Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history | Weaponry task force

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Rjjiii (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 4 July 2024 (consolidating archive templates (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


A new navigation template for British and Commonwealth armoured fighting vehicles of World War II

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)

Well, no objections have been raised, so I went ahead and implemented the changes. I've also nominated Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2 for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 21, as all the links are now in one template.Raoulduke47 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for T-26

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)

Disambiguating Mortars

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)

Infobox for torpedoes?

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)

If you can put together a list of fields that are needed for torpedoes but are missing from {{Infobox Weapon}}, we can add them. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Fields for speed, propulsion and guidance would be great. :-) Also, if a country-of-origin field could be added to {{Infobox Missile}} that would be good. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made some changes to {{Infobox Weapon}}:
  • is_missile - new field, should be set to "yes" for missiles and torpedoes
  • speed - now available for missiles
  • engine - now available for missiles
  • guidance - new field
Do we need a separate "propulsion" field, or will the "engine" field suffice? Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Engine" should work. Much thanks! :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just updated Mark 50 torpedo with the 'new' Infobox Weapon. Speed and engine fields work, but the 'guidance' field isn't showing up. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed now. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've also changed the filling/filling weight fields to display as "Warhead" and "Warhead weight" when is_missile is set. Kirill Lokshin 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool, much thanks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Weapon}} and cartridges/shells

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)

{{Infobox firearms cartridge}} (not my creation) has been added to the 9 mm Luger Parabellum article and probably a few other articles that I don't have in my watchlist. I think it's a good infobox; I did a little style/formatting editing, and I'm sure that, with the help of more knowledgeable editors here, it could easily be adapted for use in the project. Hope that helps. —Squalla 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting; I hadn't seen that one around. It seems derivative of {{Infobox Weapon}} as far as the top half is concerned, but doesn't carry over all of the production/service history fields, for some reason.
As a practical point, would it be a good idea to absorb it into {{Infobox Weapon}} (removing the need to have the non-specification fields synchronized between two infoboxes), or is there some reason why an entirely separate infobox would be preferred? Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi on this topic, should all the tank articles be using the {{Infobox Weapon}} infobox? The M1 does and probably a few others, but the Y34 FA and several others using the {{AFV}} infobox. RHB Talk - Edits 11:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The plan was, at one point, to convert everything to {{Infobox Weapon}}; the question, as usual, is whether there's anything available in {{AFV}} that the combined infobox doesn't support. I vaguely recall that the fields of at least one tank infobox were added to {{Infobox Weapon}} (hence the "is_vehicle" option); but is there anything else we'd need to add before it can fully replace {{AFV}}? Kirill Lokshin 16:25, 20 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)

Seems doable; I'll take a look at it a bit later. One question, though: there are several "X diameter" fields in {{Infobox firearms cartridge}}; is it necessary to have each of them be an entirely separate field, as in:
|neck_diameter= X mm
|rim_diameter= Y mm
or could we get away with having all of them appear in the existing "diameter" field:
|diameter= X mm (neck),<br/> Y mm (rim)
which would significantly reduce the number of fields to be added? Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cartridges are unique among themselves (in part) due to their dimensions; I think this would justify having separate fields for diameters, much like firearms use separate fields for "caliber" and "cartridge" (just a rough example). On the other hand, I don't think the instance you used looks bad at all, and if all the information can be added in an organized manner, it should be okay. On a side note, I feel like I'm going nowhere with what I'm writing here, so I guess it's a good idea to get input from more straight-forward users. :-P —Squalla 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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...

  • I am particularly proud of the the way I made the ballistics data section. Worked pretty hard on it. I'd like to see it stay in it's current form if at all possible.
  • I feel that the source of the ballistics data is very important. This stuff varies from manufacturer to manufacturer so knowing whos data is being displayed is key.
  • The dimensions are listed that way mostly because that's how they were when I got to it. But I've been getting most of my dimension data from reloading manuals, and they list the same info. As such, I kept it.
  • Seperate fields are a must IMO.
  • My silly ownership issues aside, merging doesn't seem like the right move. There's alot of detailed data that goes into the current template. Merging would make the Weapon template even more long and complicated than it is. In fact, I'd say that some of those others in there could be broken out. I heard someone say "Is a seperate template really necessary?". I'd say, "Is a one-size-fits-all template really necessary?" I mean, right tool for the right job. Seems like diminishing returns applies here, eh? But hey, that's just me. I generally go with the grain on WP even if I disagree (that is, concensus rules). Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the combination of things into the weapon infobox was driven more by the fact that individual topics reqired a combination of separate infoboxes (e.g. self-propelled artillery needing both artillery and vehicle data in a single infobox), but cartidges tend not to combine with other weapon types. Thus, I have no real issues with retaining the separate infobox for them, provided that a few issues with it are resolved:
  • All of the fields in the first portion of {{Infobox Weapon}} should be carried over, as they can all apply to cartidges just as well as to other materiel; some of them (e.g. "used_by", "variants", "manufacturer", "wars", etc.) seem to have been dropped, for no apparent reason.
  • I'd like, as much as possible, for the field names to be consistent in usage between the two templates; this applies, as far as I can see, only to the "nation" field.
  • I'd also like to see this infobox handle artillery shells; this would basically involve copying over the fields used for explosives.
  • The template should probably be moved to {{Infobox Cartridge}}, tying in with the above.
  • A few little coding quirks to be cleaned up to make the templates's behavior consistent with the other military-related infoboxes.
Any objections to these? Or other comments? Kirill Lokshin 07:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Sounds great. Notes on your notes...
  • I was planning to add the remaining fields. Just haven't gotten to it.
  • I agree with the field names. Again, haven't gotten to it. Good thing this template isn't in wide use yet, eh?  ;-)
  • Artillery. Sounds good.
  • Cartridge is sort of ambiguous. For example, "toner cartridge", or "ink cartridge". That's why I specifically chose the name I did. I guess I have no real problem moving it if you feel strongly, but I do think the name is good now.
  • I will concede that you are much better at this than I am. If you WANT to carry out the changes, have at it. I'll certainly do it, but it'll take a bit more time for me than it might you. I know the coding, but I'm not a wiz at it yet. As such, it's not likely to be fast or perfect.  ;-) Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 12:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's see:
  • I've added all the needed fields and matched the field names. I think I've corrected all of the existing usages, but someone might want to go through and double-check them.
  • I've removed the deprecated fields from the code; if they're deprecated, there's no sense in keeping them around.
  • Fair point about the name. I've moved it to {{Infobox Firearm Cartridge}}, to match the infobox capitalization conventions, though.
  • Code has been cleaned up (at least I couldn't find anything wrong with it now).
  • Documentation has been updated.
I've also made note of the new template in all the needed places within the project. Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh man! You rock. Looks great. I could learn something from this I think.  ;-) Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the ballistic performance data in the infobox is missing SI units. I suppose alternate units could be added in parenthesis (much like in {{Infobox Weapon}}), but in this case it looks like doing so would mess up the lines/fields. Is there another way to do that? —Squalla 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be possible to do some sort of parameter trick. I have only a vague idea of how ballistics are actually measured, though; could somebody more knowledgeable put together an example showing the data with SI units? Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose bullet weight should be given in grams (g), speed in meters per second (m/s), and energy in joules (J). Not sure if this is the kind of example you need, but there's one here. Hope that helps. —Squalla 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That works; thanks! I'll see what I can come up with for doing it in the template. Kirill Lokshin 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's fine as is.
  • Bullet weight are nearly always grains. In fact, I've never seen any other unit used in any ballistics data.
  • Same with speed. Always feet per second.
  • I have seen joules used, but rarely.
If you check cartridge manufactures data chart, this stuff is rarely, if at all, grams, m/s, and joules. See these...
These are just a few of the big ones. I could go on. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Grains are indeed used more universally for ballistics, but Imperial units for speed and energy are rarely used outside of the U.S., UK and Commonwealth countries. Even though the majority of sources for ballistic data come from American publications (and therefore the original Imperial values should come first), I believe SI units should be included because of international usage. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. —Squalla 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright. How about this... remove fps and ft/lbs notations, leave grains. This would allow the the person using the template to input their own notation (as with the measurment params). Then update the infobox directions to say that measurement units should be included.
Grains is tricky because the notation is a) necessary; and b) in the middle of the sentance which creates a problem leaving it out. Besides, changing the template to remove fps and ft/lbs wouldn't damage exisiting use too much, where removing grains would. Sounds like we agree on grains as universal though. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to have auto-conversions from one unit to the other. If we come up with (reasonably simple) formulas for deriving Imperial units from SI ones and vice versa, we could allow the editor to input one and calculate the other on the fly. Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 30 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)

Quickly, as an example, when I add the cartridge infobox to a page, I always add both inches and millimeters. But... which one I put in parentheses is dictated my how the round in measured (ie. 9 mm vs. .45) In this example, 9 mm has metric as the main unit, with english units in parentheses. .45 would be the other way around. Editor choice (albeit based on logic). No? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here; I was assuming a single per-article selection of the "native" units. A sample is at right; note how the values are passed in as Imperial measurements, but a secondary SI set is displayed automatically (and vice versa on the second set). Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That's just what I had in mind, Kirill. Looks good! —Squalla 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ooohhh... I see. We were talking about two different things. I like this suggestion. Couple of things to work out though I think...
  • Is there potential for the column to be too small? Seems like it's pushing maximum density there. See my example (third box).
  • How to put this together so it's easy to use and prone to as little user error as possible? (I'll bet you have an idea, eh?  ;-)
-Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 23:04, 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)

Yep, the fourth one seems the cleanest. The practical question is whether we need to provide a conversion for the bullet weight. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be necessary. I won't bore you with a big list of links like I did before. But here is one bullet manufacture that has a table listing both. Notice that grains are all non-decimal numbers. Grams are all decimals. For whatever it's worth, to me that's evidence that grains are the primary unit of measurment by the manufacture. Also, "gr" is wikified in the infobox. Anyone unclear as to what that means only need click on it to find out.
Buuuut... if a good idea comes along I'm open to suggestion. Otherwise, a grams conversion seems unnecessary. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated the infobox to use the auto-conversion with the fourth option above. The existing uses will probably be somewhat broken—the numbers need to be passed in without commas—so any help going through and fixing them would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed all the ones that were broken now. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great job! I vertically centered the weight/type cell, and wikified SI units and Imperial Units in the directions. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cartridge infobox - barrel length with ballistics data

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...

  • Maybe a line just under the heading, but just over the mini-table for barrel length.
  • Better, a line just above the Source line (in the same table cell) for the barrel length (preferred, I think).
  • Should be optional.

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)

The second option (putting it next to the source) seems cleaner. Other than that, this seems like a good idea; presumably the parameter would be test_barrel_length? Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 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
test_barrel_length sounds good. Next to the source though? Depending on the source length it may cause word wraping. Would sort of look weird I think. To the right is what I'm picturing, with the second one being preferable. I likw the third one too though (maybe the most). Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the second one looks a bit neater than the third, but it's not a big deal either way. Kirill Lokshin 10:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The second one looks better. —Squalla 15:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then... unless someone else weighs in in the near future (unlikely I think), it sounds settled. Second one. I like. Kirill should do, as this is now falling under his (her?) sphere of control. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely his. ;-)
I'll try to get to this in the next day or two (unless somebody else has a better idea?). Kirill Lokshin 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done (I think); somebody go check it on an article and see whether it works as expected. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I removed an extraneous quote mark and updated the examples. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


A-Class review for T-26

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)


Cartridge infobox, formating idea

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)

Good general idea, but some things I would change about the implementation:
  • Splitting things into two sub-templates is overkill, I think; no reason why a single one can't just return both cells (or all three, even).
  • The breaks in the lines are very annoying. One way of getting rid of them—and making the appearance more consistent with other MILHIST infoboxes, to boot—would be to change them to be "1px silver dotted". The gaps won't be noticeable then.
  • The lines need to be conditional on the presence of succeeding parameters, to prevent an extra line from displaying.
Kirill Lokshin 23:46, 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)

Looks good to me; if nobody else has any objections, please feel free to copy the code over to the live infobox. :-) Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait a day to see if anyone is paying attention. Then I'll do it tomorrow some time. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Bah! I'm bored. I'll just do it now. I can always revert if there are objections. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Auto-conversion

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)

Obvious question: can't we just use the existing is_SI_units parameter? Kirill Lokshin 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I didn't think of that. Now I feel stupid. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Turns out there is a reason. The measurements of the cartridge may not be in the same units as the ballistics data. I won't pretend I thought of that. It was just a happy accident. But when I went to change the param in the code, it hosed it. One displayed properly (the .357 SIG) as it was given in imperial units in both the measurements and ballistics. But the 9 mm infobox is given in SI units for the measurements, but imperial in the ballistics. As such, only one or the other displays right.
Check it out...
The code - Revert to the prev version to test.
The example - Scroll down to see the 9 mm infobox.
Comments? -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What a mess. I would guess that the best thing would be to rename is_SI_units to is_SI_ballistics and introduce the new parameter as is_SI_specs; having two parameters named is_SI and is_metric is going to lead to no end of confusion, I think. Other than that, this seems like a good idea.
(The reason it wouldn't really work for the main weapon infobox, incidentally, is because the fields can use arbitrary-magnitude units. There's no clean way—at least using this model—of having a field that accepts both nautical miles and centimeters, for example.) Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. If no objections, I plan to implement (and of course fix current use instances). -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review for T-34

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)

Added

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)

Missing weapon topics

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)

A lot of those should be on the task force's open task list already. :-) Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, noticed that but I have updated this page relatively recently as well :-) - Skysmith 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that most of the guns you've listed actually have articles- is English your second language, by any chance? Not wanting to appear snarky here, but you've got things like Webley .455 and Webley Mark 6 on the list, when a quick search of Wikipedia would have revealed articles entitled .455 Webley and Webley Revolver, dealing with the various Webley Revolvers, (.455 calibre and otherwise), as well as the ammunition. Similarly, the re's a fairly good article on the Browning Hi-Power, the Colt Double Action Revolver M1877 that you list is better known as the Colt Lightning (and already has an article, albeit one with room for improvement), Luger P-08 is actually located at Luger pistol... you get the idea. I've taken the liberty of adding redirects to the correct articles from your page, but it's definitely a good list that gives us something to work with! --Commander Zulu 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspected as much and previously removed at least the most obvious ones. In some cases I was unsure about the similarity (like with the Hi-Powers). And apparently I simply missed some. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You could take battle fan off that list. There's already an article for it under Tessen. KillTheToy 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template Organization

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)

Is there some way we can automate this? Jakew 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any easy way to do it. You could write a bot to keep the lists alphabetized, I suppose; but I have no idea who'd want to do it. Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You could ask EssJay, he has written a few bots, I think... Zazzer 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No matter. I had some random idea about doing something clever with categories, but on reflection it was completely dumb. Ah well. Jakew 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit for everyone. --Warlord 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Panzer I

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)

A-Class review for Battleship

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)

Peer review request for Iowa class battleship

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)

A-Class review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship

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)

Firearms article structure guideline request

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

  • History: A history of the weapon including background events leading to the design and the evolution of design, plus service history.
  • Design/Features: A description of the major points of the weapon. It includes details of the operating mechanism, how the weapon is maintainted and operated by the user, and ballistics.
  • Accessories: A list and description of the officially approved accessories issued with the weapon such as bayonets and any special cleaning kits.
  • Variants: A list and description of all variants and close descendants of the weapon plus production details.
  • Civilian Use: A general description of the use of the weapon by non-military, non-government, and legally entitled groups.
  • Cultural Impact (if any): A general summary of the weapon's impact on culture(s). This must comply with WP:MILHIST#POP

Veritas Panther 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a decent idea, overall. Two issues, though:
  • According to WP:MILHIST#POP, cultural impact sections shouldn't be all that common; thus, I'm not sure if one ought to be specified in a suggested structure, as it may be viewed as an encouragement to create them everywhere.
  • Under what section would discussion of the weapon's performance be placed?
Kirill Lokshin 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the first point. I felt that some weapons being substantial cultural icons do deserve a section.
Second point. Performance would probably be within design features as performance is a factor determined by this. Certain reputations and views about the weapon could in fact be placed in the history section. Veritas Panther 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So how does this go? Do we vote on this proposal or just go with it if there aren't any serious disagreements? Veritas Panther 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If there aren't any objections, we can just go with it; it's not a particularly high-profile guideline—it's just a recommended article structure—so I don't think anything more complicated will be needed. Kirill Lokshin 06:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I presently must make mention or query--is popularity gifted by non-legal entities relevant information? I may overlook mention in suggested structure. Is it willed to presently conform present articles to this structure? The thought occurs, that this is not being required (This is right? This is in actual meaning of suggestion?) but will not do harm, to grant it unofficially officiated, while lacking objection and current ruling as well, is that correct? MVMosin 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is intended only to be a suggested structure, not a hard one-size-fits-all rule that articles must follow. Kirill Lokshin 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, barring any objections, I think we can adopt this in the near future. Kirill Lokshin 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the guidelines are now on the project page. Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like to keep it official in my articles, no cultural references, cold data and factory information organized in the following manner:

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)

In time before possible concern

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)

Question of weapon naming

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)

Dunno; I'm guessing this is just what someone picked, initially. If there's a more typically used variant of the name, I don't see a problem with moving the article to it. Kirill Lokshin 11:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Hugo Stoltzenberg

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)

A-Class review for Tupolev TB-3

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)

Metric vs. Imperial?

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)

Mmm, dunno. The cartridge infobox, for example, has been designed to do automatic conversion; aside from that, the convention I've seen is to base it on the country where the weapon was designed/manufactured/used. Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, any chance I could get your opinion on British equipment of the Second World War? The U.K. is currently a metric using nation, but the argument has been put forward that during the era of WWII, they used Imperial measurements. Oberiko 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I generally go with the imperial calibre first for historical British weapons, and its metric conversion in parenthesis, e.g. 0.303 inch (7.7 mm), 4.5 inch (114 mm). This doesn't hold universally however. For instance, the 7.92 mm and 15 mm BESA machine guns and the 20 mm Oerlikon, Hispano and Polsten guns and the 40 mm Bofors and Vickers-S guns Are never referred to in inches (except perhaps in a conversion table). Then of course there are the weapons rated in pounds, which are rarely referred to in a second imperial unit (inches) e.g the 2 pounder (40 mm / 1.57 inches). Rules about designations rarely, if ever, seem to hold universally for British weapons. Emoscopes Talk 08:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I use Imperial measurements on all British calibres introduced before the UK went Metric, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do I support the use of a "Metric equivalent" ton an Imperial calibre. The calibre is .303 British, not 7.7mm British. As a general rule, it depends on the country of origin, too- the 40mm Bofors was a Swedish weapon, so it would be OK to list it as a metric calibre, but it's not OK, IMHO, to have the .455 Webley listed as being an 11.5mm calibre or whatever it works out to. I view the calibre nomenclatures as actual names, rather than just mere designations (if that makes sense), FWIW. --Commander Zulu 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur, Commander Zulu. The calibre is part of the name, and conversions should only be used in parenthesis for the benefit of those not familiar with the units in question. Emoscopes Talk 09:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The general rule for measurements is to put the unit the measurement was made in first, then any conversions. This means that if a gun's caliber is specified in pounds, then you'd describe it as a "17-pounder (3.0 inches; 76mm)". --Carnildo 07:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How about for specifications like vehicle weight and dimensions? Oberiko 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Chemical weapons in the Rif War

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)

Infoboxes for firearms

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)

A-Class review for Zveno project

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)

Infoboxes for Armored Vehicles

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)

Mostly done now. And, yes, the old infoboxes are all being deprecated in favor of the new one; we just haven't gotten around to a lot of them yet. Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks a bunch. I'll see what I can do. Tmaull 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Firearms Project

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)

A most worthy suggestion- I'd also like to propose that we select 20 firearms (10 rifles, 10 handguns) for the same treatment, in order to increase the profile of both projects here on WP. --Commander Zulu 09:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a great idea; certainly, there are enough editors to carry through with something like this, I think. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Articles for FA Status

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)

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

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)

Help

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

  • You are going to replace it with more relevant information immediately
  • The article is complete nonsense.

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)

Hi. Just for your information: the article you created was deleted by an administrator for not citing sources that assert the notability of the article's subject per this and this guideline. In other words, it was deleted because of policy concerns and not because your contributions weren't appreciated. If you feel that the article did not violate policy, deletion review is the proper place to voice your concerns. Just though you might like to know that. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 09:06, 21 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)

Anytime. :)
If you want to add cites and maybe merge your work into Torpedo, you can also request 'history only' undeletion. If you need any assistance, feel free to send me a message. I'd be happy to help. Cheers -- Seed 2.0 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Soviet/Russian artillery

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)

Help

Not specifically Wikipedia related, but can anyone tell me some medieval Russian/Soviet weapons? I'd like to learn a bit more about them. Thanks Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediaeval Soviet? Emoscopes Talk 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes please :) Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there's no such thing as "Medieval Soviet"- the Soviet Union lasted from 1922-1991, some 400-odd years after the Medieval period of Western History. I think you meant "Medieval Russian" weapons, right? ;-) --Commander Zulu 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

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)

Webley Revolver nominated for FAC

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)

Good news- Webley Revolver has been promoted to Featured Article status! Thanks for your support, everyone! --Commander Zulu 05:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cannon

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)

A-Class review for Ironclad warship

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)

Peer review request for Dreadnought

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)

A-Class review for 37 mm Gun M3

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)

Costs of modern weapon programs?

There is almost no article that mentions that, and it is hardly a trivial information?--Victor falk 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Sukhoi Su-25

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)

A-Class review for Cannon

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)

A technical is a gun truck operated by brown people

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

Peer review request for Enfield revolver

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)

Help needed in T-18 Soviet tank variants

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

US nuclear warhead designation conventionn

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)

Standardizing armoured fighting vehicle categories

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

That seems like a good approach. It's consistent with the naming used for military equipment and units (see WP:MILHIST#CATNAME), which follow many of the same branching principles (country, war, era, etc.).
On the other hand, why not take this one step further and propose that everything from military equipment on down follow this consistently? I don't see any real reason why, say, artillery would need to use different naming conventions than tanks do. Doing things from a higher level will save us time having to fiddle with each sub-tree separately; and Category:Military equipment by country already follows these conventions, so it's unlikely anyone will object to using them for its sub-categories. Kirill 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You know what? The parent category:Military equipment is already listed under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics, so we can just speedy-move all of the vehicle and AFV categories. If there are no objections, I'll start on that in the next few days. —Michael Z. 2007-08-18 17:03 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

Erm, the by-war breakdowns don't match our usual naming convention for them, which is to follow both the by-country and by-war name-order conventions; in other words, we should wind up with names like Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of Poland in World War II rather than the proposed Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles of Poland. (This may admittedly be outside the intended scope of this particular renaming, but I don't really see the sense in just doing another one afterwards.) Kirill 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that does sound better. I wasn't sure about the convention, and just went on the assumption that consistency was improved and I would try to speedy-move the whole batch. There are a number of related categories yet to be moved, so I'll get around to sorting them out eventually. —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 20:17 Z

Armoured fighting vehicles by era

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'm not sure; the usage of "modern era" seems off here. In the other categories (e.g. Category:Warfare of the Modern era), this refers to everything post-WWII; but here the intent seems to be "current use" instead. If that's the case, it may be cleaner to do a two-level structure:
Kirill 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tmaull 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, "period" sounds much more sensible than era. But how about keep it simple using a flat hierarchy? Since there are only six subcategories, and practically no articles that particularly belong to the industrial or modern eras, let's just skip the eras, and put these into Category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, or "by period"?
Hm, "in current use" could be problematic. What we really mean here is "from after the Cold War", whether they are still in use or not, and not including older AFVs which are still in use. How about one of the following?
"Of the future" sounds a bit sci-fi. How about:
 —Michael Z. 2007-08-18 23:59 Z
I would go with Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of the post-Cold War period here, to avoid using terms that already have other meanings. As for a one-layer versus two-layer hierarchy, I don't care all that much; but I think there are benefits to keeping things consistent with the overall five-era (Ancient/Medieval/Early Modern/Industrial/Modern) breakdown, even if the number of sub-categories isn't large. Kirill 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Naming for consistency is good, but I think that adding the intermediate categories which will remain almost empty only fragments the list. It also gives editors another layer of classification to debate, without improving the organization of articles, in this case.
So the proposed list is:
Is Future armoured fighting vehicles needed? Its meagre contents certainly qualifies as "post-Cold War" whether it is implemented or not, although Future Combat Systems isn't an AFV at all. —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 13:13 Z
We can probably get away with not having it and just putting things into the post-CW category; that'll simplify things a bit. Kirill 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've posted this for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 20#Children of category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era. —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 16:20 Z
I just closed the discussion as accepting the proposed changes. the wub "?!" 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Military equipment of the Soviet Union, Russia, and Ukraine

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

I've proposed this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 21#Russian and Soviet military equipment. —Michael Z. 2007-08-21 16:05 Z —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:05, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Resolution: this proposal was accepted and the categories renamed, some time ago. —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:22 Z

A-Class review for Enfield revolver now open

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)

Mine warfare vs mines categories

Please see a proposal for a minor reorganization at category talk:landmines. —Michael Z. 2007-08-24 20:47 Z

Ablative armour

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

Rifle picture wishlist

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry_task_force/Archive_4&oldid=1232552520"