Talk:Service rifle

Argentine service rifle

the FAMAS and the FARA 83 never enter in service as standart issue, there are only a few FAMAS, and the FARA, it was intended for be the service rifle, but that ended 20 years ago, and no more than 2000 were made, its just a secondary rifle

Why not have a separate page for an actual list of service rifles then?

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that people have a disagreement on whether this page should be a regular article or a list. If that's the case, why not just have them be separate then? You can have a regular standalone page for defining "service rifle", its history, etc., and there can be a linked separate page that lists service rifles by country/year like it used to be.

And for the argument of "Well if a person wants to see a nation's rifles they can just go to their military/equipment page", for one, that's kinda a more obtuse and roundabout way of finding what they're looking for, and for two, it doesn't always solve the issue of actually seeing a historical list of said rifles over time. I think people are making a much bigger deal of this than it actually needs to be and it'd be much simpler for there to be the two separate pages as I've mentioned. Seems like it would make everyone happy.

List of rifles is mostly service rifles. It certainly doesn't appear to be a comprehensive list of all rifles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No, list of rifles is not mainly service rifles and it's not even close to being organized in a way that is useful like the chart on the Service Rifle page was. All of this inane vandalism is really a waste of time for people that just want to have a quick resource to use as a jumping off point for going into a nations historic small arms. I'm genuinely disappointed we're doing this again and people should have more consideration before deleting all the work that went into this page.

Even if for a moment we admit you're right, why not try adding service rifles to that page? Sunken cost fallacy is not a valid reason to keep something which is against policy. And you can just copy the bits of the table (from previous versions in the history) that are not already covered at the other list page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that is obvious even before you look at the two pages, in that the list of rifles (which is, in itself, a page of rather dubious quality) is attempting to be a comprehensive list of every single rifle produced worldwide, rather than strictly those adopted in official capacity by a world military. Beyond that, it's formatted entirely differently (in a way that's not particularly useful for this purpose), essentially unorganized as it stands, and far from within the spirit of the article. Finally, sunken cost argument is a pretty bizarre one to make when the arguments against the original article were rather weak to begin with, and the violations mentioned therein could easily be fixed by simply restoring the old pre-merger version of the list (the "new page" that got trashed was a bad copy-paste job of the list after the merge rather than a restoration of the old page), which was considered fine for the site.

The list violated multiple policies. We had a discussion about it. The result was not to merge it back into this article, or to keep it somewhere else. The result was to delete it. If you would like to waste time feel free to challenge the result of the Afd at WP:DRV, but unless that result is overturned or changed that list won't be coming back. FDW777 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If a good list like that “violated multiple policies”, then perhaps those policies are in need of change. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

innacuracy, bad source

the ak47 was not based on the design of german guns 100.0.15.132 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting

It appears that I have been reverted by another editor who seems to be strongly opposed to constructive copyediting of this article, for no real proper reason other than bias against IP editors.

Here are several reasons why the copyedited text should stay:

1. It is far more detailed, and substantially helps people reading the article by providing more precise information. 2. It is grammatically correct, unlike the revision from earlier, so it should stay. 3. Claiming that this is "unneeded verbiage" is a false accusation, since this copyedit was indeed a vital edit that significantly improved the article.

It also seems that the reverting editor is not reverting the edit based on the edit itself, but rather out of a personal vendetta and bias against IP editors, which I'm pretty sure goes against some guideline somewhere.

I'm not going to attack the reverting editor, of course, perhaps this is just an honest mistake. If I committed a personal attack against the other editor, it would make me a hypocrite. 193.115.127.77 (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You accusing the other editor of "discrimination against IP users" and "a personal vendetta and bias against IP editors" is indeed a personal attack. Meters (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly not a personal attack, since you can indeed see that this is occurring in the page history. The edits are not being reverted for the content of the edits themselves, but rather because I am an IP editor. Essentially, the other editor is reverting the edits primarily because I am an IP editor, and not because of the edit itself, while trying to justify it by saying that it is "verbiage" that is not needed.

It is not an accusation, it is pointing out the truth about what happened there. I didn't intend to attack the other editor. I was just pointing out what they did. 193.115.127.77 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down on a personal attack is not a good idea. Teh other editor stated that it was because the edit was "Unneeded verbiage, not an improvement". Meters (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

How are these personal attacks though? Even if that is the case, it is certainly completely disputable that the edit was somehow not needed, as it was indeed an improvement. The "No personal attacks" page does not say that you cannot point out information 193.115.127.77 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You are commenting on the editor by attributing a motivation to their edit. You are not commenting on the edit itself. That is a personal attack.

Obviously the usefulness of your edit is disputable, as the other editor has disputed it. As for your claim that it "is indeed an improvement", that's your opinion. I happen to agree with the other editor that "Service rifles are solely designated and used as the primary weapon in almost all instances of warfare and training." is not needed and not an improvement. I don't have an opinion about your change from service rifles being issued to "regular soldiers or infantry" to "regular infantry" . Meters (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

One could argue, that, claiming that the edit is not an improvement is in itself also an opinion that is not objective. Many many others contribute minor edits to Wikipedia, including copyedits similar in nature to mine, and yet they don't have their edits reverted.

Why is it that my copyedits get reverted but the registered users do not have theirs also reverted, if theirs are also not significant improvements? 193.115.127.77 (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion that your edit was not an improvement. So what? You and the other editor disagree about whether your edit was an improvement. That's what talk page discussions are for. We discuss things on the talk page so that other editors can contribute and help reach a consensus. Per WP:BRD that's what should have happened after your first edit was undone. Repeatedly restoring your edit and attacking the other editor are not acceptable.

Lots of registered editors get their edits undone as well. It's about the quality of the edits, not who makes them. Since you feel that you are at a disadvantage because you are editing using an IP, perhaps you should create an account. Meters (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so, if I were to make a proper high-quality edit that significantly contributed to the article, and if it got reverted not on the basis of the edit itself but because of my status as an IP editor, would that then put the other editor at fault, in that scenario? 193.115.127.77 (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your hypothetical question has nothing to do with your edits to this article. Again, if you feel that you are at a disadvantage because you are editing using an IP, perhaps you should create an account. Meters (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there IP: I agree with the reversion of your edits. Simply put, they're not an improvement, and go beyond copyedits to introduce substantive changes into the article. For instance, "soldiers" is a significantly wider classification than "infantry." Additionally, "Service rifles are solely designated and used as the primary weapon in almost all instances of warfare and training" is not just original research, it's fundamentally untrue. There are many cases in which a service rifle was not the "solely designated" nor "primary weapon" of a military. Your definition, for instance, would contradict with the U.S. military's longstanding practice of having multiple service rifles in active service at the same time -- e.g. the M16 and the M14 (1967-1969); or the M4 and M16 (1994-2015 overlapping); or the M4 and the XM7 (2024-ongoing); or the M4 and the M27 (2010-2019, or technically ongoing at higher echelons); and that's just from the U.S. alone. Want to try and make the same argument about the Soviets/Russians with approximately 80 bazillion AK variants in service? How about Ukraine: Is their service rifle the AK-74M? The Malyuk? The UAR-15? The CZ Bren series? The point is -- your edits were substantively wrong on their merits. Casting aspersions at those objecting to them, claiming the objection is based on your status as an IP isn't going to make them any less wrong. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)