Talk:Artillery wheel

message: Diagrams (photos actually), added since reqdiagram added. Egmason (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reqdiagram 

message: Why do you do this? Your comments are not rational. Look at the images. Eddaido (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qwirkle removing images 

message: ...and their relatives and descendants, are what is meant by the term “Artillery Wheel” as it is used here. Older forms were simply robust examples of wagon wheels. Qwirkle (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha. Was that in an article about "coaches"? Give us a citation. Eddaido (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren’t aware of the term “artillery wheel” as used for early autos (and some un-horseless carriages), to say nothing of late 19th and early 20th century artillery, you have little business editing articles about any of them. This is a dead-standard term for an Archibald-type wheel. Qwirkle (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it I spend a year or two on research on a subject generally poorly covered in Wikipedia before writing about it (big subject, still working on it, years more yet) and Qwirkle buzzes like now in later, sometimes much later with weird results like with Concord Stagecoaches (as was). You believe Concord Coaches is right ! hahaha Eddaido (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Here is a detailed history the military development of artillery wheels, starting with Arcibald wheels, and including info on dishing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Archibald wheels... 

message: A few days ago I added two images of artillery with artillery wheels, the top image shows a wheel constructed in the conventional manner copied for early 20th century motor vehicles. These images were put there the minute I found them. If they were known to me in 2013 they would have been added at that time. Eddaido (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s the problem, in a nutshell. “Artillery wheel” has a meaning distinct from, “wheel found on a large gun”. It’s a distinctive method of construction which is not at all illustrated by the picture which you have mistakenly introduced to the article. Qwirkle (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your problem, your words are the opposite of what your eyes must surely see. Is this what they call blind faith? This is Concord all over again. Eddaido (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Eddaido 

message: While obviously a better illustration than the ones preceding, that’s an odd, fiddly, and ultimately unsuccessful design. A simple Army Archibald derivative would be a lot more typical. Qwirkle (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a good picture? Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I found the one that was on the article for years.  Seems better.  What do you think?  Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in an article this size, using the Schwarz as an illustration is bad. It’s not a representative type; a huge part of the point of spoked design is that the pieces are strong and modular. With these, that was a binary choice. Qwirkle (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwarz wheel 

message: The article now shows a fixation on the Sankey products of the early twentieth century, and was tagged for this reason.  reverted this, with a an edit summary that is was . Given that this is a long-standing problem going back to this edit in 2015, I restored the tag. Despite the fact that the problem was under discussion on the talk page with a rather strong cite regarding other more prominent and more recent usages, Sammy D again reverted, with the edit summary . When the Hemminggs article was pointed out to him, he again reverted, with a summary of . Now, that would be coals to Newcastle, but is there anyone else who disagrees that the Sankey wheels, while significant, are given an over-prominent size in this article? And further, that the sourcing suffers from corporate pressrealeasitis? Qwirkle (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You should know that won't work. The content you object to is from this edit in 2015 but this 2020 cite doesn't even relate to Sankey. You said nothing about him until you threw  this flag to p someone off. Moot point now, this thread is here and Dicklyon is between you two and he's acting rationally. I assume you two will give  a chance to talk. Then the three of you will fix it instead of throwing your stupid flags. Sammy D III (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That cite shows that “artillery wheel” had a broader meaning than just some left-over from the 1920s. ‘36 Chevy scalloped wheels are what a certain breed of car nut thinks of, almost exclusively, when he hears “artillery wheel”. You can still buy the things, new, under that name. Qwirkle (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Who cares about the name (where you are correct)? We were discussing Sankey. Focus. Sammy D III (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about the name? Someone who was interested in creating a meaningful, accurate article might, because it would show them that the subject was far broader than that covered here, and that might indicate that having about a quarter of it devoted to a single manufacturer might  and that we should  Right now, the article is very close to a coatrack for Sankey. We should focus on fixing that. Qwirkle (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who you think you're conning with your dance of the BS, you know it's not me. I came to break up an edit war and you waved your stupid flag without discussion. You can try to distract all you want but nobody is talking about the name and your cite (not even bothering to link it again) does not relate to Sankey. Just more smoke and mirrors. Snotty edit summaries don't make nonsense mean anything. Focus. Sammy D III (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only con game here is the pretense that this is a pretty good little article. It isn’t, and we should warn the reader, and alert other writers and researchers.If you have trouble understanding why a cite showing wider usage shows that the article might be too narrow, the problem just might not be on the transmission side. Qwirkle (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Who has said it is a pretty good little article? Am I arguing about the width of the article? Your cite does not relate to Stankey and the width stuff is from some other argument. I came to try to cool down an edit war (ironic, huh?), playing with you is just a bonus. Sammy D III (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   You did, when you repeatedly removed a tag pointing out one of the things that was wrong with it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I didn't, your twisted reasoning creates that false claim. Removing a personal provocation is in no way an opinion about the article. "Twistin' the night away" (Sam Cooke, 1960). Sammy D III (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree.  The earlier history of wooden wheels, which I posted a source about above, should be given more weight.  The Sankey steel wheels can be covered, too, but if there are sources on other brands then those could be used, too, to give some better balance.  You've given a lot of historical perspective above, but not a lot of sourcing for it, so help out with that if you have/know any.  The Hemmings "motoheads" article is good, but doesn't say who made the wheels for the Chevy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sankey dominated some parts of the British market relatively early on. As to who made the wheels for Chevy (and Ford, contemporaneously), I do not know or remember off hand. Perhaps when libraries open again... Qwirkle (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think Chevy/Ford bought vendor wheels or just stamped out their own? A Model T person may know if Ford made real artillery wheels themselves. Is  this about early Ford wheels any use? Sammy D III (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I started a section based on the The Field Artillery Journal source.  Needs a lot of work, obviously, but at least the source is cited to support expansion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Other countries, obviously, might have rather different histories, but most patent hubs look a good deal like Archibald or Sarven. Qwirkle (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue 

message: Maybe put this one instead of the plain wheel image? Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article might already be a little bit tilted to Usanian POV. As it stands, it looks like we were the only game in town for military wood wheel. (We weren’t, although the line to most auto wheels paralells those above more than, say,  these below. Qwirkle (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an awesome photo, and not a canonical construction, and not as old the US one, right? Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Canonical for what? This method wasn’t used much for cars, but it’s seen on some arty. No, I agree this isn’t a good photo for direct use in the article, but before the thing is through it has to make clear that not every gun carriage had the exact same kind of wheels. Not as old as the us, but look here from 1868. Qwirkle (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Why no pics?  I could see rearrangement, but hiding ‘em? Qwirkle (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Another good picture

message: *Talk:Artillery_wheel/draft
Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: An attempt at a draft

message: * :es:Rueda de artillería
--evrik (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You just made that today, by translating your new draft.  How is that relevant to us here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text: *How is that relevant to us here? Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *I dunno. I was taught to register before firing for effect, if at all possible. Qwirkle (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it's done now. --evrik (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: In other languages

message: "The 1917, the 14-spoke wheel evolved" should be "By 1917, the 14-spoke wheel evolved".  Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Qwirkle (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Done Izno (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 19 June 2020 

message: This book Wheels of Misfortune mentions the Sankey/Morris 1913 connection: , .  Does anyone have a copy? Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a bit of a Google-dredge. Qwirkle (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it took a bit of dredging to find those snippets on the same page, and the 1913 date of the first Morris. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, probably not the greatest addition. --evrik (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has the book, they can see what it says and decide.  I was looking for a more independent source for the Sankey stuff, since what we have how is corporate promo stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Budd’s bio covers this, IMS. Qwirkle (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There’s also a lot of mention in commercial magazines; I don’t see much doubt Sankey was the dominant maker in a market that preferred that type of wheel. Where the article had problems is that it described a single track of development, based on British experience, which was not the same worldwide. Given the sheer size of the North American market -and its connections to Latin America and Oceania, among others, that wasn’t the dominant pattern. It’s also worth noting that the “big (number here)” model, with a small number of makers producing 90 percent of the cars in their space, had not grabbed hold yet in the early twenties, much less the turn of the century, e.g this. Qwirkle (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The long bit that was copied from the GKN article was all about Sankey and steel wheels, but didn't mention the word artillery; this book I found does.  But if you have another source that connects Sankey to artillery wheels, use that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Other people connected Sankey to artillery wheels quite early, but they didn’t use the term much themselves until the 30s, when the brought out their own version of the final arty wheel design, the scalloped things you’ll see on the chopped-and-channeled. When there was still a real chance that someone might confuse their product with wood, they didn’t. So, you have some usages based on appearance, and others based on actual design ancestry, varying over time and place. Qwirkle (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: When I think of it, these guys belong in here, too, at least on the arty side. Qwirkle (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madras nave 

message: ...yet this. Qwirkle (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This 1920 Sankey ad is clearly trying to establish their branding "Sankey wheels" over "artillery wheels".  Not really relevant here.  The other (undated) ad clearly acknowledges that what they were making were known as artillery wheels.  Good find.  Going back a bit further, here's a 1905 discussion on "Artillery v. Wire Wheels" that predates them. It says artillery-style wood wheels were first used by Hancock on steam carriages (as "wedge wheels"), and that they were "used some time previously in India for field guns", leading to the name. No dates on those points though.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nahh. It’s not just branding. Sankey (and others; Budd, their US equivalent and sometime agent, had the same, exact same, design philosophy) was making unitized welded wheels. An all-metal artillery wheel can be made with separate spokes, but they decided not to. The Sankey is an artillery wheel only in aesthetics, kind of like the differences between a Levitt Cape and a real one. There was a sea-change in autos with the end of the Model T; by 36 or so, when Sankey brought out the Magna, drawn or stamped steel was the default.That cite gives 1811 for the Madras nave, so that may nicely nail down the etymology. Good grab. Qwirkle (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, John Robison mentioned that 1811 date on the mentioned pages: "as far back of the year 1811, I had wheels with the spokes and naves of the same identical construction, made at Hyderabad, for some artillery carriages."  Also says on next page "A construction very analogous to this has long been in use in the Madras Artillery ; in which service I have always understood that it gave every satisfaction."  Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, it is possible to find also cites excoriating them from authoritative sources, the brass (really bronze) naves never really made it out of one Presidency, let alone India. Qwirkle (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of your knowledge like this could be useful, if you'd point out the cites. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember them, that is. A lot of what I write on wiki is based on old memory, with all that implies. Qwirkle (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sankey