Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force/Archive 4

message: User:Raoulduke47/Template03, created by User:Raoulduke47 as a replacement for the Template:WWIIBritishAFVs and the Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2. Any comments ? Bukvoed 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no objections have been raised, so I went ahead and implemented the changes. I've also nominated Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2 for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 21, as all the links are now in one template.Raoulduke47 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new navigation template for British and Commonwealth armoured fighting vehicles of World War II

message: There's a new peer review request for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[T-26]] 

message: I just "adopted" the disambiguation page for Mortar. I've gone through probably 200 of the 250 "links here" pages and changed mortar links to mortar for articles where the weapon was being referred to. The culprits undoubtedly know who they are — and can save a lot of work for other folks later on if they will remember there's more than one meaning for the word. (For penance, you guys can fix the masonry "mortar" references on the Mortar disambig page!) On the enlightenment side, I've learned from correcting the citations that just about every 20th century US Medal of Honor winner was involved on either the receiving or delivering end of mortar fire! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating Mortars 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[T-26]] 

message: T-34 is now on featured article review, with the main concern being a lack of citations; if anyone has some sources handy, please drop by and put in a few footnotes.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review for [[T-34]] 

message: Hey guys. I added One of the requested articles. It's Waffenträger . Just thought you might wanna know. -- Cheers! Zazzer 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 

message: I have a short list of missing topics related to weaponry. I've tried to check for any equivalents articles but could anyone of you have a look at the list? Thank you - Skysmith 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of those should be on the task force's open task list already. :-) Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, noticed that but I have updated this page relatively recently as well :-) - Skysmith 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find that most of the guns you've listed actually have articles- is English your second language, by any chance? Not wanting to appear snarky here, but you've got things like Webley .455 and Webley Mark 6 on the list, when a quick search of Wikipedia would have revealed articles entitled .455 Webley and Webley Revolver, dealing with the various Webley Revolvers, (.455 calibre and otherwise), as well as the ammunition. Similarly, the re's a fairly good article on the Browning Hi-Power, the Colt Double Action Revolver M1877 that you list is better known as the Colt Lightning (and already has an article, albeit one with room for improvement), Luger P-08 is actually located at Luger pistol... you get the idea. I've taken the liberty of adding redirects to the correct articles from your page, but it's definitely a good list that gives us something to work with! --Commander Zulu 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspected as much and previously removed at least the most obvious ones. In some cases I was unsure about the similarity (like with the Hi-Powers). And apparently I simply missed some. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing weapon topics 

message: The system of requesting articles is being doled out to the task forces now. That means no massive communal list of requests any more, and much larger/longer lists within the task force templates. This task force already has a substantial list of requested articles, and they do not appear to be in any particular order. It would be a great help if anyone who was so inclined could take it upon themselves to put these into an order (preferrably some variation on alphabetical). Those of us who are moving the request list into the task forces (and you all are welcome to help with that as well) will of course do our part to aid in this process. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some way we can automate this? Jakew 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any easy way to do it.  You could write a bot to keep the lists alphabetized, I suppose; but I have no idea who'd want to do it. Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could ask EssJay, he has written a few bots, I think... Zazzer 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter. I had some random idea about doing something clever with categories, but on reflection it was completely dumb. Ah well. Jakew 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up a bit for everyone. --Warlord 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Organization 

message: There's a new peer review request for Panzer I that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Panzer I]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battleship]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Iowa class battleship]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Armament of the Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Armament of the Iowa class battleship]] 

message: Good day to all with you, Task Force. I am known just like the surname Mosin. I am presently of Ukrainian origins as is put in better English in my user page, that to make I recieved aid. My working counterpart, holding years of English language using countries having lived in, is presently leaving the current post I have with the employment I have. My location includes few experted practise speakers, and I am presently being made without my near translator of keying to English that previously have been Slav with German, and on the other side to such destination. I enjoy using English as it appears so carefully made; presently I am acquiring better use and more; I no longer need to use translators or open dictionarys to give thoughts in speech. When I presently key, I use more carefullness when selecting English words by meaning. In present, what English I use may concern English; I express proofreading, and will help presently and after the time with making the meaning of my posts in English easier to recieve meaning from for English. MVMosin 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In time before possible concern 

message: Is there any reason to name Lahti L-39 as L-39 20 mm Lahti? Sure this is needed with Type 97 20 mm AT Rifle when there are several weapons designated "Type 97", but otherwise not preferred? It also seems weird to have L-39 20 mm Lahti in that order, isn't this American style? On the other hand, Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55 in, Boys has the .55 inch on the name.. --Pudeo (Talk) 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno; I'm guessing this is just what someone picked, initially.  If there's a more typically used variant of the name, I don't see a problem with moving the article to it. Kirill Lokshin 11:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of weapon naming 

message: There's a new peer review request for Hugo Stoltzenberg that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Hugo Stoltzenberg]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Tupolev TB-3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Tupolev TB-3]] 

message: Hello.  Do we have any standard guidelines as to when to use Imperial units vs. when to use Metric? Oberiko 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, dunno.  The cartridge infobox, for example, has been designed to do automatic conversion; aside from that, the convention I've seen is to base it on the country where the weapon was designed/manufactured/used.  Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any chance I could get your opinion on British equipment of the Second World War?  The U.K. is currently a metric using nation, but the argument has been put forward that during the era of WWII, they used Imperial measurements. Oberiko 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally go with the imperial calibre first for historical British weapons, and its metric conversion in parenthesis, e.g. 0.303 inch (7.7 mm), 4.5 inch (114 mm). This doesn't hold universally however. For instance, the 7.92 mm and 15 mm BESA machine guns and the 20 mm Oerlikon, Hispano and Polsten guns and the 40 mm Bofors and Vickers-S guns Are never referred to in inches (except perhaps in a conversion table). Then of course there are the weapons rated in pounds, which are rarely referred to in a second imperial unit (inches) e.g the 2 pounder (40 mm / 1.57 inches). Rules about designations rarely, if ever, seem to hold universally for British weapons. Emoscopes Talk 08:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I use Imperial measurements on all British calibres introduced before the UK went Metric, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do I support the use of a "Metric equivalent" ton an Imperial calibre. The calibre is .303 British, not 7.7mm British. As a general rule, it depends on the country of origin, too- the 40mm Bofors was a Swedish weapon, so it would be OK to list it as a metric calibre, but it's not OK, IMHO, to have the .455 Webley listed as being an 11.5mm calibre or whatever it works out to. I view the calibre nomenclatures as actual names, rather than just mere designations (if that makes sense), FWIW. --Commander Zulu 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly concur, Commander Zulu. The calibre is part of the name, and conversions should only be used in parenthesis for the benefit of those not familiar with the units in question. Emoscopes Talk 09:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The general rule for measurements is to put the unit the measurement was made in first, then any conversions.  This means that if a gun's caliber is specified in pounds, then you'd describe it as a "17-pounder (3.0 inches; 76mm)". --Carnildo 07:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about for specifications like vehicle weight and dimensions? Oberiko 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric vs. Imperial?

message: There's a new peer review request for Chemical weapons in the Rif War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Chemical weapons in the Rif War]] 

message: Hello, I am LWF, coordinator of the WikiProject Firearms, and I have a request that I would like to make. I would like to make everyone aware that civilian firearms should now have an infobox (the weapon infobox). So if members of this task force would help in adding infoboxes to civilian as well as military weapons it would be a great help to us over at the Firearms Project.--LWF 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes for firearms 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Zveno project that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Zveno project]] 

message: I think there are modifications that need to be made to the Weapons Infobox template, which I have outlined here. I have been messing around with the template on my sandbox page, but I haven't really figured out how to change it. If somebody 'in the know' could do that, I would really appreciate it. My other question concerns the APC Infobox template, which is found on many armored vehicles such as the Buffalo (mine protected vehicle). This template has been superseded by Weapons Infobox right?  Tmaull 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly done now.  And, yes, the old infoboxes are all being deprecated in favor of the new one; we just haven't gotten around to a lot of them yet. Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey thanks a bunch. I'll see what I can do.    Tmaull 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes for Armored Vehicles 

message: I would like to propose that the Weapons Task Force and the Firearms project make a joint effort to bring the M16 rifle up to Featured article status, sort of as a Featured counterpart to AK-47. Both of these rifles have been very influential in the history of the world, so I think it is only fitting to bring M16 up to the same status as the AK-47.  LWF 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A most worthy suggestion- I'd also like to propose that we select 20 firearms (10 rifles, 10 handguns) for the same treatment, in order to increase the profile of both projects here on WP. --Commander Zulu 09:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a great idea; certainly, there are enough editors to carry through with something like this, I think. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I'm not American, I'm really not concerned with promoting American Flag-Wavery... all the guns are historically or technically important for various reasons, not just because of their relevance to America. (The Brown Bess, incidentally, was the British Service Longarm from 1753-1815, although I'm sure they were used by Revolutionary Troops fighting the British)--Commander Zulu 08:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration with the Firearms Project  

message: My suggestions for the 20 Articles that could be collaborated upon to reach FA status, in chronological order. The list is just something to start with, but I've tried to strike a balance between historic importance and recognisability.
Rifles
*Brown Bess
*1853 Enfield Rifled Musket
*Winchester Rifle
*Lebel M1886
*Lee-Enfield
*Mosin-Nagant
*Mauser K98
*M1 Garand
*FN-FAL
*SKS
Handguns
*Walker Colt
*Beaumont-Adams Revolver
*LeMat Revolver
*Colt Single Action Army
*Webley Revolver (Promoted to F.A. June 2007)
*Mauser C96
*P08 Luger
*Colt M1911
*Tokarev TT-33
*Browning Hi-Power
Thoughts, suggestions, etc? --Commander Zulu 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm not American, I'm really not concerned with promoting American Flag-Wavery... all the guns are historically or technically important for various reasons, not just because of their relevance to America. (The Brown Bess, incidentally, was the British Service Longarm from 1753-1815, although I'm sure they were used by Revolutionary Troops fighting the British)--Commander Zulu 08:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Articles for FA Status

message: Here: Talk:152 mm ML-20 field howitzer there is a discussion about naming articles about Soviet/Russian artillery pieces. Perhaps somebody would like to voice his opinion. Bukvoed 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for Soviet/Russian artillery 

message: Not specifically Wikipedia related, but can anyone tell me some medieval Russian/Soviet weapons?  I'd like to learn a bit more about them.  Thanks Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediaeval Soviet? Emoscopes Talk 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please :) Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that there's no such thing as "Medieval Soviet"- the Soviet Union lasted from 1922-1991, some 400-odd years after the Medieval period of Western History. I think you meant "Medieval Russian" weapons, right? ;-) --Commander Zulu 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: There's a new peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)]] 

message: I've nominated the Webley Revolver article for FAC status after extensively citing it, rewriting bits, and generally improving it. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver- support or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! --Commander Zulu 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news- Webley Revolver has been promoted to Featured Article status! Thanks for your support, everyone! --Commander Zulu 05:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Webley Revolver]] nominated for FAC

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Cannon that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cannon]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Ironclad warship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ironclad warship]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Dreadnought that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Dreadnought]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for 37 mm Gun M3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[37 mm Gun M3]] 

message: There is almost no article that mentions that, and it is hardly a trivial information?--Victor falk 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs of modern weapon programs? 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Sukhoi Su-25 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Sukhoi Su-25]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Cannon that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cannon]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Enfield revolver that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Enfield revolver]] 

message: I've come across a number of new articles on US nuke warheads. They're typically titled in the style "W57" (no hyphen), but the articles themselves generally employ the form "W-57" (with a hyphen). I couldn't find anything authoritative on the web, and I've always seen it both ways, even in military documents. Do we have a preferred convention on this? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US nuclear warhead designation conventionn 

message: The A-Class review for Enfield revolver is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Enfield revolver]] now open 

message: I'm putting together a list of rifle articles that need photographs. I'm thinking about going back to the US Ordinance Museum for a third trip to get rifle pictures - specifically, for rifle articles that have no such picture. They have thousands of rifles from basically every country on earth. If you knwo of an article that needs an illustration, please add it to User:Raul654/Wishlist Raul654 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rifle picture wishlist