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

message: 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)
replies: text: Might categories be a more maintainable approach than lists here? Kirill Lokshin 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List by time period 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Task force icon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm guessing that since the old Weaponry WikiProject is no longer active we can adapt some of the AFV infoboxes they used for our purposes?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)
replies: text: See two sections down, actually :-)  Once the new  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)
thread_title:  Scope

message: 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)
thread_title:  Help wanted: [[Cannons in the Age of Sail]] 

message: 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:
* GP-30 - fairly simple - but how do we cope with multiple ammunition types.
* B-10 recoilless rifle - again multiple ammunition types.
* S-5 rocket - lots of ammunition types, a few launcher types.
* 125 mm smoothbore rounds - just a list of ammunition. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How would this cope with ...... ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Weaponry 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Template:AFV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Replied on article talk page. Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitration/Help for Sniper Rifle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Service Pistol]] 

message: Do you guys cover that?--D-Boy 07:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so, since the new  has a section dedicated to "bladed weapons". Deon Steyn 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we definitely do. Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  swords, spears...etc 

message: 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   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
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 ====
# My proposal. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 02:15 Z
# 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)
thread_title:  Gun calibre notation 

message: 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 ====
# My proposal. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 02:15 Z
# 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)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: # My proposal. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 02:15 Z
# 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Oppose 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Is it then feasible to include ALL the possible various names in the article itself? --Siva1979Talk to me 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Firearm Calibre Naming/Designation Conventions

message: 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)
thread_title: Help with [[Webley Revolver]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Help for Lee-Enfield

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I suppose that might work, if this is the option people prefer. Kirill Lokshin 18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a prominent note on all of them (and on  too since I just deprecated it). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: The missile infoboxes (as well as the self-propelled artillery and AFV infoboxes) are things that could be merged into ; 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)

text: We merge them into  :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete infoboxes