What gun-related Wikipedia articles have you started?

[yhtomit]

I just started an entry (can't believe no one yet had!) on the Crosman 1377 (pellet pistol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosman_1377

and a while back, this one about sinkboxes (Oh, no! An orphan!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinkbox

Neither is any great literary achievement, but I had fun writing them, and hopefully at least a few other people have (or will) enjoy reading them. I remember checking WP for "sinkbox" when I first heard that term used on this forum, and being shocked that no entry existed. But I guess that's why I made a new one

I wonder -- what other articles have THR readers added to Wikipedia? From his frequent meddling here (), I hope that Max P. helps sort the wheat from the chaff there ...

timothy

 

[yhtomit]

Update: just added another, and a small harangue

Wikipedia is an addiction I try to keep on a low simmer, but wanted to know more about the Baikal IZH-46M air pistol, because I keep seeing it lauded in threads here on THR. Shocked -- no entry! So I just started one; admittedly, it's a stub, but I'm hoping others will toss in their own photos, trivia, etc. (I understand several competitions have been won with one of these relatively inexpensive guns -- inexpeinsive by the standards of competition shooters, that is, among whom I am certainly not counted! -- but I don't know which ones, or I'd toss that in the WP entry.)

The harangue: People of college age (or even a few years out) and younger use Wikipedia -- a lot. Not that others don't -- I know my mom has learned that WP has good information, and uses it herself. The interface for editing is nothing I'd have recommended to my grandmother (or even my mom, who's mostly a read-only user), but if you want people, especially young people, to have accurate information on anything gun related, Wikipedia is a good place to stash some of your own gathered knowledge, or correct others' wrong information. It's anything but perfect, but it's darn good in many ways, and if you spot factual errors and correct them, it gets better.

timothy

 

[telkontar]

I'm an experienced attorney (read: over-schooled) and use Wikipedia extensively. You do need to be able to sift fact from opinion, however. Antis can read and edit entries also, but the editing can be locked down. WP does try to give both sides of any argument. Gun models themselves should be fairly free from dispute. Now I need to see what a sinkbox is ...

 

[Devonai]

The only Wiki article that I've edited was the entry for Roger Young, to add the following paragraph:

The Night Infiltration Course at Fort Benning, Georgia is named for him. A requirement for graduation from the U.S. Army Infantry School, soldiers must crawl over 100 meters through sand, mud, and water while live rounds from M60 or M240B machine guns are fired overhead. Soldiers must also react to artillery simulators and flares, set off randomly during the exercise. Originally the live rounds were fired at chest level but in recent years it was mandated that they pass well overhead of a standing person.

I take some entries on Wikipedia with a grain of salt; however, some entries I assume will be correct, like the technical specifications of WWII aircraft. I find it hard to believe that someone would falsify that data just for the heck of it.

 

[SaMx]

someone needs to write an article about .50 Beowolf, but I don't know enough about the cartridge to do it.

also, make any firearms related article part of the firearms wikiproject project.

 

[unrealtrip]

HTF do you create a page? I'm on there now trying to figure it out. Yes I have an account. No I don't think I'm stupid, maybe I am...

EDIT: Nevermind, found it