[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

You wouldn't think to look for rules in Category:Assault Rifle before adding an M16 to a page, now would you?

Actually, as of this post's writing there are now paragraphs attempting to define "Assault Rifle" and "Battle Rifle" in those two categories.

If "type of firearm" categories all-sported definitions which were sufficiently accurate and specific, most disputes over which weapon(s) belong to which categories should be easy to resolve. More knowledgeable users could then correct any erroneous additions to these categories made by the less knowledgeable ones, allowing for a (mostly) self-correcting system.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

You'd never put an XM8 compact or Magpul PDR into a category called "submachine gun," after all.

It's funny you mentioned that. I remember how Colt themselves once called their CAR-15 Model 607 (featuring a 10-inch barrel) a "Submachine Gun" despite in reality being an ultracompact carbine by virtue of the round it used.

Originally Posted by MT2008

The "role" of weapons like the P90 and MP7 is just not very different from that of submachine guns - they're basically CQB weapons that were designed to have slightly better range and penetration than submachine guns.

I was under the impression that the P90 and MP7 were also made to duplicate the armour-piercing abilities of (ultra)compact carbines using assault rifle or battle rifle ammunition, but with much less problematic muzzle flash and blast when used unsuppressed, while in some ways being more compact to allow stowage in vehicles or the like. After all, an FN SCAR-H CQC (a 10-inch barrelled firearm using 7.62mm NATO ammunition) would certainly strain hearing protection more than a FN P90 if both were used unsuppressed at different times.

Originally Posted by MT2008

Exactly. When categories are vague at all, we're inviting these sorts of problems. And I'd rather not deal with them. Mazryonh is expecting people to be a little too much like him - which just does not seem reasonable.

No, I just thought people would see the rules and follow them, knowing that they might have their membership privileges revoked if they make repeated frivolous or incorrect edits. My experiences on other internet wikis has led me to be fairly positive on how things like categories and their entries are self-correcting, when the rules are clearly posted in a form most users cannot change. If this optimism has proven to be unwarranted on this wiki, I'd like to know how.

In any case, it's still the mods' wiki and they can do what they believe is justified. I wanted to make a case for a new category for PDWs, but if they want to remove it, it's their call and I can let this one go, so as long as they apply the new policies evenly across the board, such as removing "Personal Defense Weapon" from the descriptions of compact carbines using battle rifle or assault rifle ammunition, or reclassifying the FN P90, HK MP7, KAC PDW, et. al as "armour-piercing SMGs).

And why the pessimism of there being "so few PDWs" presently? The jury's still out on whether or not the concept will take off, and if it does, we can expect to see more of them using the criteria I developed.