Talk:Bipod
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bipod 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Questionable Comments[edit]
"Bipods are for the most part folded away forward, not back towards the shooter." I don't know where this came from, but ith the exception of low-quality (VERY low qaulity) after-market bipods and mis-installed oens, allt the bipods I've ever seen were desigend to be folded back (for ease of folding back up after use). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.68.186 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Wrong category[edit]
The bottom of the page has Firearm-stub at the bottom. But the article is in Category:Photography equipment. And bipods are rarely used for photography. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted contentious claim[edit]
Article currently says: "Due to this invention of the bipod, photography readily advanced into what it is today."
This is startling claim for the bipod, since it it could be argued that many other inventions have done a lot more to advance photography.
So where is the evidence?
What there is runs the other way. Photographers typically use tripods, monopods or bean bags when they want extra support. If they are shooting video they might use a camera crane. But bipods? If these were a big thing you'd expect to find major manufacturers making bipods for photo use, and camera stores selling them. But you don't.
If you go to Calumet http://www.calumetphoto.com for instance, a specialist photo chain with branches in America and Europe, you get 591 hits for a search on "tripod", 44 products returned for a search on "monopod" and zero hits for "bipod". In fact the search helpfully corrects "bipod" to "ipod" for you!
So I've just deleted the whole Photography paragraph under Other Uses from the article. Photographers don't use them enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. They are more of a weapons accessory.
I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether it's true that NASA uses bipods to aim its space shuttles :-)
Istobe (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
ship mast[edit]
what about A-shape masts of ships, from Ancient-Egipt to cargo ships?
User:Suwa 10:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Big edit for such as small article fixing several long-standing issues[edit]
1. I added a link to Shear legs, which are basically a larger cousin of the bipod, used for lifting things rather than supporting or steadying them. This should also help in directing readers to other related devices like the A-frame. Re the historic type of ship mast mentioned by the previous poster, there is already an entry for Bipod mast which should show up as on option when anyone types "bipod" into the Wikipedia search box.
2. I removed the remaining mentions of photography, as there are no supporting references to back up the idea that bipods are used by photographers either today or in the past. I can't find any evidence myself online, only occasional forum discussions of why they are not used - e.g. Camera supports - why no bipods?? Basically photographers don't carry bipods, but can turn a tripod into a bipod any time they like by simply not extending a leg. If you have any evidence of any notable use of bipods in photography please add it, citing some reference or link, and revert my edit.
3. I've removed the flag at the top of this talk page saying "This article is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography" - since it no longer retains any mention of photography. If you're from that project please come and add the necessary material to this page and revert my edit.
4. Finally I have removed the whole Other Uses section, as all it contained was some questionable assertions about the use of bipods by NASA and in rocket technology. These were not supported by any valid or working references. Claiming NASA does something then providing a link to Wikipedia's main entry on NASA doesn't support the claim - you could claim anything. Possibly the original poster was thinking of some kind of Derrick, in which case Wikipedia's entry on that topic would be the place to add some supported material.