Template talk:Glock pistols
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This non-article page is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating. |
[edit] Template jazzing up
I fancied up this template, but some may feel it's a bit much. I won't mind a revert if the reasoning is solid. I think it looks good though. The code could probably be cleaner, but it's what I could make work. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 11:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am of the opinion that the Glock 30 should be moved from "Subcompact" to "Compact"; it's really only slighly smaller than the 19/23 and much much larger than the 26/27. Feedback? Georgewilliamherbert 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Glock lists the 30 as a subcompact. I think their sizing model may be artitrary in some cases. But looking closely at them, the full-sized and compact models accomodate the entire hand. Sub-compact models don't, usually having a mag extension (as does the 30). Count the finger grooves for example. Full-sized and compant models have three. Sub-compacts have two. So I'd say in this case as a matter of consistancy, the 30 is a sub-compact. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm willing to go with "It's Glock's definition", but the 30 is manifestly not noticably smaller than the 19/23; it's 2mm shorter lengthwise and 6mm less tall. With the magazine finger rest, I could barely feel a difference between my 19 and friends and rental 30s. If you look at http://www.glock.com/english/glock30.htm and http://www.glock.com/english/glock19.htm, the only difference in the grip is that the lower finger groove is on the magazine extension rather than the frame. The 30's heavier and wider than the 19, too. From 20 feet away, you can't tell the difference between a 30 and a 19/23 at a glance, but you can clearly differentiate either from a 26/27.
- I don't think that we should arbitrarily override Glock's definition, but their definition here is pretty marketing-speak rather than real/functional/dimensional. Georgewilliamherbert 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh, I agree. I'd go so far as to say that the model classes could just as easily been called "Type 1", "Type 2", and "Type 3". At 20 feet I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell ANY Glock from ANY OTHER Glock. A Glock is a Glock is a Glock. But I must say that they do have consistancy in their modeling. "Sub-compacts" do not accomodate the entire hand. The 30 used without the grip extention on the mag is very different than the 19/23. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- They don't sell a non-grip-extension 30 magazine that I know of... Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree. I'd go so far as to say that the model classes could just as easily been called "Type 1", "Type 2", and "Type 3". At 20 feet I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell ANY Glock from ANY OTHER Glock. A Glock is a Glock is a Glock. But I must say that they do have consistancy in their modeling. "Sub-compacts" do not accomodate the entire hand. The 30 used without the grip extention on the mag is very different than the 19/23. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] section header
I removed the section header and been reverted with the edit summary "It's also necessary for context on all the articles that use the template..." If this is the case, why can't a simple caption accomplish the same goal? This appears to be a navigation template and I've never seen one with its own section header. If it not a page-bottom navbox, then it should be placed in the main body of articles, not at the end. This appears to me to be a clear problem from a WP:MOS point-of-view, caused by un-navbox-ish formatting in January. I'm just doing some drive-by formatting, so I'll let the regular editors on the pages where this template appears figure things out. - BanyanTree 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wandering by again. Does this silence signify unanimous support? If no one objects, I'm going to get rid of the section header, and see if I can add a caption to the top of the table. - BanyanTree 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, just check the pages afterwords to see how the lyaout looks. — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I made the change. Several spot checks of articles revealed no problems that I could see. In articles such as Glock 32, the table nests under the text and to the left of the infobox. It still seems a bit odd to me for it to be left-aligned but Thernlund noted formatting problems when he changed the alignment from center. - BanyanTree 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the earlier talk. This is a perfectly functional fix as far as I can tell from looking at the articles. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert 01:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I made the change. Several spot checks of articles revealed no problems that I could see. In articles such as Glock 32, the table nests under the text and to the left of the infobox. It still seems a bit odd to me for it to be left-aligned but Thernlund noted formatting problems when he changed the alignment from center. - BanyanTree 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, just check the pages afterwords to see how the lyaout looks. — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
