Talk:Charleville musket

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / French

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

Service time until 1816??

Has anybody got a reference for that? Were those muskets really in service for 99 years? I am confused - the first musket in the 1800s seems to be the Delvigne rifle of 1826.

Can it be that this service time includes the Musket Model 1777's service life? And which musket was used from 1816-1826, then?

--Dingo (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Charleville muskets that had been imported to the U.S. (mostly Model 1766's) were used during the War of 1812 so they were certainly used up to 1816. Off the top of my head, I don't know how much longer than that any of them were used.

The article currently lists use from 1717 to 1777, which is certainly incorrect. I won't have time any time soon to research when these things were actually retired so I am leaving the date alone for now. Feel free to modify it if you can provide a cite.

The Model 1777 is often referred to as a Charleville (in modern times at least), and should be included in this article even though a separate article exists for it.

Engineer comp geek (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cite listing 1840 as the end use date, so I put in that for now. I modified the production date to 1839 to be consistent with the Model 1777 article, but I don't have a cite for it.

Engineer comp geek (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Image

The pic was from a Musket Model 1777, not a 1717 or 1766. (See description) --Dingo (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

I am not so happy with Engineer Comp Geek's reorganisation of the article. All in all, the Charleville Muskets seem to be a series of muskets developed and constructed in the Charleville armoury; however, they are distinct weapons (Charleville 1766, Charleville 1777) rather than variants of the same musket; you cannot, eg., throw all rifles from Springfield Armoury into one article and add the totals (or Mauser rifles, for that matter).

I would put the different muskets back into seperate paragraphs; furthermore, significant models, like Musket model 1777 (already realised) or Charleville 1766, the role model for the Springfield musket, should over time get their own articles.

Any objections?

--Signal Intelligence Dingo, aka 79.204.97.112 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the article mainly because the different subsections for each model contained very little information, which made the subsections look a bit silly. I also tried to bring the article as a whole a bit more in line with the format of the wikipedia firearms project. I hoped to expand the section on the different models since I believe that section needs quite a bit of work, but I haven't had time to do it yet.

I have no objection to creating a different page for each model, as long as there is enough information on each page to warrant an article. A little one paragraph blurb about each model is nowhere near enough information to warrant a separate article. If you do want to make separate articles for each model, you should follow what was done for the Springfield muskets for consistency. There is a main article about the Springfield musket in general, which has an overview of what changed from one model to the next. The individual articles then focus on their specific model and give more detail.

I would also suggest naming the article for each model something other than simply Model X musket (where X is the year) like what was done for the Model 1777. Adding the nationality like French Model X Musket would be sufficient. The Model 1777 article should be renamed if this is done so that they are all consistent in naming style.

As for this article, I would object to putting each individual model in its own paragraph as long as each paragraph contains so little information. When enough information about each model exists to have a decent sized paragraph, then I would not object to the individual models being listed. In fact, that's pretty much what I planned on doing once I have the time to sit down and list the differences between each model in more detail.

The history section also needs quite a bit more work, and there are many more variants that aren't even listed. I had planned on adding those as well, again, once I had time to do so.

Engineer comp geek (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the variants section, and once again split the models out into their own subsections now that I think each model has enough information to warrant this. This section still needs some work.

Engineer comp geek (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]