Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force/Archive 3

message: Whatever is decided above about the page titles, the correct short from for the U.S. designations is with caps. If there is a informal disambiguation e.g. M14 rifle- with the page at M14 rifle, that does not change that the correct formal short designation is still M14 Rifle within the article itself (e.g M14 Rifle or M14 rifle, not M14 rifle).  Ve3 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, it looks like I've been the primary person correcting links.  What I have been doing within articles is following the trend within the article except under "see also" and such at the bottom or on disambiguation pages.  For example, if the article generally uses "M16 Rifle", I hide the link name.  If they use different terminology, I tend to hide the link also.  I too would have preferred the capitalized option, but that's not what people went for. Deathbunny 04:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using an informal DAB for the titles is on thing, but the formal military short name uses caps. I don't think the projects guidlines on style extend to the point of writing the names incorrectly within the article, but if they do, its going to reduce the credibility of the article.  Ve3
Does anybody else think the name should be capitalized within articles? Personally, I think that it should follow the same rule discussed for the title; if the descriptor in the title is left uncapitalized as a type designator (rather than part of the proper name), why should this designation be capitalized within the article? Moreover, the full formal name is regularly present in the introductory sentence (e.g., "more formally the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1"), and it should make it clear what the formal name of the weapon is. Also, there are some official sources (such as this field manual for the M1918A2 BAR) that uses the uncapitalized name in the "body" of the work, and the capitalized name when referring to the title of the work. —Squalla 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Squalla that the official name should be presented (in boldface) in the introductory paragraph but in colloquial English thereafter. Wikipedia — being an encyclopedia, not a field manual — should IMHO be written toward a general audience, not a specialist one. This would not only be consistent with the general Wikipedia style, but would also avoid the inevitable reverting when well-meaning editors regularly uncapitalize "Rifle" since it doesn't look "normal". Askari Mark (Talk) 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Squalla is correct for what he is talking about, my point was when people say the formal short name. The issue avoiding writing what appears to be the formal name incorrectly, not the amount of colloquial use. Ve3 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment about U.S. military designations WITHIN articles

message: There's a new peer review request for PSS Silent Pistol that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[PSS Silent Pistol]] 

message: There is quite a long list of stubs requesting images at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures/Military#Artillery. Some of them are about successor models with only  minor changes. Would it be possible to integrate several such stubs into one article about the development and different specifications of one weapon design? Wandalstouring 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases it probably will make sense to merge articles. But often some research will be needed to determine whether "N-mm gun model 19ab" is a minor improvement of "N-mm gun model 19cd" or a completely unrelated design. And my knowledge of the subject is unfortunately rather fragmentary. Bukvoed 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery stubs 

message: Hello all. I have created a wikiproject for firearms. I would like to ask anyone interested to join. We will defer to this task force in military arms, but that hopefully won't be a problem as we intend to focus on civilian weapons. Anyone interested should just go to wikipedia:WikiProject:Firearms.--LWF 23:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject firearms 

message: There's a new peer review request for USS Missouri (BB-63) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[USS Missouri (BB-63)]] 

message: :Category:Firearms stubs has several hundred entries, and at least a hundred of them are specific cartridge types.  A subcategory for cartridges would be useful and keep both to manageable size.  I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created  and need help populating it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Cartridge-stub}} 

message: Should this be on a seperate page?
Instructions: 
*Select an article title and move it, if necessary.  When moved, fill in the appropriate column with "Yes".
*Open "What links here page".
*Starting with the lowest tier of pages, correct links so they point at the correct page. (See note)
*Correct redirects.
*When complete, sign the Links fixed column to show date/time.
Note: Generally stay away from Archived Wikipedia pages and User pages.  Also stay away from this page, eh?
To add a new article:
*Add it to the bottom of the table.
If there are major issues or a major disagreement:
*Stop.
*Initiate a discussion where appropriate.
*Put a link to the discussion in the Notes column.
*Put a link here in the discussion.
As is  	Simple version                    	Linked pages                                            	Page moved?	Links fixed?                            	Notes:               	
       	Thompson submachine gun           	Special:Whatlinkshere/Thompson submachine gun           	Yes        	Deathbunny 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regretfully, with the Spring semester starting and my course load plus a new part time job, I may not be able to complete this solo.  Assistance would be appreciated.  Deathbunny 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I've added (what I think is) the convention that's been implemented to the task force page, so people can actually figure it out without reading through the entire discussion.  Please look over the text and correct it if there's something I missed. Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list with US Weapons... 

message: keeps moving this page back to the incorrect 7,92 x 57 mm- I've already had the page moved to 7.92x57 Mauser TWICE, once on my own volition and once through the formal "Requested Moves" process. He's lodged no formal objection on the talk  page either time, and I'd really appreciate some help from others encouraging him to pull his head in, or at least participate in the debate process rather than just reverting all the time. --Commander Zulu 08:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the page back, and mentioned it on the talk page.  Here's hoping we have a nice civil discussion.  Geoff B 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with [[7.92x57 Mauser]]

message: Seeing as we now have a consensus for US military weapons, I thought it might be a good idea to establish one for British weapons as well.
The basic proposal is that British/Commonwealth firearm articles should be titled in the format Manufacturer/Designer-Designation
As a general rule, the "Mark" descriptor should not be used in the title unless only one rifle of that family exists- for example, there are several marks of Snider-Enfield, Martini-Henry, Short Magazine Lee-Enfield, and Rifle No. 4, and so the article title should simply have the Maker and the Designation. 
This would give us:
*Brown Bess Musket
*Enfield 1853 Rifle Musket
*Snider-Enfield
*Beaumont-Adams Revolver
*Martini-Henry
*Martini-Enfield
*Webley Revolver
*Short Magazine Lee-Enfield
*Pattern 1914 Rifle
*Enfield Revolver
*Lee-Enfield Rifle No. 4
*Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine
*Ishapore Rifle 7.62mm 2A1
Just to be really confusing, the British Army changed official nomenclatures three times in the 20th century, and so therefore I would reccommend that the article's name reflects the designation in use at the time the rifle was adopted. For example, the SMLE Mk III was adopted in 1907, but known as the Rifle No 1 Mk III* after 1926, and as the Rifle No 1 Mk 3 after 1946. Same rifle, three diferrent names. However, as it was officially adopted in 1907, the article's name should be in the format Short Magazine Lee-Enfield, rather than the "Rifle, No. X Mk Y" format.
Where possible, names should reflect British/Commonwealth use rather than US use (The Martini-Henry, for example, was never officially referred to as the "Pattern 1874 Rifle", for example), and, of course, meet the "Common Name" requirements (in other words, avoiding the "Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield" format which is technically correct, but only used by military historians and scholars academically). Finally, since the term "Rifle" or "Revolver" was a part of the weapon's name, it should probably be capitalised, but I realise more discussion may be needed on this point. 
Thoughts, comments, suggestions? --Commander Zulu 08:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty decent.  Obvious question, though: is the caliber specification needed for the Ishapore Rifle?  Are there Ishapore Rifles chambered for other calibers, in other words?  And, if so, is there any way of distinguishing among them without giving using the Xmm notation? Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The calibre is part of the Ishapore 2A1's name- stamped on the buttsocket are the words "RIFLE 7.62mm 2A1"- Rifle, 7.62mm Calibre, Model 2A1. You could probably get away with "Ishapore 2A1 rifle", though, if the calibre designation was going to be a major issue. --Commander Zulu 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might be preferable, I think, unless we want to go through the same mess we had for cartridges and the Xmm notation here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that the other naming conventions for commonest name in use etc still take precedence?GraemeLeggett 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! --Commander Zulu 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Naming Format Convention for British/Commonwealth Firearms

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for F-84 Thunderjet that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[F-84 Thunderjet]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for F-105 Thunderchief that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[F-105 Thunderchief]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for B-17 Flying Fortress that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[B-17 Flying Fortress]]