![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
User:Raoulduke47/Template03, created by User:Raoulduke47 as a replacement for the Template:WWIIBritishAFVs and the Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2. Any comments ? Bukvoed 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I just "adopted" the disambiguation page for Mortar. I've gone through probably 200 of the 250 "links here" pages and changed [[mortar]] links to [[Mortar (weapon)|mortar]] for articles where the weapon was being referred to. The culprits undoubtedly know who they are — and can save a lot of work for other folks later on if they will remember there's more than one meaning for the word. (For penance, you guys can fix the masonry "mortar" references on the Mortar disambig page!) On the enlightenment side, I've learned from correcting the citations that just about every 20th century US Medal of Honor winner was involved on either the receiving or delivering end of mortar fire! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I put an infobox on the Mark 50 torpedo's page, using "infobox weapon". However there are some aspects of the weapon that would almost make "infobox missile" a better choice. Is there any 'ideal template' to use for a torpedo infobox? - - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I recall there were a number of people who mentioned that {{ Infobox Weapon}} was only partially useful for cartridges, as it was missing a number of needed fields. Do we have a list of fields floating around anywhere that we need to add for this? (Or, alternately, any existing infobox used for cartridges that we could merge in somehow?) Kirill Lokshin 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the cartridges, if the fields from {{ Infobox firearms cartridge}} can be added to {{ Infobox Weapon}} while maintaining a reasonable level of ease of use (considering the large number of fields for different types of weapons in a single template), then I don't see why it couldn't be merged, personally. — Squalla 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|neck_diameter= X mm |rim_diameter= Y mm
|diameter= X mm (neck),<br/> Y mm (rim)
I guess I'm the one responsible for the cartridge infobox (at least it's current form). I did in deed format that template after the Weapon infobox template. It was a good one so why not? I'm hesitant to support merging just because I busted my a** on it and now feel some sense of ownership. But that's no way to be, I know. ;-) So I'll just toss in my thoughts...
Oh man! You rock. Looks great. I could learn something from this I think. ;-) Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... How would the code determine which was which? A flag like is_grains/is_grams and is_fps/is_mps, ect? Or maybe something like weight_unit. Could work I'm sure. But then why not do that in all the params in both cartridge and weapon infoboxes (ie. convert inches to millimeters and vice versa)? Seems overly complicated not just to code, but for the user. Not to mention that enforcing a specific unit via an auto-conversion could garner much contempt from many editors. Grains are fairly universal so I see no real need there. And anyway, to convert to grams would be a decimal nightmare, and less accurate than the grains were. As far as fps and ft/lbs, I think it should just up to the editor to specify his unit of choice, then let the masses discuss it case-by-case if need be. Much (all?) of this data comes from westernized sources anyway, which use fps and ft/lbs. If it's left to editor choice, they can go with the unit described in their source, or do a conversion for themselves. Yeah? Sound like the simplest solution all the way around to me. Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
90 gr Speer TNT | 2880 ft/s (~878 m/s) 1658 ft·lbf (~2255 J) |
120 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip | 2600 ft/s (~793 m/s) 1802 ft·lbf (~2451 J) |
Maybe something like this (fourth box). -
Thernlund (
Talk |
Contribs)
23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
90 grain (~xx grams) Speer TNT |
2880 ft/s (~878 m/s) 1658 ft·lbf (~2255 J) |
120 grain (~xx grams) Nosler Ballistic Tip |
2600 ft/s (~793 m/s) 1802 ft·lbf (~2451 J) |
Or this (fifth box) -
Thernlund (
Talk |
Contribs)
23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I think I like the fourth one the best. Two lines in EACH column makes it appear then the data applies per line rather than as a whole (make any sense?) - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone the 6.5 Grendel talk page mentioned that barrel length should be included with the ballistics data. I personally don't think it's necessary, but do concede that it is a variable that has an effect on the numbers.
I'd suggest this data be included in a way that makes it display on one line that implies that it pertaines to all the data, just like the Source line. Reason being, only one source is given, and that source nearly always lists same BL for all loads (usually 24"). My thoughts are these...
The data in question should be tagged "Test barrel length".
I can do this change, but a) as I've said, I'm not a wiz at this yet; and b) I thought I'd just putting it up for discussion first. Comments? Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
115 gr BHP | 1,564 ft/s, 624 ft·lbf |
124 gr JHP | 1,329 ft/s, 486 ft·lbf |
125 gr JHP | 1,299 ft/s, 468 ft·lbf |
147 gr JHP | 1,186 ft/s, 459 ft·lbf |
150 gr JHP | 1,130 ft/s, 425 ft·lbf |
Test barrel length: 24 in. Source: Steve's 357 SIG Ballistic Page |
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
115 gr BHP | 1,564 ft/s, 624 ft·lbf |
124 gr JHP | 1,329 ft/s, 486 ft·lbf |
125 gr JHP | 1,299 ft/s, 468 ft·lbf |
147 gr JHP | 1,186 ft/s, 459 ft·lbf |
150 gr JHP | 1,130 ft/s, 425 ft·lbf |
Test barrel length: 24 in. Source: Steve's 357 SIG Ballistic Page |
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
115 gr BHP | 1,564 ft/s, 624 ft·lbf |
124 gr JHP | 1,329 ft/s, 486 ft·lbf |
125 gr JHP | 1,299 ft/s, 468 ft·lbf |
147 gr JHP | 1,186 ft/s, 459 ft·lbf |
150 gr JHP | 1,130 ft/s, 425 ft·lbf |
Test barrel length: 24 in. Source: Steve's 357 SIG Ballistic Page |
Looks good! I removed an extraneous quote mark and updated the examples. Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Check this out...
I coded it here...
With these supporting pages...
All, of course, based on the current existing ones.
I did this to try out a possible better format for the ballistics section. And I felt bad about just throwing up an example and leaving the real work to others. Comments? Better/worse? Tweaks? - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright. How about this...
I put all three cells into a single sub-template. I made the lines dotted. And I made them conditional. My tests seem to work. - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did this. Auto-converts inches to millimeters and vice versa. Uses a new param called is_metric. A "yes" will generate inches from the value given. Anything else will generate millimeters from the value given. It will of course break existing uses so I'd have to fix those first, but there aren't that many.
Any comments? Objections? (Could also be something to think about for the weapon infobox, but that one is in much wider use.) - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
T-34 is now on featured article review, with the main concern being a lack of citations; if anyone has some sources handy, please drop by and put in a few footnotes. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I added One of the requested articles. It's Waffenträger . Just thought you might wanna know. -- Cheers! Zazzer 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I added Basilisk cannon. Its not that good and could use some work. Please improve it with any information you might have. KillTheToy 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a short list of missing topics related to weaponry. I've tried to check for any equivalents articles but could anyone of you have a look at the list? Thank you - Skysmith 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You could take battle fan off that list. There's already an article for it under Tessen. KillTheToy 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The system of requesting articles is being doled out to the task forces now. That means no massive communal list of requests any more, and much larger/longer lists within the task force templates. This task force already has a substantial list of requested articles, and they do not appear to be in any particular order. It would be a great help if anyone who was so inclined could take it upon themselves to put these into an order (preferrably some variation on alphabetical). Those of us who are moving the request list into the task forces (and you all are welcome to help with that as well) will of course do our part to aid in this process. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Panzer I that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Armament of the Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice there are plenty of templates for writing articles related to this task force. However there doesn't seem to be any guide on what structure should the articles follow. I think the best examples for this the M1 Garand & M16 Rifle articles even though both are currently a B-Class articles.
I think they follow a good pattern and I propose the following provisional idea: A brief summary of the weapon and the following headings
Veritas Panther 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Brief introduction - including weapon designation, caliber, type and origin. At times I may include an abbreviated development history if I have too little information for a separate sub-section.
Development - How the firearm came to be.
Design details - Technical description of the firearm, including operating principle, ergonomics, layout, materials and accessories.
Variants - Any arms derived from this particular design or minor variations. Will sometimes include it into the main Design details body if I have too little information.
I do think we should adopt some kind of uniform standard, would make everything so much easier and could possibly encourage others to contribute with a template already provided. Check out my user page where I have all my major articles listed, see what you think of this system. Koalorka 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Good day to all with you, Task Force. I am known just like the surname Mosin. I am presently of Ukrainian origins as is put in better English in my user page, that to make I recieved aid. My working counterpart, holding years of English language using countries having lived in, is presently leaving the current post I have with the employment I have. My location includes few experted practise speakers, and I am presently being made without my near translator of keying to English that previously have been Slav with German, and on the other side to such destination. I enjoy using English as it appears so carefully made; presently I am acquiring better use and more; I no longer need to use translators or open dictionarys to give thoughts in speech. When I presently key, I use more carefullness when selecting English words by meaning. In present, what English I use may concern English; I express proofreading, and will help presently and after the time with making the meaning of my posts in English easier to recieve meaning from for English. MVMosin 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason to name Lahti L-39 as L-39 20 mm Lahti? Sure this is needed with Type 97 20 mm AT Rifle when there are several weapons designated "Type 97", but otherwise not preferred? It also seems weird to have L-39 20 mm Lahti in that order, isn't this American style? On the other hand, Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55 in, Boys has the .55 inch on the name.. -- Pudeo ( Talk) 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Hugo Stoltzenberg that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Tupolev TB-3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Do we have any standard guidelines as to when to use Imperial units vs. when to use Metric? Oberiko 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Chemical weapons in the Rif War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am LWF, coordinator of the WikiProject Firearms, and I have a request that I would like to make. I would like to make everyone aware that civilian firearms should now have an infobox (the weapon infobox). So if members of this task force would help in adding infoboxes to civilian as well as military weapons it would be a great help to us over at the Firearms Project.-- LWF 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Zveno project that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are modifications that need to be made to the Weapons Infobox template, which I have outlined here. I have been messing around with the template on my sandbox page, but I haven't really figured out how to change it. If somebody 'in the know' could do that, I would really appreciate it. My other question concerns the APC Infobox template, which is found on many armored vehicles such as the Buffalo (mine protected vehicle). This template has been superseded by Weapons Infobox right? Tmaull 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the Weapons Task Force and the Firearms project make a joint effort to bring the M16 rifle up to Featured article status, sort of as a Featured counterpart to AK-47. Both of these rifles have been very influential in the history of the world, so I think it is only fitting to bring M16 up to the same status as the AK-47. LWF 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My suggestions for the 20 Articles that could be collaborated upon to reach FA status, in chronological order. The list is just something to start with, but I've tried to strike a balance between historic importance and recognisability.
Rifles
Handguns
Thoughts, suggestions, etc? -- Commander Zulu 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The M1 Garand is a nice idea because it was an important instrument in World War II, but the Brown Bess helped to free America (if I'm thinking of the correct weapon).-- MKnight9989 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Even as an American, I agree with you wholly about Flag-Wavery, Commander Zulu. Anyone will tell you that America has greatly affected the world over the past 231(hope my math is right) years, for better or for worse. Therefore, it could be argued that a weapon that helped secure the USA's freedom, is an important weapon indeed. -- MKnight9989 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have written two articles that are on the To-Do list. One cavalry saber, has been suggested to be merged with saber. I don't mind this. The other, guided torpedo, has been deleted without explanation. I don't understand why it couldn't have just been merged with torpedo, or had information changed and/or added to. I guess what I'm saying is this: Don't delete an article unless
I may not know alot about torpedos, but I know a little, and what I put is what I knew.-- MKnight9989 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. So I guess I have no right to be mad, eh? Well, thanks pal. Next time I'll cite my sources. -- MKnight9989 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Here: Talk:152 mm ML-20 field howitzer there is a discussion about naming articles about Soviet/Russian artillery pieces. Perhaps somebody would like to voice his opinion. Bukvoed 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not specifically Wikipedia related, but can anyone tell me some medieval Russian/Soviet weapons? I'd like to learn a bit more about them. Thanks Corvus coronoides Contributions MGo Blue 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Also: may be somebody can help with copyediting the article ? Bukvoed 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for Good article. Bukvoed 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the Webley Revolver article for FAC status after extensively citing it, rewriting bits, and generally improving it. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver- support or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! -- Commander Zulu 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Cannon that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Ironclad warship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Dreadnought that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for 37 mm Gun M3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is almost no article that mentions that, and it is hardly a trivial information?-- Victor falk 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Sukhoi Su-25 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Cannon that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Technical is just a new term for gun truck. The idea that it is fundamentally different is artificial. If you insist it is something different, then you can't avoid the conclusion that a "technical" is a type of gun truck operated by brown people. The two articles should be merged. Discussion is at talk:Gun truck#Merge from Technical (fighting vehicle). — Michael Z. 2007-07-28 07:39 Z
There's a new peer review request for Enfield revolver that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A new user has created T-18: Modifications, about variants of the early Soviet T-18 tank. The article has no references and is in danger of being deleted. If anyone have a bit of time to do some clean-up, copy-editing, or access to references, please drop by and help save this. — Michael Z. 2007-08-09 05:35 Z
I've come across a number of new articles on US nuke warheads. They're typically titled in the style "W57" (no hyphen), but the articles themselves generally employ the form "W-57" (with a hyphen). I couldn't find anything authoritative on the web, and I've always seen it both ways, even in military documents. Do we have a preferred convention on this? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The AFV and tank categories should be standardized according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), to be consistent with weapons and everything else.
Proposed changes:
I will formally propose adding armoured fighting vehicles to the speedyable list at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country", next to category:Weapons by country which is already there. But I'm asking for comments or objections here first. If it goes through as proposed, then I will start working on moving all of the categories. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 15:36 Z
Update: already requested speedy rename for a couple of children of Category:Artillery by country. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 19:32 Z
Update: I made a request to rename 46 categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here. Please review for typos or other stupidity. Thanks. — Michael Z. 2007-09-22 21:56 Z
Children of category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era:
Do the following sound like reasonable proposals for standardization, per WP:MILHIST#CATNAME? Is there a list of era names? — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 19:48 Z
— Michael Z. 2007-08-18 19:48 Z
I just proposed that the children of category:Tanks by era be renamed the same way as category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era. CFD nominations for discussion are at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 22 — Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:21 Z
A separate issue is the conflation of Russia and the Soviet Union in some sub-categories of the parent categories
Some sub-categories should be split to correspond with the parents (others already clearly belong to one or the other, e.g. category:Cold War Soviet tanks and category:Modern Russian tanks).
This will also clear up an inconsistency with category:Ukrainian armoured fighting vehicles (Ukraine has the same relationship to the USSR as Russia, and has one of the three major Soviet design bureaux and tank factories in Kharkiv, and a main tank refurbishing depot in Lviv).
Please comment or object here, before I formally propose the change at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 15:36 Z
Resolution: this proposal was accepted and the categories renamed, some time ago. — Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:22 Z
The A-Class review for Enfield revolver is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see a proposal for a minor reorganization at category talk:landmines. — Michael Z. 2007-08-24 20:47 Z
If anyone knows anything about ablative armour, please expand the article, especially if you can add a reference. It seems like pure science fiction as a military topic, and for lack of any references or real examples (or even examples of real proposals), I've demoted the article to a stub. I've left more detailed comments at talk:Ablative armour. — Michael Z. 2007-08-24 22:48 Z
I'm putting together a list of rifle articles that need photographs. I'm thinking about going back to the US Ordinance Museum for a third trip to get rifle pictures - specifically, for rifle articles that have no such picture. They have thousands of rifles from basically every country on earth. If you knwo of an article that needs an illustration, please add it to User:Raul654/Wishlist Raul654 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
User:Raoulduke47/Template03, created by User:Raoulduke47 as a replacement for the Template:WWIIBritishAFVs and the Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2. Any comments ? Bukvoed 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I just "adopted" the disambiguation page for Mortar. I've gone through probably 200 of the 250 "links here" pages and changed [[mortar]] links to [[Mortar (weapon)|mortar]] for articles where the weapon was being referred to. The culprits undoubtedly know who they are — and can save a lot of work for other folks later on if they will remember there's more than one meaning for the word. (For penance, you guys can fix the masonry "mortar" references on the Mortar disambig page!) On the enlightenment side, I've learned from correcting the citations that just about every 20th century US Medal of Honor winner was involved on either the receiving or delivering end of mortar fire! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I put an infobox on the Mark 50 torpedo's page, using "infobox weapon". However there are some aspects of the weapon that would almost make "infobox missile" a better choice. Is there any 'ideal template' to use for a torpedo infobox? - - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I recall there were a number of people who mentioned that {{ Infobox Weapon}} was only partially useful for cartridges, as it was missing a number of needed fields. Do we have a list of fields floating around anywhere that we need to add for this? (Or, alternately, any existing infobox used for cartridges that we could merge in somehow?) Kirill Lokshin 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the cartridges, if the fields from {{ Infobox firearms cartridge}} can be added to {{ Infobox Weapon}} while maintaining a reasonable level of ease of use (considering the large number of fields for different types of weapons in a single template), then I don't see why it couldn't be merged, personally. — Squalla 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|neck_diameter= X mm |rim_diameter= Y mm
|diameter= X mm (neck),<br/> Y mm (rim)
I guess I'm the one responsible for the cartridge infobox (at least it's current form). I did in deed format that template after the Weapon infobox template. It was a good one so why not? I'm hesitant to support merging just because I busted my a** on it and now feel some sense of ownership. But that's no way to be, I know. ;-) So I'll just toss in my thoughts...
Oh man! You rock. Looks great. I could learn something from this I think. ;-) Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... How would the code determine which was which? A flag like is_grains/is_grams and is_fps/is_mps, ect? Or maybe something like weight_unit. Could work I'm sure. But then why not do that in all the params in both cartridge and weapon infoboxes (ie. convert inches to millimeters and vice versa)? Seems overly complicated not just to code, but for the user. Not to mention that enforcing a specific unit via an auto-conversion could garner much contempt from many editors. Grains are fairly universal so I see no real need there. And anyway, to convert to grams would be a decimal nightmare, and less accurate than the grains were. As far as fps and ft/lbs, I think it should just up to the editor to specify his unit of choice, then let the masses discuss it case-by-case if need be. Much (all?) of this data comes from westernized sources anyway, which use fps and ft/lbs. If it's left to editor choice, they can go with the unit described in their source, or do a conversion for themselves. Yeah? Sound like the simplest solution all the way around to me. Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
90 gr Speer TNT | 2880 ft/s (~878 m/s) 1658 ft·lbf (~2255 J) |
120 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip | 2600 ft/s (~793 m/s) 1802 ft·lbf (~2451 J) |
Maybe something like this (fourth box). -
Thernlund (
Talk |
Contribs)
23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
90 grain (~xx grams) Speer TNT |
2880 ft/s (~878 m/s) 1658 ft·lbf (~2255 J) |
120 grain (~xx grams) Nosler Ballistic Tip |
2600 ft/s (~793 m/s) 1802 ft·lbf (~2451 J) |
Or this (fifth box) -
Thernlund (
Talk |
Contribs)
23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I think I like the fourth one the best. Two lines in EACH column makes it appear then the data applies per line rather than as a whole (make any sense?) - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone the 6.5 Grendel talk page mentioned that barrel length should be included with the ballistics data. I personally don't think it's necessary, but do concede that it is a variable that has an effect on the numbers.
I'd suggest this data be included in a way that makes it display on one line that implies that it pertaines to all the data, just like the Source line. Reason being, only one source is given, and that source nearly always lists same BL for all loads (usually 24"). My thoughts are these...
The data in question should be tagged "Test barrel length".
I can do this change, but a) as I've said, I'm not a wiz at this yet; and b) I thought I'd just putting it up for discussion first. Comments? Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
115 gr BHP | 1,564 ft/s, 624 ft·lbf |
124 gr JHP | 1,329 ft/s, 486 ft·lbf |
125 gr JHP | 1,299 ft/s, 468 ft·lbf |
147 gr JHP | 1,186 ft/s, 459 ft·lbf |
150 gr JHP | 1,130 ft/s, 425 ft·lbf |
Test barrel length: 24 in. Source: Steve's 357 SIG Ballistic Page |
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
115 gr BHP | 1,564 ft/s, 624 ft·lbf |
124 gr JHP | 1,329 ft/s, 486 ft·lbf |
125 gr JHP | 1,299 ft/s, 468 ft·lbf |
147 gr JHP | 1,186 ft/s, 459 ft·lbf |
150 gr JHP | 1,130 ft/s, 425 ft·lbf |
Test barrel length: 24 in. Source: Steve's 357 SIG Ballistic Page |
Ballistic performance | |
---|---|
Bullet weight/type | Velocity/energy |
115 gr BHP | 1,564 ft/s, 624 ft·lbf |
124 gr JHP | 1,329 ft/s, 486 ft·lbf |
125 gr JHP | 1,299 ft/s, 468 ft·lbf |
147 gr JHP | 1,186 ft/s, 459 ft·lbf |
150 gr JHP | 1,130 ft/s, 425 ft·lbf |
Test barrel length: 24 in. Source: Steve's 357 SIG Ballistic Page |
Looks good! I removed an extraneous quote mark and updated the examples. Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Check this out...
I coded it here...
With these supporting pages...
All, of course, based on the current existing ones.
I did this to try out a possible better format for the ballistics section. And I felt bad about just throwing up an example and leaving the real work to others. Comments? Better/worse? Tweaks? - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright. How about this...
I put all three cells into a single sub-template. I made the lines dotted. And I made them conditional. My tests seem to work. - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did this. Auto-converts inches to millimeters and vice versa. Uses a new param called is_metric. A "yes" will generate inches from the value given. Anything else will generate millimeters from the value given. It will of course break existing uses so I'd have to fix those first, but there aren't that many.
Any comments? Objections? (Could also be something to think about for the weapon infobox, but that one is in much wider use.) - Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
T-34 is now on featured article review, with the main concern being a lack of citations; if anyone has some sources handy, please drop by and put in a few footnotes. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I added One of the requested articles. It's Waffenträger . Just thought you might wanna know. -- Cheers! Zazzer 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I added Basilisk cannon. Its not that good and could use some work. Please improve it with any information you might have. KillTheToy 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a short list of missing topics related to weaponry. I've tried to check for any equivalents articles but could anyone of you have a look at the list? Thank you - Skysmith 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You could take battle fan off that list. There's already an article for it under Tessen. KillTheToy 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The system of requesting articles is being doled out to the task forces now. That means no massive communal list of requests any more, and much larger/longer lists within the task force templates. This task force already has a substantial list of requested articles, and they do not appear to be in any particular order. It would be a great help if anyone who was so inclined could take it upon themselves to put these into an order (preferrably some variation on alphabetical). Those of us who are moving the request list into the task forces (and you all are welcome to help with that as well) will of course do our part to aid in this process. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Panzer I that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Armament of the Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice there are plenty of templates for writing articles related to this task force. However there doesn't seem to be any guide on what structure should the articles follow. I think the best examples for this the M1 Garand & M16 Rifle articles even though both are currently a B-Class articles.
I think they follow a good pattern and I propose the following provisional idea: A brief summary of the weapon and the following headings
Veritas Panther 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Brief introduction - including weapon designation, caliber, type and origin. At times I may include an abbreviated development history if I have too little information for a separate sub-section.
Development - How the firearm came to be.
Design details - Technical description of the firearm, including operating principle, ergonomics, layout, materials and accessories.
Variants - Any arms derived from this particular design or minor variations. Will sometimes include it into the main Design details body if I have too little information.
I do think we should adopt some kind of uniform standard, would make everything so much easier and could possibly encourage others to contribute with a template already provided. Check out my user page where I have all my major articles listed, see what you think of this system. Koalorka 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Good day to all with you, Task Force. I am known just like the surname Mosin. I am presently of Ukrainian origins as is put in better English in my user page, that to make I recieved aid. My working counterpart, holding years of English language using countries having lived in, is presently leaving the current post I have with the employment I have. My location includes few experted practise speakers, and I am presently being made without my near translator of keying to English that previously have been Slav with German, and on the other side to such destination. I enjoy using English as it appears so carefully made; presently I am acquiring better use and more; I no longer need to use translators or open dictionarys to give thoughts in speech. When I presently key, I use more carefullness when selecting English words by meaning. In present, what English I use may concern English; I express proofreading, and will help presently and after the time with making the meaning of my posts in English easier to recieve meaning from for English. MVMosin 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason to name Lahti L-39 as L-39 20 mm Lahti? Sure this is needed with Type 97 20 mm AT Rifle when there are several weapons designated "Type 97", but otherwise not preferred? It also seems weird to have L-39 20 mm Lahti in that order, isn't this American style? On the other hand, Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55 in, Boys has the .55 inch on the name.. -- Pudeo ( Talk) 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Hugo Stoltzenberg that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Tupolev TB-3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Do we have any standard guidelines as to when to use Imperial units vs. when to use Metric? Oberiko 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Chemical weapons in the Rif War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am LWF, coordinator of the WikiProject Firearms, and I have a request that I would like to make. I would like to make everyone aware that civilian firearms should now have an infobox (the weapon infobox). So if members of this task force would help in adding infoboxes to civilian as well as military weapons it would be a great help to us over at the Firearms Project.-- LWF 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Zveno project that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are modifications that need to be made to the Weapons Infobox template, which I have outlined here. I have been messing around with the template on my sandbox page, but I haven't really figured out how to change it. If somebody 'in the know' could do that, I would really appreciate it. My other question concerns the APC Infobox template, which is found on many armored vehicles such as the Buffalo (mine protected vehicle). This template has been superseded by Weapons Infobox right? Tmaull 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the Weapons Task Force and the Firearms project make a joint effort to bring the M16 rifle up to Featured article status, sort of as a Featured counterpart to AK-47. Both of these rifles have been very influential in the history of the world, so I think it is only fitting to bring M16 up to the same status as the AK-47. LWF 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My suggestions for the 20 Articles that could be collaborated upon to reach FA status, in chronological order. The list is just something to start with, but I've tried to strike a balance between historic importance and recognisability.
Rifles
Handguns
Thoughts, suggestions, etc? -- Commander Zulu 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The M1 Garand is a nice idea because it was an important instrument in World War II, but the Brown Bess helped to free America (if I'm thinking of the correct weapon).-- MKnight9989 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Even as an American, I agree with you wholly about Flag-Wavery, Commander Zulu. Anyone will tell you that America has greatly affected the world over the past 231(hope my math is right) years, for better or for worse. Therefore, it could be argued that a weapon that helped secure the USA's freedom, is an important weapon indeed. -- MKnight9989 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have written two articles that are on the To-Do list. One cavalry saber, has been suggested to be merged with saber. I don't mind this. The other, guided torpedo, has been deleted without explanation. I don't understand why it couldn't have just been merged with torpedo, or had information changed and/or added to. I guess what I'm saying is this: Don't delete an article unless
I may not know alot about torpedos, but I know a little, and what I put is what I knew.-- MKnight9989 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. So I guess I have no right to be mad, eh? Well, thanks pal. Next time I'll cite my sources. -- MKnight9989 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Here: Talk:152 mm ML-20 field howitzer there is a discussion about naming articles about Soviet/Russian artillery pieces. Perhaps somebody would like to voice his opinion. Bukvoed 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not specifically Wikipedia related, but can anyone tell me some medieval Russian/Soviet weapons? I'd like to learn a bit more about them. Thanks Corvus coronoides Contributions MGo Blue 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Also: may be somebody can help with copyediting the article ? Bukvoed 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for Good article. Bukvoed 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the Webley Revolver article for FAC status after extensively citing it, rewriting bits, and generally improving it. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver- support or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! -- Commander Zulu 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Cannon that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Ironclad warship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Dreadnought that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for 37 mm Gun M3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is almost no article that mentions that, and it is hardly a trivial information?-- Victor falk 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Sukhoi Su-25 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Cannon that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Technical is just a new term for gun truck. The idea that it is fundamentally different is artificial. If you insist it is something different, then you can't avoid the conclusion that a "technical" is a type of gun truck operated by brown people. The two articles should be merged. Discussion is at talk:Gun truck#Merge from Technical (fighting vehicle). — Michael Z. 2007-07-28 07:39 Z
There's a new peer review request for Enfield revolver that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A new user has created T-18: Modifications, about variants of the early Soviet T-18 tank. The article has no references and is in danger of being deleted. If anyone have a bit of time to do some clean-up, copy-editing, or access to references, please drop by and help save this. — Michael Z. 2007-08-09 05:35 Z
I've come across a number of new articles on US nuke warheads. They're typically titled in the style "W57" (no hyphen), but the articles themselves generally employ the form "W-57" (with a hyphen). I couldn't find anything authoritative on the web, and I've always seen it both ways, even in military documents. Do we have a preferred convention on this? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The AFV and tank categories should be standardized according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), to be consistent with weapons and everything else.
Proposed changes:
I will formally propose adding armoured fighting vehicles to the speedyable list at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country", next to category:Weapons by country which is already there. But I'm asking for comments or objections here first. If it goes through as proposed, then I will start working on moving all of the categories. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 15:36 Z
Update: already requested speedy rename for a couple of children of Category:Artillery by country. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 19:32 Z
Update: I made a request to rename 46 categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here. Please review for typos or other stupidity. Thanks. — Michael Z. 2007-09-22 21:56 Z
Children of category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era:
Do the following sound like reasonable proposals for standardization, per WP:MILHIST#CATNAME? Is there a list of era names? — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 19:48 Z
— Michael Z. 2007-08-18 19:48 Z
I just proposed that the children of category:Tanks by era be renamed the same way as category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era. CFD nominations for discussion are at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 22 — Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:21 Z
A separate issue is the conflation of Russia and the Soviet Union in some sub-categories of the parent categories
Some sub-categories should be split to correspond with the parents (others already clearly belong to one or the other, e.g. category:Cold War Soviet tanks and category:Modern Russian tanks).
This will also clear up an inconsistency with category:Ukrainian armoured fighting vehicles (Ukraine has the same relationship to the USSR as Russia, and has one of the three major Soviet design bureaux and tank factories in Kharkiv, and a main tank refurbishing depot in Lviv).
Please comment or object here, before I formally propose the change at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 15:36 Z
Resolution: this proposal was accepted and the categories renamed, some time ago. — Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:22 Z
The A-Class review for Enfield revolver is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see a proposal for a minor reorganization at category talk:landmines. — Michael Z. 2007-08-24 20:47 Z
If anyone knows anything about ablative armour, please expand the article, especially if you can add a reference. It seems like pure science fiction as a military topic, and for lack of any references or real examples (or even examples of real proposals), I've demoted the article to a stub. I've left more detailed comments at talk:Ablative armour. — Michael Z. 2007-08-24 22:48 Z
I'm putting together a list of rifle articles that need photographs. I'm thinking about going back to the US Ordinance Museum for a third trip to get rifle pictures - specifically, for rifle articles that have no such picture. They have thousands of rifles from basically every country on earth. If you knwo of an article that needs an illustration, please add it to User:Raul654/Wishlist Raul654 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)