Talk:Glock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review Glock has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Overview problem

The following sentence in the Overview makes no sense to me. If the Glock 22 is currently the most popular police sidearm, how can it be second to the Glock 17? This also looks like a run-on sentence.

"The Glock 22 is currently (as of mid-2005) the single most popular police sidearm in use in the United States, second only to its predecesor the Glock 17; because of their ease of use, reliability, and low price, Glock pistols in general are in use by over 60% of the police officers in the US. "

I agree; I had the same reaction to that sentence (no longer run-on). I edited out the "second only ..." since last I heard the 22 is now more popular among LE agencies. — DAGwyn 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should be added

A section about GLOCK pistols in fiction and maybe a list over military/police forces using them would be nice. kallemax 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody have any information about the differences between the Generations of Glocks? Seems like that is pertinent information, and I didn't see anything on it in the article (though I only scanned through). Bobbfwed 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caps glock?

Is the "GLOCK" name really justified here? Just because a company says some weird typeface is required doesn't make it so. Our article on Macy's is not Macy*s, even though that's what the signs say. Nintendo says the name of the GameCube should always be NINTENDO GAMECUBE but we (rightly) don't respect that.

I don't think capitalizing every letter is necessary. --SodiumBenzoate 22:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
to quote from official GLOCK homepage "Welcome to the official GLOCK Website" ( http://www.glock.at/ ) (clem 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
I think we are an encyclopedia, which means we present the true and correct information, especially over convenience. Holding the shift key for 3 seconds longer is worth it. Also, GLOCK says that glock or Glock is incorrect. - Wolfmankurd

P.S. Why are you named after a food preservative?

Holding the shift key isn't the problem. Catering to advertising gimmicks is. It should be Glock. Gene Nygaard 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, and most importantly, official Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) policy is to name articles not on the basis of some "official" name, but rather on commonly used name in the English language. Gene Nygaard 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo Power magazine doesn't caps-lock "GameCube". --Damian Yerrick 04:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
honestly, I dont see where it came from, or why it's so important in this article either. I need to do more research. --Kvuo 04:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The name is definitely "Glock," not "GLOCK" or "gLoCk" or "Glock(tm)," when writing in edited English. If it were an acronym, all-caps would be justified, but it's not. Glock, Luger, Colt, Uzi — all normal proper nouns in English. I'll note in passing that the official Glock website does use "GLOCK," but then its title reads "Welcome at GLOCK" and refers to "internet," so I don't think whoever was responsible for throwing it together can really be taken as an authority on usage. --Quuxplusone 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but is it really necessary to put that warning on the page of every GLOCK pistol? Avriette 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Glock". As has been noted, writing a word in all-caps denotes an acronym, which "Glock" is not and thus does not rate all-caps. As for the practice the Glock company uses on their website and in thier own marketing materials, that's actually a common practice used by many companies who wish to have their corporate name stand out as much as possible. Such a practice should not be taken to imply a "correct" or "official" spelling. Otherwise, would we adopt bolding, underlining or italicizing for company names where the company uses those practices in their own marketing materials? In the section on the Swedish pop band Abba, should we be reversing the first "B", as is the band's habit in all of their press materials? Insistance on always writing their name in all-caps is precisely why there's an urban legend that "Kiss" (as in the 70s rock band) is an acronym for "Knights in Satan's Service," while according to the band it stands for nothing at all. Nolefan32 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that Glock was fixed here, does anyone intend on combing through the individual pistol articles and fixing the spelling and page locations? Alyeska 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I just repalced out all the tempalets of Template:GLOCK pistols with Template:Glock pistols. — xaosflux Talk 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess its time to start working on each article one at a time. Alyeska 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone doesn't agree. Some Glock articles as well as the template have been switch back to "GLOCK". I agree with "Glock", but I'm sort of new and have already screwed up once. Don't want to charge ahead and change it back just yet. Anyone? Thernlund 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I went and did it. See the other caps topic at the bottom for more. Thernlund 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kB!

I looked around for a wikipedia entry on kB!s, and there wasn't any, but I felt odd putting it alone, so I stuck it with the article on Glocks (sorry if that irritates some of you). Also, I know that it is an issue with essentially any of the non-9mm models, but that it was most seriously affecting .40s. Is this just because they are far more widespread than their .357 SIG/10mm/.45 models? I also probably did a terrible job describing the case failure, so feel free to edit it for me.-- Wells
You are correct that it affects .40s more than other calibers. It's not just GLOCKs either, but GLOCKs get the most press (due to their widespread use). Most .40S&W pistols do not have fully supported chambers. The reason the .40 is affected most is that .40S&W is a very high pressure round, which is already operating on the threshold of safe pressures. Lord Bodak 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Right. I had never heard of S&Ws kb!ing (nor did I know they had the same unsupported chamber that glock has), though that is understandable as they aren't terribly popular to begin with, and certainly not among any community that would use them with enough frequency to notice a kB (ie, law enforcement or the military). However, wouldn't the 10mm models be even more suscept to kB, considering how hot 10mm is loaded? I have never handled anything in 10mm myself but I know that it's loaded pretty hot. oh, and thank you for the compliment B. Baldwin. -- Wells

I thought your contribution about kb's was well written, informative, and (importantly) impartial. This is the first time I have ever used wikipedia and I was very impressed at the detail in this article, most especially by the fact that kb's are discussed. -B.Baldwin

[edit] Disassembly

Would anyone be interested in a pictorial step-by-step of disassembling a glock? The steps listed herein are quite thorough, but it seems to me it would be much nicer with pictures. Avriette 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would fall under the Wikipedia:Not, well, the disasembly guide does so already, no? Zerak-Tul 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, so I removed it. If you want to write a wikibook on firearms maintenance and use, that's the place for it. Or just make a wikibook: Gun Guide: Glock and link it from the article with an interwiki box. Night Gyr 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The section mentions the ease of disassembly, but I found the "Glock grip" required to remove the slide from the reciever to be a bit awkward at first. Definately not as easy as my Sig. Though it's still better than guns that have bushings that need to be removed. I think the statement needs to be qualified somewhat. Izuko 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Changed the name on the video, as the gun showcased is not a G18, but rather a modified GLOCK (probably a G19).

[edit] Excessive advertising?

The article mentions the low price of a Glock three times, throughout the article, which I think is excessive. There's a whole section on their popularity where it's appropriate to talk about it, but outside of that it does smell a bit of advertising, especially alongside the regular references to how popular it is in each section.

I'd rather we were neutral, not trying to sell them.

What do others think? Should we perhaps remove some of the duplication and leave it only in the popularity section?

This might be a case for editing [say, merging two of the mentions in the same section) but number of repetitions is not in itself advertising. Editorial neutrality is a matter of overall balance, not some sort of point-by-point bookkeeping. Tychocat 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9mm

Can the GLOCKs be custom ordered in NATO 9mm Parabellum?70.109.72.185 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would they need to be "custom ordered"? There are several Glock models (17, 18, 19, 26, et al.) that are factory chambered for 9mm Parabellum.
I think he might be asking if Glocks are made for the standard NATO loads, or whether you can only use regular 9mm loads, or whether you can do other loads like +P. The answer, if that's the question, is that Glocks will handle just about anything you throw at them, including +P loads. Some people even use +P+, but it should be noted that this is not an official designation, and can vary between manufacturers. --UNHchabo 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Issue Sidearm for Canadian Military?

This is not true. The standard issue sidearm for the Canadian Army is the Browning Hi-Power for the most part and the Sig 220 in certain cases. I changed this.


Is it true that the Glock is only sold to government officials(i.e. police,army,goevernment security etc...)?

Do you mean in Canada? Certainly that is not true in the US.

[edit] Caps GLOCK - one way or the other

Honestly, I don't care one way or the other. The majority of GLOCK atricles use the caps version of the name. As well, I can't find anything on GLOCK's website to suggest using mixed upper/lower. GLOCK prints it that way so purely from a cosmetic stand point, caps looks right. But I digress. I personally don't care that much so long as it's standardized. So until someone is willing to change ALL GLOCK references to Glock, I believe it should just stay caps. It should be one way or the other for continuity sake.

I changed a couple back to caps so they were the same as the majority. If someone is going to change them back, change them ALL.

I also added [citation needed] to the GLOCK template. I can't find any reference pointing to where GLOCK mandates the use of caps. Near as I can tell it was just the way they did it without much thought.

I'm still trying to get up the nerve to change this article. Eventually. Thernlund 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't! It looks fine the way it is, without using a lot of all-caps "GLOCK"s. A similar debate recently occurred concerning the "Unix" article. It was an even worse situation there, because the article specifically uses the trademark "UNIX" only when referring to products that have been officially "vetted" as conforming to the trademark holder's requirements, and uses "Unix-like" for similar, unvetted systems and "Unix" as the common-dialogue term. Obviously Gaston Glock's name is not all capitals and is not an acronym, so there is no natural reason to be spelling it as "GLOCK"; presumably the capitalization is a trademark/legal issue, just as it is for "UNIX". The most common usage when not referring to official corporate nomenclature is "Glock" (see the online sites in the "Glock ring", for example the Glock FAQ), and the article currently reflects that. — 158.12.88.57 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. So I guess you're going to chnage all the Glock articles? Thernlund 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The main Glock article seems okay (unless somebody has come along and capitalized a lot more instances of GlOcK). What other articles are there? — DAGwyn 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
All of these. Thernlund 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, after some research, I think I'm going to change them all myself. I read the Unix discussion. There was also a similar discussion about Time Magazine. Pretty good arguments in favor of non-caps. Not to mention the Style Manual pretty much lays it out on the topic of trademark names. And 158 is right. Common reference in published sourced is Glock, not GLOCK (Just like TIME vs. Time and UNIX vs. Unix).
I'll be posting a link in my edit summary back to this discussion. I'll also actively try to stay on top of keeping them changed. (I wonder when someone will change the MySpace article) Thernlund 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that went fast. Glock 17, Glock 21, and Glock 23 I couldn't move myself so I requested they be moved. So there we go. Thernlund 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What on Earth did you people just do? It's not Glock, it's GLOCK. If title pages have to be standardized, that's fine, but 'GLOCK' is proper everywhere else. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you listening? Read the two sections on this page concerning caps. Then read the style manual. Then Google for "glock" and see what you find.
If you can cite a reference as to Glock's official position on it, let's see it. Thernlund 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
<sigh> Now I'm stewing about that "What on earth.." comment. Good grief. "You people" is me. And the vote here as near as I can tell was "Glock" rather than "GLOCK". I originally took the "GLOCK" position and changed a couple articles to match. Then someone pointed out a) the style manual; and b) the standard usage of the term in the press. Some research of my own changed my mind. I was even more convinced after reading the Time and Unix talk pages. So I changed the Glock pages and some references in other articles too.
Seriously, if you can point to one source from Glock that says the name is to be all caps, I want to see it. Because I searched long and hard and found nothing. And besides that, it seems to me that regardless of what the company says, standard usage is "Glock". I'm told Wikipedia isn't to bow to marketing gimmicks, yeah? Thernlund 23:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you ever think to check the GLOCK website? GLOCK, GLOCK, GLOCK, GLOCK, everywhere you look. It's so pervasive they don't need to explain it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. They need to explain it. But I digress. It wouldn't matter I think. Common usage isn't GLOCK, it's Glock. GLOCK is marketing which has no place here. See this. Thernlund 00:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? Why would you make me call GLOCK GesmbH and have them explain that it's GLOCK and not Glock? Why would you want to embarrass yourself like that? I don't know; but what I do know is GLOCK is correct. If people commonly use 'Glock' then it's commonly wrong usage, not common usage. If the media uses Glock...well, no one is expecting the media to know a thing about firearms. If it is for standardization, that's fine, but please don't act like it's really supposed to be 'Glock.' --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia, it is supposed to be Glock. Thernlund 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
...all of a sudden. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Well, I think it was always supposed to be that way here. But up until now nobody was willing to take the initiative. It is rather time consuming. Thernlund 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlock_6cb6.html"