Talk:Early thermal weapons

message: Eight references refer to "Bennett et al." but the reference isn't in the list and it appears to me that it never has been. I have no idea what it is, or I would try to insert it.GOR42 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked with Gwinva on some other articles, if it doesn't pop up in a history review of her edits here, I'll try to find it elsewhere.  Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Reference

message: I've moved this page from boiling oil for two reasons; firstly "boiling oil" is an inaccurate term since it was heated, not boiled (oil burns before it boils), and since the article naturally covers the more common forms of thermal devices. Gwinva (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that, it's worth mentioning that I chose the name Early thermal weapons simply because I couldn't think of a better one at the time; I am aware it is clumsy, and it is worth considering alternatives.  "Incendiary weapons" is a commonly-used term elsewhere, yet not quite appropriate for this, since that refers to substances which burn with flame: and thus wouldn't cover heated sand, quicklime, hot oil, boiling water, smoking sulphur etc etc, all of which naturally fall in this article rather than any other.  Hence "thermal" for heat (which is the common link).  "Early" was to cover Ancient and Medieval, but perhaps that should be spelt out? Or a better umbrella term used? Gwinva (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from Boiling oil and naming

message: I left the #2 alone becuase I am not familar enough with the subject to determine whether there are any major ommissions. Otherwise, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The weapons listed are not in chronological order, jumping back and forth from Byzantines, to Josephus of the Romans, to the hundred Years wars, then to the Franks of the 9th century - whats up with that?!Tourskin (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I was trying to order them thematically: discussing arrows then  greek fire then oil, then pitch etc.  There's no logical chronological progression of one thing being invented then another, as most coexisted throughout the period; most are simple common sense rather than technological innovations, anyway.  I tried to mix the examples up so they weren't all from one period.  Perhaps it could be ordered more clearly; subheadings perhaps? Which could be of type, or general timespan/region. But then it could get repetitive, saying, "oh yes, these guys had quicklime too".  "We see pitch used again".   I'm open to ideas! The eyes of a third party can often see things more clearly.  Gwinva (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added sub-headings under type;hope this makes it clearer. Gwinva (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order 

message: The arrangement according to themes is OK. The problem is that there are many examples making things very stubby and there is little on Chinese siege technology for example. In modern times thermobaric weapons are a must to discuss(possibly the Muslim greandes during the crusades had a similar effect, but on a limited scale, although containing salpetre) Wandalstouring (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tips.  I'm still working on the page, adding information and (hopefully) improving the prose.  Feel free to add in anything you have. (FYI, it was not me who nominated this for GA.)  Gwinva (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  stubby 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: pass
:2. Factually accurate?: pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: pass
:5. Article stability? pass
:6. Images?: pass
A well referenced and prepared article.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: The article has a rather lengthy section on guns, however guns aren't thermal weapons by the definition given at the beginning of the article. They don't cause damage by heating or burning the target. There are already plenty of articles on guns, they don't need to be covered here. Also, there is discussion of thermal weapons all the way up into the 20th century. That hardly qualifies as "early". --Dwane E Anderson (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While the main focus of the article is indeed early thermal weapons, as defined in the lead, it is appropriate to briefly cover a "where to next"-type discussion, which draws connections between these early weapons and later ones: something not easily seen by going directly to an article on modern weapons.  It provides a context.  As for cannon and guns, or "firearms": they do require the use of thermal techniques, and gunpowder itself qualifies as an explosive or flammable material.  (Early firearms did heat and burn the target, although this was not their primary aim).  Rather than removing the content, the lead phrasing could be altered to make clear gunpowder is included.  Yes, there are plenty of articles specifically on guns, but it would be inconceivable to consider thermal weapons without going into gunpowder and the development of weapons following.  This  article effectively provides historical context for the gun articles.  If the article name upsets you, then perhaps you have got a better suggestion?  Gwinva (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article name doesn't "upset" me. Actually, I'm not upset at all; I'm just trying to provide constructive criticism. If you were going to alter the name, I would suggest "History of Thermal Weapons" if you want to include later developments. However, I think the title is okay as is. The first four paragraphs of the gunpowder and cannon section do a good job of tying in thermal weapons to the history of guns. The other four paragraphs I think are off topic, as guns aren't actually thermal weapons. But, if you want to leave them in, it's no big deal. Just my 2 cents.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic sections? 

message: Burning Pitch	#redirect Early thermal weapons#Pitch.2C tar and resin--68.225.194.245 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: bumping this.  I'm just a BoN and I can't create new articles, and I think it's quite relevant.  This is what I typed into the search bar, and surely what others type into the search bar.  No similar results crop up under suggestions.  Someone please take the five seconds necessary to copy the above text and make the damned redirect!--68.225.194.245 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, can not a single Wikipedian take it upon themselves to spend three seconds making this necessary and relevant redirect?  Burning pitch.  Make it.  Thank you.--68.225.194.245 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested redirect 

message: Twice in the article there are headings relating to "With Fire and Sword". To my knowledge this is strictly in reference to the Polish novel of the same title and its recent revival in film and video game. Neither entry attributes any origin or meaning to the phrase nor actually adds any understanding to the sections it has been applied to. If this is a prevailing recognized title for the doctrine I could understand its inclusion, but as it reads it seems highly out of place as cultural self promotion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.94.72 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had bothered to read the actual article, you wound note that use of the phrase was cited twice in the text, once to Livy and once to a scholarly source and its context is explained in the article.  I also know the article's primary creator, who is not a teenaged video game player. Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esoteric reference to "Fire and Sword" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Early thermal weapons. 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/20080221060552/http://www.normanconquest.co.uk/orderics_reaction.htm to http://www.normanconquest.co.uk/orderics_reaction.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515145029/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.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) 00:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: What, how can this be a good article when it says nothing about "the Indians" attacking pioneer wagon trains? Surely this deserves a mention even if it only occurred in the movies. That's the way I see it, pilgrim. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle the Wagons!