Talk:Missile

message: According to the article, all guided missiles carry 67 kilo warheads.  This is simply not true!!  The weight of a missile varys greatly from missile to missile.  I've deleted that statement in the article.
: Agreed. That makes absolutely no sense. Nonsensical. ICEBreaker 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  67 kilo warheads 

message: The first words of the article are: A missile is a projectile propelled as a weapon at a target.
I believe that this description fits a bullet as well, which is why i have changed it to:A missile is a self-propelled, explosive projectile used as a weapon towards a target.
This where anyone who does not like this change should voice thier opinion.
Change "a target" to "a pre-determined target"David171 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Although that would seem to be a fairly authoratative source, in practice all of those countries seem to name unguided weapons as 'rockets', saving 'missile' for guided systems only. So whilst all missiles do fit the definition, in practice I'd say that use of the term missile is more defined than that. Jellyfish dave (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: In modern usage, a missile or guided missile is a self-propelled precision-guided munition system. This is as opposed to an unguided self-propelled munition, referred to as a rocket, or a bomb, which has no means of propulsion and falls under gravity (and can be either guided or unguided).
Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missile definition 

message: In the opening definition, should we not also make the distinction with bombs, eg.
:In modern usage, a missile or guided missile is a self-propelled precision-guided munition system. This is as opposed to an unguided self-propelled munition, referred to as a rocket, or a bomb, which has no means of propulsion and falls under gravity (and can be either guided or unguided).
Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: vs bombs

message: There are two main types of missiles: guided and ballistic. Could someone with knowledge of ballistic missiles please contribute a short entry? In addition, ICBMs should be mentioned. ICEBreaker 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballistic Missile 

message: I think that "missile" should be the disambiguation page, and this page should be "missile (weaponry)" or something like that.67.160.147.2 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Meaning 

message: "Civilization Revolution," a game for the Xbox 360, uses references for the Civilopedia from reliable sources such as National Geographic, and PBS. It credits Tippu Sultan as the inventor of the rocket, a primitive, however very similar relative in weaponry to the missile. Tippu Sultan isn't, however, credited anywhere at all in the whole article, not even in Early Development. What gives? The missile wouldn't have been invented if it weren't for him. 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials 

message: I've moved the fact about the TOPOL M being the fastest missile in the world to the ballistic missiles section, and removed the part about DF15 being the longest ranged - the fact was uncited and would appear to be false, as versions of the SS-18 have a longer range than 15,000km.Jellyfish dave (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts/Records 

message: So, 2 pictures of an ABM system is relevant? Yes, we've established that the patriot is of relevancy, but it does not represent the Anti-aircraft paragraph as it's not even designed for that task. Replacing the Arrow in favor of the patriot was what you've should of done instead of sitting idle. Next, you lost count. Changing the Air to Air picture to my proposed one will give: US-3, Russia-3, France/China-1 each. And finally, you're making a highly subjective "argument" of quality. Both pictures shows an Aircraft firing a missile, both are relativley high resolution, so there really isn't much difference between the two other than the origin of the equipment in the pictures. Also, it was never established whether or not the AIM-120 is as relevant compared to the R-27, so you're just making more weak, baseless, and diversionist arguments. 76.219.244.100 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed to the change of images for the Anti-aircraft and Anti-ballistic sections so I don't know why you're saying I disputed that change. Why does there have to be an equal number of images of U.S. and Russian missiles? As I stated earlier there is no requirement for quotas of images on Wikipedia. Quality and relevancy is what matters on Wikipedia articles, not satisfying national pride. Quality and relevancy is no more subjective than diversity and editors here will decide which images are of better quality and relevancy. Unionin (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I have also changed the Anti-satellite section image to an image of an actual ASAT test, which is far better than an image of some vehicle at an exhibit with a missile sat on the back. In fact in the previous image we couldn't even see the missile itself for the casing it's in. Unionin (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure just how many times I have to repeat this before you get it, there is no quota for images on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I must shatter your delusion and inform you there's no Warsaw Pact anymore. Therefore, there are 2 reasons why there should not be a quota of NATO and Warsaw Pact missile images. I have reverted your edits which contravened earlier consensus on this talk page. Unionin (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still Russia, a leading producer of weapons of all shapes and sizes. Not to mention India and China, Germany, France, etc. I hate to shatter your bubble, but there is also no quota saying "consensus" to U.S. built weaponry as the representing image of it's class. Therefore, I have reverted your edits as per discussion. Victory in Germany (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I just interject that this is the missile page, not the TEL page. The ASAT is a picture of a missile, the current DF-21 picture is not, and therefore the ASAT is a much better image for that section.Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd actually agree with that. I will change the picture to something more suitable to the page. Victory in Germany (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Victory in Germany, you are the only one here who wants most of the images on the article to be changed to that of Russian missiles, and not on the merit of the images but merely for the fact that they are Russian. I'm not surprised though, your account is obviously an Pro-Russia POV account. Consensus here is clearly against your changes I'm afraid, hence them being reverted. Unionin (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem. I don't want Russian missiles (because before you came in, there were French, Chinese, and Israeli missiles). Also, the images on this page has not been disturbed for a very long time, until you came back. The consensus via non-disturbance has already been reached. And your disturbance is preluding to a edit war. Please stop now and get a better argument and more support. 76.219.244.100 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

text: By that notion, why don't we simply include images of missiles produced by anyone and everyone that produces them and have an article full of pictures! I hope the point is obvious. If not, please read Sarcasm. -- Kharay1977TC 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because U.S. missiles are not representative of missiles in general, which is what the article is about, missiles. Victory in Germany (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Victory in Germany, your changes being in effect for however many days before being reverted does not mean consensus was automatically reached. It is clear on this talk page that you are the only one who supports changing many of the images to that of Russian missiles for the sake of them being Russian rather than for the quality or relevancy of the images. Consensus on this talk page is clearly against your changes. Please adhere to the consensus on this talk page. Note, consensus is achieved by discussion on the talk page and not by enforcing your version of the article the most. Unionin (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unionin, we've been over this, consensus is reached after how many days and how many edits, as long as those fellow editors do not change it, consensus therefor has been reached. You were gone for many days and by due process of different editors editting this page, and their due silence, consensus therefore has been reached. You are the one that are changing images for the very sake that they are American and not of their relevancy, because really, who has heard of ASM-135? Not a lot. More people have heard of the 2007 Chinese Satellite shootdown then the ASM-135, which therefor makes the DF-21 far more relevant. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New argument 

message: Given the scope over the meaning of "missle" in the Lead, would not this article be better at the more-specific title "Guided missile, since that is what the article is actually about, and have the Missile (disambiguation) page moved to plain Missile? - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Internally to Wikipedia, it seems to be linked correctly in the vast majority of cases, but putting the disambiguation page at missile would break that, so I would be very reluctant to make the change, unless we used a bot to change them all over. But I think the most common use is likely to be the military one anyway, just due to the large number of military missiles there are, so I think we should stick with what we have.Planetscared (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: The Basic Roles section is confusing, because as well as defining roles for missiles, it also includes headings which are not "roles" but types of missile, namely cruise and ballistic. A cruise missile can have many roles; it could be used to target ships, buildings or other enemy assets.
In this article, the Exocet missle is described under the heading "Anti-Ship Missiles", which is correct, but its technology is that of a cruise missile, so it could equally have appeared under that heading.
I'd suggest separating the two types of missile, i.e. ballistic and cruise, from the missile roles, such as anti-ship or anti-aircraft, and discussing them in a separate section. 
Marchino61 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like the idea. Cruise missiles as subcategory of ballistic missiles may contradict "Ballistic missile" article where the two are contrasted. (I understand "ballistic" as motion without thrust influenced by moment of inertia, gravity, and air resistance only for significant part of the trajectory.) Your note is of a more specific manner, but we consider the same thing being opportunity for improvement. Szozdakosvi (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Roles section is confusing 

message: * Greek: τηλεκατευθυνόμενος πύραυλος
* Greek: αυτοπλοηγούμενος πύραυλος   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:800:542D:3D0D:8533:9945 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Missile. 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/20100530062700/http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/reports/world-report/74-world-report-/172-worlds-military-powers to http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/reports/world-report/74-world-report-/172-worlds-military-powers
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) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)