| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .38 ACP 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Redirect
editThe .38 ACP is the 38 Super. There is no reason for a second article. It's covered under the 38 Super article just fine. Please discuss it here instead of getting into a revert war.--Asams10 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think its covered there enough. It may be a development of it, but they are not always compatible. They have different introduction dates and history. I don't think it hurts to have a small article here with a link to the main article at .38 ACP. Ve3 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- In fact its not covered at all there, with only one small mention;that is not fine. Ve3 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, how about a separate section? There is just too little information on this cartridge to warrant a separate article. It was a very short-lived cartridge known today mostly for its relatioinship to the 38 Super.--Asams10 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look I just really think it can stand on its own as article, as much as it may be overshadowed by .38 super. There are just so many things that true for one that are not for the other. Wheather a merge was a good idea would depend on how it was done, I certainly am not ruling it out-I just don't think it is the right direction. 04:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Allright tell you what, we will do it your way. I think you have had enough arguments of late on here... Ve3 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- The .38 ACP is not the 38 Super anymore than the .223 Remington is the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. They should each have their own articles. Arthurrh 03:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Dead link
editDuring several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
1897 or 1900?
editArticle says it was first used in 1897, but designed in 1900? Sounds like it should say it was designed in 1897. Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)