Talk:Air gun

Are air pistols pistols?

A ridiculous categorization argument kicking off at Commons: Commons:Category:Air pistols and Commons:User talk:Andy Dingley#Air pistol. All welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Bb pellets" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bb pellets and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Bb pellets until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph of the Powerplant section

Does the first paragraph of the Powerplant section makes sense to anybody or is it just me? I don't seem to be able to comprehend what it means and i'm also not sure that what i can make out is factual.

Any thoughts?

Old💩404 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

यह गन

आपकी वेबसाइट पर मिलेगी 2409:4085:8E0E:7803:0:0:BACA:AA05 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem to mean anything with regards to the topic as per what i could translate, which is about that..

"this gun will be found on your website"

Old💩404 (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2024

Substitution of 'primitive' with 'simpler'

The term primitive does accurately describe the historical and technological simplicity of a blowgun compared to an air gun—it’s a tool with ancient origins and minimal mechanical complexity. However, primitive can also carry unintended connotations, especially in broader cultural contexts, where it might imply inferiority or backwardness. Using simpler maintains the factual comparison without the potential baggage, focusing purely on the mechanical and design aspects. If the goal is clarity and neutrality, simpler might be the better choice. That said, if the intent is to highlight the historical evolution of projectile weapons, primitive could be appropriate provided it's used strictly in a technical or chronological sense.Perhaps a compromise could be:

"...similar in principle to early or simpler projectile weapons like the blowgun."

This keeps the comparison clear while sidestepping any loaded language. What do you think? Does that strike the right balance?--Fornax (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I think 'simpler' is an understatement. 'Simpler' means less complicated, while 'primitive' means both less complicated and less technologically advanced, which perfectly describes a blowgun's relation to an airgun. Oktayey (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair distinction—primitive does carry the added nuance of technological underdevelopment, which arguably fits the historical context of the blowgun. However, the concern raised earlier was about tone: primitive can sometimes imply cultural judgment or inferiority, even if unintentionally. If the goal is to describe the mechanical and technological contrast without risking unintended connotations, simpler might be a more neutral choice. Alternatively, a phrase like "less technologically advanced" could preserve the intended meaning while avoiding potential baggage. Language is always a balancing act between precision and perception. Fornax (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

>primitive can sometimes imply cultural judgment or inferiority

I really don't think it does—at least not here. I think it's a succinct and accurate way of describing it, and I think using "simpler" is less accurate and "less technologically advanced" is unnecessarily wordy. I think the word "ancient" is arguably the least fitting, since it doesn't necessarily suggest lack of complexity, and I'm pretty sure blowguns were still commonplace far more recently than ancient times. Oktayey (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Precision in word choice is undoubtedly important—but just as crucial is how that precision is perceived. If a term risks distracting from the actual topic or discouraging readers due to historical connotations, then it’s no longer just a matter of semantics; it becomes a matter of effective communication. The final chosen phrasing manages to maintain both clarity and respect, making it the more thoughtful and strategically sound choice in this context. I think ancient is still appropriate here—it accurately reflects the blowgun’s deep historical roots, even if its use extended into more recent times. Unlike primitive, ancient is neutral and focuses on age, not complexity or value. It helps situate the tool within a broader historical timeline without implying cultural judgment. Fornax (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)