Talk:Ruger LC9

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail + price list; uncited". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I was trying to create a historical record of the models of the LC9 line especially as they have been discontinued, though they are partially survived from LC9 by the LC380 & LC9s by the EC9s but they are fairly different & bare no LC9 designation. I admit I may have been a bit too detailed in including the MSRP price but thought it might be historically interesting for various reasons (including comparing to the cheaper replacement EC9s). There are other more prominent pages on wikipedia that list prices (such as old cars). As to the listing of distributor exclusives a consumer normally cannot purchase one of them directly from a distributor (like with near all cars except Tesla, you can't buy a Ford from Ford, you have to find a dealer that deals in Fords) so I don't see the harm in it.

The manufacturers site (Ruger) does not list discontinued products/models & only lists some distributor exclusive models (no standard models like 3235 as seen here) possibly for contractual reasons with those distributors/until they sell out of them or something. The older LC9 has been removed entirely. The only thing you can do with discontinued products is look up their manufacture date by serial number.

Also as to the removal of the two pictures (LC9s Pro & LC9s laser?) (I didn't upload), at least the Pro model (no manual safety or mag disconnect) deserves some attention showing no manual safety as there is only one model of EC9s (3283, with manual safety & mag disconnect).

I'd like to note that this is not the only page I have added a table for, should I at least remove the MSRP column for those (that have them)?

Sorry for the long reply (wiki etiquette & if this is poorly formatted), I'm quite a noob when it comes to wikipedia. AquilaChill (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the material removed was sourced, as can be seen in this version of the page: [1]. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to substantiate the content. It’s not an indiscriminate amount of information. Also, content needs to meet WP:WEIGHT. Hope this is helpful; please let me know if you have any questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: It's incredibly unhelpful to remove basic information from infoboxes. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]