Talk:Zastava Arms

Fair use rationale for Image:Zastava Arms.jpg

Image:Zastava Arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zastava-Logo.jpg

Image:Zastava-Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zastava Arms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111006100618/http://www.muzej.mod.gov.rs/museum/collections/19th.html to http://www.muzej.mod.gov.rs/museum/collections/19th.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I'm preserving the material here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; rm red-linked entries". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding diff; my rationale was: "collapse those that are not stand-alone articles or other brands; unneeded table treatment; self-cited pop culture trivia". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see reason that all material should be removed as all is not something trivial and it is mostly based on sources. Your action to delete all It is not within WP:CATALOG scope and you have deleted most tables that had good information's and are better way for comparing products. Tables are good way to organize information in article. Instead you could have reorganized tables and search for sources if not found or leave remarks about lack of source. Using your judging and criteria I could delete half of Wikipedia. It is easy to delete but is hard to contribute. Loesorion (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You again use some personal rationale to delete tables without any valid explanation, in same time you have provided content in short description that does not matches reality and there is a missing relevant products. Please restrain yourself to edit pages on way you like to see and think about broader approach and how data could be organized for article readers not editors to better understand it and easy to read it. Someone was having great time - not me - to make tables in this article and to give short descriptions and you just deleted them all and you have not provided any useful content at all. If you want to edit this page how about starting to add relevant content instead deleting sourced material and deleting tables just because you don't like it it does not mean they should be deleted. Products description and names should match producers names that article is about and where is rationale behind using other producers names like SKS#Variants? This is not article about SKS but about Zastava Arms. Loesorion (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Coffman is not acting in bad faith, and his view is valid to a certain extent. The point is that this is an encyclopedia and we should follow encyclopedic style. Similar situation happened in articles about airlines where the detailed information about destinations was removed and cerated a separate article where they are listed. I see some parallel here. The intention is to have a parent article of the company which would be encyclopedically written in prose majoritarly (instead of listing all products, we should write in prose which products were the most important for the brand in certain periods and so...) and making a separate article named something like List of Zastava Arms products where all products would be listed. FkpCascais (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to believe in that(not acting in bad faith), and I am not judging him as a person here but as editor. He could first made such article List of Zastava Arms products or propose some changes here in Talk and consult and wait for others opinion before such massive deletion without making accurate alternative or ask some editors for help with that if he cannot accomplish and then after we have made something better then remove some parts of this article. Right now we have some main Zastava arms products missing and some products named not accordingly Zastava Arms nomenclature and some in wrong categories and products without their original names associated with other articles. Tables could help in having some short and interesting notices about products and help in maintaining encyclopedic accuracy, right now is a mess and I and probably other editors cannot go clearing up after such edits every time and create new and more accurate entry every time just because other editors did not do anything but delete. I agree that it could be done better but it was not done in such a manner and as I sad previously it easy to delete such amount of other people's hard work(not mine) without making any alternative and in same time losing encyclopedia accuracy with new shorter article descriptions. In end I hope we can work together to make better of this article and include all valid points and observations from Talk including maybe FkpCascais idea for List of Zastava Arms products how to solve this situation.Loesorion (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)