Diskusjon:Caracal F

Sideinnhaldet er ikkje støtta på andre språk.
Frå Wikipedia – det frie oppslagsverket

Hello, I know my article is not complete but I have only a very basic and limited knowledge of your language. I think other Wikipedians with an interest in firearm technology and history will be happy to use the more complete articles I wrote in other languages to translate and add more content. Cheers.

Quickload 15:07, 9 mars 2008 (CET)

That is fine with us! --Ekko 15:48, 9 mars 2008 (CET)
Denne artikkelen om Caracal F er berre ei kopiering av delar av artikkelen om Glock-pistolen (sjå attgjeving nedanfor), og er å rekne som reklame. Eg forslår sletting.
"GLOCK 17 var den første pistolen som vart konstruert og produsert av det austerrikske firmaet GLOCK. Han har ein locked-breech-mekanisme, og er i kaliber 9 mm Parabellum. Magasinet tek heile 17 patronar i to rekkjer.
GLOCK 17 dukka opp først på 1980-talet under våpenutprøvingane til den austerrikske hæren. Han kom i teneste der som P80. I 1988 vart han teken inn i den svenske hæren som Pistol 88. Nemninga 17 i det eigentlege namnet kjem elles av at pistolen er Gaston Glock sitt patent nummer 17.
GLOCK-pistolar har ry for å vera ekstremt solide og pålitelege.
GLOCK-pistolane har eit konstant double-action avtrekkjarsystem utan hane og tennstift kalla safe action. Som revolverar manglar han manuell sikring fordi han ikkje treng det. Han kan berre avfyrast double-action." --Erling 20:12, 9 mars 2008 (CET)
Hm, dette ligg tydelegvis i kryssinga mellom tull, bløff og sløvsinn. Eg er samd i sletting. --Ekko 20:24, 9 mars 2008 (CET)

Hello, I do reuse the basic formating used for other similar pistols since they are so close in technology (high resistance polymer frame, striker fired, high capacity magazine) so I do not need to reinvent the wheel. What is new is that for the first time a country without any tradition or background makes such a pistol with some points improved compared to older models. ~Cheers Quickload 16:19, 10 mars 2008 (CET)

When you write «har ry for å vera ekstremt solide og pålitelege» about a brand new weapon (produced for less than a year), without reference, you make this an advertisement, not an article. And instead of doing your research for you, I wote for deletion. --Ekko 17:10, 10 mars 2008 (CET)

Up to you and don't forget to delete all the articles that includes these advertising words in this case. Research is easy, following the links shows that in 2006 this pistol passed the test of NATO D14 standard, the Federal German Police technical procurement tests and the German Federal Armed Forces testings in Meppen. No other pistol has passed these 3 tests in the same period of time with flying colors for 25 years, they all had to be modified and retested. 25 000 pistols are in service now in the Gulf.I am not able to translate all that. Cheers Quickload 18:18, 10 mars 2008 (CET)

But what exactly do you mean by «har ry for å vera ekstremt solide og pålitelege», when they in fact has been in production less than a year? Is the truth that you have such limited knowledge of norwegian that you don't fully know what you write? --Ekko 21:50, 10 mars 2008 (CET)

Exactly what it says, that it is extremely solid and reliable. Caracal pistols would not have passed these two german tests and the NATO test if it was not the case. I removed these words since it seems that for some only after a pistol is on the market for years it is allowed to use them. There are many pistols on the market for many years with an usurped reputation of reliability and quality. Justy look at these products from world famous companies that no special unit uses because they are not dependable and reliable. or just look at those products that everybody despises because of what they hear just like the Sten submachine gun by people who praises the MP 40 when I would bet my life on the british plumber's gun not on the german SMG. I say it after extensive use of both. I choose this example so nobody will accuse me of making advertising or building bad reputation for recent products. The Caracal has gone throw 5 years of development before being built and tested when some of its competitors arrived on the market with defects that were corrected much later.

Cheers

Quickload 08:39, 11 mars 2008 (CET)

«Exactly what it says, that it is extremely solid and reliable» But what you have written is that it's known to be extremely reliable. The first sentence is your opinion (which don't have any place in the article), the second is your statement that other (unsourced) people is of the opinion that this is the fact. If you maintain that this is a fact, that in less than a year it has gained a documentet reputation in a large audience, you must give sources for that. When you choose to reply with more of your private opinions on other weapons, at least you document your own faulty insights in how wikipedia functions. --Ekko 08:59, 11 mars 2008 (CET)

We are now entering a philosophical debate but you are totally entitled to say that I am wrong to write it is known to be extremely reliable. Among all pistol or firearms on the market only a small proportion of them has been able to pass the NATO D 14 standard tests, many firearms specifically designed for military purpose failed but have an artificially built image of reliability. When does a fact become a known fact, I don't know. Is it when the test is successfully passed? Is it when everyone knows it? LOL Do I have a faulty insight when I give my opinion on facts that are well known and proven at least among those who know what they talk about? for everybody the MP 40 falsely called Schmeisser by 99% of the people is a marvel. for those who studied it and tested it or used it, it is one of the worst SMG to use in combat in terms of reliabililty hence the frequent use of less accurate but more reliable soviet SMGs by german front troops. is it a fact or is it an opinion? you decide. Quickload 11:01, 11 mars 2008 (CET)

If you want to publish your opinions, you use a newspaper or a blogg, not wikipedia. --Ekko 11:34, 11 mars 2008 (CET)

When a fact is backed by official trials results, military reports or historical written matters, is it an opinion? Inquiring mind wants to know..

Quickload 12:43, 11 mars 2008 (CET)

You did not back up your article with anything else than the company's home page. The article thus consisted of your own opinions. If they are true or not no-one knows. End of discussion. --Ekko 13:42, 11 mars 2008 (CET)