This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How do we determine service duration? There are numerous examples of military equipment being used by wealthy powerful nations first, and then passed on to smaller ones after the nation which developed them has replaced them (the AK-47 is probably the best example). Can we have multiple service durations or perhaps a 'foreign use' line added?
This might also be useful for equipment like the M22 Locust which was never actually used by the nation which designed and produced it. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think these definitely fall under "weapons". I'd like to add some lines for them unless there is an objection. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to shrink this? All of the other infoboxes seem to get away with 100%, and I'm not sure that making it less readable is really a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There are proposals to merge template:firearm and template:weapon-firearm into this template. Discuss. Circeus 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I am doing clean up related to disambiguation of "Shell". I would like to change this template so that it links to "Shell (projectile)" instead of "Shell", but was afraid of potentially damaging the template. I didn't know if it was as simple as just changing it, since this template seems rather complicated by my standards. Would someone who knows this template well please consider making this change? Your effort would be much appreciated. Thanks -- Brian G 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Katyusha | |
---|---|
Type | Multiple rocket launcher |
Place of origin | Soviet Union |
Service history | |
In service | 1939– |
Used by | Soviet Union and others |
Production history | |
Variants | BM-13, BM-8, BM-31, BM-14, BM-21, BM-24, BM-25, BM-27, BM-30 |
I'd like to use this box in Katyusha, to graphically tie the article in with other weapon articles, frame the lead image, and offer the barest minimum of information. The article is an umbrella covering a class of weapon systems, and even entering a range of specifications isn't possible. Can this template be displayed without the "Specifications" header? — Michael Z. 2006-08-05 15:42 Z
Qing Buqiang Zu QBZ-95 Light Rifle Family | |
---|---|
Type | Assault rifle |
Place of origin | China |
Service history | |
Used by | People's Republic of China |
Specifications | |
Cartridge |
5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95), 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97) |
Caliber |
5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95), 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97) |
Is there really a difference between caliber and cartridge? I'm using here an example from the QBZ-95 article. Maybe these two should just be merged or one of them should be cut (preferably "Caliber"). -- Ravenstorm 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
For vehicle weapons with armor any article using this template is forced to use british spelling even if every other spelling in the article is american spelling. I suggest incorporating a second input for the template for just "Armor" rather than "Armour". This way american articles can retain spelling. Edit: as an example M1 Abrams. Ergzay 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
is_UK
flag that's already in place to handle such things; that particular label just wasn't configured to use it properly.
Kirill Lokshin
00:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Is there a recommended way to indicate information source? A footnote or external link after a figure makes sense, but in some cases it would be nice to cite a single source or two for the entire infobox. — Michael Z. 2007-05-15 19:33 Z
I have been creating and updating quite a few armored vehicle articles lately ( Cheetah MMPV, Grizzly APC, International FTTS, and I have a few suggestions for the vehicle portion of this infobox. Many of these vehicles straddle the line between weapon and automobile. I think more categories are necessary. Many of these are found in the automobile infobox, however, as these are military vehicles, the weapon infobox seems the most appropriate. However, I think some categories from the automotible infobox should be incorporated into the weapon infobox vehicle section. The most important of these would be "related" followed by "Ground clearance", "fuel capacity", and "transmission". Others that would be helpful with regard to military vehicles would be: approach angle, departure angle, and payload capacity. Reasons stated below.
What do you all think of these suggestions? Tmaull 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmaull ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
I was wondering if we could alternate the row colours, like on Template:AFV. There may be a problem, considering that many rows may not be filled, but that probably can be solved with clever syntaxing. Also, I think the font can be reduced a bit. That makes it more attractive than what we have now.
I also think that for the Vehicles, the category name can be shown, like on Template:AFV (which IMO is much better looking)- so we would be able to see Mobility, Propulsion, Armor, etc. In this one, theres nothing of the sort, which makes it uninformative. Sniperz11 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
When talking about WW2 vehicles in particular, the use of captured materials was widespread, with KVs, T-34s and Komsomolets tractors all serving in the German army, and T-28s and BT-5s serving with the Finns. Should we strive to document all such occurrences under the heading? Some of them were very minor indeed, limited to a handful of vehicles (Shermans in German use, for example), and I am concerned it'd be seen as nitpicking. -- Agamemnon2 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The infobox represents a weapon in general, but often the specifications must refer to a specific variant. For example, the infobox for the T-34 medium tank refers to the entire 55-year plus career of both the T-34 and T-34-85 tank, but the specifications refer specifically to the T-34 model 1943. I suppose in some cases a range might be entered for varying values, but that wouldn't be appropriate here.
It would be nice to be able to add a qualifier to the specifications table sub-header for such cases. For example, "Specifications (T-34 Model 1943)". — Michael Z. 2007-06-02 18:32 Z
spec_label=
parameter that will provide that.
Kirill Lokshin
19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Tangential to my query above, should every country to use a given weapon be listed? Only the most noteworthy? Simply say "Various, see below"? For vehicles such as the T-34 or the Sherman, used by dozens of countries over the period of several decades this is an important consideration. My gut feeling is that anything above 5-6 countries is pushing it, but on the other hand, I like the visual element of a "user list", particularly since it's my habit to format such lists by using Template:flagcountry as a visual aid. -- Agamemnon2 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this include a field for number of "barrels", "tubes", "rails" or "launchers" in the Artillery specifications section? I haven't thought through all of the implications, but this could be useful for multiple rocket launchers, gatling guns and chain guns, antiaircraft weapons, and some oddball artillery pieces. Example at BM-27. — Michael Z. 2007-08-17 04:29 Z
barrels=
as a parameter for ranged weapons (c.f. pepperbox pistol) & artillery.
Kirill
17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Thank you.
I think it works on artillery pieces like the BM-27, etc, without the field "primary armament". It is a weapon, rather than being an AFV armed with one or more weapons. If it had a self-defence machine gun, I would just add secondary armament, without the primary. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 18:23 Z
I feel it would be useful to have additional info fields for cartridge specs such as propellant type, quantity, primer type, fixed or separate loading round, bagged or cartridge case... but when I think of howitzer ammo where we have say 3 types of loading this could get messy. Or should I be using Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge to describe the ammunition used by a particular artillary piece instead ? But even that doesn't appear to provide for propellant nature and quantity e.g. cordite 8 oz. Rcbutcher 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we rename the "Cartridge" field to something like "Ammo"? This infobox is used on articles for old weapons like muskets that didn't use cartridges. If not, could we add a new field that would be used exclusively by non-cartridge firearms? -- Philip Laurence 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a new field for weapons that were standard issue like rifles and pistols. As an example, with the M1 Garand infobox in the "type" field we remove "service rifle" and put what it was, a "semi-automatic rifle" and then put the united states and years in the service field. Something along those lines. -- Philip Laurence ( talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have two proposals as to what is missing from the vehicle specifications: vehicle's ground pressure and type of traction. Many sources give vehicle's ground pressure which is measured in kg/cm². Also the type of traction would be useful (tracked, wheeled or mixed as in case M3 or sdkfz 251 APCs). As of now the type of traction is included in the type section (for example tracked APC) but it makes the type section unnecessarily long so it would better if traction would have it's own section. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
how does it work with an artillery piece such as the QF 25 pounder? GraemeLeggett 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
is_artillery=yes
; there's a full field correspondence table listed
here that gives the exact conversion to use after that.
Kirill Lokshin
12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)is_ranged
and is_artillery
set for the more unusual variations on that, depending on which fields we want them to have.
Kirill Lokshin
14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)A minor issue. When is_ranged
is set, part_length
parameter displays as Barrel length; is_artillery
however does not have the same effect, part_length
displays simply as length (e.g. see the aforementioned
QF 25 pounder). Is it a bug or should both parameters be set for artillery ?
Bukvoed
16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding the box to some naval guns (artillery) and found many of them specified a traverse and elevation speed. It seems like a sensible measure, could we add this to the artillery section? Oh yes and a projectile weight? -- Deon Steyn 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did this with the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 MLRS as an example when I set the is_artillery code to yes as well. Ominae ( talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox_Aircraft has a unit cost field, as does Template:Infobox_Missile. Would there be any objections to my adding it to this template, as well? TerraFrost 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
unit_cost=
.
Kirill Lokshin
02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)It would be nice if this template had a location field as well when that is relevant, like say in Tsar Bomba for geographic coordinates (so we can get rid of the terrible hack that is currently more or less in use) -- IceHunter ( talk) 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
These infoboxes can be used for missiles:
Infobox Weapon is the more mature and better featured infobox, but is missing a few fields:
I think that with these additions, Infobox Weapon would cover all of the items needed for a missile system. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
wingspan=
ceiling=
altitude=
launch_platform=
accuracy=
type=
guidance=
propellant=
Thanks. Max boost is the max time that the engine(s) will run; steering is the actual system used to steer the missile, such as air vanes, jet vanes, vector control nozzle; prime mover is the vehicle that transports the missile, if separate from the launch platform. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
boost=
steering=
transport=
I think we can remove the break on boost time; see Redstone (rocket). --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! For missiles : Is it possible to allow wingspan? Thanks, -- Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Has someone tampered with the font size and style settings in the infobox recently? Had it show up smaller and more tightly condensed than normal for a day and assumed it was done here, but I cannot find any edits relating to this. Has anyone else experienced the same problem? Koalorka ( talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
... but I've been bending my brain for months now and I've finally decided to ask for some help (yes, I'm a proud bugger) and I don't know where else to go. I've been trying to put together a wiki as kind of a hobby for some time and, let's face it, a brainiac I ain't. My problem is outlined here and basically boils down to this: how the hell do I suppress rows where the value is nada?????
I'm sorry to do this here and yes, I suspect I'm violating some kind of etiquette... thing... or something, but I'm at the end of my rope, guys..... :(
Sorry to bug ya. Grugnir ( talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes the infobox's function is abused, in good faith. I'd like to add some advice for its use:
spec_label
parameter, instead of listing multiple data items in one field.Any comments or objections? — Michael Z. 2008-10-01 16:35 z
For Task Force consideration, I propose that an optional parameter of a bladed weapon be some statement about its scabbard (for swords) or its sheath (for short-bladed weapons such as knives, daggers, bayonets). Jack Bethune 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
sheath_type
;-)
Kirill Lokshin
21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)I think blade hardness might be a useful optional property to add to this template in the bladed weapon section. It is a property that is mentioned in modern knife advertising, so it wouldn't be very useful for centuries-old swords, for instance. There are articles on specific knife models, where it would apply. My background is in materials science and I would make the addition myself, but I don't know enough about templates.-- TDogg310 ( talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Having done a lot of artillery articles it would be nice if I could use display shell weight as part of the infobox if I don't want to take the time to lay out a table covering all the ammo used by that particular weapon. Explosive weight covers only the filling used by the shell. Differentiating between HE and AP would be nice, but I can always split that out manually on separate lines. Something like: | shell_wt = Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
cartridge_weight=
(to match the existing cartridge=
parameter); please try it out let me know if anything doesn't work properly.
Kirill
[pf]
02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The armor line in the general infobox is pretty limited. How about creating something to concisely display the detailed armor layout of a vehicle? It would need to differentiate between turret and non-turret vehicles to suppress the display of turreted parameters for non-turreted vehicles. It should have the convert template built in so that people can simply place the numbers and units as appropriate, although that might require a link to the convert template page for people who don't use that template, but I'd really like to avoid having to type it out each time. It should also show slope in ° from vertical or horizontal to cater to the differing US and European conventions on calculating slope. It would be nice to be able to specify which side it displays on to avoid unnecessary scroll-downs on short articles.
Perhaps something like (more focused on necessary information than graphic layout):
Name (model)
Turreted
turret front/side/rear
gun mantlet
superstructure front/side/rear
upper glacis
lower glacis
hull side/rear
Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to be able to borrow the data for elevation and traverse from the artillery section for AFVs, particularly for self-propelled guns. You can currently do this if you set artillery=yes, but it looks a little odd as it sets them off in their own little section. You can see an example in the Panzerjäger I article I'm working on.
I'd also like to show fording depth, trench crossing, obstacle height and maximum grade information in the infobox. Some might argue that the infobox is supposed to briefly summarize the vehicle's data, but I much prefer to show all that data neatly organized and standardized in the infobox rather than in some lengthy detailed specification section that often duplicates some of the contents the infobox. Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion as to whether Template:Infobox Rocket ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) might be better to cover missiles. Please see this discussion page -- G W … 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A little bit of leaping before looking here: caliber had been a little confusing regarding the meaning in firearms versus the meaning in artillery, plus the blur of sundry other meanings mixed in. So, I split off the artillery meaning to caliber (artillery) (after a note on Talk:Caliber). Now I'm looking to resolve the linking from the weapon infobox. Any pointers? ENeville ( talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If the calibre (I'm English) of a gun is described in imperial units, is it correct to also have a metric conversion? If so, what precision should be used?
I'm thinking of the article
BL 7.2 inch Howitzer Mk.I, where the infobox has:
|caliber= {{convert|7.2|in|mm}}
which shows as 7.2 inches (180 mm). However, I consider that a misleading conversion: it implies an exact metric calibre, whereas using a more precise conversion (3 decimal places) would show 7.2 inches (182.880 mm). A back conversion (also to 3 dp) shows that the calibre cannot have been exactly 180 mm (7.087 in) because this doesn't tally with the description of the piece as a "7.2 inch Howitzer"; so, what is policy? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ Convert}} automatically rounds according to the precision of the input. It does so to show that it's not an exact conversion which makes sense for measurements but these are specifications where false precision is not the problem. JIMp talk· cont 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is now displaying some markup before the infobox:
Light Tank M24 |
---|
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Has there ever been any discussion about adding a "fire modes" section to this? This would be helpful, particularly for rifles. It would denote whether they were Semi-Auto, Full-Auto, Burst, etc. Thoughts?? Zackmann08 ( talk) 02:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice a few little flag icons popping up in some articles in the origin= field. In most other areas of the project this use is deprecated as it adds nothing in terms of meaning and unnecessarily emphasises nationality. WP:FLAGS is a shortcut to the manual of style page that explains in more detail when flags are likely to be useful. I therefore propose to remove, for example, the flag on Tiger II. If anyone has any good encyclopedic reasons for keeping flags used like this, this would be a good time to say them. Thanks, -- John ( talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Taken from User talk:Vladimir Historian#Flagicons:
Hi Vladimir Historian, you stipulated "Several editors advised me not to use the national flags in the vehicle infoboxes as senseless info. I agreed." and you removed the flagicon... Why was that? Who are those editors? As part of the Weaponry Task Force, we advise to use flagicons and their template such as: {{Template:RUS}} or {{flagcountry|Russia}}. Thanks, and have a good day! -- ŦħęGɛя㎥ 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken from User_talk:TheGerm#Flag icons:
Hi. The consensus so far has been not to decorate AFV infoboxes with flag icons, as per WP:FLAGCRUFT#Help the reader rather than decorate. I notice you cite WP:WEAPON in your edit summaries, but I see nothing there but some examples without flags. — Michael Z. 2008-09-01 03:44 z
Vehicles that have turrets need to have their height recalculated because the current height values are both the Hull and the Turret combined.-- Arima ( talk) 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Any guideline should this template be used for military trucks, or should Template:Infobox automobile be used instead? Sisu A2045 is with the weapon template whereas Sisu SA-150 with the automobile template. -- Gwafton ( talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the addition of the parameter ground pressure, very important characteristic of any armoured tracked vehicle. Cainamarques ( talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't rifling one of the specifications with artilery and ranged firearms (e.g. Rifling: 4-groove right-hand twist)? M11rtinb ( talk) 11:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M11rtinb ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Infobox should contain some new categories like |Protection that could be further branched into |active and |passive.
Many new modern complex weapons systems have some form of protections that does not come under term Armour in classical sense like steel armor plates. For example smoke grenade launchers are form of passive protection and not armament nor armor, etc...
Loesorion ( talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
At the moment the 'is_UK' parameter serves to display the appropriate spelling armour/armor and caliber/caliber. Since - although documented - this is open to misinterpretation/confusion, what would it take to shift it to something like "is_British-English"?
I presume that one could introduce the parameter as an synonym calling the same function, as in the project template where "British=yes" is a shorthand verison of "British-task-force=". And then once that was shown to work, then go through and change the parameter name to the other.
Is that desirable/feasible GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe a "Drive" option should be added to the vehicle specifications options. By this I mean 4x2, 4x4, 6×4, 6x6 or tracked etc. Currently for vehicles this is usually listed under suspension and occasionally transmission which is not satisfactory. What are others thoughts? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 06:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All I have done is changed the "weight" section to "mass". Weight is not the same as mass, but this parameter is designed for the mass. I’ve implemented this to the sandbox. IWI ( chat) 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I came across this template while trying to help someone having problems with it at
WP:THQ#Infobox not displaying correct information (the sandbox draft can now be found at
Draft:T23 armored car). Has |primary_weapon=
been deprecated or otherwise changed? Perhaps it's no longer a recognized alias? It's listed as an optional parameter on the documentation page, but it doesn't seem to be displaying when used. Maybe someone can help sort this out? Thanks in advance. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Marchjuly I'm having the same issue and it would really be good if someone could give a solution. KhakePakeVatan ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add a "Drive" parameter to the Vehicle/Missile section of the Infobox. The description should be along the lines of:
Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 01:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC).
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the 'Speed' parameter: Perhaps a naming change from 'Speed' to 'Maximum speed' or something similar would be clearer Rebestalic [dubious—discuss] 00:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Towed artillery pieces have specific maximum towing speeds, so I would suggest adding a 'Towing speed' parametre to the artillery category, which would describe the maximum towing speed of the artillery piece in question, without having to use the vehicle subcategory. The description on the documentation subpage would be "for artillery, the maximum towing speed of the piece". I suppose this is a rather uncontroversial request, it shouldn't cause any issues. -- XoravaX ( talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Could ground clearance be referenced on this template? Peter Horn User talk 18:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Did everything asked, still won't work Farbne ( talk) 06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Current auto-generated short descriptions:
Is "Type of" really needed in these articles' short descriptions? At the very least, the information pulled from the infobox should be made lowercase. — Goszei ( talk) 01:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
When ever anybody here is in discussion about changes of these kind of templates: Please keep in mind, that these items are part of international systematics. In this case refer to wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8416150
Best -- Tom ( talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The parameter |is_UK=yes is used to set the spelling of armour, calibre as required for various articles to match the spelling form used in the article text. Is it possible to replace/amend/extend this so the param could be more intuitively obvious. EG using param called "|spelling=BE" or some such which controls the spelling?
I would presume this alternate trigger could be added and then over time articles could be updated to replace the |is_UK.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
12:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This template could better accommodate electronic warfare systems. For example, in Krasukha (electronic warfare system), I believe the vehicle’s operational range is being used for the effective range of the jamming systems. In Draft:Bukovel (CUAS) I’ve used the effective ranged-weapon for these, with write-in labels, but the label “firing range” is not appropriate. EW and observation systems could have separate ranges for detection, identification, observation, and effects such as snooping or jamming. — Michael Z. 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Where in the infobox should one list the supplier/owner of said weapon? E.g., on articles where the "designer" and "manufacturer" are not the same, it might not be clear to the reader to whom the product belongs. I would appreciate your help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.71.102 ( talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Many weapons are named for (or "in honor of", etc.) people or things (ex: M1 Garand after John C. Garand, Pershing II missile after John Pershing, the R-36 "Satan" missile after Satan). I would argue that these name origins are usually interesting and worthy of discussion.
Can a "named for" field be added to this infobox? Quohx ( talk) 05:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
What do you think of adding a status field, such as "in development" /info/en/?search=AIM-260_JATM, retired, not in use, etc... Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don´t know whether this was discussed before but is there any chance to include grooves, lands, and twists in the infobox? Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 13:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there any problem with rearranging the fields in the blank template to separate out the missile/torpedo specs? This would reduce the picking about when applying the template to a ground vehicle. It may be possible to separate out another “ground vehicles only” group to make things easier for missile editors, but I don't have the experience to do this.
Any objection to rearranging the last section of fields as follows? Any suggestions for further refinement? — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 23:22 z
<!-- Vehicle/missile specifications --> |armour= |primary_armament= |secondary_armament= |engine= |engine_power= |pw_ratio= |transmission= |payload_capacity= |suspension= |clearance= |fuel_capacity= |vehicle_range= |speed= |guidance= |steering= <!-- missiles only --> |wingspan= |propellant= |ceiling= |altitude= |depth= |boost= |accuracy= |launch_platform= |transport=
Drones requires similar parameters. Could someone edit the page accordingly ? Yug (talk) 🐲 19:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
cartridge – optional – for firearms or artillery, the type(s) of cartridge or shell used.
cartridge_weight – optional – for firearms or artillery, the mass of the cartridge or shell used.
What the heck is "type(s) of cartridge or shell used"? Confusing cartridge and shell is a very bad idea, as is using s--tty data uploaded to Wikidata by a user who have been refusing to change anything (but I still hope to convince them on their UP). Putting aside the latter issue for a while, I propose that we specify unambiguously that if the cartridge used by the weapon features a projectile and a case, the type should be specified in either the N×NN mm (R/B/Rb) format or as .nn(n) Xxx... for both firearms and artillery. And cartridge_weight should mean exclusively the weight of a whole such cartridge, ready to use, because it matters in military logistics even if it doesn't interest a lot of weaponry enthusiasts (if you believe that would be excessive, I am ready to discuss your arguments).
I also propose that a different parameter "projectile_weight" be introduced for that very projectile for which the muzzle velocity is specified. Since the cartridge weight usually varies with the projectile, it also should be specified for the same projectile and muzzle velocity. That's how we can reduce ambiguity and confusion caused by the inconsistent system now in place. Ain92 ( talk) 10:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Many weapons has a specified shelf life and i do think there should be an parameter for it 919181512a ( talk) 12:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an namesake parameter for weapons being named after a famous person or place (e.g Sherman Tank being named after William Tecumseh Sherman). 5.57.244.47 ( talk) 12:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, wingspan is separated from the other dimensions. It doesn't make much sense, see HESA Shahed 136 for an example.
Would it be possible to move wingspan after diameter? The RedBurn ( ϕ) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Parameter "name" should be common name than formal same as name in lead and article name. Formal name should be in separate parameter below. Eurohunter ( talk) 19:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Currently there are no good parameter options for Rocket artillery, more specifically the rockets fired by said artillery. Closest options are:
I propose the addition of a field `fires_rockets` or even better, having a field called `ammo_type` so the label for cartridge and related info can be set manually if it differs from a default value.
DynCoder ( talk) 08:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The last time unit cost was discussed at this talk page dates back to 2007, and since then a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Not just everyone has been adding costs for historical weapons for a long time, but what I am seeing now (e. g. at M26 Pershing) is a unit cost with year wrapped in Template:US$. What do colleagues think about that? I believe we have to change the documentation to reflect the actual usage. Ain92 ( talk) 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I've moved wingspan after diameter in the sandbox. Here's the result: Template:Infobox weapon/testcases The RedBurn ( ϕ) 06:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Infobox_weapon/Archive_1#wingspan_->_after_diameter for reference.
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move wingspan after diameter. See Template_talk:Infobox_weapon#wingspan_->_after_diameter, the change is already done in the sandbox. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 06:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there no option for the UK English spelling "calibre"? I could have sworn there was... 84.65.59.217 ( talk) 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How do we determine service duration? There are numerous examples of military equipment being used by wealthy powerful nations first, and then passed on to smaller ones after the nation which developed them has replaced them (the AK-47 is probably the best example). Can we have multiple service durations or perhaps a 'foreign use' line added?
This might also be useful for equipment like the M22 Locust which was never actually used by the nation which designed and produced it. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think these definitely fall under "weapons". I'd like to add some lines for them unless there is an objection. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to shrink this? All of the other infoboxes seem to get away with 100%, and I'm not sure that making it less readable is really a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There are proposals to merge template:firearm and template:weapon-firearm into this template. Discuss. Circeus 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I am doing clean up related to disambiguation of "Shell". I would like to change this template so that it links to "Shell (projectile)" instead of "Shell", but was afraid of potentially damaging the template. I didn't know if it was as simple as just changing it, since this template seems rather complicated by my standards. Would someone who knows this template well please consider making this change? Your effort would be much appreciated. Thanks -- Brian G 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Katyusha | |
---|---|
Type | Multiple rocket launcher |
Place of origin | Soviet Union |
Service history | |
In service | 1939– |
Used by | Soviet Union and others |
Production history | |
Variants | BM-13, BM-8, BM-31, BM-14, BM-21, BM-24, BM-25, BM-27, BM-30 |
I'd like to use this box in Katyusha, to graphically tie the article in with other weapon articles, frame the lead image, and offer the barest minimum of information. The article is an umbrella covering a class of weapon systems, and even entering a range of specifications isn't possible. Can this template be displayed without the "Specifications" header? — Michael Z. 2006-08-05 15:42 Z
Qing Buqiang Zu QBZ-95 Light Rifle Family | |
---|---|
Type | Assault rifle |
Place of origin | China |
Service history | |
Used by | People's Republic of China |
Specifications | |
Cartridge |
5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95), 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97) |
Caliber |
5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95), 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97) |
Is there really a difference between caliber and cartridge? I'm using here an example from the QBZ-95 article. Maybe these two should just be merged or one of them should be cut (preferably "Caliber"). -- Ravenstorm 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
For vehicle weapons with armor any article using this template is forced to use british spelling even if every other spelling in the article is american spelling. I suggest incorporating a second input for the template for just "Armor" rather than "Armour". This way american articles can retain spelling. Edit: as an example M1 Abrams. Ergzay 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
is_UK
flag that's already in place to handle such things; that particular label just wasn't configured to use it properly.
Kirill Lokshin
00:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Is there a recommended way to indicate information source? A footnote or external link after a figure makes sense, but in some cases it would be nice to cite a single source or two for the entire infobox. — Michael Z. 2007-05-15 19:33 Z
I have been creating and updating quite a few armored vehicle articles lately ( Cheetah MMPV, Grizzly APC, International FTTS, and I have a few suggestions for the vehicle portion of this infobox. Many of these vehicles straddle the line between weapon and automobile. I think more categories are necessary. Many of these are found in the automobile infobox, however, as these are military vehicles, the weapon infobox seems the most appropriate. However, I think some categories from the automotible infobox should be incorporated into the weapon infobox vehicle section. The most important of these would be "related" followed by "Ground clearance", "fuel capacity", and "transmission". Others that would be helpful with regard to military vehicles would be: approach angle, departure angle, and payload capacity. Reasons stated below.
What do you all think of these suggestions? Tmaull 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmaull ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
I was wondering if we could alternate the row colours, like on Template:AFV. There may be a problem, considering that many rows may not be filled, but that probably can be solved with clever syntaxing. Also, I think the font can be reduced a bit. That makes it more attractive than what we have now.
I also think that for the Vehicles, the category name can be shown, like on Template:AFV (which IMO is much better looking)- so we would be able to see Mobility, Propulsion, Armor, etc. In this one, theres nothing of the sort, which makes it uninformative. Sniperz11 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
When talking about WW2 vehicles in particular, the use of captured materials was widespread, with KVs, T-34s and Komsomolets tractors all serving in the German army, and T-28s and BT-5s serving with the Finns. Should we strive to document all such occurrences under the heading? Some of them were very minor indeed, limited to a handful of vehicles (Shermans in German use, for example), and I am concerned it'd be seen as nitpicking. -- Agamemnon2 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The infobox represents a weapon in general, but often the specifications must refer to a specific variant. For example, the infobox for the T-34 medium tank refers to the entire 55-year plus career of both the T-34 and T-34-85 tank, but the specifications refer specifically to the T-34 model 1943. I suppose in some cases a range might be entered for varying values, but that wouldn't be appropriate here.
It would be nice to be able to add a qualifier to the specifications table sub-header for such cases. For example, "Specifications (T-34 Model 1943)". — Michael Z. 2007-06-02 18:32 Z
spec_label=
parameter that will provide that.
Kirill Lokshin
19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Tangential to my query above, should every country to use a given weapon be listed? Only the most noteworthy? Simply say "Various, see below"? For vehicles such as the T-34 or the Sherman, used by dozens of countries over the period of several decades this is an important consideration. My gut feeling is that anything above 5-6 countries is pushing it, but on the other hand, I like the visual element of a "user list", particularly since it's my habit to format such lists by using Template:flagcountry as a visual aid. -- Agamemnon2 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this include a field for number of "barrels", "tubes", "rails" or "launchers" in the Artillery specifications section? I haven't thought through all of the implications, but this could be useful for multiple rocket launchers, gatling guns and chain guns, antiaircraft weapons, and some oddball artillery pieces. Example at BM-27. — Michael Z. 2007-08-17 04:29 Z
barrels=
as a parameter for ranged weapons (c.f. pepperbox pistol) & artillery.
Kirill
17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Thank you.
I think it works on artillery pieces like the BM-27, etc, without the field "primary armament". It is a weapon, rather than being an AFV armed with one or more weapons. If it had a self-defence machine gun, I would just add secondary armament, without the primary. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 18:23 Z
I feel it would be useful to have additional info fields for cartridge specs such as propellant type, quantity, primer type, fixed or separate loading round, bagged or cartridge case... but when I think of howitzer ammo where we have say 3 types of loading this could get messy. Or should I be using Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge to describe the ammunition used by a particular artillary piece instead ? But even that doesn't appear to provide for propellant nature and quantity e.g. cordite 8 oz. Rcbutcher 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we rename the "Cartridge" field to something like "Ammo"? This infobox is used on articles for old weapons like muskets that didn't use cartridges. If not, could we add a new field that would be used exclusively by non-cartridge firearms? -- Philip Laurence 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a new field for weapons that were standard issue like rifles and pistols. As an example, with the M1 Garand infobox in the "type" field we remove "service rifle" and put what it was, a "semi-automatic rifle" and then put the united states and years in the service field. Something along those lines. -- Philip Laurence ( talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have two proposals as to what is missing from the vehicle specifications: vehicle's ground pressure and type of traction. Many sources give vehicle's ground pressure which is measured in kg/cm². Also the type of traction would be useful (tracked, wheeled or mixed as in case M3 or sdkfz 251 APCs). As of now the type of traction is included in the type section (for example tracked APC) but it makes the type section unnecessarily long so it would better if traction would have it's own section. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
how does it work with an artillery piece such as the QF 25 pounder? GraemeLeggett 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
is_artillery=yes
; there's a full field correspondence table listed
here that gives the exact conversion to use after that.
Kirill Lokshin
12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)is_ranged
and is_artillery
set for the more unusual variations on that, depending on which fields we want them to have.
Kirill Lokshin
14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)A minor issue. When is_ranged
is set, part_length
parameter displays as Barrel length; is_artillery
however does not have the same effect, part_length
displays simply as length (e.g. see the aforementioned
QF 25 pounder). Is it a bug or should both parameters be set for artillery ?
Bukvoed
16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding the box to some naval guns (artillery) and found many of them specified a traverse and elevation speed. It seems like a sensible measure, could we add this to the artillery section? Oh yes and a projectile weight? -- Deon Steyn 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did this with the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 MLRS as an example when I set the is_artillery code to yes as well. Ominae ( talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox_Aircraft has a unit cost field, as does Template:Infobox_Missile. Would there be any objections to my adding it to this template, as well? TerraFrost 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
unit_cost=
.
Kirill Lokshin
02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)It would be nice if this template had a location field as well when that is relevant, like say in Tsar Bomba for geographic coordinates (so we can get rid of the terrible hack that is currently more or less in use) -- IceHunter ( talk) 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
These infoboxes can be used for missiles:
Infobox Weapon is the more mature and better featured infobox, but is missing a few fields:
I think that with these additions, Infobox Weapon would cover all of the items needed for a missile system. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
wingspan=
ceiling=
altitude=
launch_platform=
accuracy=
type=
guidance=
propellant=
Thanks. Max boost is the max time that the engine(s) will run; steering is the actual system used to steer the missile, such as air vanes, jet vanes, vector control nozzle; prime mover is the vehicle that transports the missile, if separate from the launch platform. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
boost=
steering=
transport=
I think we can remove the break on boost time; see Redstone (rocket). --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! For missiles : Is it possible to allow wingspan? Thanks, -- Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Has someone tampered with the font size and style settings in the infobox recently? Had it show up smaller and more tightly condensed than normal for a day and assumed it was done here, but I cannot find any edits relating to this. Has anyone else experienced the same problem? Koalorka ( talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
... but I've been bending my brain for months now and I've finally decided to ask for some help (yes, I'm a proud bugger) and I don't know where else to go. I've been trying to put together a wiki as kind of a hobby for some time and, let's face it, a brainiac I ain't. My problem is outlined here and basically boils down to this: how the hell do I suppress rows where the value is nada?????
I'm sorry to do this here and yes, I suspect I'm violating some kind of etiquette... thing... or something, but I'm at the end of my rope, guys..... :(
Sorry to bug ya. Grugnir ( talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes the infobox's function is abused, in good faith. I'd like to add some advice for its use:
spec_label
parameter, instead of listing multiple data items in one field.Any comments or objections? — Michael Z. 2008-10-01 16:35 z
For Task Force consideration, I propose that an optional parameter of a bladed weapon be some statement about its scabbard (for swords) or its sheath (for short-bladed weapons such as knives, daggers, bayonets). Jack Bethune 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
sheath_type
;-)
Kirill Lokshin
21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)I think blade hardness might be a useful optional property to add to this template in the bladed weapon section. It is a property that is mentioned in modern knife advertising, so it wouldn't be very useful for centuries-old swords, for instance. There are articles on specific knife models, where it would apply. My background is in materials science and I would make the addition myself, but I don't know enough about templates.-- TDogg310 ( talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Having done a lot of artillery articles it would be nice if I could use display shell weight as part of the infobox if I don't want to take the time to lay out a table covering all the ammo used by that particular weapon. Explosive weight covers only the filling used by the shell. Differentiating between HE and AP would be nice, but I can always split that out manually on separate lines. Something like: | shell_wt = Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
cartridge_weight=
(to match the existing cartridge=
parameter); please try it out let me know if anything doesn't work properly.
Kirill
[pf]
02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The armor line in the general infobox is pretty limited. How about creating something to concisely display the detailed armor layout of a vehicle? It would need to differentiate between turret and non-turret vehicles to suppress the display of turreted parameters for non-turreted vehicles. It should have the convert template built in so that people can simply place the numbers and units as appropriate, although that might require a link to the convert template page for people who don't use that template, but I'd really like to avoid having to type it out each time. It should also show slope in ° from vertical or horizontal to cater to the differing US and European conventions on calculating slope. It would be nice to be able to specify which side it displays on to avoid unnecessary scroll-downs on short articles.
Perhaps something like (more focused on necessary information than graphic layout):
Name (model)
Turreted
turret front/side/rear
gun mantlet
superstructure front/side/rear
upper glacis
lower glacis
hull side/rear
Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to be able to borrow the data for elevation and traverse from the artillery section for AFVs, particularly for self-propelled guns. You can currently do this if you set artillery=yes, but it looks a little odd as it sets them off in their own little section. You can see an example in the Panzerjäger I article I'm working on.
I'd also like to show fording depth, trench crossing, obstacle height and maximum grade information in the infobox. Some might argue that the infobox is supposed to briefly summarize the vehicle's data, but I much prefer to show all that data neatly organized and standardized in the infobox rather than in some lengthy detailed specification section that often duplicates some of the contents the infobox. Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion as to whether Template:Infobox Rocket ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) might be better to cover missiles. Please see this discussion page -- G W … 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A little bit of leaping before looking here: caliber had been a little confusing regarding the meaning in firearms versus the meaning in artillery, plus the blur of sundry other meanings mixed in. So, I split off the artillery meaning to caliber (artillery) (after a note on Talk:Caliber). Now I'm looking to resolve the linking from the weapon infobox. Any pointers? ENeville ( talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If the calibre (I'm English) of a gun is described in imperial units, is it correct to also have a metric conversion? If so, what precision should be used?
I'm thinking of the article
BL 7.2 inch Howitzer Mk.I, where the infobox has:
|caliber= {{convert|7.2|in|mm}}
which shows as 7.2 inches (180 mm). However, I consider that a misleading conversion: it implies an exact metric calibre, whereas using a more precise conversion (3 decimal places) would show 7.2 inches (182.880 mm). A back conversion (also to 3 dp) shows that the calibre cannot have been exactly 180 mm (7.087 in) because this doesn't tally with the description of the piece as a "7.2 inch Howitzer"; so, what is policy? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ Convert}} automatically rounds according to the precision of the input. It does so to show that it's not an exact conversion which makes sense for measurements but these are specifications where false precision is not the problem. JIMp talk· cont 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is now displaying some markup before the infobox:
Light Tank M24 |
---|
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Has there ever been any discussion about adding a "fire modes" section to this? This would be helpful, particularly for rifles. It would denote whether they were Semi-Auto, Full-Auto, Burst, etc. Thoughts?? Zackmann08 ( talk) 02:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice a few little flag icons popping up in some articles in the origin= field. In most other areas of the project this use is deprecated as it adds nothing in terms of meaning and unnecessarily emphasises nationality. WP:FLAGS is a shortcut to the manual of style page that explains in more detail when flags are likely to be useful. I therefore propose to remove, for example, the flag on Tiger II. If anyone has any good encyclopedic reasons for keeping flags used like this, this would be a good time to say them. Thanks, -- John ( talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Taken from User talk:Vladimir Historian#Flagicons:
Hi Vladimir Historian, you stipulated "Several editors advised me not to use the national flags in the vehicle infoboxes as senseless info. I agreed." and you removed the flagicon... Why was that? Who are those editors? As part of the Weaponry Task Force, we advise to use flagicons and their template such as: {{Template:RUS}} or {{flagcountry|Russia}}. Thanks, and have a good day! -- ŦħęGɛя㎥ 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken from User_talk:TheGerm#Flag icons:
Hi. The consensus so far has been not to decorate AFV infoboxes with flag icons, as per WP:FLAGCRUFT#Help the reader rather than decorate. I notice you cite WP:WEAPON in your edit summaries, but I see nothing there but some examples without flags. — Michael Z. 2008-09-01 03:44 z
Vehicles that have turrets need to have their height recalculated because the current height values are both the Hull and the Turret combined.-- Arima ( talk) 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Any guideline should this template be used for military trucks, or should Template:Infobox automobile be used instead? Sisu A2045 is with the weapon template whereas Sisu SA-150 with the automobile template. -- Gwafton ( talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the addition of the parameter ground pressure, very important characteristic of any armoured tracked vehicle. Cainamarques ( talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't rifling one of the specifications with artilery and ranged firearms (e.g. Rifling: 4-groove right-hand twist)? M11rtinb ( talk) 11:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M11rtinb ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Infobox should contain some new categories like |Protection that could be further branched into |active and |passive.
Many new modern complex weapons systems have some form of protections that does not come under term Armour in classical sense like steel armor plates. For example smoke grenade launchers are form of passive protection and not armament nor armor, etc...
Loesorion ( talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
At the moment the 'is_UK' parameter serves to display the appropriate spelling armour/armor and caliber/caliber. Since - although documented - this is open to misinterpretation/confusion, what would it take to shift it to something like "is_British-English"?
I presume that one could introduce the parameter as an synonym calling the same function, as in the project template where "British=yes" is a shorthand verison of "British-task-force=". And then once that was shown to work, then go through and change the parameter name to the other.
Is that desirable/feasible GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe a "Drive" option should be added to the vehicle specifications options. By this I mean 4x2, 4x4, 6×4, 6x6 or tracked etc. Currently for vehicles this is usually listed under suspension and occasionally transmission which is not satisfactory. What are others thoughts? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 06:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All I have done is changed the "weight" section to "mass". Weight is not the same as mass, but this parameter is designed for the mass. I’ve implemented this to the sandbox. IWI ( chat) 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I came across this template while trying to help someone having problems with it at
WP:THQ#Infobox not displaying correct information (the sandbox draft can now be found at
Draft:T23 armored car). Has |primary_weapon=
been deprecated or otherwise changed? Perhaps it's no longer a recognized alias? It's listed as an optional parameter on the documentation page, but it doesn't seem to be displaying when used. Maybe someone can help sort this out? Thanks in advance. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Marchjuly I'm having the same issue and it would really be good if someone could give a solution. KhakePakeVatan ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add a "Drive" parameter to the Vehicle/Missile section of the Infobox. The description should be along the lines of:
Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 01:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC).
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the 'Speed' parameter: Perhaps a naming change from 'Speed' to 'Maximum speed' or something similar would be clearer Rebestalic [dubious—discuss] 00:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Towed artillery pieces have specific maximum towing speeds, so I would suggest adding a 'Towing speed' parametre to the artillery category, which would describe the maximum towing speed of the artillery piece in question, without having to use the vehicle subcategory. The description on the documentation subpage would be "for artillery, the maximum towing speed of the piece". I suppose this is a rather uncontroversial request, it shouldn't cause any issues. -- XoravaX ( talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Could ground clearance be referenced on this template? Peter Horn User talk 18:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Did everything asked, still won't work Farbne ( talk) 06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Current auto-generated short descriptions:
Is "Type of" really needed in these articles' short descriptions? At the very least, the information pulled from the infobox should be made lowercase. — Goszei ( talk) 01:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
When ever anybody here is in discussion about changes of these kind of templates: Please keep in mind, that these items are part of international systematics. In this case refer to wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8416150
Best -- Tom ( talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The parameter |is_UK=yes is used to set the spelling of armour, calibre as required for various articles to match the spelling form used in the article text. Is it possible to replace/amend/extend this so the param could be more intuitively obvious. EG using param called "|spelling=BE" or some such which controls the spelling?
I would presume this alternate trigger could be added and then over time articles could be updated to replace the |is_UK.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
12:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This template could better accommodate electronic warfare systems. For example, in Krasukha (electronic warfare system), I believe the vehicle’s operational range is being used for the effective range of the jamming systems. In Draft:Bukovel (CUAS) I’ve used the effective ranged-weapon for these, with write-in labels, but the label “firing range” is not appropriate. EW and observation systems could have separate ranges for detection, identification, observation, and effects such as snooping or jamming. — Michael Z. 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Where in the infobox should one list the supplier/owner of said weapon? E.g., on articles where the "designer" and "manufacturer" are not the same, it might not be clear to the reader to whom the product belongs. I would appreciate your help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.71.102 ( talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Many weapons are named for (or "in honor of", etc.) people or things (ex: M1 Garand after John C. Garand, Pershing II missile after John Pershing, the R-36 "Satan" missile after Satan). I would argue that these name origins are usually interesting and worthy of discussion.
Can a "named for" field be added to this infobox? Quohx ( talk) 05:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
What do you think of adding a status field, such as "in development" /info/en/?search=AIM-260_JATM, retired, not in use, etc... Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don´t know whether this was discussed before but is there any chance to include grooves, lands, and twists in the infobox? Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 13:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there any problem with rearranging the fields in the blank template to separate out the missile/torpedo specs? This would reduce the picking about when applying the template to a ground vehicle. It may be possible to separate out another “ground vehicles only” group to make things easier for missile editors, but I don't have the experience to do this.
Any objection to rearranging the last section of fields as follows? Any suggestions for further refinement? — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 23:22 z
<!-- Vehicle/missile specifications --> |armour= |primary_armament= |secondary_armament= |engine= |engine_power= |pw_ratio= |transmission= |payload_capacity= |suspension= |clearance= |fuel_capacity= |vehicle_range= |speed= |guidance= |steering= <!-- missiles only --> |wingspan= |propellant= |ceiling= |altitude= |depth= |boost= |accuracy= |launch_platform= |transport=
Drones requires similar parameters. Could someone edit the page accordingly ? Yug (talk) 🐲 19:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
cartridge – optional – for firearms or artillery, the type(s) of cartridge or shell used.
cartridge_weight – optional – for firearms or artillery, the mass of the cartridge or shell used.
What the heck is "type(s) of cartridge or shell used"? Confusing cartridge and shell is a very bad idea, as is using s--tty data uploaded to Wikidata by a user who have been refusing to change anything (but I still hope to convince them on their UP). Putting aside the latter issue for a while, I propose that we specify unambiguously that if the cartridge used by the weapon features a projectile and a case, the type should be specified in either the N×NN mm (R/B/Rb) format or as .nn(n) Xxx... for both firearms and artillery. And cartridge_weight should mean exclusively the weight of a whole such cartridge, ready to use, because it matters in military logistics even if it doesn't interest a lot of weaponry enthusiasts (if you believe that would be excessive, I am ready to discuss your arguments).
I also propose that a different parameter "projectile_weight" be introduced for that very projectile for which the muzzle velocity is specified. Since the cartridge weight usually varies with the projectile, it also should be specified for the same projectile and muzzle velocity. That's how we can reduce ambiguity and confusion caused by the inconsistent system now in place. Ain92 ( talk) 10:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Many weapons has a specified shelf life and i do think there should be an parameter for it 919181512a ( talk) 12:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an namesake parameter for weapons being named after a famous person or place (e.g Sherman Tank being named after William Tecumseh Sherman). 5.57.244.47 ( talk) 12:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, wingspan is separated from the other dimensions. It doesn't make much sense, see HESA Shahed 136 for an example.
Would it be possible to move wingspan after diameter? The RedBurn ( ϕ) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Parameter "name" should be common name than formal same as name in lead and article name. Formal name should be in separate parameter below. Eurohunter ( talk) 19:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Currently there are no good parameter options for Rocket artillery, more specifically the rockets fired by said artillery. Closest options are:
I propose the addition of a field `fires_rockets` or even better, having a field called `ammo_type` so the label for cartridge and related info can be set manually if it differs from a default value.
DynCoder ( talk) 08:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The last time unit cost was discussed at this talk page dates back to 2007, and since then a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Not just everyone has been adding costs for historical weapons for a long time, but what I am seeing now (e. g. at M26 Pershing) is a unit cost with year wrapped in Template:US$. What do colleagues think about that? I believe we have to change the documentation to reflect the actual usage. Ain92 ( talk) 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I've moved wingspan after diameter in the sandbox. Here's the result: Template:Infobox weapon/testcases The RedBurn ( ϕ) 06:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Infobox_weapon/Archive_1#wingspan_->_after_diameter for reference.
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move wingspan after diameter. See Template_talk:Infobox_weapon#wingspan_->_after_diameter, the change is already done in the sandbox. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 06:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there no option for the UK English spelling "calibre"? I could have sworn there was... 84.65.59.217 ( talk) 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)