M
Mandruss
Guest
Firearm brands and models in articles about mass shooting events: ce
[td]*I agree with the OP. These articles can get way into the details of the guns and ammo. It's usually sufficient to simply say "an automatic rifle" etc.. without needing the brand and/or model - unless that is a factor. I have observed when gun information is generalized, invariably somebody will re-add the specific brand and model of the gun. For some editors, it is a focus of their attention. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]**I do not agree with the OP about the MOS (yet). That's a very high level of consensus that takes time to achieve. The place to start is with an essay. Write a good essay describing the problem, why it's not a good idea, alternative suggestions. Create a capletter redirect like [[WP:FIREARMS]] then start using it in edit summaries. See if it catches on and other people start using it and start contributing to the essay. When you run into conflicts, ''start RfCs''. This is very important. You need a record of dispute over the issue. Once you have 5 or 10 RfCs that have shown clear community consensus, now you got something that has weight, This is when it gets added to MOS. The pathway I describe is exactly what happened with the essay [[WP:FRAUDSTER]] which was then added into [[MOS:CONVICTEDFELON]]. Why? Because we demonstrated the problem, described it, linked to the essay repeatedly, showed overwhelming consensus in many RfCs, and that was it. It got added to the MOS.<span id="GreenC:1756924185075:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(idea_lab)" class="FTTCmt"> β [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)</span>[/td]
[td]**I do not agree with the OP about the MOS (yet). That's a very high level of consensus that takes time to achieve. The place to start is with an essay. Write a good essay describing the problem, why it's not a good idea, alternative suggestions. Create a capletter redirect like [[WP:FIREARMS]] then start using it in edit summaries. See if it catches on and other people start using it and start contributing to the essay. When you run into conflicts, ''start RfCs''. This is very important. You need a record of dispute over the issue. Once you have 5 or 10 RfCs that have shown clear community consensus, now you got something that has weight, This is when it gets added to MOS. The pathway I describe is exactly what happened with the essay [[WP:FRAUDSTER]] which was then added into [[MOS:CONVICTEDFELON]]. Why? Because we demonstrated the problem, described it, linked to the essay repeatedly, showed overwhelming consensus in many RfCs, and that was it. It got added to the MOS.<span id="GreenC:1756924185075:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(idea_lab)" class="FTTCmt"> β [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)</span>[/td] [td]*I agree with the OP, GreenC, and a number of others. For those saying local consensus is enough, I say how's that working out so far? When something hasn't worked very well after years of "trial", try something else that stands a reasonable chance of working better. Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of somewhat viable ideas. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*I agree with the OP, GreenC, and a number of others. For those saying local consensus is enough, I say how's that working out so far? When something hasn't worked very well after years of "trial", try something else that stands a reasonable chance of working better. Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of somewhat viable ideas. Crystal balls have an unacceptably high error rate. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]*This information should be included if and only if reliable sources cover it in reasonable detail. If it is [[WP
UE]], it should be included, if it is not, it should not. Don't make a rule about it ([[WP:MOSCREEP]]). β[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*This information should be included if and only if reliable sources cover it in reasonable detail. If it is [[WPUE]], it should be included, if it is not, it should not. Don't make a rule about it ([[WP:MOSCREEP]]). β[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*:I gather that future local disputes should refer to this discussion in the VPI archive—IF something resembling a consensus emerges here. I call that "distributed CREEP" and posit that a short paragraph in MoS—a concise summary with a shortcut—is far more efficient. Or, if you like CREEP better when it's distributed, get an uninvolved closer to close this discussion with a concise summary, add a shortcut before archival, and retarget the redirect after archival. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*:I gather that future local disputes should refer to this discussion in the VPI archive—IF something resembling a consensus emerges here. I call that "distributed CREEP" and posit that a short paragraph in MoS—a concise summary with a shortcut—is far more efficient. Or, if you like CREEP better when it's distributed, get an uninvolved closer to close this discussion with a concise summary, add a shortcut before archival, and retarget the redirect after archival. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 911: | Line 911: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]*I agree with the OP. These articles can get way into the details of the guns and ammo. It's usually sufficient to simply say "an automatic rifle" etc.. without needing the brand and/or model - unless that is a factor. I have observed when gun information is generalized, invariably somebody will re-add the specific brand and model of the gun. For some editors, it is a focus of their attention. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]Revision as of 19:06, 3 September 2025
[/td][td]*I agree with the OP. These articles can get way into the details of the guns and ammo. It's usually sufficient to simply say "an automatic rifle" etc.. without needing the brand and/or model - unless that is a factor. I have observed when gun information is generalized, invariably somebody will re-add the specific brand and model of the gun. For some editors, it is a focus of their attention. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]**I do not agree with the OP about the MOS (yet). That's a very high level of consensus that takes time to achieve. The place to start is with an essay. Write a good essay describing the problem, why it's not a good idea, alternative suggestions. Create a capletter redirect like [[WP:FIREARMS]] then start using it in edit summaries. See if it catches on and other people start using it and start contributing to the essay. When you run into conflicts, ''start RfCs''. This is very important. You need a record of dispute over the issue. Once you have 5 or 10 RfCs that have shown clear community consensus, now you got something that has weight, This is when it gets added to MOS. The pathway I describe is exactly what happened with the essay [[WP:FRAUDSTER]] which was then added into [[MOS:CONVICTEDFELON]]. Why? Because we demonstrated the problem, described it, linked to the essay repeatedly, showed overwhelming consensus in many RfCs, and that was it. It got added to the MOS.<span id="GreenC:1756924185075:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(idea_lab)" class="FTTCmt"> β [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)</span>[/td]
[td]**I do not agree with the OP about the MOS (yet). That's a very high level of consensus that takes time to achieve. The place to start is with an essay. Write a good essay describing the problem, why it's not a good idea, alternative suggestions. Create a capletter redirect like [[WP:FIREARMS]] then start using it in edit summaries. See if it catches on and other people start using it and start contributing to the essay. When you run into conflicts, ''start RfCs''. This is very important. You need a record of dispute over the issue. Once you have 5 or 10 RfCs that have shown clear community consensus, now you got something that has weight, This is when it gets added to MOS. The pathway I describe is exactly what happened with the essay [[WP:FRAUDSTER]] which was then added into [[MOS:CONVICTEDFELON]]. Why? Because we demonstrated the problem, described it, linked to the essay repeatedly, showed overwhelming consensus in many RfCs, and that was it. It got added to the MOS.<span id="GreenC:1756924185075:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(idea_lab)" class="FTTCmt"> β [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)</span>[/td] [td]*I agree with the OP, GreenC, and a number of others. For those saying local consensus is enough, I say how's that working out so far? When something hasn't worked very well after years of "trial", try something else that stands a reasonable chance of working better. Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of somewhat viable ideas. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*I agree with the OP, GreenC, and a number of others. For those saying local consensus is enough, I say how's that working out so far? When something hasn't worked very well after years of "trial", try something else that stands a reasonable chance of working better. Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of somewhat viable ideas. Crystal balls have an unacceptably high error rate. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]*This information should be included if and only if reliable sources cover it in reasonable detail. If it is [[WP
UE]], it should be included, if it is not, it should not. Don't make a rule about it ([[WP:MOSCREEP]]). β[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]*This information should be included if and only if reliable sources cover it in reasonable detail. If it is [[WP
UE]], it should be included, if it is not, it should not. Don't make a rule about it ([[WP:MOSCREEP]]). β[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*:I gather that future local disputes should refer to this discussion in the VPI archive—IF something resembling a consensus emerges here. I call that "distributed CREEP" and posit that a short paragraph in MoS—a concise summary with a shortcut—is far more efficient. Or, if you like CREEP better when it's distributed, get an uninvolved closer to close this discussion with a concise summary, add a shortcut before archival, and retarget the redirect after archival. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]*:I gather that future local disputes should refer to this discussion in the VPI archive—IF something resembling a consensus emerges here. I call that "distributed CREEP" and posit that a short paragraph in MoS—a concise summary with a shortcut—is far more efficient. Or, if you like CREEP better when it's distributed, get an uninvolved closer to close this discussion with a concise summary, add a shortcut before archival, and retarget the redirect after archival. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 18:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
