| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .38 S&W article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 03 June 2005 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Can we add into this text if this is a rimfire or centerfire cartridge, and what kind of primer it used.
Merged .38/200
editI merged .38/200 into this article, since that is properly just a variant of this. The end result is a fuller article about one actual cartridge. It's still a bit messy, it'd be good to clean it up in the post-merge era. Arthurrh
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
editArticle reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing, appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional photo?
editIf anyone thinks it would be a good addition, I can produce/upload a photo of a contemporary .38 S&W cartridge. It might be nice to have both the WWII era .38-200 and a more modern cartridge. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
History of its demise
editWhat was the time line for the practical replacement of .38 S&W by .38 Special? It might be measured in production figures of the two kinds of gun or the two kinds of ammo, or by advertisements in old magazines. Thanks for any information regarding the changes in popularity of the two.CountMacula (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Merge discussion
editSo, as noted above, the .38/200 article was once previously merged into this one, but was spun back out at one point. Well, looking at both articles, and the technical definitions of both, these are the same cartridge, with variation being no greater than one finds within any cartridge. The title is just a particular military's internal designation, which is a valid synonym, but not a reason to have a separate article. I think we should remerge the articles at this title. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Cautious support . Both articles need serious work, particularly with referencing. The issue as I see it is the .38 S&W article has very little history beyond its adoption by the British. Whilst I have no evidence of this, I suspect the .38/200 overall use and production far exceeds the original case. It would be a real shame to lose the information (that does requires incline citations) from the .38/200 page, but it would swamp the information in the .38 S&W page. To do the merger justice, I think a separate section for the .38/200 with its own infobox (less specifications section) would also be required. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
- Oknazevad, I support the merge, but that entails merging content not just redirecting. Do you intent to dramatically expand this article? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC).
- I merged in over 25k of text and three sources directly taken from the other article. Beyond that, the other article was largely redundant meta-content already included here, such as the navboxes and categories, a major reason for the merge in the first place. The infobox on the other page contained more material, but it was too specific to British military use, so those parameters were omitted. Considering even the other article noted that during WWII the UK had to use standard commercial .38 S&W rounds imported from the US for the same revolvers (part of the text merged into here), and that the .380/200 & 380 Mk IIz were just (two different) particular mil-spec loadings of the cartridge, making the infobox focus on them would be too narrow for an overview of the cartridge as a whole. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)