Talk:Cimarron Firearms

Notability concern

At this point, the sources we have are largely catalogs, effectively databases which do not indicate notability; and reviews of products, and the company does not inherently inherit the notability of the product. As such, I have restored the notability tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not one of those sources is a catalog.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

They may not be sales catalogues, but books like the Guns Illustrated volumes are catalogues of what is on the market. That they include this company's product is not an indicator that the company is of import, merely that they have product on the market. Having said that, the Shoot magazine source comes fairly close to addressing concerns; one more source of that depth would likely put it over the top. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Those references are used to source the existence of the particular firearm in question to help people like yourself who may or not be familiar with the existence of a particular handgun like the "Holy Smoker" or "Man With No Name", more importantly is the text in those particular descriptions distinguishing those as replicas of movie guns and not actual guns used in the movies. The creator of the article had those terms confused. I would not have sourced it if I did not think this company was notable, I've been around here long enough to know right from wrong.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And there is nothing wrong with those sources being used for what they are sourcing; a third-party catalogue can certainly be a reliable source. But I'd like to see at least one more source saying significant things about the company, rather than about individual products. (It's hard to way the significance of Shoot magazine, in part because there have been multiple magazines of that same title, making it tough for the outside to weigh the importance of this one.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some print sources to go through as well, I don't know how familiar you are with firearms based on your edit history (for example there are other things I'm heavily interested in that I seldom, if ever edit on wiki) but the Chiccone source deals with a lot of different Cimmaron pieces...handguns and revolvers...and without going into SYNTH or OR, I think an average person could read that and walk away with the same pov of the company's commitment to quality. Chiccone is a well-regarded gunsmith who is probably only one of a handful of individuals left alive that can work on the Colt Models 1877 and 1878 revolvers, for that reason I think he carries some authority when it comes to the craftsmanship and construction of Cimarron's firearms. Also, how do you regard IMFDB as a source?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly unknowledgable about firearms; I came upon this page during a New Page Patrol. Taking a quick look at IMFDB, it looks to me like it would fail our test for being a reliable source, for the same reasons that Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source. I'm going to be cautious on commenting on the Chiccone source, as I've done some (non-arms-related) writing for that publisher, so my view may not be neutral. (I will note that it looks like we're citing the wrong pages on the reference, as page 160 is the start of the entry on a product from another manufacturer.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix the pages manually, my tool for building cites seems a bit off lately.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that it came up on new page patrol as it was created March 19 and you didn't tag it until May 2, after I had found it and began fixing it. I thought NPP was only a week or so, did they change something?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It may not have been this page I was patrolling; often when checking out new pages (and the unpatrolled pages go back a couple of weeks, and I do check the end of the queue sometimes, but that wouldn't be the case then) one ends up chasing down various rabbit holes... following interesting links, or checking out the contributions of an editor who has being making questionable edits elsewhere. I honestly do not recall how I ended up on this particular page; I'm pretty sure I didn't just leave the window open since March 19. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. I kind of stumbled upon it, myself. I was cleaning up a "less than stub-worthy" piece on a variant of the Colt Buntline and knew Cimarron made a version and was surprised when I found the article. It's all good.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

To simplify my life, I've taken this page off of my watch list. Use your own judgment with regard to the notability tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cimarron Firearms. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140506091820/http://www.truewestmagazine.com/jcontent/best-of-the-west-m/best-of-the-west-s/2011/4451-true-wests-best-of-the-west-2011-winners to http://www.truewestmagazine.com/jcontent/best-of-the-west-m/best-of-the-west-s/2011/4451-true-wests-best-of-the-west-2011-winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)