Talk:Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun

message: Should Bofors wz.37 used by Polish Army (see Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign) redirect here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You want the Bofors 37 mm a 37 mm anti-tank gun - see also here  GraemeLeggett 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: German engineers were definitely involved in work on what would become the 88 with Bofors. It seems that based on nothing more than this, historians assumed that they also knew about the 40. However the historical record is clear, at least today, that this was not the case. It seems like an example of reading one too many times between the lines. Maury 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bofors wz.37

message: The sentence regarding the L60 beeing in fact L56.1 may of course be correct (I´m no expert in Bofors), but the referring to inches is completely out of place. For all (?) guns, the L figure refers to length in calibers. L60 for a 40mm caliber guns equals 2.4 meters, not 60 inch. L60 for a 50mm caliber gun equals 3.0 meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 44 Echo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  L60 or L56? 

message: That this tag exists at all is an indicator, among many others, of the infantile state to which Wikipedia has sunk, where every article is to be subjected to a multicultural test.  This is the English-language site.  Of course the articles will be written from an "English-speaking" perspective.  If another "language perspective" is desired, then it can be presented in the appropriate Wikipedia language version.  If one wishes to add a section about the Bofors 40mm used in a "non-English-language perspective" -- presumably its history in a non-English country -- then by all means add it, but this is certainly not an "issue," as the inane tag claims.  Anyway, after two years here, the tag has shown itself to be utterly useless. J M Rice (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do agree to a certain degree that the tag is ridiculously over-used, you miss an important aspect when you suggest that language versions should have different perspectives. English-speaking people who come here to seek information should not need to learn a multitude of languages to find perspectives from outside the English-speaking countries.
BP OMowe (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted ridiculous "Globalize" tag 

message: By the end of the war total production from British, Canadian, and Australian factories was over 2,100, while U.S. lend-lease examples added about 150.
:Are the decimal points in the right place?Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  21,000 

message: This might make a nice addition. We have plenty of photos of unmounted guns, this one shows the Bofors mounted on a WWII US submarine. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of a submarine mount 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bofors 40 mm gun. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://casrca.nationprotect.net/id-mcdv-midlife-2.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613233736/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Last_blast_for_Bofors to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Last_blast_for_Bofors
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was used for the Bofors 40 mm gun and article is a stub, so there is a compelling reason for it to be merged to the article I just mentioned. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose There is much more info available about this mount, its development, and its use, which merits its own article. Notable due to being the first auto stabilized antiaircraft naval mount. Please expand Hazemeyer gun mount article accordingly. Regards,DPdH (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Oppose Fully concur with DPdH above. Arugia (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Hazemeyer gun mount]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. There is clear consensus to move away from the existing title and support for "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun". A new RM can be made for "Bofors 40/60" or other titles. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 →  – The current name is not used in sources, and fails Article Name policy on capitalisation as well. Before splitting the content was under Bofors 40 mm gun. The proposed name covers a common name the weapon is known by with the  "L/60" part disambiguating from a later weapon also made by Bofors GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Readers come looking for information by two main routs. They will come from a link from another article.  In that case, the title chosen makes no difference to them finding the target. But it is still important as to what the name is being represented as.  If they are making a search, then they are most likely searching by the most common name, whether or not they fully understand what it is they are searching for.  Hence, that is why I would propose that "Bofors 40/60" is the best name.  The lead will tell them that it is a gun, if they didn't already know that.  "Bofors 40 mm gun" is the other possible search route (noting that "gun" is also redundant in this case) since it has been very common to refer to it as such (at least prior to the L/70). However, "Bofors 40 mm L/60" is very uncommon as a name per n-gram evidence.  Readers coming via that search route are unlikely to know which variant they really want. The purpose of the Bofors 40 mm gun article is to give them sufficient information about which particular model they are after and, if they want more information, to go to the correct main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  that argument goes for the current name as well, and its actually a formal name.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Per WP:AT:  However, perhaps the most important function of the title is so that a reader can find the article that they want.  That is why WP:RECOGNIZE and WP:COMMONNAME are given a degree of prominence in determining the title.    "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun" rarely occurs in sources - per the evidence, it wasn't found (sufficiently to report).   This is because readers are most likely to search on the name they most commonly see elsewhere. "Bofors 40/60 [gun]" is not just "more common", it is substantially more common.   Bofors 40 mm fails because of the ambiguity that now exists. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The gun is known under a great variety of different takes on the 40 mm automatic gun L/60 name, sometimes just being referred to as the Bofors L/60. If we include several of the most common abbreviations of the name in the article lead then it will be super easy for people of all types to find the article.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I really want to give a bunch of examples but i actually have very few english examples at hand. However something i have noticed while going through my library is that the L/60 suffix becomes more common post WWII around the time the L/70 enters the scene. A lot of publications simply call it the Bofors 40 mm anti air gun (40 mm luftvärnspjäs) when describing WWII period history. The suffix L/60 however is not totally abscent and usually does appear once or twice in proper publications to specify what the text refers to. This however could definitely explain why a lot of english WWII period sources lack the suffix L/60. As the 40/43 never saw export to the UK or USA, the name "Bofors 40 mm gun" or "Bofors gun" during the war could only refer to the 40/60. This is the same reason why the Bofors 37 mm anti-tank gun rarely feature the suffix L/45. Bofors did produce a number of other 37 mm guns during the interwar period (37 mm Naval Gun L/37 for example) but these never saw export to English speaking countries to my knowledge. But even then, the name 'Bofors 40 mm "gun type" L/60' was well established internationally prior to the war.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Support If there is  no such thing as a Bofors 40mm gun (of any length) that is NOT automatic, it seems utterly pointless to include "automatic" in the description. Redirects would seems sufficient to cover the (extremely) unlikely search for an automatic version of any variant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Automatic Gun" is not simply a description but actually a common designation for the gun historically, thus the initial letters are capital. A similar case would be the "Thompson Submachine Gun". If not Automatic Gun then "Anti-Air Gun" also exist as an option, although the gun was not always intended for anti-air.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You picked a poor example to make your case: its Thompson submachine gun.  No submachine gun articles seem to use "submachine gun" capitalised and some don't use "submachine gun" in the name , eg Sten even though 'officially' they might have had capitals.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasnt referencing the Wikipedia article..--Blockhaj (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the capitalisation isn't there because of the article name policies, which also apply to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Support. I am not sure why Bofors L/60 40 mm gun is not proposed, on the basis of manufacturer - type - description, but the present proposal is better than what we have now. I note there is only one editor against the proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 February 2022 

message: The present section should be struck and replaced with something similar to my proposal.  However, I don't even think it should exist as a section but should be more "generally" incorporated - somewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Article claims that the "length" of the gun is ~21 ft whereas the "barrel length" is ~7-8 ft.  The latter number looks correct, give or take (based on 56 or 60 caliber), but intuitively/visually the first number looks way to large.  Is the entire gun literally almost 3 times the length of the barrel?  What accounts for the difference? 104.49.170.213 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably the length on a gun carriage (one of many mounts) but without specifying, it isn't very useful. Suspect mass, height and width are also for the carriage configuration. Suggest all three be removed as the picture in the infobox doesn't match that mounting.  Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for replying.  What you say makes sense. And I would agree that talking about "gun length" in this way isn't very logical given the huge variety of mountings/modes of deployment for this equipment.  Would second your suggestion to delete these pieces of info. 104.49.170.213 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Length and Barrel Length