Contents

Talk:Double rifle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Double rifle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I added sections and moved some stuff around. The page was one long paragraph but I don't know enough to contribute... Binarypower (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Repeating Rifle isn't the best link for that particular sentence, but it is much better than "Shot Gun". Sorry about my rather vulgar comment on that little change but I was thrown off by the seemingly thoughtless link. If someone more knowledgable than I could change it from Repeating Rifle to something more appropriate it would be appreciated. Fallenangei (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more or less wikified, but it still requires citations. Given a few citations we can move it into start class -Deathsythe (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This reads as if it has been lifted from a magazine or some kind of promotional article, rather than written for an encyclopaedia. Does anybody know whether this is just a case of wrong style, or whether this has been plagiarised from somewhere else - perhaps the original author (in the second case) might like some acknowledgement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.38.23 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the redirect by ansh666, whilst the article has massive issues, it is not only deserving independent of article status, but as far as I can see no process was followed. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see WP:OR. While I do not disagree that this could have it's own article, it could also simply be expanded in the existing multiple barrel article. Regardless, whether its own article or an expansion of the other article, citations are needed, else it is original research. Normally, simply tagging it would suffice, hoping that work would be done on it, but this has been uncited for a decade. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the article from scratch. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]