Talk:Metal Storm: Difference between revisions

Terrible article. Reads like a publicity brochure. If this were the ultimate weapon -- as described -- it would be in production. According to this article, it has NO drawbacks whatsoever.

This article has poor structure, and is laced with opinion. It sounds extremely informal, as well. Please help to clean it up. Ryan Salisbury 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the opinion was added recently, and is tantamount to vandalism. I have reverted it to an older version. Ben@liddicott.com 17:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While acknowledging the possibility that the wholesale changes I have just introduced might be reversed, I hope that it is apparent that it is largely consistent with what has gone before. My intention was to concentrate on the technology which has some continuing (if currently obscure) interest in the field of ballistics, rather than on the details of the 'capabilities' or the various attempts (so far) to commercialise the technology through specific weapons or non-military applications. I'll add references to the patents . I'll also include a specific reference to the 'skirted projectile' patent, as this was potentially a major shift in the technology. Tban 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding in links within the text and have included links to international patents. Tban 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now need to add some more NPOV facets, including technical and development impediments, and competitors such as rail guns and non-ballistic crowd control technologies (along with links). And I note an absence of time-line type information, such as when the company was created, when the US office was opened, and when some of the technical or application innovations were announced. I am also checking whether Wiki has a standard caveat about investing or seeking investment advice on pages that describe companies. Tban 13 January 2006

Further 'tidying up' of the 'features' area, which is beginning (as it expands)to overtake the requirement of the 'applications' section (which I see disappearing shortly). Having added more detail in the features area (and assertions) now need to link those to references. And still building information on the company history for insertion later. Tban 13 January 2006

People just don’t understand the metal storm is not a practical weapon. Most articles are bias and made by people that work for metal storm, or people that don’t know much about weapons and tactics. The metal storm is not a practical weapon and its design renders it too heavy the reloading takes forever and the earlier shots use less barrel length and are less accurate. The firing rate is to hard to control not to mention overheating, advance computers aren’t reliable in the field of battle, the way the shells must be made longer for sufficient power, and the cost speed and effectiveness of a rain of bullets verse basic fire support canons rockets and missiles. However I do believe the metal storm should be better in anti missile defense than the Gating gun. Still it won’t proved an effective missile defense cause even the Gatling gun is considered a feeble attempt to defend missiles. The though of such a fast machine gun often excites people and they forget all about its practical use in military. carl 3/22/2006

I agree with Carl that there should be some more 'negatives' and 'limitations'. Getting back to the purpose of the article, my understanding is that it should not be an attempt at investment advise (I think we all agree on that). Because Metal Storm are not currently manufacturing weapons, my view is that the focus should be on the 'technological concept', which should include (I agree) 'limitations' in the concept. Metal Storm (the company) complicate the issue by developing different technology 'streams' concurrently. The differences between each 'stream' flows through to different 'limitations', and this may need to be drawn out further in the main article. While it is appropriate to discuss limitations, it would be my view that to put an 'opinion' as to the 'practicability' of the technology in the main article would run foul of POV protocols. It should be sufficient to note that the technology has been demonstrated but not sold and let the reader draw their own conclusions from that 'fact' and from their reading of the 'features' and 'limitations'. While it might be valid to include 'quotes' from military sources regarding their view of the practicability of the technology I couldn't point to a consistent theme coming from there. What is consistent (so far) and verifiable is that Metal Storm have not made sales. In light of all of this I'd propose to do some small edits in the next 12 hours or so, retaining (I hope) most of the sense of Carl's contribution.Tban 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was actually me (an aol user named max) who made the limitations points, and removed a lot of the unqualified benefits which seemed to me to have no supporting theoretical or practical evidence. I added the limitations factors due to the fact that there are several very simple and valid reasons which really do explain the lack of sales. I did not go into too much detail in order that the points were simple, made practical sense, and were supported by basic physical reality, which can of course be verified.

Max- 2am GMT 29/03/06

Hello Max, apologies all round for the mis-attribution! I have just worked through the limitations and (I hope you agree) retained your points. Part of the 'problem' in talking about Metal Storm is that the technology has 'split' into different streams, and some of the 'theoretical capacities' (eg the throw away ammo box/gun) have apparently been 'abandoned' but nobody has definitively said so. Even saying what they (the company) are doing now (mostly in the 40mm field) is difficult. Hence my suggestion to keep the entry more about the 'theory' of the technology rather than the performance of the company (which is a subject some feel rather strongly about..) Hence the slightly 'can do' nature of the description of the tech, as opposed to the 'can/can't sell' nature of the business. But the 'can do' did need to be balanced by limitations and I certainly give you credit for doing that. There's some references I will dig up to back some of the assertions I've added to the text, but I hope there's nothing indigestibly controversial in there. Regards, Tban 04:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i entirely agree with the edits you've made, it is now a very balanced response explaining theoretical limitations and areas which have not clearly been proven in any public way- Without suggesting that these are impossible to resolve or indeed, indirectly suggesting that these make the technology impractical- excellent- also, i'm still new to 'writing' in the passive, formal style that is appropriate to an encyclopedia, thanks for the help on that! -I think it helps balance the article a lot. I do not believe there could be any accusations of the article being opinionated any longer. (although i know that there will be.. but that's why wikipedia rocks!)

Regards, Max 21:00 GMT 30/03/06

I have posted a note to Ryan regarding the original 'Cleanup' notice on this page. My intention was to remove the notice - not on the basis that the page is 'perfect' but that it has achieved a reasonable state of 'balanced reporting'. Ryan has Ok'd it, so I'll pull it down now. Tban 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say this article needs more staff profiles with pictures. Addition of James D MacDonald was very interesting. Munkey 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Interesting' is scarcely the word.. I wonder if staff profiles in this Wiki entry aren't simply redundant. The info is on the Metal Storm webpage (which we've linked to). All we are looking at is a 'lift' straight from those pages - unless of course we get more 'interesting' asides regarding staff's former careers and private lives. Which is a direction I suspect we don't want to go. Noting that the whovever made the assertions in relation to Mr McDonald has not supported them with sources I recommend we pull that entry. If the contributer wants Mr McDonalds story known perhaps he/she could add an entry in Wiki under McDonald and 'go for their life' there (with referenced sources). PS Munkey - I took the liberty of dragging your entry from the top of the page to 'down here'. We seem to be following a 'latest at the bottom' protocol here. Cheers, Tban 12:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article isnt the best place to hold personal info about staff, e.g. James Donald MacDonald, but I would also like to see a history of the management staff so the reader can see who has been driving this project.

Do you have some references about David Smith resigning?Jayvdb 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay, I take your point - a company is essentially 'its people' and there have been some larger than life characters associated with Metal Storm over the years. I guess it gets back to (in part) the fact that we have co-existing in the same article 'the technology called Metal Storm' and the 'company called Metal Storm', and that historically this article tended more towards the explanation of the tech, rather than the company. That said, just because we've done things one way in the past doesn't mean that we need to stay with that approach.Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep them on the same page for a while. If this page undergoes a lot of expansion, more wikipedians will contribute to a single page.Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thinking.. Most of the Directors have careers that encompass much more than Metal Storm. Therefore to create a 'profile' of each of them within the Metal Storm article is in a sense to 'bury' their 'larger stories' within the Wiki Metal Storm article (a researcher would have to know that they were 'within' the Metal Storm entry or else they'd be invisible). So my thought is that we should create separate Wiki entries for each 'character', and then reference those entries from within Metal Storm (eg from a list of current and former Directors and CEO's within the Metal Storm article). The entries on each person could contain links to external sources (company reports, media profiles, etc) - and a photo if you can find a non-copyright one. It sounds like more work (it is), than simply putting the text straight into the Metal Storm article, but it looks more professional. Of course then one has to 'mind one's language' in those entries.. So rather than talking about someone being responsible for a company's poor performance you either quote articles that said that, or you note that 'concurrent with X's tenure, the company's share price reached all time lows' - although the latter might still rattle some windows. I can get to some of it (the work) in a couple of weeks, but of course you're welcome to 'jump in'.Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with splitting the persons onto their own page, but I think it would be a good idea to allow snippets of info about the people to reside in this article until enough knowledge about the person has been built up to warrent another page to manage. We can work out this balance over time. Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a final note re David Smith.. I can only refer (recommend might be too strong a word)you to the yahoo-finance-MTSX message board, or to the message board on www.sharescene.com (free sign-up and no spam). You'll find discussions and links to media articles there. Case in point though, DS had a career before Metal Storm (and now has one 'after'), and it's probably worth having a separate Wiki entry in order to tell his 'whole' story.Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I questioned this was that David Smith is still listed on the website as a Director. I'm registering with sharescene now so I can help out with the fact finding.Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally finally, as to who's been driving metal storm? Well how many people with differing interests can you fit behind a single steering wheel? A remarkably large number it seems... And apologies if any of this seems heavy handed. Cheers, Tban 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I had expected this technology/company to have done more with itself since I first heard about it. This stagnation makes more sense now that I can see how the management has been churning over.Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-inserted the staff section, and started some lists. There's a few 'ex's' still to be added - Chuck Vehlow amongst them. I'd propose that we add dates, ie 1992-1998 to each. And then start building the entries for each (or at least for the 'significant' ones) in Wiki. Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the copyright status of these biogs would be? i.e. Can those blocks of text be re-used as the basis of new articles? Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for formatting the lists of staff/ex staff. I suspect Metal Storm own the copyright to the photos (and text) in their annual reports, and while most companies wouldn't object to their re-use, you might find that if Metal Storm don't like something about the entry they'll make their displeasure known. Ultimately Wiki seems to take a very conservative view of re-use. Look up Wiki's section on copyright. As to 'put it in here' vs 'create new entries', I'd argue that it's not so much a matter of volume or 'effort', but simply 'heirarchical organisation'. It costs virtually no effort to create a new entry, and there is no 'minimum limit' for material you can put in there. There is a v small cost in creating the link from the Metal Storm page to the new entry, but it pays back in time. A very minimum biography might (though) be justified on the Metal Storm page. We talked about 'dates' (which would show if the person was 'current'), we could add (US/Aus) to indicate where they are from, possibly age. After that I'd argue we are looking at clutter rather than information 'for MOST readers'. The 'researchers' would have a rich vein of material in the separate articles on each staff.Tban 06:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck would this article need a profile on Mr Macdonald anyway? The "profile" that was in there was opinionated and in a way it was also (minorly) derogotary... Also, what does his past work have to do with Metal storm? Absolutely nothing. Good to see that was removed, lol. -josh 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC +10)

There's no mention of the VLe? --Mdwyer 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well not 'as such', but 9mm handguns with handgrip recognition are mentioned under 'Features' at dot points 6 (9mm) and 8 (handgrip recognition), and under 'Potential' (handguns). I'm very happy to put a link to New Jersey Institute of Tech if they have a page dedicated to that technology (because of course it's very interesting technology) - I'll have a 'look-see' over the weekend. Perhaps - however - you have found one of my prejudices. I've tried to emphasise the company background and the technology principles - so as to lead folk to appreciate the concepts before introducing the products. I'm trying to avoid the situation where we highlight the prototype products which gets (well some) folk over-excited and then confused why they aren't on the market 'now'. So I talk about 9mm technology etc (and agree we should emphasise the potential of handgrip recognition a bit more than I've done so far) rather than talk about 'products' (which is why the features section is much larger than the Application section). Bottom line is that I'm reluctant to use the name 'VLE gun'. Perhaps it'd be fairer to talk about the VLE gun development program (and I'm avoiding that subject because I don't have any news on it (but always hopeful expectations!)). Hope this doesn't seem negative, the feedback - from my perspective - has been great, and very productive (and keep it coming). Cheers, and regards, Tban 10:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to the story since it seems to be the closest thing to a product that everyday people might have seen. I can see your 'prejudices', and personally, I think they have contributed positivly to this article. The VLe could be a bad example, especially since I think they spun it as an 'all electronic talking gun' and glossed over the technology. Still, it is the 'product' that people have most likely seen, and so it should probably be at least mentioned. I'm leaving it entirely up to you, though, since you have FAR more knowledge about it that I do. --Mdwyer 23:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC) (No relation to O'Dwyer)[reply]

Let's not leap to conclusion (knowledgability). Your point is very good. While an encyclopaedia might aspire to be give the objective and complete explanation of everything it is there to serve a purpose, and that is to respond to what people come looking for - and (here's where we get back to your excellent point) if they've seen something called the VLE gun that's what they are going to come-a-searching for - my prejudices notwithstanding. So it should have it's own little place in the sun, I will attend to the 'elevation' in the next 24 hours. Regards, Tban 03:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in desperate need of wikipedia:Citing_sources work. I'm willing to help you find citable sources and a way to reference them.

Please have a look at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which is a well-cited article. Check out the text after the introduction section, or look at the infobox. The little numbers by various facts, which link to lines in the references section, are citations. Specifically, they are done in the footnote style, but you can use one of the other citation methods on WP:CITE if you like; as your quote states, it's up to you. Note that nowhere on WP:CITE will you find the "list a bunch of links at the bottom of the page" method, because that is not citation.

It also reads like a sales pitch and clearly violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The part of the article that sets off an alarm for me is the "Limitations" section. The article would be much more neutral if actual limitations were listed, instead of debunking of unsourced claims.

I'm not just dropping by to point out faults and then leave, You know this article better then I do, I'm willing to help you get "wikified." This article is now on my watch list, i'm here to help.Defraggler 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Defraggler, I've been away for a while. I note that T2599 made significant changes to the Limitations area on 11 Sep. He/she seems a bit one-eyed in relation to the tech and has (to my mind) taken us a long way away from NPOV. It was my intention with the previous text (prior to Sep 11) to use far more neutral language, knowing that I hadn't had time to cite sources (although I've read just about everything available over the last six years on this). I will probably revert after giving the T2599 changes a bit more of a look (in fairness). Thanks for the assistance offer, just a matter of finding time for me. Cheers, Tban 11:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]