Talk:Sticky bomb

message: Article says 2.5 million were made then later says 250,000 were made... 72.79.212.31 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,500,000 or 250,000 

message: Similar bombs were also used by American and Russian armies during the war, a la Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty 2. Why does it direct to this British weapon but nothing else? Captain Jackson 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is the famous one? GraemeLeggett 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And its not an improvised one. It was actually issued to soldiers by the government. All others that you refer to are basically made in the field, and we can't exactly say how they were made, as the explosives or bonding element of the bomb are different among them. AllStarZ 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Sticky Bombs 

message: I have conducted a complete rewrite of this article, which can be viewed at this sandbox. Would anyone oppose me replacing the current article with the version in the sandbox? I welcome any comments on the matter. Skinny87 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version is good. Do you have required permissions for the photograph? I't like to keep the quoted story: it is funny and typical of the "mythology" that surrounded the sticky bomb. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the current photo, then no - it's copyrighted and fair-use, and must be replaced by a public domian one - the one in the sandbox is public domain. I'll try and find a way to incorporate that story into the 'operational history' section. Skinny87 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be awful if the story isn't retained? I can't figure out how to add it into the article, as it's quite long and its description of the bomb doesn't really conform to what the other sources describe the bomb as being like. Perhaps it could be put in as a link in the 'External Links' section? Skinny87 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, take a look now; I had to abbreviate it some more, but I think I managed to retain the humour of it in the quotation box. I'll give it a bit more work later, but how does that look? Skinny87 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think that version works rather well. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit, I'd like more than one editor looking the sandbox version over, but this isn't a high-traffic article. And it can be reverted if anyone strongly disagrees, which I hope they won't. Unless you have any objections, I'll transfer the sandbox article to here. Skinny87 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I gave the sanbox a look and it looks fine to me. Maybe keep some of the external links that are in the article now?--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, of course, I always like to keep external links if I can. I'm watching The Apprentice now, but I'll move the article in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: This section gives undue and perhaps confusing prominence to Blacker. Whereas, I think the author merely intended that the Blacker Bombard as an example of the kind of weapons being produced. Blacker joined MD1 late - when the sticky bomb design was essentialy complete and he did not have anything to do with it. The man who should be prominently mentioned is Stuart Macrae - his article contains some useful links. I am not sure that Blacker and Jefferis were ever friends exactly and if I remember rightly Macrae hints at some tension between the two and they had a major squabble over credit for the PIAT which was, briefly and quite unfairly, known as the Jefferis Gun. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but none of my sources have mentioned Macrae. Do you have any sources you could suggest I look at? Skinny87 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh joy. Yes, I can see there are sources on Macrae's page. I'll take a look at them after I've finished my dissertation, and try and rewrite the development section. I only ever meant Blacker as a way of introducing the weapons being produced. Skinny87 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Blacker was only mentioned as a "here is another example of the bonkers stopgap weapons they produced", not to give undue weight to his role in the development. Indeed, the articles makes no link between Blacker and the SB development, except to note he worked for the same department as Jefferis. Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto, I've added one of the newspaper citations (properly formatted) to this article from Macrae's article, and also hopefully clarified that Blacker's appearance is only to show that (A stopgap weapons were being made, and B) as a lead into MD1, Jeffris and Macrae. I don't think it would warrant anymore details than that, although if I can find a copy of Churchill's Toyshop I'll certainly see if there's anything else to add. Skinny87 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You do need Churchill's Toyshop to get a better flavour of the activities of MIR(c)/MD1 and the development of the Sticky bomb. As it happened my local library service had a copy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development section 

message: Just added a new article for No 74 ST grenade redirecting here, as I could not find any with the proper heading. For the future recommend that No 74 ST grenade gets its own article, and is then referenced in the main article on sticky bombs. (Of which there are several other than the 74 ST.)
Vola31 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind clarifying? I thought this was the article for the No. 74, as it says at the beginning of the article. I only ever used 'Sticky bomb' as a title as that's what it generally seems to have been known as, rather than its official title. Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, wonderful article BTW. I believe the article should be titled No 74 ST, since there are other sticky bombs, including a number of improvised once. Certainly the HL-Handgranate, and arguably the Hafthohlladung, could be considered sticky bombs. Today, "sticky bombs" or "sticky IEDs" are use in Iraq by insurgents.  The most important thing however, is that No 74 ST Grenade is searchable and possible to reference under it's technical name, the redirect takes care of this. (I think the best solution would be to retitle the current article to No 74, and let "Sticky Bomb" nick name redirect here in stead. This would be similar to other articles.  For instance, "Ma Duece" correctly redirects to M2 Browning. This is absolutely no criticism of the content in the article, which holds a very high standard. 
Vola31 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for the praise! I hadn't thought about it like that, and of course you're right. I'll change the title immediately to the bomb's specific name. The only problem is - what should it be? In the literature I've had to use fragments of to put this together, it seems to have had about half a dozen 'official' names, from No. 74 ST grenade, to Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No. 74, AT Grenade No. 74 and so forth. Any ideas on what it should be put under? Skinny87 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose a move, the article is at a reasonable name given it meets naming conventions for common name. (think also Mills bomb, Gammon grenade and Jam Tin Grenade, Boyes antitank rifle etc)) It's official name is rather less well known. Hafthohlladung has its own article, the SS-HL-Handgranate doesn't so far as I can see - but in each case sticky bomb is as much a description rather than a nickname.  Sticky IEDs are a variant of IED and not production items so a proper article would not be forthcoming. Bottom line, if sticky bomb was to redirect to here than why change it. The No. 74 grenade redirect works. What might be needed to give direction towards these other weapons is a sticky bomb (disambiguation) article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The disambiguation hatnote and the page itself looks like a good compromise. Can't see any problems with it myself. Any thoughts? Skinny87 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! I just wanted to ensure that the 74 could be referenced and linked from other articles. Since "Sticky Bomb" covers both improvised and several production items, in addition to being a widely used name on the 74, the disambiguation article is a perfect solution. Vola31 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 74 ST grenade