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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There's a gap in weapons "by time period" between medieval and WWII - quite a big gap really! The "List of Medieval" has had items removed due to not being in the "medieval" time period. Suggestions for additional time period lists? (pre-WWI the lists will probably be regional as well, such as "Japanese Feudal Period") -- Medains 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There don't seem to be any really good images to use; most weapon pictures aren't recognizable at 40px. I've used a halfway-decent picture of some halberds for the time being; but it would be great if anyone could dig up something a bit more striking. Kirill Lokshin 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain of the scope of this project. What weapons does it cover? Does it consider things like tanks to be weapons? Oberiko 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Any assistance you can give to Cannons in the Age of Sail is appreciated. This will be a horrible, broad subject, but needed to get started... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
We currently have a bunch of different infoboxes for firearms floating around ({{ Weapon-firearm}}, {{ Firearm}}, {{ Infobox firearm}}), so I've started a draft attempt (at {{ Infobox Weapon}}) to consolidate them using the new capability for optional fields. Below is a draft, taken using the data from M1 Garand:
M1 Garand | |
---|---|
Type | Service rifle |
Place of origin | United States of America |
Service history | |
In service | 1936–1957 |
Wars |
World War II, Korean War |
Production history | |
Designer | John C. Garand |
Designed | 1924 |
No. built | 5.4 million approx. |
Variants | M1C/D sniper rifle |
Specifications | |
Mass | 4.3 kg (9 lb 10 oz) |
Length | 1,100 mm (43.6 in) |
Barrel length | 610 mm (24 in) |
Cartridge |
.30-06 Springfield (7.62 × 63 mm), .276 Pedersen, 7.62 × 51 mm NATO (U.S. Navy) |
Action | Gas-operated, rotating bolt |
Rate of fire | Semi-automatic |
Muzzle velocity | 865 m/s (2,837 ft/s) |
Effective firing range | 550 m (601 yd) |
Maximum firing range | 2,743 m (3,000 yd) |
Feed system | 8-round "en bloc"
clip (
.30-06); 10-round "en bloc" clip ( .276) |
Sights | Aperture rear sight, barleycorn-type front sight |
Comments? Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
British No. 69 | |
---|---|
Type | Anti-personnel grenade |
Place of origin | United Kingdom |
Service history | |
In service | December 1940 - 1945 |
Production history | |
Designed | 1940 |
No. built | Many thousands |
Variants | Mk. 1 |
Specifications | |
Mass | 383 g |
Length | 114 mm |
Diameter | 60 mm |
Filling | High explosive |
Filling weight | 92 g |
Detonation mechanism | Impact |
Okay, I've merged in a bunch of relevant fields; a full description of the options is given on {{ Infobox Weapon}}. Aside from the rifle example above, there's one for a grenade at right.
The new infobox can now replace the following infoboxes (using the listed field correspondence):
Comments? Are there any obvious flaws with this design, or can we start rolling it out? Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to show up late. Just a few comments, based on my work redesigning {{
tank}} and building {{
AFV}}:
— Michael Z. 2006-07-13 16:52 Z
The problem with info boxes is coping with non-standard information. With planes,boats and firearms (rifles, pistols - etc.) there is always a fairly standard set of information. However larger calibre weapons - for example grenade launchers, cannons, rocket launchers are more complex. Take a look at these examples:
What's the plan for these kind of pages ?
Should we go ahead and start doing some conversions? Or are there any significant issues with the new template that haven't been resolved yet? Kirill Lokshin 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have started using this infobox (to convert from other templates and infobox or simply to replace manual html or wiki tables) on the following pages:
Ak 4,
Ak 5,
Beretta 93R,
MP40,
Five-seveN,
FN P90, Heckler & Koch (
UMP/
MP5/
MP5K/
G3/
PSG1/
VP70/
MP7/
P7)
Rheinmetall MG3,
MG42,
MG42,
MG34,
MG30,
MAC-10,
Rk 62,
R4 assault rifle,
SIG 552,
SIG 550,
Steyr AUG,
Type 97 Sniper Rifle,
TT-33,
Makarov PM,
M60 machine gun,
Dragunov Sniper Rifle,
Vz 61,
FN FNC,
Walther PPK/
P88/
WA2000 and
Uzi submachine gun. Tomorrow I will tackle some more and step work on some
land mines :) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Deon Steyn (
talk •
contribs)
Just noticed that in the 37 mm gun M3 article (perhaps in some other articles too ?) the length of the gun appears in the infobox, but the width and the height remained in the text, since infobox doesn't have fields for width and height. It would be better to have these characteristics in the same place IMHO. Bukvoed 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As per general approval on that project's talk page, I have merged it into this task force. I've salvaged some of the material that's still relevant (mostly the lists of weapons); the other, older stuff, I've archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/General weaponry discussion, in case we ever need to refer back to it. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone here doesn't know about it, Template:AFV is used for tanks, APCs, armoured cars, etc. It replaced the older Template:Tank at the end of 2005. — Michael Z. 2006-07-03 20:11 Z
T-34 is a candidate for featured article. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-34/archive1. — Michael Z. 2006-07-05 00:48 Z
Newly-created Category:Inter-war tanks. — Michael Z. 2006-07-05 18:19 Z
The Fajr-3 rocket is reported as being both a 1,200-mi range ballistic missile, and as a 45-mi range multiple-launch artillery rocket being fired by Hezbollah into Israel (see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict), both supposedly of Iranian origin. Anyone know the facts, or can clean up the article about the rocket? — Michael Z. 2006-07-17 19:54 Z
Hi, I thought this would be the best place find "expert" comments on a dispute about an introductory sentence for the Sniper rifle article (which I recently expanded and cleaned up extensively). Please see the discussion ( Talk:Sniper rifle#Intro ) and tell me if I'm crazy and what I should do next. Should I mark the article for peer review or a collaborative effort, I haven't reviewed an article myself, but I think this one is reasonably important? Deon Steyn 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Qwasty has been making some sweeping changes to the article, and I can't say they're for the better. He's started going on about Gadget Guns and ".22 sniper rifles", and once again the whole thing is straying into James Bond/Tom Clancy territory with talk of guns designed purely for assassinations. I've suggested that a new article- Assassination Weapons- be created for all the information on suitcase-portable rifles, umbrella guns, and other stuff that belongs in a spy thriller novel, but he seems to think there's not enough info on them to justify a separate article. I think Qwasty may have a different idea of what a "Sniper" actually is than the rest of us- I certainly can't see how someone who hides behind a tree and shoots their target from 6ft away with a .22 rifle could be considered a "sniper". The article is already deteroriating into an edit war, so we may have to get it locked or something like that while the situation gets resolved... -- Commander Zulu 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new article, entitled Service Pistol. Obviously it's just a bare bones stublet at the moment, but I plan to expand it more over the next few days when I'm not at work... any help would be greatly appreciated! -- Commander Zulu 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you guys cover that?-- D-Boy 07:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about noting gun calibre in a format without a space, for example "155mm howitzer", in articles where it is appropriate. I'd like to gauge support for this here, and then propose it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
This has advantages where it can occur many times on the page (for example, millimetre measurements appear over fifty times in the featured article T-34):
This practice has precedent in literature about armoured fighting vehicles. It is found, for example:
Is this notation common in literature on small arms? Are there other common conventions? (In some publications I've seen centre dots for decimals and/or hyphenated units, e.g. "5·56-mm rifle")
Proposed wording:
This would belong at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. — Michael Z. 2006-07-25 23:40 Z
Not much response above. I'd like to gauge the level of acceptance for the 00mm format for gun calibres: not a formal vote, just a straw poll.
Who would take the time to vote in support of the wording above to be added to the Manual of Style?
I'd like to propose that we standardise on a single method for firearmm calibre nomenclature. For example, the 9mm Parabellum round used in huge numbers of semi-automatic handguns is also known as 9mm Luger, 9x19mm, and 9mm NATO, and all four designations pop up quite frequently throughout Wikipedia. This could be extremely confusing to the casual reader, or to people who are still learning about firearms (who may be wondering what this "old gun" they've just inherited or bought is chambered for) , and so it might be worthwhile to try and agree on a convention with regards to calibre naming.
My personal preference is to use the calibre's Commercial name where possible, albeit within reason. Using the 9mm Parabellum example above, the US Commerical name is "9mm Luger", but I'd use "9mm Parabellum" (or "9mm Para"), which is also a commercial name and clearly differentiates the cartridge used in the Luger or the Browning Hi-Power from similar 9mm cartridges, such as the 9mm Makarov and 9mm Largo.
The idea is to strike a balance between readability and technical accuracy (with the "technical" name going under the cartridge field on the infobox if appropriate), but of course, it's only a suggestion... thoughts? -- Commander Zulu 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer- I was referring to the fields in the infobox, not the article itself... obviously all the alternate names need to be mentioned in the article (which would be wikilinked through the infobox). -- Commander Zulu 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article Webley Revolver is currently undergoing the FAC process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver, and it's not doing too well- honestly, I find most of their objections to be trivial nitpicking and have suggested they might like to implement some of these suggestions themselves (aren't we supposed to Be Bold or something like that?), since I have to say the copyediting here is completely foreign to anything I've ever encountered as a published writer. If I break things up in natural paragraphs, people complain there's "too many paragraphs", and if I don't break them up then it's "hard to read". Then people are complaining about the fact some cites are inline and some are links to webpages, and quite frankly the whole exercise is incredibly frustrating- I could really use some help! -- Commander Zulu 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we set some guidelines about naming armoured fighting vehicles (and maybe firearms, aircraft, and other weapons too)?
Many articles about AFVs just have the vehicle's technical designation as their title. This has the advantage that the simplest possible name typed into the search field will go directly to the article. This can become very ambiguous because AFVs, firearms, rockets, aircraft, can all have similar names. For example, see the disambiguation page M60, which includes four pieces of military equipment. Examples:
Others have a more descriptive name, because it is the official name, or because it is necessary for disambiguation, or just because. This has the advantage that when a reader sees the title, say on a category page or in a list, the nature of the subject is much more evident. It also pre-empts any debates regarding disambiguation (e.g. T-38 light amphibious tank vs. Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer). Examples:
Keep in mind that some of these articles are about a very specific variant of a model, and others are about a small or large family of vehicles (e.g. BT tank), or also cover a few specific variants. Many have alternate names: model numbers, official honorific names, nicknames, industrial designations, etc.
In cases where there is no obvious best title, should we prefer to use the simplest possible name (e.g. T-34), or a more descriptive name ( T-34 medium tank). Should it be capitalized as a proper name ( T-34 Medium Tank) or not? Of course, every article would have redirects or disambiguation links from all the different possible names for its subject.
I used to be of a mind to keep titles as simple as possible. But now I'm thinking that they should all be converted to something more descriptive, so that a reader can tell what an article is about from the title alone (see "Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines"). — Michael Z. 2006-08-03 06:04 Z
I've taken a bit more of a look at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and some subordinate guidelines. A summary of the principals:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
I also looked at the related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) for aircraft models, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) (which concerns proper names of individual craft, not models or series, but see also #Ship classes), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (rockets), currently in development.
While these hardware names tend to remain fairly terse and avoid descriptions of the subject, they do include a certain amount of specific information in addition to the bare model name or title. In addition to the model number, aircraft article titles include the manufacturer or name, or both: Boeing 707, F-15 Eagle, Hawker Hurricane. Missiles follow like conventions, and rockets may be going in a similar direction. Ships often, but not always, have a prefix, or descriptive which includes origin and basic type: Niña, RMS Titanic, Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. Ship classes are named [name]-class-[type]: Ohio class submarine.
Modern conventional names are used when they differ from historic names ( HMS Royal Charles, and not English ship Royal Charles). The normal rules for disambiguation apply: Santa María (ship).
Proposal: so in light of these comparable Wikipedia conventions, and in the interest of an article identifying its subject clearly to unfamiliar readers, I'm informally proposing for discussion the idea that AFV articles should be named they way they might be written out as the first casual mention in an article on some other subject: unambiguous but terse: with either a model number and name ( M1 Abrams), manufacturer and name ( Alvis Stormer), or a model number and terse descriptive ( T-34 tank, not T-34 medium tank).
Of course, common names and common sense should prevail. Redirects from model numbers and alternate names should also be created: T-34, M1 tank, Abrams tank.
My rough estimate is that at least half of AFV article titles already conform to this proposal. See, for example, Category:Armored cars: Alvis Saladin, Austin Armoured Car, Coventry armoured car, Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle are somewhat self-explanatory or familiar, or at least specific, but BRDM-1, BRDM-2, BTR-4, LAV-25, and VBC-90 are puzzling to the casual reader, and possibly even the dedicated armour buff, if he hasn't heard of an obscure vehicle.
I would call this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fighting vehicles)—they're not necessarily armoured, as the Katyusha MRLs, and I'm not proposing a broader "(military vehicles)" guideline, because I haven't had a detailed look at utility trucks, etc. Any thoughts, before I write a proposed guideline? — Michael Z. 2006-08-15 18:39 Z
First draft is at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles). Please comment there. —
Michael
Z. 2006-08-15 20:37 Z
The Lee-Enfield article is coming along nicely, but I have to confess I'm starting to run into difficulties and would like some help from knowledgeable people on a few things, which are outlined on the article's talk page. If anyone's got a spare moment, perhaps they could drop by and lend a hand or voice their opinions? -- Commander Zulu 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that the old infoboxes have all been converted (much thanks to Grafikm!), do we need to keep them around? Or can we list them for deletion? Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How about adding a prominent note to the templates, advertising themselves as obsolete? — Michael Z. 2006-08-08 17:14 Z
Incidentally, what about {{ Weapon-missile}} ??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So does anyone else care what we do with these? Kirill Lokshin 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
is there a way we can tag articles that can take the weapon infobox (Like T-12 antitank gun which I just came across) for later attention? GraemeLeggett 10:11, 9 August 2006 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There's a gap in weapons "by time period" between medieval and WWII - quite a big gap really! The "List of Medieval" has had items removed due to not being in the "medieval" time period. Suggestions for additional time period lists? (pre-WWI the lists will probably be regional as well, such as "Japanese Feudal Period") -- Medains 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There don't seem to be any really good images to use; most weapon pictures aren't recognizable at 40px. I've used a halfway-decent picture of some halberds for the time being; but it would be great if anyone could dig up something a bit more striking. Kirill Lokshin 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain of the scope of this project. What weapons does it cover? Does it consider things like tanks to be weapons? Oberiko 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Any assistance you can give to Cannons in the Age of Sail is appreciated. This will be a horrible, broad subject, but needed to get started... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
We currently have a bunch of different infoboxes for firearms floating around ({{ Weapon-firearm}}, {{ Firearm}}, {{ Infobox firearm}}), so I've started a draft attempt (at {{ Infobox Weapon}}) to consolidate them using the new capability for optional fields. Below is a draft, taken using the data from M1 Garand:
M1 Garand | |
---|---|
Type | Service rifle |
Place of origin | United States of America |
Service history | |
In service | 1936–1957 |
Wars |
World War II, Korean War |
Production history | |
Designer | John C. Garand |
Designed | 1924 |
No. built | 5.4 million approx. |
Variants | M1C/D sniper rifle |
Specifications | |
Mass | 4.3 kg (9 lb 10 oz) |
Length | 1,100 mm (43.6 in) |
Barrel length | 610 mm (24 in) |
Cartridge |
.30-06 Springfield (7.62 × 63 mm), .276 Pedersen, 7.62 × 51 mm NATO (U.S. Navy) |
Action | Gas-operated, rotating bolt |
Rate of fire | Semi-automatic |
Muzzle velocity | 865 m/s (2,837 ft/s) |
Effective firing range | 550 m (601 yd) |
Maximum firing range | 2,743 m (3,000 yd) |
Feed system | 8-round "en bloc"
clip (
.30-06); 10-round "en bloc" clip ( .276) |
Sights | Aperture rear sight, barleycorn-type front sight |
Comments? Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
British No. 69 | |
---|---|
Type | Anti-personnel grenade |
Place of origin | United Kingdom |
Service history | |
In service | December 1940 - 1945 |
Production history | |
Designed | 1940 |
No. built | Many thousands |
Variants | Mk. 1 |
Specifications | |
Mass | 383 g |
Length | 114 mm |
Diameter | 60 mm |
Filling | High explosive |
Filling weight | 92 g |
Detonation mechanism | Impact |
Okay, I've merged in a bunch of relevant fields; a full description of the options is given on {{ Infobox Weapon}}. Aside from the rifle example above, there's one for a grenade at right.
The new infobox can now replace the following infoboxes (using the listed field correspondence):
Comments? Are there any obvious flaws with this design, or can we start rolling it out? Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to show up late. Just a few comments, based on my work redesigning {{
tank}} and building {{
AFV}}:
— Michael Z. 2006-07-13 16:52 Z
The problem with info boxes is coping with non-standard information. With planes,boats and firearms (rifles, pistols - etc.) there is always a fairly standard set of information. However larger calibre weapons - for example grenade launchers, cannons, rocket launchers are more complex. Take a look at these examples:
What's the plan for these kind of pages ?
Should we go ahead and start doing some conversions? Or are there any significant issues with the new template that haven't been resolved yet? Kirill Lokshin 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have started using this infobox (to convert from other templates and infobox or simply to replace manual html or wiki tables) on the following pages:
Ak 4,
Ak 5,
Beretta 93R,
MP40,
Five-seveN,
FN P90, Heckler & Koch (
UMP/
MP5/
MP5K/
G3/
PSG1/
VP70/
MP7/
P7)
Rheinmetall MG3,
MG42,
MG42,
MG34,
MG30,
MAC-10,
Rk 62,
R4 assault rifle,
SIG 552,
SIG 550,
Steyr AUG,
Type 97 Sniper Rifle,
TT-33,
Makarov PM,
M60 machine gun,
Dragunov Sniper Rifle,
Vz 61,
FN FNC,
Walther PPK/
P88/
WA2000 and
Uzi submachine gun. Tomorrow I will tackle some more and step work on some
land mines :) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Deon Steyn (
talk •
contribs)
Just noticed that in the 37 mm gun M3 article (perhaps in some other articles too ?) the length of the gun appears in the infobox, but the width and the height remained in the text, since infobox doesn't have fields for width and height. It would be better to have these characteristics in the same place IMHO. Bukvoed 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As per general approval on that project's talk page, I have merged it into this task force. I've salvaged some of the material that's still relevant (mostly the lists of weapons); the other, older stuff, I've archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/General weaponry discussion, in case we ever need to refer back to it. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone here doesn't know about it, Template:AFV is used for tanks, APCs, armoured cars, etc. It replaced the older Template:Tank at the end of 2005. — Michael Z. 2006-07-03 20:11 Z
T-34 is a candidate for featured article. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-34/archive1. — Michael Z. 2006-07-05 00:48 Z
Newly-created Category:Inter-war tanks. — Michael Z. 2006-07-05 18:19 Z
The Fajr-3 rocket is reported as being both a 1,200-mi range ballistic missile, and as a 45-mi range multiple-launch artillery rocket being fired by Hezbollah into Israel (see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict), both supposedly of Iranian origin. Anyone know the facts, or can clean up the article about the rocket? — Michael Z. 2006-07-17 19:54 Z
Hi, I thought this would be the best place find "expert" comments on a dispute about an introductory sentence for the Sniper rifle article (which I recently expanded and cleaned up extensively). Please see the discussion ( Talk:Sniper rifle#Intro ) and tell me if I'm crazy and what I should do next. Should I mark the article for peer review or a collaborative effort, I haven't reviewed an article myself, but I think this one is reasonably important? Deon Steyn 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Qwasty has been making some sweeping changes to the article, and I can't say they're for the better. He's started going on about Gadget Guns and ".22 sniper rifles", and once again the whole thing is straying into James Bond/Tom Clancy territory with talk of guns designed purely for assassinations. I've suggested that a new article- Assassination Weapons- be created for all the information on suitcase-portable rifles, umbrella guns, and other stuff that belongs in a spy thriller novel, but he seems to think there's not enough info on them to justify a separate article. I think Qwasty may have a different idea of what a "Sniper" actually is than the rest of us- I certainly can't see how someone who hides behind a tree and shoots their target from 6ft away with a .22 rifle could be considered a "sniper". The article is already deteroriating into an edit war, so we may have to get it locked or something like that while the situation gets resolved... -- Commander Zulu 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new article, entitled Service Pistol. Obviously it's just a bare bones stublet at the moment, but I plan to expand it more over the next few days when I'm not at work... any help would be greatly appreciated! -- Commander Zulu 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you guys cover that?-- D-Boy 07:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about noting gun calibre in a format without a space, for example "155mm howitzer", in articles where it is appropriate. I'd like to gauge support for this here, and then propose it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
This has advantages where it can occur many times on the page (for example, millimetre measurements appear over fifty times in the featured article T-34):
This practice has precedent in literature about armoured fighting vehicles. It is found, for example:
Is this notation common in literature on small arms? Are there other common conventions? (In some publications I've seen centre dots for decimals and/or hyphenated units, e.g. "5·56-mm rifle")
Proposed wording:
This would belong at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. — Michael Z. 2006-07-25 23:40 Z
Not much response above. I'd like to gauge the level of acceptance for the 00mm format for gun calibres: not a formal vote, just a straw poll.
Who would take the time to vote in support of the wording above to be added to the Manual of Style?
I'd like to propose that we standardise on a single method for firearmm calibre nomenclature. For example, the 9mm Parabellum round used in huge numbers of semi-automatic handguns is also known as 9mm Luger, 9x19mm, and 9mm NATO, and all four designations pop up quite frequently throughout Wikipedia. This could be extremely confusing to the casual reader, or to people who are still learning about firearms (who may be wondering what this "old gun" they've just inherited or bought is chambered for) , and so it might be worthwhile to try and agree on a convention with regards to calibre naming.
My personal preference is to use the calibre's Commercial name where possible, albeit within reason. Using the 9mm Parabellum example above, the US Commerical name is "9mm Luger", but I'd use "9mm Parabellum" (or "9mm Para"), which is also a commercial name and clearly differentiates the cartridge used in the Luger or the Browning Hi-Power from similar 9mm cartridges, such as the 9mm Makarov and 9mm Largo.
The idea is to strike a balance between readability and technical accuracy (with the "technical" name going under the cartridge field on the infobox if appropriate), but of course, it's only a suggestion... thoughts? -- Commander Zulu 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer- I was referring to the fields in the infobox, not the article itself... obviously all the alternate names need to be mentioned in the article (which would be wikilinked through the infobox). -- Commander Zulu 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article Webley Revolver is currently undergoing the FAC process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver, and it's not doing too well- honestly, I find most of their objections to be trivial nitpicking and have suggested they might like to implement some of these suggestions themselves (aren't we supposed to Be Bold or something like that?), since I have to say the copyediting here is completely foreign to anything I've ever encountered as a published writer. If I break things up in natural paragraphs, people complain there's "too many paragraphs", and if I don't break them up then it's "hard to read". Then people are complaining about the fact some cites are inline and some are links to webpages, and quite frankly the whole exercise is incredibly frustrating- I could really use some help! -- Commander Zulu 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we set some guidelines about naming armoured fighting vehicles (and maybe firearms, aircraft, and other weapons too)?
Many articles about AFVs just have the vehicle's technical designation as their title. This has the advantage that the simplest possible name typed into the search field will go directly to the article. This can become very ambiguous because AFVs, firearms, rockets, aircraft, can all have similar names. For example, see the disambiguation page M60, which includes four pieces of military equipment. Examples:
Others have a more descriptive name, because it is the official name, or because it is necessary for disambiguation, or just because. This has the advantage that when a reader sees the title, say on a category page or in a list, the nature of the subject is much more evident. It also pre-empts any debates regarding disambiguation (e.g. T-38 light amphibious tank vs. Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer). Examples:
Keep in mind that some of these articles are about a very specific variant of a model, and others are about a small or large family of vehicles (e.g. BT tank), or also cover a few specific variants. Many have alternate names: model numbers, official honorific names, nicknames, industrial designations, etc.
In cases where there is no obvious best title, should we prefer to use the simplest possible name (e.g. T-34), or a more descriptive name ( T-34 medium tank). Should it be capitalized as a proper name ( T-34 Medium Tank) or not? Of course, every article would have redirects or disambiguation links from all the different possible names for its subject.
I used to be of a mind to keep titles as simple as possible. But now I'm thinking that they should all be converted to something more descriptive, so that a reader can tell what an article is about from the title alone (see "Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines"). — Michael Z. 2006-08-03 06:04 Z
I've taken a bit more of a look at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and some subordinate guidelines. A summary of the principals:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
I also looked at the related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) for aircraft models, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) (which concerns proper names of individual craft, not models or series, but see also #Ship classes), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (rockets), currently in development.
While these hardware names tend to remain fairly terse and avoid descriptions of the subject, they do include a certain amount of specific information in addition to the bare model name or title. In addition to the model number, aircraft article titles include the manufacturer or name, or both: Boeing 707, F-15 Eagle, Hawker Hurricane. Missiles follow like conventions, and rockets may be going in a similar direction. Ships often, but not always, have a prefix, or descriptive which includes origin and basic type: Niña, RMS Titanic, Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. Ship classes are named [name]-class-[type]: Ohio class submarine.
Modern conventional names are used when they differ from historic names ( HMS Royal Charles, and not English ship Royal Charles). The normal rules for disambiguation apply: Santa María (ship).
Proposal: so in light of these comparable Wikipedia conventions, and in the interest of an article identifying its subject clearly to unfamiliar readers, I'm informally proposing for discussion the idea that AFV articles should be named they way they might be written out as the first casual mention in an article on some other subject: unambiguous but terse: with either a model number and name ( M1 Abrams), manufacturer and name ( Alvis Stormer), or a model number and terse descriptive ( T-34 tank, not T-34 medium tank).
Of course, common names and common sense should prevail. Redirects from model numbers and alternate names should also be created: T-34, M1 tank, Abrams tank.
My rough estimate is that at least half of AFV article titles already conform to this proposal. See, for example, Category:Armored cars: Alvis Saladin, Austin Armoured Car, Coventry armoured car, Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle are somewhat self-explanatory or familiar, or at least specific, but BRDM-1, BRDM-2, BTR-4, LAV-25, and VBC-90 are puzzling to the casual reader, and possibly even the dedicated armour buff, if he hasn't heard of an obscure vehicle.
I would call this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fighting vehicles)—they're not necessarily armoured, as the Katyusha MRLs, and I'm not proposing a broader "(military vehicles)" guideline, because I haven't had a detailed look at utility trucks, etc. Any thoughts, before I write a proposed guideline? — Michael Z. 2006-08-15 18:39 Z
First draft is at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles). Please comment there. —
Michael
Z. 2006-08-15 20:37 Z
The Lee-Enfield article is coming along nicely, but I have to confess I'm starting to run into difficulties and would like some help from knowledgeable people on a few things, which are outlined on the article's talk page. If anyone's got a spare moment, perhaps they could drop by and lend a hand or voice their opinions? -- Commander Zulu 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that the old infoboxes have all been converted (much thanks to Grafikm!), do we need to keep them around? Or can we list them for deletion? Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How about adding a prominent note to the templates, advertising themselves as obsolete? — Michael Z. 2006-08-08 17:14 Z
Incidentally, what about {{ Weapon-missile}} ??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So does anyone else care what we do with these? Kirill Lokshin 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
is there a way we can tag articles that can take the weapon infobox (Like T-12 antitank gun which I just came across) for later attention? GraemeLeggett 10:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)