Talk:Naval artillery

message: I did a little researching and have determined that that the strict definition of Naval Artillery is: Naval guns ashore used in coastal defense and (usually) manned by naval personal. The naval guns are designed to track and fire on moving targets. Two way time (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And your source is what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a Navy publication. This link will take you to a pdf: http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/ENGINEERING/Naval_Ordnance_And_Gunnery/Naval_Ordnance_V1_Part1.pdf  137.144.145.158 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting stuff, thanks. No use of naval artillery, but a clear distinction between naval ordnance and naval gunnery. Naval ordnance would also be an acceptable name for this article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a fully-trained Naval officer back in the 1960s, and I never heard the word "artillery" used in connection with naval guns. That, coupled with the total absence of citations, makes me VERY suspicious of the term "Naval artillery." I certainly support moving the article, but of course "Gunnery" shouldn't be capitalized. I think this article should be "Naval guns", because that is what it is about. Lou Sander (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed several generations of United States Navy publications (and interviewed two generations of naval and Marine Corps officers) during my Vietnam war era active duty, which included teaching midshipmen in a class entitled Naval Weapons Systems following practical experience as secondary battery officer aboard a cruiser.  The United States Naval Academy textbooks of 1915 and 1920 were entitled Naval Ordnance and used the 16th-century terms gun and gunnery almost exclusively when describing rifled tube weapons and their use.  United States Marine Corps officers trained from those textbooks often used the naval term gun for their indigenous rifled artillery.  The above-noted Naval Ordnance and Gunnery reference was published in 1957 reflecting nomenclature adopted in 1948 (although it may have been in use during the second world war).  The officer in charge of a warship's weapons is described as the gunnery officer, although the first lieutenant controlled weaponry aboard auxiliary ships, reflecting the older tradition of deck department officers including gunnery among their responsibilities.  By the 1970s the senior warship officer's title had changed to weapons officer and navy textbooks were entitled Principles of Naval Weapons Systems.  These textbooks focused on sensors and guidance systems and gave comparatively little space to what they described as tubular impulse launchers.  United States naval focus on guided anti-vehicle weapons has left the impulse launchers largely within the realm of anti-personnel weaponry controlled by the Marine Corps; and the 1985 textbook uses the terms gun and artillery somewhat interchangeably reflecting predominance of land targets falling within the traditional responsibility of the Army (and Marine Corps using army weapons).  I like Lou Sander's suggested title of Naval guns to conform to the terminology of the era of their importance in ship vs ship combat, although the present title may be more useful for 21st century users accustomed to modern terminology.Thewellman (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The term "Naval Artillery"

message: Time ago I introduce two paragraphs based on part of one of the chapters of the article Portuguese India Armadas.
The authorship and credit goes entirely to the true author Walrasiad. And we have the most complete matter in that chapter by the author himself in that article. Perhaps the author might contribute or correct in the future to put it in another way or even more complete, if necessary. I might have changed a bit over the paragraph, but honestly, it seemed best to leave it roughly, in the words of the true author (although it is a part), to guarantee better accuracy and quality. I do not see any inconvenience in the case, but I leave this warning in case some cautions about possible plagiarism, since I never had such an intention. 
The second aspect is to develop further the contributions and other Mediterranean navies and other states (and search about it), in case you find it gets a little "unbalanced" the role of Portugal at that turning point in naval artillery. The big leap was taken in Portugal since the late 15th century and is recognized by historians, and I think the reference was missing in the article. Then I leave to you all the assessment of all the evaluation of this and the eventual better development and more balanced information for this chapter of this article, if it is the case. Thanks --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 15th / 16th Centuries - Contribution based on a part of a chapter (artillery) of the article Portuguese India armadas

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naval artillery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020220090540/http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/local/rbl6.htm to http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/local/rbl6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213152724/http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/rifled2.htm to http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/rifled2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I thought it might be instructive to add a table with info on how firing ranges were changing over time. Unfortunately I felt forced to squeeze lots of comments into the footnotes, which is not in line with the convention adopted here (it keeps footnotes purely referential), unfortunately I did not see any other way. Also location of the table within the article is not very fortunate, as it sits in a section dealing with early age while the table data is most interesting for 19-20th centuries. However, sections dealing with later periods are stuffed with great photos and there is no place for a table there. --2A02:A31B:833C:7480:D1DB:49C2:3C07:BAF3 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm struggling with converting these references into footnotes in their own footnote group, using . So far, I've done that conversion, and I have now converted the reference portion of each footnote back into actual references. Then next task is to properly format those references and consolidate identical references. -Arch dude (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: hello Arch dude, great stuff, thanks for your effort. I think the whole thing makes more sense now. rgds, --2A02:A31B:833C:7480:C88E:8E31:5388:AC0B (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: table with ranges

message: I stumbled on a book that had large parts of this exact Wikipedia article.
"Tools of War: History of Weapons in Early Modern Times".
Did Wikipedia use this book or did this book use Wikipedia, who was first?
Try a google search for this part: "Increased projectile weight through increased caliber was the only method of improving armor penetration with this velocity limitation"
My first hit is on books.google.com, my 2nd hit is this Wikipedia article.
At least about 1/3 can also be found in this book, even an image.
Assuming this book copied Wikipedia, not just a few sentences but entire articles, is this legal?
NicoLaan (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If we've copypasted from a book then we will need to a) reword our text to address copyright issues, and b) add a citation for the facts we're pointing to. If a book is copypasted from Wikipedia then the author is a bit lazy and they don't deserve to charge people for their work, but its not unlawful as the information in our articles is intended to be freely reusable by third parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it's a violation of copyright law. Wikipedia is copyrighted. Copys are permitted only in accordance with our copyright licence, which requires that the copy is attributed to Wikipedia. If the book does not credit Wikipedia, then they broke the law. (Unless the editor who added the material to Wikipedia also wrote the book or granted a separate license of the material). -Arch dude (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright infringement?

message: I reverted your edits because one was nonsensical and the other changed text without changing the source. If that battle was the first one in Asia, then what's your source for that statement? I don't imagine that the existing source supports that statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean, and I am sorry for the sloppy editing. Well now checking the allready included reference it seems that it states that the Korean Battle is the first in general and not in Asia, which is conflicting with the above references. So I rewrote the sentance simply as a list of early Asian records of such use of weaponry. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I have a suggestion to make regarding the aforementioned excerpt. I think anyone who understands anything about guns would think they understood the sentence, but miss its meaning entirely. I only visited the windage link due to curiosity as to how windage would be defined in Wikipedia, and, alas, it turns out it's an entirely different usage than what an overwhelming majority of people use today.
Clearly the editors of this article understand very well the subject matter and how to write an excellent Wikipedia about it, but since the burden falls on me to argue my case, let me start by saying that, obviously, words mean what people understand them to mean. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a technical book, words that a very small percentage of the reader base would recognize should be clarified. Therefore, I would suggest changing the word to something that won't be misleading. 
Of course, the final decision and the manner in which it shall be done should be left to the editors of the page, or to whomever might be bold enough. 
Best regards, ~Dr Victor (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  With regards to "together with the elimination of windage as a result of the tight fit,"