Talk:List of infantry weapons of World War I

message: There is also a catagory page for this. :Category:World War I infantry weapons does this throw anything off having a seperate article here as well? --Xiahou 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Untitled)

message: I have read that only the United States used shotguns during the Great War, indeed, I have specifically read from several sources stating that British authorities considered the use of shotguns to be rather "unmilitary" despite their eminent practicality for trench clearing.172.190.107.17 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British/Commonwealth use of shotguns? 

message: I propose a section be made for this empire. After all, it was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne, which triggered the conflict, & the Mountain War with Italy was more intense & deadly than the Western Front.
I don't have the time to research much, unfortunately, at least not till Autumn. Archolman User talk:Archolman 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Austria-Hungary

message: If you feel the need to delete some weapons, please discuss it here before doing anything else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.111.153 (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting weapons 

message: The armistice was signed on 11 of November 1918, which led to the end of all fighting. The treaties weren't signed until 1919, but by then the war itself had stopped.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.111.153 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War 1 ended in 1918 

message: The Wikipedia manual of style is clear. MOS:HEADINGS says
:"Section headings should: 
:…Not contain images or icons...
:These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus or WP:IAR."  ie that there are no exceptions to this.
Accordingly these should be removed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons in section headers 

message: Why? They were not a party to the great war, and the section seemed riddled (and may still be) with OR or outright falsehoods. We should just delete the whole mess as irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have deleted for that reason. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have left it a few days to see if anyone came forward with a defence, but I doubt we would have seen one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did it before I read your post. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netherlands 

message: This article is about "infantry weapons" in "WWI" - ie it is about weapons used by infantry that "engaged" in the hostilities (ie, the infantry were engaged).  The article, as it stands is nothing but a "laundary list".  The list includes states, where their participation is questionable - eg Republic of Armenia or Democratic Republic of Georgia.  It is also claimed that the Steyr M1912 doppel machinen pistole was used, though the linked article reports that only a "handfull" were actually made.  Then we have entries for things like the Marlin Model 1894. It may have found its way to the front as an individually acquired weapon but such entries have no place here unless there was widespread use - eg it was common for officers to personally use a particular pistol instead of the service pistol.  Then, there are obsolete weapons such as the Martini–Henry.  If it was used (and it might well have been), then this needs to be qualified in the article as to how and where, since it was certainly was not used "at the front".  Was it still used in colonies that were not engaged in the conflict?  If so, does it qualify?  Most of the article lacks citations and I doubt that the citations that do exist actually support the inclusion in the list rather than being more generally about the particular weapon.  Any unsourced material may be deleted at any time.  The article would then shrink to nothing.  I wouldn't go quite that far.  It should be reduced to the indisputable suspects and then rebuilt with citations.  There is also a need to clear-up just what the criteria for inclusion are - is a lance an infantry weapon?  I have touched upon what I perceive are the criteria for inclusion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Martini equipped some native troops in Brtish service.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that it probably did.  However, should not the list entry qualify this?  Was it actually used "in the war" against the Central Powers?  If not, does it belong her?  If so, shouldn't the article indicate the circumstances where it was used - and with citations? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall (but its off the top of my head, I would need to dig out where I read it) it was used by some African Auxiliaries in the East African campaign. but not (as far as I know by Australia.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think the same per colonial auxiliaries.  Australians would certainly not have fired them in anger. However, (IMO) the article should make such points clear (such as a note) when reporting weapons that were obsolete.  Otherwise, it gives the impression that Tommies marched to the Somme with Martini-Henrys.  Regardless, it is still uncited and this is only the tip of the points I have raised. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverified and questionable entries

message: The title is "List of infantry weapons of World War I".  The article is populated by country. There appears to be many entries (for both countries and arms) which are out of scope.
*The war was fought between the Triple Entente (its allies) and the Central Powers (and their allies).  There are many states allied to the Triple Entente that did not field infantry troops against the Central Powers (or allies), or did not field them under their own flag.  Notably, China provided labour battalions and Nepal provided Gurkha units which fought under the British.  Both of these might be deleted.  There are also a number of short-lived states that arose from the collapse of the Russian Empire (eg the First Republic of Armenia) and also, the Siberian intervention (in which China did participate).  I propose that these are out of scope.
*The heading for Britain is the "British Empire".  This includes its dominions and colonies, yet there are separate headings for India, Australia etc.  These should be consolidated, noting to a large extent the duplication that exists.
*Infantry weapons are crew-served or personal weapons used by infantry soldiers engaged in the conflict.  "Infantry" is reasonably inclusive of mounted infantry, pioneers and marines but does not reasonably include artilery, aircrew or ship-board issue (except for marines) - of which there are instances. It is not a laundary list of small-arms that "may" have been held but were not reasonably "used" in the conflict. I acknowledge that the war extended to the colonies of both sides and that colonial troops would have used obsolescent weapons.  Such instances should be noted.  
*It should not include personally acquired weapons (particularly sidearms) except where there was widespread use. Again, such instances should be noted.
*All entries in the list should be supported by "reliable sources" that such weapons were used/issued to infantry engaged in the conflict.  Virtually no reliable sources have been used to the present.  However, we might retain those entries for which reliable sources most certainly do exist even though they have not been cited at the present time.
*I am not certain how we should deal with entries like the Dervish state and Arab states, which largely had ad hoc equipment or were supported by one of the main powers.  Is it useful to duplicate such list for each separate state, particularly when the list is unsubstantiated?
These ideas could be constructed into criteria for the list.  It would make the list much more useful than the ad hoc unsubstantiated laundary list that it is at present. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , if I wasn't sufficiently clear, then it was certainly my intention that they were actually used (and used by infantry).  I didn't specifically mention the "concepts and prototypes" but they are (were) certainly on the to-do list.  The whole section is now gone.  I agree with the concept of mandating reliably sourced inline citations but in the immediate future, I would settle for the obvious suspects - only because there would be nothing left if I applied that immediately.  Also, the source must support the criteria for list inclusion - ie be relevant, in that they were actually used by infantry and not that they existed or were used somewhere.  However, any unsourced material can be deleted at any time. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree re sources, part of the problem here is "infantry weapon" is such a vague term, does it include picks and shovels? Or trench clubs? And what about crw-served weapons that were handed over to the infantry at certain points (like in WWII, the 6 pounder spent most of war in the hands of artillery but when supplanted by the 17 pounder it was handed over to infantry AArmd Pls)? I will try to pop-by periodically to lend a hand. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think we can include weapons used in trench raids/melee weapons but verified. Open for discussion though.  I think it should include crew-served weapons manned by infantry by definition.  The Vickers was crew-served. So, it would include the 6-pdr for the same list in WW2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: * Hello , I agree with your assessment that the page needs some serious work. At List of combat vehicles of World War I we took the approach that every entry had to be reliably sourced with an inline citation in the list, through that process we waded through morass that was. Re your scope, I support all and would suggest one addition, unlike the list of combat vehicles, here I would recommend restricting this list to weapons that actually saw service and not include design concepts or prototypes. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , if I wasn't sufficiently clear, then it was certainly my intention that they were actually used (and used by infantry).  I didn't specifically mention the "concepts and prototypes" but they are (were) certainly on the to-do list.  The whole section is now gone.  I agree with the concept of mandating reliably sourced inline citations but in the immediate future, I would settle for the obvious suspects - only because there would be nothing left if I applied that immediately.  Also, the source must support the criteria for list inclusion - ie be relevant, in that they were actually used by infantry and not that they existed or were used somewhere.  However, any unsourced material can be deleted at any time. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree re sources, part of the problem here is "infantry weapon" is such a vague term, does it include picks and shovels? Or trench clubs? And what about crw-served weapons that were handed over to the infantry at certain points (like in WWII, the 6 pounder spent most of war in the hands of artillery but when supplanted by the 17 pounder it was handed over to infantry AArmd Pls)? I will try to pop-by periodically to lend a hand. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think we can include weapons used in trench raids/melee weapons but verified. Open for discussion though.  I think it should include crew-served weapons manned by infantry by definition.  The Vickers was crew-served. So, it would include the 6-pdr for the same list in WW2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Current content is unverified and not likely to be.  The only thing I can find is this reference reporting about 260 Mausers of unspecified model. Also, the Jezail musket is from Afghanistan?.  The status of the sultanate as a cobelligerent with the Central Powers is also questionable (ie, whether the Anglo-Egyptian Darfur Expedition was part of WWI.  Entry has been deleted per this link. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sultanate of Darfur]] 

message: The Emirate of Jabal Shammar participated in the Arab Revolt, siding with the Ottomans.  Whether they fielded infantry (as opposed to irregular cavalry) is questionable.  It is also likely that the best description of their arms would be ad hoc, with arms also supplied by the Ottomans.  Entries in the list are unverified and unlikely to be verified.  The entry has bee deleted per this link. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emirate of Jabal Shammar]] 

message: The extent to which it was aligned with the Central powers is not clear.  The weapons listed are best described as ad hoc and are listed without verification. Deleted per this edit. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dervish state]] 

message: The Kingdom of Hejaz participated in the Arab Revolt, siding with the British. Whether they fielded infantry (as opposed to [largely irregular] cavalry) is a question. It is also likely that the best description of their arms would be ad hoc, with arms also supplied by the British or captured from the Ottomans. Entries in the list are unverified and unlikely to be verified. The entry has been deleted per this link . Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kingdom of Hejaz]] 

message: what is the Zastava m1915? it is in the section for Serbia but labeled as a smg? AVeryUncoolGuy (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the zastava m1915