I also saw substantial (sourced) content removal without conversation or an attempt to otherwise restore it. I suggest K.e.coffman starts restoring the removed content. I miss the model table that presents such information more clearly than a firearms infobox with dimensional information of 10+ variants and the structure of the removed second generation caption.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content in question

Here's some of the content that was indeed cited to 3rd party sources (rather than being cited to the company itself or uncited):

  • The Glock 17S is a variant with an external, frame-mounted, manual safety. Small numbers of this variant were made for the Tasmanian, Israeli, Pakistani, and perhaps several South American security forces.[1] They are stamped "17", not "17S". They resemble, but are distinguishable from, standard Glock 17 pistols that have been fitted with the after-market Cominolli safety.[2] An additional safety variant Glock 17 that was tested by the British Military included a frame safety similar to that found on the British service rifle, the SA-80.[3]
  • The Glock 17Pro version is produced exclusively for the Finnish market.[4] It has these alterations from the standard Glock 17: factory tritium night sights, an extended, threaded barrel, marine spring cups, modified magazine release, extended slide stop lever (factory standard in newer models), extended +2 magazine baseplates, 15.5 N (3.5 lbf) connector, and factory Glock pouch.[4]
  • The Glock 19 Canadian Edition was introduced at SHOT show 2018 and released to market in March 2018 as a Gen4 Glock 19 with a 106mm barrel to meet Canadian legal requirements for pistol barrel length. The Canadian Edition pistol features a laser-inscribed maple leaf on the right side of the slide, near the muzzle. All other features of the pistol are identical to the standard Glock 19 Gen4.[5]

References

  1. ^ Glock with factory safety, www.glockfaq.com Archived January 11, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ "Cominolli Safety" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-02-05. Retrieved 2009-07-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Johnson, Steve. "DSEi 09: Glock 17 with Thumb Safety". Retrieved 13 December 2013.
  4. ^ a b "Non-US Glocks". Archived from the original on June 22, 2008. Retrieved 2009-04-19.
  5. ^ Philippi, Ben (2018-01-27). "Canadians get their very own G19 Gen 4 edition pistol". Guns.com. Retrieved 2018-03-10.

The sources include:

Here's the diff in question, if there's anything I missed, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are entirely appropriate for basic specification. It is neither subjective or controversial content such as the performance or the lack thereof. -15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)72bikers (talk)
It's excessive intricate detail cited to non-independent and / or self-published sources; encyclopedia articles are not product catalogues or indiscriminate collections of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is just your interpretation. You do realize not all share your views, and by denying compromise you are denying consensus.-72bikers (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local police departments

Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - Mr.1032 (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... it should be limited to state and federal entities in the US. (my opinion) GtstrickyTalk or C 15:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glock&oldid=841389434"