Talk:Disappearing gun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle for Manila Bay[edit]

The disappearing guns were the least useful of the coast defense assets, as they were positioned to defend against warships entering Manila Bay

I'm not sure this is really true. The guns were of limited use against shore targets, of course, but Ft. Drum, Smith and Hearn alone could not have reliably kept the IJN out of Manila Bay without the minefields, and once a couple heavy ships were in, taking the forts out from two sides simultaneously would have been far easier. Frank and Hughes were a real part of keeping the minefields covered by fire. The anti-ship functions of the harbor defenses worked almost perfectly seaward, and had the guns been casemated, they would not have worked at all to landward. The disappearing guns did exactly what they were meant to do, the real problem was that the mobile forces had not been allowed to.

It's also worth remembering that the disappearing emplacements provided better cover than the "bullseyes' that Hearn and Smith sat on. Anmccaff (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-explanatory.[edit]

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/images/hardware/canet.jpg Anmccaff (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontally disappearing gun[edit]

http://www.google.com/patents/US37232

There was also a variant that was essentially a globe valve with a cannon in it instead of fluid. Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Installations[edit]

Who decided for all that "this list only touches on locations with surviving guns, or which saw action"? That seems silly and arbitrary. Gun placements are gun placements, just as ships are ships. Whether they exist now has nothing to do with their significance. As long as they're supported by reliable sources, and contribute to the article, they can be added. The Dissident Aggressor 14:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff:, if you think that text is a description[1], it need to be supported by a WP:RS. The source cited does not say that and really doesn't support much of anything. Either way, please stop reverting. The Dissident Aggressor 15:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I pointed out that the paragraph following a list of installations emphasized that the list was not a complete list -because, of course, such a list would be needlessly out of scale to the article, overpowering both the article as a whole, and the more significant installations themselves. This is not to say that someone couln't make a list of all installations, just that that isn't what is here now.
Who decided? The writers, or as wiki medaciously call 'em, editors, before you. People familiar with the subject, who realized that this was an attempt to create an encyclopaedic article, not a laundry list. Anmccaff (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm an editor contributing to this page and you don't WP:OWN this page. I don't see any consensus for such a limit, nor is there a policy that supports it. If a consensus develops, then that prevails. The Dissident Aggressor 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus -has- developed; it's been in place over a year on an actively edited page. Anmccaff (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not consensus - it's inertia. Consensus is developed through discussion. When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. The Dissident Aggressor 21:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock. Consensus often needs -no- discussion. Someone writes something; others look at it, grunt approvingly, and write about some other aspect of the article. I suspect everyone writing this article , except you, apparently, is aware that the small embedded list is just the tip of the iceberg. Anmccaff (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock nothing, that's verbatim from Wikipedia:Consensus. As evidenced by this discussion, there is no consensus now. Consensus by editing exists until someone changes it. Worse, we have and article owner - in direct violation of policy that is unilaterally reverting any changes to this article. The Dissident Aggressor 12:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock. Wikipedia:Consensus also states Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This is an actively edited article, and there is a consensus on most parts, not inertia. You make a change, you have to face the possibility of reversion and discussion.

Reliable sources[edit]

As it is now, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. The Dissident Aggressor 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and all of them do. Just click any of the nearby links. Anmccaff (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you're sure that an item is relevant to the list's topic, you must find a good source that verifies this knowledge before you add it to the list, and add that source in a reference next to the item. See WP:Source list. The Dissident Aggressor 21:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's embedded list is entirely consistent with the MOS. Anmccaff (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of seeing WP:Source list, try reading it:

"Even if you're sure that an item is relevant to the list's topic, you must find a good source that verifies this knowledge before you add it to the list (although you can suggest it on the talk page), and add that source in a reference next to the item."

— WP:Source list
  • Each linked article is sourced.
Please stop reverting every edit I make to this page. Your WP:OWNERSHIP is apparent. The Dissident Aggressor 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, just ordinary care for a potentially good article. Anmccaff (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow-gauge rail DG[edit]

[155 or 120 on narrow gauge track] or [[2]] Vive la France. Anmccaff (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disappearing gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant installations[edit]

This section seems superfluous. We should remove it and add a "See also" section with a wikilink to List of disappearing gun installations. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the full list of installations, if ever populated, would run into the hundreds, perhaps (low) thousands. These were used extensively in China, Japan, and the continent, as well as at many more British, Commonwealth, and Usanian than are mentioned here. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disappearing gun installations, consensus was clear that that material was better placed in the list article and removed from here.  Done Toddst1 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Anmccaff: has reverted the removal. Consensus was pretty clear in both AFDs you started. Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one single "vote" for that, another for removing them to a list of significant installations, one, mine, for nuking it completely, since it was needless duplication, and one me-too! "vote'. Hardly the ringing consensus for your view. Anmccaff (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I voted "Keep" in the AFD about the list-article, and I was just invited to comment here by Toddst1.
Overall I think that either the readers should be referred to the separate list-article, or that the list-article get merged back in. Some considerations are:
  • The list-article exists and is not very different from the section. In the current article's "significant installations" section restored by Anmccaff, there are about 30 installations listed. The list-article includes about 33 land-based installations by my count, plus three ship-based installations. I am not analyzing the differences between the two in detail, but I think it is better to have just one version that is the best possible, with good illustrations, sources, etc. I have a lot of experience with list-articles about historic sites, and churches, and other things, out of which I can recall only a few cases where there is a short list of most prominent examples in a main article, linking out to a comprehensive list. The one example I can best remember was disputed; there was drama where one editor was trying to remove the short list and/or disputing how the comprehensive list should be linked. To have both a short list and a longer one, there must be a significant difference in size. Perhaps the short list should be 10 percent or less of the comprehensive list.
  • I can understand a person wanting a shorter list in the main article which covers the very most prominent examples, but the most prominent examples can be linked individually within the text (and probably are linked already).
  • Anmccaff commented in their edit summary restoring the section that the list of significant examples is an integral part of the article. Technically one could say that separate list-article should be considered to be an integral part of the main article.
  • The separate list-article, although someone notes that it could theoretically become much larger, is not very large, and it is not really essential for it to be split out. In the AFD I voted "Keep" on the basis that it was okay for there to be a split-out list. Usually split-outs are done when a main article gets too large. Here, the main article with its current "significant examples" section doesn't seem too terribly large.
  • It seems that editor Anmccaff feels fairly strongly that the main article should include the list (they restored it here, they opened the AFD), so I would be inclined to go along with that. Perhaps Toddst1 could expand on their apparently different view. Why not merge the list-article back in? The AFD technically did decide to keep the separate list-article, but it is okay for editors here to decide to merge it back in, without having a new AFD, especially if past AFD participants are invited to participate. I did not check the list-article's edit history to see who split it out originally, etc.
Really folks, this should not be a huge deal. I think there should be just one version of list, but it doesn't really matter where that list lives, IMO. If one editor feels very strongly about it, though, it is okay to go along with them. If two editors strongly disagree, then perhaps an RFC to draw other uninvolved editors could be needed to resolve the matter. Hope this helps. -doncram 19:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the "significant" thing has been an issue for Anmcaff with this article. [3], [4], [5], ... The separate list is just a list of documented installations. Toddst1 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "significant" thing for the subject and the article, i.e. for the reader, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be aimed at. Installations with surviving armament, installations which saw combat, and installations of unique or seminal designs are germane to the article. The other many hundreds of installations, not so much. Anmccaff (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I do think the article overall is very good, encyclopedic, educational. :) -- doncram 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest removing the 'Significant Installations' section - it's not clear what the criteria for an instillation being 'significant' is, and the list article does the same job better. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list article does nothing whatsoever, in fact. It captures several significant installations -ones with weapons intact or replaced, those that saw battle, and the few "lift" batteries, for example, along with a couple very pedestrian examples. It ignores the other thousand or so examples. So, it is neither a list of particularly notable works, nor even an attempt at a comprehensive list. What use do you see of that? Anmccaff (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not rehashing either of your AFD nominations of List of disappearing gun installations. The community spoke clearly. Toddst1 (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...elsewhere. That is, no one involved with this article formed that "consensus." Anmccaff (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per unambiguous consensus with one outlying objection. Toddst1 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather obviously inaccurate, @Toddst1:. Two potential objections, Doncram was agnostic as to where a (single) list should go. Anmccaff (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't pend on "potential objections." There has been only one objection: Anmccaff. Toddst1 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would be for Doncram to decide, not you, and "closing" a discussion on such a large change to the article on a week and some change's discussion is premature. Anmccaff (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's fair to characterize me as a potential supporter / potential objector regarding a short list being included in the main disappearing gun article, in the long run. In the short run, right now, I think it's proper for me to join the set of editors concerned about inappropriate overlap between the list-article vs. the list-section. In the short term, given some impasse in discussion, the only immediately-feasible solution is to delete the list-section, because there is clearly not a consensus to delete the list-article. Even Anmccaff seems mostly to accept the existence of the list-article, in their repeatedly noting that it could be developed to be a very long list. The proposed list-section is not different enough from the list-article to be explained to readers and sustained separately (IMHO, consistent with my comments above and with User:Nick-D's comment and with the two AFDs).

To Anmccaff, there are ways forward for you, supposing you want to "win" in the long run and have a list in the main article. Hopefully you don't mind putting in longterm effort in Wikipedia, and having a longterm "battle"-type motivation can in fact be good for development in Wikipedia, as long as we do try to be constructive in our efforts. Simple edit warring or repetition of AFDs would not be constructive now. I see one way forward is to develop the separate list-article so that your proposed short list really is different. Please see my recent additions of some coordinates and invitation at its Talk page; i really think it would be cool to have it link to all current satellite-visible disappearing gun installations in the world, which i think is feasible. If you could help develop it by, say, adding hundreds more current and former installations, that would strengthen your argument that a short, unwieldy list is different and is needed/helpful in the main article. In this discussion and/or the 2 AFDs, your argument has seemed like a "potential" argument, only, because the spectre has not been realized. Offhand, I am skeptical that it will be so easy to add any significant number. Contributing in that direction would earn some good will, some credibility with other editors/voters in future discussions that you have been participating constructively all along, in general. And it would be simply good to do. --doncram 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't see any encyclopedic value in a laundry-list of hundreds, perhaps a thousand or so locations, any more than there would be an encyclopedic value of List of Pintos by VIN or List of asphalt streets. This was the dominant design solution for several decades, and the article barely touches on the extent of their use. (It's also difficult to say where, say, the many French rail-mobile designs should use for their location, just for one issue.) Making such a list, as opposed to adding a simple category to actual articles, does not strike me as improving the encyclopedia at all. You've mentioned this is only a potential problem, but, in fact it's the goal of the article, right? A complete list?
I have left the list article alone for a good year, given that people whose opinions I (otherwise) respect have edited it, I'll probably continue to do so. But please don't waste my time or yours asking me to help put more lipstick on this pig. Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe it is not so piggish! Okay, I think I have misspoken and given a wrong impression about part of this. The list-article, like all other list-articles in Wikipedia, is to cover items having some notability. Not every church gets included in List of Presbyterian churches. The standard for list-item-notability can be determined by editors at its Talk page, and often is chosen to be restricted to items proven to be individually notable by their having separate articles already. In the many list-articles which I have created or been heavily involved with, I prefer to allow a lower standard, usually some other level of significance, and I certainly always want to require that all items have documentation/sources. So I should acknowledge that in the current list-article, few if any of the items have direct footnotes provided. Some/perhaps many items may not properly be supported by documentation (though the linked articles about batteries or forts need to be consulted to see if adequate sourcing about the disappearing guns are located there), and that should be remedied or the items should be removed. I shouldn't have called for additions of hundreds of items willy-nilly; any additions need to a) have specific documentation and b) be "notable" to some degree not yet defined. Perhaps this helps explain why I am skeptical that hundreds of items can be added. We all have some common ground: we don't want just a list of anywhere near all asphalt streets. But I do know there is one asphalt street in Indiana or Illinois that has an article, because it was the first one of some kind and is well-documented, including by its nomination documents for listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. --doncram 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that is precisely why this list was created, so that a particular person could add their newly-whelped pet article to the list here, despite its relatively low lack of notability....and equally low accuracy, come to think of it. That is where the list came from. Anmccaff (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lack of footnotes on the list, most of those, the ones existing in the article before all this fuss, are all bluelinks but...what, two? There's references enough in the linked articles. Even the couple that did not have a link to their name connected to some reliable source, IMS. Anmccaff (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Finally, yes, hundreds, I'd bet there are an easy 100 in the US alone. Anmccaff (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those followups. So you think most of the items are legitimate, but perhaps one or more (including the pet one, which I don't care to figure out which it is) are not. Then note that makes for another way forward: be actively involved in the list development, by advocating where reasonable for the list to be pruned. Then if it gets smaller rather than larger, your case for merging it back into the main article gets stronger. In these discussions, it comes across that you dislike and/or have given up on the list-article content, as if it is horrible and you view it to include completely non-significant silly items, and you want the list-section to be differentiated as being legitimate/significant items only, though it overlaps greatly. Well there's no acceptable way to explain that to readers. Do let's concern ourselves with the contents of the list, via discussion at Talk:List of disappearing gun installations. --doncram 22:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think almost all of the items are legitimate to a list of fairly important installations, at a level of importance that suggests we only need to add another 500 or so items, of which a good 300 have no online sources in English, and probably a good 100 of those have no easy sources in Latin or Cyrillic alphabets. The Chinese Empire cranked these out, as did the Japanese, although in both cases they were related to Western prototypes: Armstrong for China, Schneider-Canet for Japan, IMS. Most of the sources I've seen for Krupp's version are in Fraktur. The Russians used them to some degree. France, of course, used several mobile systems that tied into their border defenses, and you could make a case for them here, since many were intended to cover a specific area. This will be a uselessly big list at some point, yup. At least that's how I still see it. Anmccaff (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff needing sourcing & addition[edit]

Derussy design -eccentric wheel. Simplest, easiest, possibly most influential. no damn picture, limited or no actual use.

Morgan design. Lifting loading platform, sinking gun.

Affut-truck mounts. Limited number; only found 48 so far. Several appear to have been captured, used by Jerries, and later repatriated.

Numbers for Japanese Canet.

Numbers for Chinese production.

South America. dunno one way or other offhand.

Hong Kong.

Russo-Japanese War -mentioned in several sources, but not quantified.

do. Sino-Japanese

Total number of Popovska with DG.

Krupp design, use in DK.

Austrian -Skoda piece

Anmccaff (talk)

Film clip[edit]

Might this [6] film clip be used in the article? If so how and where?SovalValtos (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearing_gun&oldid=1206981837"