[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Red dot sight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article

[edit]

Article created based on sub-type. Invention still needs a ref. There are primary sources showing the John Arne Ingemund Ekstrand patent but no reliable source saying this is the invention. FYI there is a great deal of old talk about "Red dod sights" at Talk:Reflex sight. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified edits

[edit]

Removed this to talk because it seems to be advert copy for the Firearms Research Limited/"Shield Mini Sight". This needs reliable sources before its re-added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance if I inadvertently trip over the guidelines - I am new to Wikipedia and somewhat overwhelmed by the reaction to adding material to the 'red dot sights' page. I noticed that the History section talks about Aimpoint but none of the other red dot sight pioneers so I'm keen to balance things up. I recognise a potential conflict of interest as I work for a red dot sight manufacturer, but I am hoping it is possible to contribute as we have the history physically on our shelves in the form of prototypes, tooling etc. It is possible to see the evolution from the original Firearms Research patent in 1996 to many of today's mini red dot sights, not just Shield, but the existing page doesn't cover this at all. The page also talks about the US military but not UK, which I suggest needs fixing. What is the best way forward? Thanks for your help.
MSadlerSPD (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as the editor who reverted your edit I thought I would give some pointers/reasons why. In a nutshell Wikipedia does not consist of original research such as basing the claim "first" on examination of patents and making claims of undue significance based on a tangential mention in the media[1]. You need to find third party (other peoples books, publications, etc) that make these claims and that citations has to make that claim specifically. So yeah, you will find a problem posting material about your own products based on your own research. I would suggest a reading of Wikipedia guidelines. There is no rule against your editing.... when in doubt... add it. You just have to edit within the concept of an overall encyclopedia that is based on secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance. The issue I am trying to address is that the current article gives prominence to a single manufacturer, Aimpoint, without any third party references to support that. I would like to balance the article, not just for Shield, but companies completely unrelated to us, such as Trijicon, Ringsight and others, who made equally notable breakthroughs. In the industry, the patent I referenced is known as the single patent from which all mini red dot sights followed, but I doubt that is recorded other than in the license fees that manufacturers pay to the current patent owner, Leupold. If you have an opportunity to see the patent, you will find that it covers the key technical issue that allowed size to be reduced, but again that is not documented by any third party in the public domain. I think this part of the history is interesting and worth documenting as it dramatically affected the International Pistol Shooting community at the time. Before the patent, no mini sights, after the patent, an increasing array of mini sights following the Firepoint. In general, how are subjects that are known within an industry, but not documented formally in books or papers, get included in Wikipedia?
A particular Aimpoint product is attributed to the US military, so I thought it would be reasonable to document the red dot sight used by the UK military, backed up by a press article. There are many other articles that I could reference about the FIST equipment that is supplied to the whole UK army and there are no other red dot sights within the programme, so I suggest there is evidence supporting the significance of the CQB to the UK military. If I reference more third party articles about the FIST CQB, or a Ministry of Defence document, will I be able to include it?
Alternatively, I see that notable firearms and sights have their own pages, so is that a better route? Can anyone guide me on how the decision on 'notable' is made, for example, volume sold, military use? Thanks for any advice MSadlerSPD (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are allot of red dot sights out there, so highlighting any one in a very short history may run afoul of WP:UNDUE. Highlighted points in this section would be "first" of some type, "most used", "notable usage", etc. Aimpoint is noted because it has some reliable sourcing as the first RDS ever made (preceding Firearms Research by some 20 years BTW). First usage in the US military is notable. If there is a reliably sourced first usage in the UK, yes, that should be added. If you can expand the whole section in general that is even better. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the first military use of a red dot sight by the US military was during the Son Ray raid in 1970 (Vietnam War). This was the Singlepoint, not Aimpoint. Granted that was an ambient light-type sight, but no history would be complete without mentioning it. I think the best idea is for me to take more time to write a better article - I should not have tried to do something in a rush!MSadlerSPD (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Singlepoint is a blind Collimator sight (mentioned there), not a red dot sight per basic RDS definition of a battery powered LED and a transparent slanted collimating mirror. There are many claims to Aimpoint being the first RDS, one is cited. Per expansion, if Firearms Research Limited is a notable company the first step would be to create an article for it (more at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Red dot sight could include it in a list of manufacturers or a list of "User" countries (as at Milkor MGL). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red dot sight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Content is too similar to reflector sight to be in a separate article. 2605:E000:160C:C06B:707A:3B2F:7727:5317 (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green dot sight

[edit]

I think there should be a green dot sight reference and tell the difference between the two Wiktor WH (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article name red dot sight is a poor one in my opinion. Green is also a very common color for such sights. Theoretically, a reflector sight can be made with illumination of any color. We should consider changing the name of this article to "Firearm reflector sight" or something similar. Sauer202 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 November 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Red dot sight → Firearm reflector sight – More technically correct Sauer202 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is referred to as red dot sight in this article is really a reflector sight designed for use with firearms. The name red dot sight is problematic, since not all "red dot sights" have "red" dots. Green is also a very common color for such sights. Theoretically, a reflector sight can be made with illumination of any color (orange, yellow, blue, etc.). It would be more technically correct to change the name of this article to "Firearm reflector sight", "Reflector gun sight" or something similar. Sauer202 (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the WP:COMMONNAME? The more technically correct name can still be used as a redirect. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: "Red dot" (without the sight) is probably what reflector sights for firearms are most commonly called in the gun community, but I would say that is a terribly unprecise nomenclature. What about "red dots" which happen to have a "green dot"? What about scope sights which only have a red dot for a reticle (for example Noblex NZ6 1-6x24 inception reticle 0)? What about holographic sights which have a red dot for a reticle? Or laser sights with a red laser? Either of those could be called a "red dot" by a person which is uneducated about different sighting technologies, but neither of those mentioned use the reflector sight principle. The Wikipedia guideline on naming of articles states that, in addition to the WP:COMMONNAME criteria, article names should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. "Red dot sights" are sometimes also called reflector sights in gun literature. That explains much more of how the sighting technology actually works, and clearly sets it apart from for example holographic sights. Sauer202 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "Firearm reflector sight" is a reflector sight, and its covered there. So I see no need for a new article. A case could be made to merge and redirect this article to reflector sight since this is just one type of that device. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question was whether to change this article name, not about creating an additional article. Sauer202 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Firearm reflector sight" is an unverified term, is not WP:COMMONNAME, and has no verification in reference as far as I can see [4]. We do not make up nomenclature. This would also be an article redundant to reflector sight, we don't do redundant articles. Also in Wikipedia things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they kinda look like. A red dot sight (collimated LED based reticle bounced off a splinter) has nothing to do with lasers or holograms. They are also not just found on guns. That the reticles available have expanded to all kinds of shapes is, again, a reason to redirect if this term is now historic. Then again this could be an article about a historical sight. Need reference making those claims BTW. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, the question was whether to change this article name, not about creating an additional article. It is true that these "red dot sights" not only are found on guns, but other applications (alignment of cameras, telescopes, tools, etc.) can be covered in the the existing article about reflector sights in general. Quote: "Also in Wikipedia things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they kinda look like" -> I think this actually proves my point: "Red dot sight" is a name based on what the sight kind of looks like, while "reflector sight" clarifies the underlying technology (or what they are, if you will). "Firearm reflector sight" was just one alternative. "Reflector sights for firearms" can be another one. I'm open to suggestions. Merging the "red dot sight" article into the "reflector sight" article may also be an alternative. My fear was that such an article would become too large, but maybe not, since much of the info should be overlapping. Sauer202 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Red dot sights have a very specific physical and optical description/layout. And they are defined by published sources John A. Cramer, Why You Can't Shoot Straight - Page 104, Benjamin Sobieck, The Writer's Guide to Weapons, Reginald J.G. Wales, The Ultimate Optics Guide to Rifle Shooting, page 126. They (physically) have nothing to do with anything else that produces a red dot. So it looks like an article should exist about them at this title. So, no, this article should not be renamed. The other things you mentioned also have their own articles. Reflector sights with funny reticles can be mentioned somewhere else (or here). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources[5] say that "The term “red dot sight” isn’t a specific term. It is actually a more general term that can describe any type of sight that uses an illuminated red dot as an aiming point. One example of a red dot sight is actually a prism scope." While there is disagreement on the term "red dot", there is no disagreement on the term "reflector sight" or "reflex sight". Of course, "red dot" is a common nickname for reflector sights, and should be mentioned in the introduction of the article, but I disagree that it should be the primary name and name of the article, both for this reason and for the reasons already mentioned above. "Reflector sight" or "reflex sight" is a much more precise naming, and is also an established name. I think we have to disagree on this one. Would love to get someone else's opinion. Maybe User:Francis Flinch can chime in? Sauer202 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. There is more than enough reference out there explaining what a “red dot sight” is and what a "Prismatic Sight" is. One is a collimator, the other is an optical telescope. Those two devices are unrelated. A “red dot sight” is a sub-type of reflector sight, is it distinct enough and referenced enough to have its own article? Yes, it is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you do have some valid points, I think we have to agree to disagree. Would love to have someone else chime in with their opinion. :) Sauer202 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would like to make an RfC. First I want to ask you if you think that would be helpful, and whether you view the following question as neutral, per best practices: "Should the article be a) moved (for example to Reflector sights for firearms), b) merged with reflector sight, c) kept as is, or d) rewritten to cover other types of sights which also have a red dot for a reticle?" Sauer202 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article topics are specific things so it would be C. We do not create redundant articles or group things that kinda look the same. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have made an RfC. Sauer202 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you gone through those 1 860 results and verified that the term is used in the meaning of reflector sights, and not for example scope sights? For example in one of those 1 860 results, the Shooter's Bible, No. 85 by William Jarrett (1993), it is mentioned at page 438, that one particular model is "the only red-dot sight with built in magnification". But built in magnification should exclude the sight from being classified as a reflector sight, shouldn't it? I'm leaning more towards merging this article with the reflector sight article as suggested by another user in December 2016. Sauer202 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on whether to move, merge or restructure

[edit]

Should the article be a) moved (for example to Reflector sights for firearms), b) merged with reflector sight, c) kept as is, or d) rewritten to cover other types of sights which also have a red dot for a reticle? Sauer202 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_dot_sight&oldid=1212526187"