Talk:List of modern armament manufacturers

Separate?

The items on this list are large arms manufacturers as well as those that simply make personal firearms. Perhaps it should be split into two sections or two separate lists.

Are we talking simply guns and bullets here or the entire military-industrial complex? I didn't see a few obvious ones on there (Lockheed Martin, etc.) so I don't know. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:29, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I originally thought the list was guns and bullets, but then I realized it also had some military-industrial stuff and needs expansion to be complete in either area. But in that case maybe it should be in two sections, which of course will probably lead to a few companies that belong on both. : Arthurrh 16:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Laundry List

This kind of list is useless. Alphabetical order doesn't make any sense for these.Kromsson 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Entry?

There is a company named "H.F.M. Helvetica Firearms Manufacturing" listed under switzerland, but Google does only turn up copies of this list in several languages. Seems made-up to me. 84.74.86.149 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I reacted to that one as well. A Google search for the name turns up page after page of "list of modern firearms manufacturers", but nothing at all about the company itself. An image search returns nothing relevant. You'd think a company that makes weapons would manage to have some kind of web presence, if not their own then at least some page mentioning something they've actually made. I removed the entry. Someone with more knowledge of the subject may want to look over the list, or at least the red links. Alltat (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

List of modern armament manufacturers?

What's supposed to be in this page? I've just spent a few minutes scanning this page and I find sporting firearms manufactures like, Holland and Holland, listed???? Armaments are weapons of war and although many of those weapons are firearms it's not say that all firearms qualify as such. There's also at least one extinct manufacture listed in what, according to the lead is supposed to be a current list 31.185.233.122 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dassault Aviation

Shouldn't Dassault Aviation (France) be on this list as a manufacturer of military aircrafts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.94.189 (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This list is a Joke

This is the sort of thing that damages Wikipedia credibility. The list is packed with junk; persons unknown who have a facebook page with 7 likes are listed as major arms manufacturers? Nobody has the time or wherewithal to police and edit this list; I say either revamp it with creditable, citable referenced companies or do away with it entirely.Nickrz (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed these are full of so many falsehoods the whole thing ought yo scraped. 2600:1014:B134:1BF8:3D48:559D:19D7:A9CF (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not anymore I hope SReader21 (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Too many red links

There's no evidence that some of these manufacturers even exist or are notable. I propose that we restrict it to companies which have Wikipedia articles or have links to 3rd party sources which can establish their existence. I do realize it may exacerbate the US- and Euro-centric systemic bias, but there needs to be some kind of standard to prevent spurious or aspirational entries. Rezin (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per convention, only companies with Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• So what happened, I think, is that someone just opened up the Gunmaker Yellow Pages and started transferring content, and in addition piped a whole bunch of links to make editing much harder. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

brands

Remington, hi point, smith and Wesson, sig sauer, savage, just to name a few that are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.83.29.25 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I added several missing manufacturers a few weeks ago and all of them are gone, including important ones. Franchi for example. Why? Instead we have an excess of redlinks, most of which I have never even heard of, or which are barely arms manufacturers. --XXLVenom999 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

someone plz add Browning Arms Company, usa. thx Gizziiusa (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)gizziiusa

Browning Arms Company

National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology

Who could possibly object to adding National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology to this list? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Republic of China doesn't work

@112.45.194.206: I cant believe I have to explain this but we cant have one country use a complete different naming convention than the rest of the countries. We dont include Republic, Federation, Kingdom etc for other countries. If you wanted to be somewhat consistent you would put it under China and differentiate China (People’s Republic of) and China (Republic of), but you didnt choose to do even that you put it under R for republic. It should be Taiwan as it is on the pages of all the Taiwan based modern armament manufacturers and in any event is the page Republic of China redirects to. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Taiwanese companies

An IP keeps changing Taiwan to “Republic of China” in contradiction of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. This also breaks local consensus as it causes the entries to be listed under R, if the IP wanted to keep consistent we would have a “China (ROC)” and a “China (PRC)” but listing as “Republic of China” makes no sense at all. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China (ROC) is ROC's only official name on international, not"Taiwan". 112.45.194.161 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. In case you hadn’t noticed Republic of China is just a redirect to Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

But "Republic of China" is only recognition official name on international, rather than Taiwan. If you like, in this list, I agree with change China to People's Republic of China (official name). Of course, this is also can include other countries. 112.45.194.161 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what it is “on international“ on english language wikipedia its Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are Tsai Ing-wen as President of the Republic of China, not Taiwan's President ? In addition to why is Republic of China Armed Forces selected this name, not Taiwan Armed Forces, to outsiders (anyone, anywhere) ? These articles's name also "doesnt matter" ? 112.45.194.161 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

These aren’t rhetorical questions, those names are all the result of careful consensus making. Please review WP:right great wrongs, it genuinely doesn't matter what you believe to be true or not. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also read WP:COMMONNAME and then review [1]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked through the page of that manual of style, but I didn't find any declaration saying editors must choose the name Taiwan instead of ROC. I searched the key word 'taiwan' in that page and as you can see, even in that manual 'Republic of China' exists.Whyto (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see the Modern Chinese polities section, if ROC is used then PRC must be too. If we use Taiwan then using just China isn't an issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You said "listing as 'Republic of China' makes no sense at all". What about "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo" ? If said common name, The "Netherlands" should also be changed to "Holland", but it's incorrect. 112.45.194.161 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice that Holland and The Netherlands don’t redirect to the same page, if you want to make those arguments about the two Congos you can. I would also suggest you could make them about the two Koreas (North Korea and South Korea are common not official names). None of your arguments anymore are about Taiwan/ROC, there really isn't any arguing with [2]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In this list, I've been changed China to People's Republic of China and changed South Korea to Republic of Korea, is that all right ? 112.45.194.161 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No thats almost literally the opposite of alright... You haven't given a policy based reason to change any of them let alone all of them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Keeping the red ink

@Bulleye Jackie: care to explain your reversions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There are so many listings with red links, for example this one. What you should do is turn it blue, ranther than remove them. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That list is a reproduction of figures assembled by a third party, this list is not. Removing them or turning them blue are both acceptable solutions here, I’m choosing to remove them but if you want to turn them blue thats totally ok too. What isn’t ok is restoring large amounts of unproductive text without improving it in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Each of red link company on this list has an official website (you can Google it) or other wikipedias that supports their existence and it states "may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness" at the front of this list, you can't just simply remove these red link companies. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

How do the things you just mentioned apply to this page? The only one thats relevant, aka "may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness,” supports my argument not yours. Why can’t I remove these red link companies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice that multiple people on this talk page have brought up red ink as a problem, you appear to be the only person arguing to keep it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that "for completeness", so it results in "may never be able to satisfy particular standard", not because "may never be able to satisfy particular standards" and delete it. As to the existence or otherwise of these red link companies, as I said earlier "you can Google it". If you can't find it on Google, you can delete it! Bulleye Jackie (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats an interesting suggestion but one I’ve never seen before, is it part of wikipedia policy or guidelines? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bulleye Jackie: anything else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Need anything else? I already said "you can Google it", but you deleted them without Google it and this violates the results of our discussion. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No it doesnt, you need to stick within wikipedia guidelines and policy. "you can Google it” is not part of our policy. You have advanced no relevant argument or reason why the red ink shouldn't be removed. Do not revert again without making one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bulleye Jackie: If you keep this up much longer you’re going to be blocked, you need to engage in discussion. If your argument is a loser you still need to engage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you continuing delete these companies, I will revert your edits as vandalism. In addition, another IP user (IP address shown as French, my IP is Taiwan) recent reverted proves that there are other users who want to keep them. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They have not made any comment here which is what they would need to do. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we go by strength of argument not strength of numbers and right now just just to remind you... You don’t have an argument. I’m also clearly not a WP:VANDAL so that would unfortunately fall under WP:NPA if you chose to use that as your logic for reverting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of argument, it is the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. The others don't leave any comment here doesn't mean their views can be ignored. If wikipedia is becoming undemocratic, then you should bring it back instead of let it be. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been democratic, it isn't supposed to me. You do need to actually make an argument, you’ve been here long enough to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Now use them to craft an argument stronger than “I don’t like it” or “you can google it" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also just FYI we are an encyclopedia of WP:CONSENSUS which does in some ways actually make us the encyclopedia of argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you think, Wikipedia, as the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, should be the encyclopedia of democracy. WP:CONSENSUS should also respect everyone's opinions, not just your consensus alone. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Don’t just take my word for it, see WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. It should respect everyone's policy based arguments, their personal opinions are irrelevant. Now do you have an argument to make? Per WP:BURDEN the burden to make that argument is on you not me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY does not equal to others' personal opinions are irrelevant, the consensus is reached through editing and discussion, they are also expressing their opinions through edit summary. Finally, let me repeat that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of argument. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN lies with you any way you want to cut it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you are not against my view, I hope you can respect the opinions of other IP users. If not, I will revert your edits as vandalism. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You literally haven't presented a view to be for or against. Theres nothing to disagree with because no argument has been made, but the burden is on you to make an argument not me. You can’t revert it as vandalism because you know it isn't vandalism, you’ve reviewed WP:VANDAL... right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No, your bulk deletion of these companies is vandalism. My view is that you should respect the opinions of other IP users to keep these red link companies. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If its vandalism you would have reported me for it, obviously you know it isn’t. What other IP users are you referring to? I can only think of one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't report you and it doesn't represents your bulk deletion isn't vandalism, but that you didn't violate the WP:3RR within a 24-hour period. However, it is destructive edit and that cannot be changed. Bulleye Jackie (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see much more blue than there was last month. I think its time to remove the red ink for good, you’ve had more than enough time to make the red blue. I appreciate the efforts you’ve made, it really wasn’t a surmountable task. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Its done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@UBQITOSW: per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS the person who has to get consensus is the person who adds or restores information. Congratulation, by dint of your latest revert thats you! You have a lot of work ahead of you, I hope you’re ready for the massive amount of sourcing etc you now need to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This list has roles in help others to know modern armament manufacturers around world in as much detail as possible, so it will not only listed blue link companies, but also the red links. Maybe red links companies doesn't existing in Wikipedia, them have a position in the global armament market. You shouldn't be stuck with Wikipedia policies and delete them. UBQITOSW (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are stuck with the Wikipedia policies we have and not the ones we may each want, thats one of the great compromises of working collaboratively on an encyclopedia. The point is not to have as much detail as possible, thats would be some sort of compendium of all knowledge not an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't remove all red links companies via WP:REDDEAL. For example, "the subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia". UBQITOSW (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not fully familiar with the background here, but the red links in this article are highly problematic in that they are entirely unsourced. At least with the blue links, also unsourced here, readers can click through to see if there are sources. This article appears to have been tagged regarding this since 2014. CMD (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:REDDEAL is about turning red to black... I’m removing the text entirely as it is not WP:DUE on this list without an associated article. As CMD notes this is a long-standing issue with this page and the clutter is extreme. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I can add their official website into red links companies on the list, except for the companies that other edition of Wikipedia given in the list. Are you agree? UBQITOSW (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can add independent WP:RS which indicate that the subject is notable enough to have its own wikipedia page by all means have at it. But their official website would not do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@UBQITOSW: per WP:BURDEN you need to get consensus for your change on this talk page... I don’t see consensus for your change, in fact I see consensus for the exact opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Red links cont'd

All these redlinks have to go. This is a list article, the main purpose is to point toward other articles. If an entry doesn't have it's own article yet, but is notable enough to have have one, then it needs to have reliable sourcing attached (secondary sourcing, not just a link to a company website). WP is WP:NOT a repository of stuff. The edit warriors that keep dumping all these links back in need to stop. - wolf 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Agreed, given a complete lack of policy based arguments from the other side I think we have a clear consensus here to remove the links. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The companies that are new to defense development, having fielded concepts of arms, are they eligible? PS - Only concepts, hasn't developed one yet, and has no wiki page on them SReader21 (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)