Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Technology C‑class
WikiProject iconBullet has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Loosely or tighly?[edit]

The main article currently has this phrase: "wrapped in a loosely tightly fitted cotton patch".

How can a cotton patch be both loose and tight? 2601:98A:4102:5980:801F:FC04:46E5:973A (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be something like either "wrapped loosely in a tightly-woven cotton patch" or else "loosely wrapped and then tightly rammed". These shouldn't be over-emphasised though, as it's about ball, not bullets. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of bullets?[edit]

Is there a timeline of bullets and its calibers that show in which year they were introduced? -- (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template as of 2009?[edit]

Hi all,

I'd like to enter seek a RfC regarding removing the template at the top of this page that is dated as of 2009. Certainly, as @Hohum: has pointed out already, the fact that it is an 11+ year old template alone is not sufficient reason for removing the template/tag. However, I feel there are over 50+ references, and many inline references as well, and while it is not yet perfect or complete (no article ever is!), I feel that this article has come a long way and is ready to have that tag removed. That is all. Thoughts? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 21:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple paragraphs and some entire sections have little or no references. This is exactly what the "More citations needed" tag is for. (Hohum @) 01:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do wonder though, given that this tag was added 12+ years ago (and I'm not saying a tag should automatically be removed based on age alone), but "Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently." Might it be inferred that a silent consensus has been met to justify removal of this top tag in particular? It would seem to me that its presence is not in and of itself helping the addition of any more or less citations/sources to those sections you mention at this point. I think we are at the stage where point 7 of Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove may apply now to this article, no? Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 18:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates which "need to be supported" are those that require discourse in order to resolve them. Lack of sources doesn't need discussion, it needs the sources to be added. (Hohum @) 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]