Talk:9×19mm Parabellum

I'm not sure that the article has been "improved" by last August's removal of swathes of information on the basis that it's unsourced; the information in question seemed more useful than not and its absence is quite conspicuous, i.e. I ended up having to look at the history to see why the origins section seemed to just start mid-explanation. Now I know. Should it perhaps be restored with {{cite}} tags as necessary? --Vometia (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I restored the two deleted paragraphs. They are not unsourced as they, along with the third paragraph, are all a summary of the source cited at the end of the third paragraph. There is zero requirement that a passage summarizing material from a reliable source consist solely of a single paragraph, and there is nothing wrong with using a single citation for a couple of short paragraphs, so the passage is already properly sourced, and the removal was borderline vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) --Vometia (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It says (uncited):

"Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the energy of the 9mm cartridge is capable of imparting remote wounding effects in human-sized living targets."

Are there others that contend that this bullet can't wound "human-sized living targets" remotely? Is there something missing from the sentence? No way to tell, because whoever added it didn't bother to cite. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's seems like one of those pseudo-intellectual attempts at sounding scientific for basically saying "this can put holes in people from a distance". It's a meaningless and useless phrase that applies to all bullets. It not only can be removed, it should be removed because including it makes the article look ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Given that the whole point of a bullet is to wound "human-sized living targets" it's a pointless thing to say, whether sourced or not. Being bold and removing. I might be more convinced to leave it included (if cited) on a page about spoons - for example - but not bullets. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MrDemeanour, Oknazevad, and Chaheel Riens: You seem to have misunderstood what it's about, it's not about "remotely" as in from a distance (from the target) but as in distant within the body, i.e. causing damage in other parts of the body than where the bullet hit, through a shock wave moving through body tissue. See Hydrostatic shock: Hydrostatic shock is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage". Drachentöter001 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair point, although I can't help but feel that hydrostatic shock injury might not be uppermost in the mind of somebody who's just been shot with a 9mm round. Also I think the key phrase there is ...the controversial concept that... - if it were to stay, (and I'm not advocating that it does) it would need considerable rewriting and sourcing so it doesn't sound so hoighty-toighty. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably best not to throw around obscure acronyms without any explanation. I have no idea what SESAMS is and I am pretty knowledgeable about weapons and ammunition. Searching for the term, I came up with "Semiconductor saturable absorber mirror", "Society for Simulation in Europe", "Strength assessment of offshore structures", "A relational database developed by Fujitsu Siemens", "a structural analysis software", "a Scandinavian internet search engine", and "Sequence saturation mutagenesis." - none of which seemed remotely relevant. DrHenley (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's apparently a term for simulated ammunition: Special Effects Small Arms Marking System (SESAM). Regardless, the first source in that paragraph is a dead link, and the second does not mention this acronym, so I removed the section outright as unsourced. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that "9x19mm Parabellum" is a generally accepted name for this cartridge. Depending on where the cartridge is manufactured, the names vary, but will typically be one of the following:

9mm Luger, 9x19 mm, or 9mm Parabellum.

Apart from this article, I have never seen the cartridge referred to as the 9x19mm Parabellum. Lwcutts (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article is named this way to differentiate it from all the other 9 mm caliber rounds. There's an argument to be made we should prefer WP:COMMONNAME and use a hatnote to send people to the disambiguation page if they're looking for something else, but that'd require a move discussion. And we've had various discussions before, see the template at the top of the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how having the wrong name is helpful.

This cartridge is known by three distinct designations. Creating a fourth designation that is unique to this forum will only create confusion. Using the proper designation will necessarily distinguish this round from all other 9 mm cartridges. Lwcutts (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can start a new move discussion if you want, but please read the archives for all the previous ones to see why we landed here. Expect a lot of argument, since there is no "right" name, just a bunch of different names used interchangeably by various reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this piece would benefit from further discussion.

Before I start a new discussion, I will prepare my argument and share it with you. The firearms industry is quite regimented, and there are reasons for specific names being assigned to individual cartridges. The fact that these names get misused by the public should not dilute the strict practices of the industry - ignoring industry practices based on what shows up in Google searches is not, in my view, the proper approach. If this goes to another discussion, I would prefer to see the formal, industry standardized names used and perhaps a section of the informal, and perhaps technically incorrect, names that are in use in some parts of the firearms community.

If you think I am wasting everyone's time, then I will consider dropping this and accepting that this platform has a greater tolerance for what I consider inaccurate information than I do. Lwcutts (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your argument would need to be based on Wikipedia policy, not what I consider inaccurate information. Which is why I brought up WP:COMMONNAME before, it doesn't matter if we think it's inaccurate, what matters is how reliable, secondary sources describe it. If the reliable sources are inaccurate, Wikipedia will be as well.

The idea that we are basing the article on what shows up in Google searches shows a misunderstanding of how WP:RS works. I don't think you're wasting everyone's time, but it seems you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy & procedure, and that would be detrimental to your efforts to make this change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To further add to what HandThatFeeds is saying: for better or for worse (and FWIW I disagree with this aspect of our policies) Wikipedia relies solely on its own internal schemas and manuals of style for things like naming practices, regardless of what the industry standard is for the subject matter. For instance, Wikipedia's rules on capitalization directly contradict how the U.S. military handles its nomenclature. I strongly disagree with it, but our internal rules and processes supersede those of the subjects of our articles. Thus, in this case, even though the industry standard for firearms is to use 9mm Parabellum, 9mm Luger, or simply 9x19mm, rather than combining the full metric with the Parabellum designation, if reliable sources frequently use a different name to the point of being a common name we're going to default to using that. In any event, the answer isn't going to be found here by a general talk page discussion: as HandThatFeeds mentioned, you're welcome to submit a move discussion in which people can formally vote on the matter -- just consider that those discussions are to be informed by policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply