Possible edit of Wikipedia entry for "Spudgun"

[Pilgrimman]

As the title implies, I am considering editing the "Spudgun" Wikipedia entry. I am curious as to how the Spudfiles community feels about this, and if anyone would like to help/contribute pictures/whatever, if this actually ends up happening.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Torn between the first and fourth options personally.

No mention of BBMGs at all for example... and this:

the use of epoxy resin in small designs is common for the making of custom parts but it is rare to see glues used for structural connections.

Is it a jibe at yours truly?

[Pilgrimman]

Yes, actually. I inserted it under the guise of a random user so I could spur you into picking option 1 It's the most obvious explanation (Note for the slow: I didn't really do that)

[Ragnarok]

I check it for citation tags every now and again, but other than that, I can't be particularly bothered.

[Hotwired]

I don't know about BBMG's to be honest.

Add rapid fire pellet guns and it's no longer a spudgun article however much they are made alongside cannons.

The word spudgun fairly effectively covers things which could conceivably although not always practically fire a potato or a part thereof.

Add BBMG and inevitably the article is going to get spotted and someone will be asking WTF kind of spudgun that is meant to be. Which will mean it being taken out to form it's own article or the whole being renamed to... well a name escapes me which would cover pneumatic, combustion and smallbore automatic pellet guns. Maybe Gas Powered Guns (hobby) or something similar.

There's enough information to create a new article and it can always be linked to the spudgun page.

More pictures could be good though. I've never got round to finding out how to upload to wikipedia.

[limbeh]

Would it be possible to do this:

"Spudgun" page as a general description of what a spudgun is, and basically general stuff that apply to spudguns, eg safety, legality issues.

Then, put links to the seperate types of spudguns - eg Pneumatics, Combustions, Hybrids, Minis, BBMGs, and what have you. On these pages, put out more links to other smaller components involved like pistons and vortex blocks. And, of course add links to spudfiles on all the pages.

I'm sure there are more than enough eager potential contributors that are able and willing to write articles and make diagrams / illustrations.

The same thing could then be copied and put up here as a FAQ sticky or maybe even as a separate Construction FAQ page for newbies who read first before posting. As a newbie here, it does take a bit of searching for me to find answers to some rather commonplace questions which I thought should have been placed here as a sticky.

The thing is that while not many people might have heard of this site, most people should know about wikipedia, so wikipedia is a very good material for outreaching to the wider community........

[Ragnarok]

Would it be possible to do this:
<snip>
Then, put links to the seperate types of spudguns.

That's the realm of our wiki, not theirs.

Besides, a lot of it would probably be trimmed back, or merged. Best to keep it to one page.

[Pilgrimman]

I would love for people to write articles on one topic, and then we could combine them! For example, one could write an article on Combustions, another on Pneumatics, etc. and then we could delve into components such as chamber fans, pistons, etc. Anyone who's willing, get writing! BTW, I chose starman's three burst disk cannons for pictures in the combustions section. They are high-res, and showcase all the components of the gun very well. If anyone wants to contribute photos, or an article, etc, go right ahead!

Thanks for the interest, guys

[limbeh]

That's the realm of our wiki, not theirs.

Besides, a lot of it would probably be trimmed back, or merged. Best to keep it to one page.

True. The wikipedia page could possibly be used as publicity material to attract more people to the hobby though......

[Ragnarok]

True. The wikipedia page could possibly be used as publicity material to attract more people to the hobby though......

I don't doubt that, but if we're going to go to the trouble of writing those articles, they would better serve in our own wiki, as the people here don't trim things back because "they're not notable enough".

[limbeh]

I don't doubt that, but if we're going to go to the trouble of writing those articles, they would better serve in our own wiki, as the people here don't trim things back because "they're not notable enough".

True.

However, for general publicity all we have to do is upload a lot of cool-looking pictures (eg damage pics) and basic stuff like say how to get started and basic safety precautions.........and of course a link to here...........doesn't seem like a lot of trouble.

If some people can take the trouble to trawl through JSR's thousands' of posts to try to guess his location, I don't think we would have much problem getting them to shift their efforts in a better direction.......lol. [/quote]

[Pilgrimman]

However, for general publicity all we have to do is upload a lot of cool-looking pictures (eg damage pics)

LARDA PIERCING THE 10MM STEEL WITH HIS 200X HYBRID!!

Now that that's out of my system...

If PCGuy is ok with it, we could simply copy+paste some Spudfiles wiki articles or link to them. If not, I'm more than willing to write some articles. Keep the ideas coming, guys

[Hotwired]

we could simply copy+paste some Spudfiles wiki articles or link to them.

No. The wikipedia needs something more than other wiki articles as sources, not good practice to be writing the source material that you then quote as fact.

I've already noted one person mentioning that almost all the sources quoted in the page are from spudfiles and whether spudfiles is a reputable source.

Anyway, considering that it is going to the the first site page any journalist scraping around for a story involving improper use of a spudgun is going to "research" it could be a good thing not to show the full extent of what they can do.

[Pilgrimman]

@Hotwired

Actually, you touched on a point I was kind of focusing on. The current article has pictures that I find are not very indicative of a well constructed and, more importantly, safe cannon. The information given does not emphasize safety enough either. I personally think that, should we decide to edit it, we need a safety/law/disclaimer/etc. section first.

Also, you mentioned that we shouldn't have Spudfiles as a source. I understand where you are coming from, but the reason I suggested it is that Spudding has little "Official" basis in fact. It's more the common experience of a bunch of tinkerers. There is pure factual information such as pipe sizes, etc., but not things such as ignition sources (specifically used in spudguns). The common concensus is that a stungun is an optimal ignition source for most spudding applications. However, this is not "official" in that it cannot be cited from a website that is known to be based in fact. Spudfiles is really all we have as far as sources go.