Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

List by time period

There's a gap in weapons "by time period" between medieval and WWII - quite a big gap really! The "List of Medieval" has had items removed due to not being in the "medieval" time period. Suggestions for additional time period lists? (pre-WWI the lists will probably be regional as well, such as "Japanese Feudal Period") -- Medains 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Might categories be a more maintainable approach than lists here? Kirill Lokshin 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Task force icon

There don't seem to be any really good images to use; most weapon pictures aren't recognizable at 40px. I've used a halfway-decent picture of some halberds for the time being; but it would be great if anyone could dig up something a bit more striking. Kirill Lokshin 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Scope

I'm not certain of the scope of this project. What weapons does it cover? Does it consider things like tanks to be weapons? Oberiko 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that we can go for anything that could be classified as a weapon (or as armor, for that matter; I doubt we're going to have a separate armor task force). The only things we need be careful with are ships and aircraft, both of which have active WikiProjects that we need to work constructively with; other than that, I think everything is fair game. Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that since the old Weaponry WikiProject is no longer active we can adapt some of the AFV infoboxes they used for our purposes? Edward Sandstig 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
See two sections down, actually :-) Once the new {{Infobox Weapon}} is complete, it'll probably be able to handle vehicles as well as hand-held weapons. (It might take a few weeks before it's that far along, though.) Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted: Cannons in the Age of Sail

Any assistance you can give to Cannons in the Age of Sail is appreciated. This will be a horrible, broad subject, but needed to get started... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consolidated firearm infobox

We currently have a bunch of different infoboxes for firearms floating around ({{Weapon-firearm}}, {{Firearm}}, {{Infobox firearm}}), so I've started a draft attempt (at {{Infobox Weapon}}) to consolidate them using the new capability for optional fields. Below is a draft, taken using the data from M1 Garand:

M1 Garand
"The rifle that won the war"
TypeService rifle
Place of originUnited States of America
Service history
In service1936–1957
WarsWorld War II,
Korean War
Production history
DesignerJohn C. Garand
Designed1924
No. built5.4 million approx.
VariantsM1C/D sniper rifle
Specifications
Mass4.3 kg (9 lb 10 oz)
Length1,100 mm (43.6 in)
Barrel length610 mm (24 in)
Cartridge.30-06 Springfield (7.62 × 63 mm),
.276 Pedersen,
7.62 × 51 mm NATO (U.S. Navy)
ActionGas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fireSemi-automatic
Muzzle velocity865 m/s (2,837 ft/s)
Effective firing range550 m (601 yd)
Maximum firing range2,743 m (3,000 yd)
Feed system8-round "en bloc" clip (.30-06);
10-round "en bloc" clip (.276)
SightsAperture rear sight, barleycorn-type front sight

Comments? Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's much prettier more standard-looking than what's floating around out there, which is a plus. Are the fields from the various templates mentioned incorporated in there somewhere? UnDeadGoat 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Not yet, since I haven't pulled everything in yet (I just found another few firearms infoboxes today, plus a prototype infobox for swords that I'd like to roll in here as well). Hopefully sometime in the next few days I'll have a more thorough usage guide written up. Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
British No. 69
TypeAnti-personnel grenade
Place of originUnited Kingdom
Service history
In serviceDecember 1940 - 1945
Production history
Designed1940
No. builtMany thousands
VariantsMk. 1
Specifications
Mass383 g
Length114 mm
Diameter60 mm
FillingHigh explosive
Filling weight92 g
Detonation
mechanism
Impact

Okay, I've merged in a bunch of relevant fields; a full description of the options is given on {{Infobox Weapon}}. Aside from the rifle example above, there's one for a grenade at right.

The new infobox can now replace the following infoboxes (using the listed field correspondence):

{{Firearm}}
  • image → image
  • caption → caption
  • name → name
  • country → origin
  • type → type
  • inventor → designer
  • manufacturer → manufacturer
  • date → design_date
  • serv_date → service
  • cartridge → cartridge
  • action → action
  • rof → rate
  • velocity → velocity
  • range → range
  • mass → weight
  • length → length
  • barrel → part_length
  • capacity → feed
  • sights → sights
  • variant → variants
  • num_built → number
{{Artillery}}
  • image → image
  • caption → caption
  • name → name
  • nation → origin
  • type → type
  • date → design_date
  • caliber → caliber
  • barrel_length → part_length
  • breech → breech
  • rof → rate
  • velocity → velocity
  • shell_types → cartridge
  • range → range
  • recoil → recoil
  • mass → weight
  • length → length
  • crew → crew
  • num_built → number
{{Grenade}}
  • image → image
  • caption → caption
  • grenade_name → name
  • nation → origin
  • date → design_date
  • serv_date → service
  • type → type
  • filling → filling
  • detonation → detonation
  • weight → weight
  • fill_wieght → filling_weight
  • length → length
  • diameter → diameter
  • variant → variants
  • num_built → number
{{Weapon-firearm}}
  • image → image
  • caption → caption
  • name → name
  • type → type
  • nation → origin
  • era → removed, silly field anyway
  • date → design_date
  • prod_date → production_date
  • serv_date → service
  • operators → used_by
  • wars → wars
  • variant → variants
  • num_built → number
  • spec_type → removed, merge into type in practice
  • calibre → caliber
  • ammo → cartridge
  • mag → feed
  • action → action
  • length → length
  • barrel → part_length
  • weight → weight
  • rof → rate
  • muzzle_vel → velocity
  • range → range
{{Infobox firearm}}
  • name → name
  • image → image
  • caliber → cartridge
  • action → action
  • mass → weight
  • length → length
  • barrel_length → part_length
  • rate_of_fire → rate
  • magazine → feed
  • effective_range → range
{{Weapon-artillery}}
  • image → image
  • caption → caption
  • name → name
  • type → type
  • nation → origin
  • era → removed
  • target → removed, merge into type in practice
  • date → design_date
  • prod_date → production_date
  • num_built → number
  • serv_date → service
  • operators → used_by
  • wars → wars
  • carriage → carriage
  • calibre → caliber
  • barrel → part_length
  • weight → weight
  • shell_types → cartridge
  • ammo_wt → removed, merge into cartridge in practice
  • muzzle_vel → velocity
  • range → range
  • rof → rate
  • crew → crew
{{ArtyInfoBox}}
  • image → image
  • caption → caption
  • name → name
  • country → origin
  • prodyears → production_date
  • quantity → number
  • caliber → caliber
  • barrellength → part_length
  • combatmass → weight
  • marchmass → weight
  • elevation → elevation
  • declination → elevation
  • traverse → traverse
  • range → range
  • rof → rate

Comments? Are there any obvious flaws with this design, or can we start rolling it out? Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I made Infobox firearm, and I have some suggestions:
  • The "maximum range" for a firearm seems like a trivial factoid that belongs inside the article body, not inside a quick-reference infobox. Furthermore, the maximum range for most firearms will be unavailable, because nowadays people don't generally fire their guns into the air just to see how far the bullet goes. Drop this line.
  • "Date of design" is very ambiguous - many guns were developed over a period of several years or went through several major revisions before reaching their current state. Reword it or lose it completely, I don't know.
  • "Variants" - some guns (like the AK-74 or the M16 rifle) have dozens of variants and derivatives, often with only subtle differences. Would you describe them in detail inside the article body, or would you rather cram them all into one infobox line? I say ditch this.
  • The caption (the rifle that won the war) seems unnecessary. Most guns don't have a clever motto.
  • Make the background white. The majority of firearm pics that I've seen (like your M1 there) have a white background and would blend in nicely. However, with the current off-white background, the borders of the image are clearly visible.
  • This is a matter of taste, but try to use as little color as possible. The default wikipedia skin uses a white background, light grey borders, and (sparingly!) light grey cells. I think that color scheme would work much better than the grey/blue/light brown you have going right now.
Anyway, that's it. Frankly, I don't see the need for yet another gun infobox, but I wish you luck anyway. - Tronno ( t | c ) 00:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The point of this one is to cleanly replace all the others, so, while dropping certain fields may be a good idea, it's something that should be done after the conversion (or fields won't match up properly). Given that the fields are (almost) all optional, it's probably something best determined on a per-article basis.
As far as the colors go: the infobox background is the standard one set by the Wikipedia-wide CSS, while the grey/light blue styling is the standard we've adopted across all of the infoboxes used by this project; I'm not sure where you're seeing brown, of any sort, in there. Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There is at least one more artillery template in use: {{ArtyInfoBox}}. Bukvoed 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Curious. We can support everything there aside from the firing angles at the moment; do we really need separate fields for the elevation/declination/transverse angles, or would it be sufficient to have a single "angles" parameter in which all three would be listed? Kirill Lokshin 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Elevation and declination can be combined, something like elevation=-5 to 35 degrees. For traverse I'd use a separate field. Bukvoed 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. I'll try to add the needed fields and write up a field conversion list for {{ArtyInfoBox}} sometime this evening. Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, two fields ("elevation" and "traverse" have been added; the resulting conversion table is listed above. Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to show up late. Just a few comments, based on my work redesigning {{tank}} and building {{AFV}}:

  • It looks great.
  • Nice work modularizing this so it can be used for different types of weapons.
  • Table headings don't need to be followed by colons, just as an article's section headings don't—the table layout and typography clearly show the relationship of heading and data.
  • However, since some table rows are a single line and others are several lines, you might try using grey rules or background tone to delineate successive rows (as in template:AFV).
  • Caption should be retained, but optional. There's no point repeating the table's main heading text here (as in M249, Galil, Uzi, FN FAL, FAMAS). But often there can be something interesting to say about the contents of the photo (e.g. MP5, MG 34, Bren, are those two different models pictured in Bazooka?), or to point out that it shows a different variant than the stats (SA80, FG 42, Sturmgewehr 44).
  • Maximum range may be problematic, but the template documentation should have some guidelines: do we prefer absolute maximum, or max effective range (the latter seems more meaningful). Similarly, in template:AFV we prefer vehicle's roof height to height over roof machine gun, hull length to length over gun, etc., but sometimes the other figure is the only one available. If the field is free-text, then the specifics can be written in (preferably minimally).
  • Date of design may not always be available or clear, but then it can just be omitted.

—Michael Z. 2006-07-13 16:52 Z

A few replies:
  • The colons are there mainly for the benefit of clarity when things split out onto multiple lines (although I happen to think that they also look cleaner aesthetically, but that may be just my own personal preference). The reason we can't use background tone is because of the modularity; if a row is omitted, the tone stripes of the rows above and below will merge. (As far as internal rules are concerned, it was something that has been discussed—and generally has received little support—in several of the military infoboxes. I'm not sure having a layout with more lines would be worth it just to remove the colons.)
  • I'm pretty sure the caption can be omitted; does something break if it's just left blank?
  • I suppose the exact meaning of "maximum range" will vary depending on the type of weapon; but since effective range has its own line, I would think this would be used for a more absolute maximum range.
And thank you for the kind words regarding the design! Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I can see why you can't specify row background colours in the code. It might just be possible using CSS rules. I'm making up the id/class names, but the following CSS code demonstrates the idea. It might only be possible if <tbody> tags are allowed in Wikimedia (see bugs 3156, 4740).
#infobox_weapon .iw_section tr { background: transparent; }
#infobox_weapon .iw_section tr tr { background: #f8f8f8; }
#infobox_weapon .iw_section tr tr tr { background: transparent; }
#infobox_weapon .iw_section tr tr tr tr { background: #f8f8f8; }
#infobox_weapon .iw_section tr tr tr tr tr { background: transparent; }
[etc.]
Alternately, I was thinking of a horizontal grey line between each white row, like the one below the caption, or even lighter or dotted. Have you tested what this might look like? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 17:36 Z
Yeah, horizontal lines between the rows have been tried before (not with this particular template, but with several of the other military infoboxes, which all use the same design); the general feedback was pretty negative, as people thought it needlessly cluttered up the appearance, particularly when there were a lot of rows. Kirill Lokshin 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How would this cope with ...... ?

The problem with info boxes is coping with non-standard information. With planes,boats and firearms (rifles, pistols - etc.) there is always a fairly standard set of information. However larger calibre weapons - for example grenade launchers, cannons, rocket launchers are more complex. Take a look at these examples:

What's the plan for these kind of pages ?

For the weapons with multiple ammunition types, the various ones can just be listed one after the other in the infobox; there are a number of firearms that have multiple calibers which do that already (using the existing infoboxes).
The current design doesn't include support for true rockets and missiles, mainly because we need to coordinate with WP:AIR, which has been doing some work in that field, to make sure we don't come up with something incompatible. As far as the list of ammunition goes, I'm not sure it needs an infobox, considering it's not actually a weapon (much less a single type of weapon). Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at it further, it would probably be possible to add support for ammunition to the box. There's already limited support if we consider it to be an explosive, but there are some extra fields that would need to be added for shells that grenades/mines don't have. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For the occasional awkward sod, one could also hardcode an info box so it had the same look and feel as the template.GraemeLeggett 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but that'll miss out on all the benefits of using a template in the first place ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Start using new infobox?

Should we go ahead and start doing some conversions? Or are there any significant issues with the new template that haven't been resolved yet? Kirill Lokshin 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me - I notice that you spotted the Type 99 Grenade‎ article I wrote to test it out. One thing - landmines - I've been working on improving the coverage (See the very stubby List of landmines. Could we include landmine specific fields ? Trigger pressure is about the only one I can think of. Megapixie 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I had assumed that's what the "detonation" field would be used for in those cases, but we could add another field if there's something else that's supposed to go there for landmines. Kirill Lokshin 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just joined and I'd like to point out the Template:Semi-automatic_pistol that should also be replaced by this infobox. I recently spent a lot of time introducing the Template:Firearm into pages that had nothing... I will start replacing them with the new infobox too. Deon Steyn 09:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a list of field conversions for that one. Thanks for pointing it out! Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have started using this infobox (to convert from other templates and infobox or simply to replace manual html or wiki tables) on the following pages: Ak 4, Ak 5, Beretta 93R, MP40, Five-seveN, FN P90, Heckler & Koch (UMP/ MP5/ MP5K/ G3/ PSG1/ VP70/ MP7/ P7) Rheinmetall MG3, MG42, MG42, MG34, MG30, MAC-10, Rk 62, R4 assault rifle, SIG 552, SIG 550, Steyr AUG, Type 97 Sniper Rifle, TT-33, Makarov PM, M60 machine gun, Dragunov Sniper Rifle, Vz 61, FN FNC, Walther PPK/ P88/ WA2000 and Uzi submachine gun. Tomorrow I will tackle some more and step work on some land mines :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs)

Great work! Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have converted another 50. Don't, want to clutter this talk page, the list is on my user page if anyone's interested (or want to check up on the changes :) User:Deon Steyn#Infobox Firearm. Deon Steyn 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Where's the list of the ones that need doing? GraemeLeggett 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a list of the infoboxes we can currently convert under the "To do" section on the task force page; using Special:Whatlinkshere on them should give us an up-to-date list of what can be converted. Kirill Lokshin 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I start with a category page (e.g. "assault rifles") and then I checkeach weapon's page. Many of them don't use existing infoboxes and either have nothing or some home-brewed html. Deon Steyn 06:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've converted the infoboxes in Lee-Enfield, Martini-Enfield, Enfield Revolver, and Webley Revolver to the new infobox. One thing does bother me, though: The template uses the American spelling "Caliber", whereas Commonwealth English is would be spelt "Calibre"... it just seems a bit US-centric (to me, at least) to be using American spellings to describe British/Commonwealth arms and equipment, especially when the articles are being written by non-Americans. Maybe someone could develop a "UK Weapon Infobox" which looks identical but uses the Commonwealth spelling of "Calibre"?--Commander Zulu 13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There's probably a way to have an extra parameter that would change the box over to UK spelling. I'll see what I can do. Kirill Lokshin 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added an is_UK= parameter to the infobox that will change the labels to British spelling if set. Is "calibre"/"caliber" the only one that needs to be changed that way? Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that! As far as I can tell, that's the only spelling that needed to be changed, but if anything pops up when more fields get added, I'll let you know. Great work!, BTW!--Commander Zulu 00:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that in the 37 mm gun M3 article (perhaps in some other articles too ?) the length of the gun appears in the infobox, but the width and the height remained in the text, since infobox doesn't have fields for width and height. It would be better to have these characteristics in the same place IMHO. Bukvoed 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We could probably add those if needed, but are these really relevant measurements to give in the first place? (And how is the height measured? The elevation of the gun barrel can change the overall height significantly.) Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if those measurements are absolutely needed in the "artillery-oriented" infobox, it simply looks strange to me when the length is in one place and the width in completely other.
Anyway, this is not the only artillery article to specify width and height, for example see M101 howitzer and M102 howitzer, M101 article even has kind of infobox which includes these measurements.
As far as I know, usually a specified height of a gun is the height with barrel in more or less horizontal position. Once again taking the M101 as an example, its height with the barrel elevated is certainly much more than the specified 1.73 m. Bukvoed 19:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added "width" and "height" fields to the infobox. Hopefully people won't start using them where they're meaningless numbers, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Bukvoed 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Weaponry

As per general approval on that project's talk page, I have merged it into this task force. I've salvaged some of the material that's still relevant (mostly the lists of weapons); the other, older stuff, I've archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/General weaponry discussion, in case we ever need to refer back to it. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:AFV

In case anyone here doesn't know about it, Template:AFV is used for tanks, APCs, armoured cars, etc. It replaced the older Template:Tank at the end of 2005. —Michael Z. 2006-07-03 20:11 Z

Up to a point {{Infobox Automobile}} will work for the "soft skin" vehicles — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)
It doesn't have anything to indicate armament, though, which makes it less than ideal for anything more sophisticated than actual military automobiles ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

T-34 nominated for FA

File:Soviet Tank T-34.jpg

T-34 is a candidate for featured article. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-34/archive1. —Michael Z. 2006-07-05 00:48 Z

Category:Inter-war tanks

Newly-created Category:Inter-war tanks. —Michael Z. 2006-07-05 18:19 Z

Fajr-3 rocket

The Fajr-3 rocket is reported as being both a 1,200-mi range ballistic missile, and as a 45-mi range multiple-launch artillery rocket being fired by Hezbollah into Israel (see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict), both supposedly of Iranian origin. Anyone know the facts, or can clean up the article about the rocket? —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 19:54 Z

I have no idea if the numbers in the article are accurate—I doubt we have that much information available on Iran's rockets to compare them with—but it's perfectly possible that there are multiple rockets with the same name. ("Fajr" means "Dawn", incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found this old piece of news, which may suggest that the "Fajr-3" designation for the new ballistic missile may have been a mistake made by Iranian television. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. The poorly-translated comments in the early BBC reports of the Iranian television announcement could as easily apply to an MRL rocket as a ballistic missile, and they are written so it is hard for the reader to even figure out which comments apply to it and which to the torpedo which was revealed at the same time. And at least some second-hand reports (example) are even more confused. —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 22:22 Z
There are actually three seperate things that have the name "Fajr-3", first you have the artillery rocket, then you have the ballistic missile which was tested in April during the "holy prophet wargames", and there is also the Fajr-3 training aircraft. [1] [2] [3] Not to mention the many other things (ships, weapons, etc that are just called "Fajr"). Picture of Fajr-3 aircraft: [4] Picture of Fajr-3 artillery rocket: [5] Picture of Fajr-3 ballistic missile: [6] ArmanJan 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Armanjan, you haven't presented a single source mentioning the Fajr-3 rocket which isn't either
  1. a news item which misconstrues the confused April 2 Iranian television announcement
  2. your poorly-executed counterfeit of the Tel Aviv University document
—Michael Z. 2006-07-22 15:33 Z
  1. I don't see the point you are trying to make. You seem poised to continue living in your own small world. The Iranian news source I posted clearly mentions Fajr-3 as a MIRV ballistic missile that was tested on April 3, it does not mention anything about "Iranian television announcement" as you claim.
  2. As for your second point, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please try to keep it a bit civilized will you?
  3. Any news your find on Globalsecurity,FAS,AP, etc comes directly from IRNA, IRIB, or are directly taken from any one of the Iranian TV-channels. There are practically no foreign news journalists in Iran that report anything on weapons.
    ArmanJan 12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration/Help for Sniper Rifle

Hi, I thought this would be the best place find "expert" comments on a dispute about an introductory sentence for the Sniper rifle article (which I recently expanded and cleaned up extensively). Please see the discussion (Talk:Sniper rifle#Intro ) and tell me if I'm crazy and what I should do next. Should I mark the article for peer review or a collaborative effort, I haven't reviewed an article myself, but I think this one is reasonably important? Deon Steyn 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Kirill (and the assessment), but the user simply pretended to compromise without changing the section in question (intro). They have 120 edits in the last 3 days (including breaking the 3RR rule that I have now warned them about). They don't provided references or sensible answers to my concerns. I will try and enlist others who might be interested in the subject and perhaps nominate the article for peer view. Deon Steyn 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I think it's currently too US-centric, and as Deon Steyn also says there, it's turned into "Modern US Sniper Rifles, Tactics, And Training". I'd be happy to try and expand the section on "Historical Notable Sniper Rifles", but the reality is that they were generally standard-issue rifles which were known to be highly accurate, with a low-power scope bolted on and, if necessary, a bent-down bolt fitted. It's definitely a subject and an article that merits some attention, though. --Commander Zulu 15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Commander Zulu, we now have a few users looking at the page and future edits should be met with more input and discussion. Deon Steyn 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Qwasty has been making some sweeping changes to the article, and I can't say they're for the better. He's started going on about Gadget Guns and ".22 sniper rifles", and once again the whole thing is straying into James Bond/Tom Clancy territory with talk of guns designed purely for assassinations. I've suggested that a new article- Assassination Weapons- be created for all the information on suitcase-portable rifles, umbrella guns, and other stuff that belongs in a spy thriller novel, but he seems to think there's not enough info on them to justify a separate article. I think Qwasty may have a different idea of what a "Sniper" actually is than the rest of us- I certainly can't see how someone who hides behind a tree and shoots their target from 6ft away with a .22 rifle could be considered a "sniper". The article is already deteroriating into an edit war, so we may have to get it locked or something like that while the situation gets resolved... --Commander Zulu 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Service Pistol

I've created a new article, entitled Service Pistol. Obviously it's just a bare bones stublet at the moment, but I plan to expand it more over the next few days when I'm not at work... any help would be greatly appreciated! --Commander Zulu 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

swords, spears...etc

Do you guys cover that?--D-Boy 07:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, since the new {{Infobox Weapon}} has a section dedicated to "bladed weapons". Deon Steyn 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we definitely do. Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gun calibre notation

How do you feel about noting gun calibre in a format without a space, for example "155mm howitzer", in articles where it is appropriate. I'd like to gauge support for this here, and then propose it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

This has advantages where it can occur many times on the page (for example, millimetre measurements appear over fifty times in the featured article T-34):

  • Reduces visual page clutter where it appears many times
  • Prevents the line from breaking between the figure and unit, without requiring clumsy &nbsp; in wikitext
  • Reads smoothly as an adjectival phrase: "90mm tank gun": ninety-millimetre tank gun, but "45 mm of armour plate": forty-five millimetres of armour plate.

This practice has precedent in literature about armoured fighting vehicles. It is found, for example:

  • In reference works about military equipment by the publisher Jane's
  • In books by Steven Zaloga
  • In the Economist's style guide[7]

Is this notation common in literature on small arms? Are there other common conventions? (In some publications I've seen centre dots for decimals and/or hyphenated units, e.g. "5·56-mm rifle")

Proposed wording:

Gun calibre may be written without a space, as "155mm howitzer", in articles about firearms or military fighting vehicles.

This would belong at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. —Michael Z. 2006-07-25 23:40 Z

Straw poll

Not much response above. I'd like to gauge the level of acceptance for the 00mm format for gun calibres: not a formal vote, just a straw poll.

Who would take the time to vote in support of the wording above to be added to the Manual of Style?

Support

  1. My proposal. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 02:15 Z
  2. I Completely Agree that calibres should be written "Xmm" with no space (where X is the relevant number, of course!) Actually, I think ALL measurements should be written that way, regardless of whether they're referring to a 155mm Howitzer or a 3mm gap between two objects. --Commander Zulu 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree. -- Миборовский 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agree.--Oldwildbill 05:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Dryzen 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Hear! Hear!

Oppose

  1. Oppose - it's just going to confuse everyone (especially User:Bobblewik) - plus ultimately we are talking about a measurement - it should be consistent across everything. Two golden rules: Keep it simple, Keep it consistent. Megapixie 06:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I plan to run this by Bobblewik before submitting it to the MOS—I suspect he may be happy with it if it is an accepted convention with a solid precedent and well-delineated scope of use.
    Consistency is good, but we shouldn't let it become the hobgoblin that prevents editors' judgment from applying appropriate, functional style.[8] And while 45 mm of armour is a measurement, I believe that 88mm flak gun, 3-inch gun, and 25-pounder are names of things. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 06:25 Z
    Btw - I just checked Jane's (Infantry Weapons and Armour and Artillery (2005-2006)) and it's all "81 mm" not "81mm". Clearly this is a style choice - one that wikipedia has already made. For any source that can be cited with 81mm - there is always going to be another that uses 81 mm (and vice versa) - so what becomes our definitive source ? This is just going to lead to really silly edit wars of the "my source is definitive", "No - my source is definitive" - type - which will result in "The US 81mm or 81 mm mortar .... I can see no advantage to this. While I can see that 25-pounder, etc are the names of things - and I don't oppose that the articles be called 25-pounder (although one could still argue that it is a style choice) - inside the article it should be 87.5 mm not 87.5mm. Megapixie 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    My old Jane's AFV Recognition Handbook has 100mm in all contexts. Does anyone know if this varies between Jane's publications, or if they have since settled on 100 mm throughout? Megapixie, would you prefer that every measurement be typed as 100&nbsp;mm in wikitext or to let it break at the end of a line? (I often type a literal non-breaking space [alt-space on the Mac] but edits with some version of Internet Explorer convert that into a regular space)—Michael Z. 2006-07-29 16:01 Z
    In an ideal world the nbsp wouldn't be needed (the browser would spot the units and not break the line). I'm actually quite happy to leave it as 100 mm (without the nbsp)- simply because the measurements tend to rarely occur in prose (tending to live in the infoboxes). I agree that it's a pain to have to type nbsp; all over the place, and if templates weren't quite so expensive/easy to abuse we could have 100{{mm}}- which would map to {{nbsp;mm}} or even be user preferences configurable to be with or without the space. I just feel that it's going to result in a lot of energy being expended over what will undoubtedly turn into a squabble over a style preference (conducted with an intensity somewhere between Iwo Jima and Stalingrad). I'd rather the energy be directed into improving the quality of mil-hist and mil-weaponry related articles. Anyway - just don't say I didn't warn ya. Megapixie 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - the MoS for wiki is clear and there is no sense to change it from "number (space) unit" for one usage alone. GraemeLeggett 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Other

  1. I'm fine with either way, just so long as there's a standard. --Carnildo 06:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Firearm Calibre Naming/Designation Conventions

I'd like to propose that we standardise on a single method for firearmm calibre nomenclature. For example, the 9mm Parabellum round used in huge numbers of semi-automatic handguns is also known as 9mm Luger, 9x19mm, and 9mm NATO, and all four designations pop up quite frequently throughout Wikipedia. This could be extremely confusing to the casual reader, or to people who are still learning about firearms (who may be wondering what this "old gun" they've just inherited or bought is chambered for) , and so it might be worthwhile to try and agree on a convention with regards to calibre naming.

My personal preference is to use the calibre's Commercial name where possible, albeit within reason. Using the 9mm Parabellum example above, the US Commerical name is "9mm Luger", but I'd use "9mm Parabellum" (or "9mm Para"), which is also a commercial name and clearly differentiates the cartridge used in the Luger or the Browning Hi-Power from similar 9mm cartridges, such as the 9mm Makarov and 9mm Largo.

The idea is to strike a balance between readability and technical accuracy (with the "technical" name going under the cartridge field on the infobox if appropriate), but of course, it's only a suggestion... thoughts? --Commander Zulu 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it then feasible to include ALL the possible various names in the article itself? --Siva1979Talk to me 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that's pretty standard. Articles are supposed to mention at least the widely-used alternate names for the subject as it is. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer- I was referring to the fields in the infobox, not the article itself... obviously all the alternate names need to be mentioned in the article (which would be wikilinked through the infobox). --Commander Zulu 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with Webley Revolver

The article Webley Revolver is currently undergoing the FAC process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver, and it's not doing too well- honestly, I find most of their objections to be trivial nitpicking and have suggested they might like to implement some of these suggestions themselves (aren't we supposed to Be Bold or something like that?), since I have to say the copyediting here is completely foreign to anything I've ever encountered as a published writer. If I break things up in natural paragraphs, people complain there's "too many paragraphs", and if I don't break them up then it's "hard to read". Then people are complaining about the fact some cites are inline and some are links to webpages, and quite frankly the whole exercise is incredibly frustrating- I could really use some help! --Commander Zulu 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Convention for AFV naming

Can we set some guidelines about naming armoured fighting vehicles (and maybe firearms, aircraft, and other weapons too)?

Many articles about AFVs just have the vehicle's technical designation as their title. This has the advantage that the simplest possible name typed into the search field will go directly to the article. This can become very ambiguous because AFVs, firearms, rockets, aircraft, can all have similar names. For example, see the disambiguation page M60, which includes four pieces of military equipment. Examples:

  • AMR-35 (Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance 35)
  • Cruiser Mk II (Tank, Cruiser, Mk II (A10))
  • KhTZ-16 (Kharkov Tractor Zavod 16)
  • Ostwind (Flakpanzer IV Ostwind)
  • T-34 (T-34 medium tank)
  • 2S5 Giatsint-S self-propelled gun

Others have a more descriptive name, because it is the official name, or because it is necessary for disambiguation, or just because. This has the advantage that when a reader sees the title, say on a category page or in a list, the nature of the subject is much more evident. It also pre-empts any debates regarding disambiguation (e.g. T-38 light amphibious tank vs. Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer). Examples:

Keep in mind that some of these articles are about a very specific variant of a model, and others are about a small or large family of vehicles (e.g. BT tank), or also cover a few specific variants. Many have alternate names: model numbers, official honorific names, nicknames, industrial designations, etc.

In cases where there is no obvious best title, should we prefer to use the simplest possible name (e.g. T-34), or a more descriptive name (T-34 medium tank). Should it be capitalized as a proper name (T-34 Medium Tank) or not? Of course, every article would have redirects or disambiguation links from all the different possible names for its subject.

I used to be of a mind to keep titles as simple as possible. But now I'm thinking that they should all be converted to something more descriptive, so that a reader can tell what an article is about from the title alone (see "Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines"). —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 06:04 Z

We should probably setup Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles), like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) or the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (rockets). I don't have any strong feelings about it. Japanese and Chinese "official" designations are pretty bad, but the US is worse — if I see another US piece of equipment designated M1 or M4 ... Megapixie 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The value in a name depends on its context: "Pick up your M1, soldier!", or "the M1 Garand replaced the Springfield Rifle ..." can serve just fine in a particular context. But I'm starting to think that in a general encyclopedia, where the title may appear without explanation in various categories or lists of articles, a title should be self-explanatory, like M1 Garand rifle (the formal name is United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 and its inventor John Garand, but the point is just to convey what the thing is). —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 20:17 Z
The British naming conventions are worse from a historic perspective- they've changed them four times since 1900! The SMLE Mk III rifle, for example, is also known as the Rifle No 1 Mk III, whilst the P14 is also known as the Rifle No 3 Mk I, the Rifle No 4 Mk I uses roman numerals for the "Mark", but the Rifle No 4 Mk 2 uses Arabic numerals all the way through... it's an absolute nightmare to get one's head around at the best of times. --Commander Zulu 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


I've taken a bit more of a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and some subordinate guidelines. A summary of the principals:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

I also looked at the related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) for aircraft models, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) (which concerns proper names of individual craft, not models or series, but see also #Ship classes), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (rockets), currently in development.

While these hardware names tend to remain fairly terse and avoid descriptions of the subject, they do include a certain amount of specific information in addition to the bare model name or title. In addition to the model number, aircraft article titles include the manufacturer or name, or both: Boeing 707, F-15 Eagle, Hawker Hurricane. Missiles follow like conventions, and rockets may be going in a similar direction. Ships often, but not always, have a prefix, or descriptive which includes origin and basic type: Niña, RMS Titanic, Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. Ship classes are named [name]-class-[type]: Ohio class submarine.

Modern conventional names are used when they differ from historic names (HMS Royal Charles, and not English ship Royal Charles). The normal rules for disambiguation apply: Santa María (ship).

Proposal: so in light of these comparable Wikipedia conventions, and in the interest of an article identifying its subject clearly to unfamiliar readers, I'm informally proposing for discussion the idea that AFV articles should be named they way they might be written out as the first casual mention in an article on some other subject: unambiguous but terse: with either a model number and name (M1 Abrams), manufacturer and name (Alvis Stormer), or a model number and terse descriptive (T-34 tank, not T-34 medium tank).

Of course, common names and common sense should prevail. Redirects from model numbers and alternate names should also be created: T-34, M1 tank, Abrams tank.

My rough estimate is that at least half of AFV article titles already conform to this proposal. See, for example, Category:Armored cars: Alvis Saladin, Austin Armoured Car, Coventry armoured car, Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle are somewhat self-explanatory or familiar, or at least specific, but BRDM-1, BRDM-2, BTR-4, LAV-25, and VBC-90 are puzzling to the casual reader, and possibly even the dedicated armour buff, if he hasn't heard of an obscure vehicle.

I would call this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fighting vehicles)—they're not necessarily armoured, as the Katyusha MRLs, and I'm not proposing a broader "(military vehicles)" guideline, because I haven't had a detailed look at utility trucks, etc. Any thoughts, before I write a proposed guideline? —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 18:39 Z

I would go ahead and create it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles), putting a note that for non-fighting vehicles, the standard "most common name" convention should be followed as closely as possible for the time being. Otherwise, we're going to need to create the rather silly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (non-fighting military vehicles) at some point in the future. Kirill Lokshin 18:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. This proposal looks compatible with Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention (make-model), which I'll make reference to. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 19:28 Z


First draft is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles). Please comment there. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:37 Z

Help for Lee-Enfield

The Lee-Enfield article is coming along nicely, but I have to confess I'm starting to run into difficulties and would like some help from knowledgeable people on a few things, which are outlined on the article's talk page. If anyone's got a spare moment, perhaps they could drop by and lend a hand or voice their opinions? --Commander Zulu 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete infoboxes

Now that the old infoboxes have all been converted (much thanks to Grafikm!), do we need to keep them around? Or can we list them for deletion? Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the effect of using a redirect? does that preserve the edit history of the templates but still stop casual browsers from using them accidentally? GraemeLeggett 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes to the first part, no to the second. In particular, anyone used to the old templates could presumably still try to add them (and, since there are a number of overlapping parameter names between the old and new versions, get something unexpected). Whether this is better than deleting them outright, I don't know; but deletion is the path we've taken for many of the other infoboxes which have been obsoleted during previous template development efforts. Kirill Lokshin 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a prominent note to the templates, advertising themselves as obsolete? —Michael Z. 2006-08-08 17:14 Z

I suppose that might work, if this is the option people prefer. Kirill Lokshin 18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a prominent note on all of them (and on {{tank}} too since I just deprecated it). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a workable approach for the time being. Once everyone has become accustomed to the new template, we can come up with a more permanent solution. Kirill Lokshin 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what about {{Weapon-missile}} ??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The missile infoboxes (as well as the self-propelled artillery and AFV infoboxes) are things that could be merged into {{Infobox Weapon}}; but this isn't implemented yet. It would be very helpful if someone could go through and create a list of existing infoboxes and the fields they have; we could then see what needs to be added in order to make the combined infobox capable of replacing them. Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone else care what we do with these? Kirill Lokshin 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We merge them into {{Infobox Weapon}} :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles needing infobox

is there a way we can tag articles that can take the weapon infobox (Like T-12 antitank gun which I just came across) for later attention? GraemeLeggett 10:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Three different ways, actually, depending on how much work you're willing to do:
  • Make a list on the task force page
  • Add {{infoboxneeded}} to the article's talk page
  • Add attention=yes to the project tag on the article's talk page
Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1190097072"