Talk:Gatling gun
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Dmol in topic Definition split
Definition split[edit]
I've reverted to a single (but simpler) definition. The split was made recently by an anon, but seems in good faith. Not sure why he/she felt it should be split and the second refered to as slang. This was later changed to "disputed usage".
Comments welcome.--Dmol 09:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, (s)he explained why in his/her edit summary:
- (→Noun: Deleted encyclopedic content, added specific primary definition, synonyms; qualified existing definition as slang, due to its technical inaccuracy (the eponymous gun was not a machine gun...see wiki article for more))
- In other words, in the anon's opinion, it is simply wrong to define the Gatling gun as we currently do:
- A type of machine gun with several barrels on a rotating frame.
- because the original Gatling gun was not actually a machine gun, and later machine guns that are sometimes called "Gatling guns" are not properly so called.
- —RuakhTALK 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- But we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Almost everyone would consider it a machine gun whether that is right or wrong in the strictest technical sense. It also does not explain why they felt there was a different definition definition for the original Gatling gun. Even if this is true, it is informal, not slang, to use it for modern guns. I've not seen any evidence that there are two distinct definitions needed.--Dmol 11:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think our definitions should strive for technical accuracy. If experts wouldn't consider it a machine gun, then we shouldn't call it one. (I mean, as a descriptivist dictionary, our entry for the term machine gun should document lay senses as well as technical senses; but I think our own definitions should only use the quote-unquote "correct" senses.) How about
- A type of gun, similar to a modern machine gun, with several barrels on a rotating frame.
- I think our definitions should strive for technical accuracy. If experts wouldn't consider it a machine gun, then we shouldn't call it one. (I mean, as a descriptivist dictionary, our entry for the term machine gun should document lay senses as well as technical senses; but I think our own definitions should only use the quote-unquote "correct" senses.) How about
- Yes, that looks fine. I'm still not convinced it's not a machine gun, but I'll leave that for another day.--Dmol 21:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)