Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


As we should all be aware, "In Popular Culture" sections in articles are- generally- to be avoided (WP:MILHIST#POP). Now, my understanding is that (and I'm reposting part of a comment I made on the talk page for the Winchester Model 1887/1901 article and the Outreach page here) the Pop Culture guidelines were introduced to stop Anime fans from including every. single. piece of obscure anime in which someone had a Mauser Broomhandle, or people adding lists with things like "A character in Randomfilm can be seen holding a Tokarev TT-33 in the scene when Something Interesting happens". It wasn't intended to create a situation in which we all pretend that firearms don't appear in movies or in popular culture, which is what we're veering dangerously close to at the moment, IMHO. It is (rightly) a given that any given WWII film is going to feature people with M1 Garands, Mauser K98s, or Lee-Enfield rifles, or that people in Westerns will be brandishing Winchester rifles and Colt revolvers, and that this doesn't need to be mentioned. But when people are deleting references to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Winchester Model 1901 Shotgun in Terminator 2 because it's "not notable", or factual references to the Lee-Enfield rifle being mis-used in films (for example, the Turkish soldiers in Lawrence of Arabia and the German soldiers in The Blue Max are shown with Lee-Enfield rifles, despite the fact the Turks or the Germans did not use the rifle in WWI) being removed as being "trivia" I start to get very frustrated. I'm thinking that it might be a good idea clarify the "In Popular Culture" requirements in a more specific way, so we can acknowledge the significance of firearms in movies without crossing the line into trivia. --Commander Zulu 12:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on this topic should probably go to WT:MILHIST#Firearms in Popular Culture Sections (or lack thereof), to avoid fracturing the discussion. Kirill 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bomb

I noticed today that Bomb is completely unreferenced and has been since at least May 2007. I think others here will be better able to fix this than I can, so I thought a notice would be in order. Johntex\talk 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tellermine

I noticed that there are several pages on the various models of Teller mines. None of them are very large and I don't think they could expand much more, should they be merged? Oberiko 14:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As the main author of the articles I would prefer if they remain distinct - for now at least. I've been trying to track down a couple of sources that should enable me to expand the articles a bit more fully. My rusty German is a bit of a sticking point however. Megapixie 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mountain guns and artillery categories

Category:Mountain artillery is a subcategory of Category:Mountain guns. This seems backwards, but is there any need for two different categories at all? —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 20:46 Z

Requested move for modern tanks navbox

I've proposed moving {{Modern tanks}} to {{Post-Cold War tanks}}, more for the purpose of changing its scope and inclusion criteria than just to rename it. Please see template talk:Modern tanks#Requested move. —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 20:22 Z

The template was moved without opposition. —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:05 Z


Tank generations

List of main battle tanks by generation has no references at all. Anybody have a book or article which discusses generations of tanks? —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:06 Z

Nazi belt buckle pistol

Can someone take on this article? As written, it appears to be someone's OR musings derived from viewing two pictures of said item. Embarrassing. Maralia 16:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an area of expertise for me, I'm afraid, but I do know there was a twin-barrel example too. If I remember correctly, it was .32 caliber. I just mention this so that anyone who decides to work on it knows there were at least two designs to search for information on. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Pre-dreadnought now open

The A-Class review for Pre-dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

T-90 debate

If anyone gets a chance, more opinions are needed in a debate regarding the addition of a section counterpointing the T-90's lack of blow off panels. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Barrage (artillery) now open

The peer review for Barrage (artillery) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Dreadnought now open

The peer review for Dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Denel PAW-20 Neopup

I've got a user stating that the Denel PAW-20 Neopup should be called the Neopup PAW-20 and was designed and manufactured by Tony Neophytou. But the existing sources and a google search indicate Gemaco Elbree Pty Ltd and DENEL as being the design and manufacturing concerns. Could someone with more resources check this and advise? Mbisanz (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Austeyr F88 rifle merge?

Am i right for thinking it should be merge with Steyr AUG? Nothing in the article makes any real distinction of it being entirely different and more of something that should go under a variant section. So....BonesBrigade 05:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't really contain any unique information. Koalorka (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support- The Austeyr is just a variant of the Steyr AUG, and as far as I can tell the only difference between the two guns is that the Austeyr has a bayonet lug. It doesn't really need its own article, IMHO.--Commander Zulu (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI but the regular AUG can also have a bayo lug if ordered as an option. Koalorka (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity test GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this task forces's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Trinity test and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The peer review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard missiles

I've apparently caused somewhat of a problem when I tried to split Standard Missile into its various types RIM-66, RIM-67 and RIM-161. I've been looking at splitting it out since 2006 and there was general agreement, but not much input. As of right now it is split into RIM-66 Standard missile medium range, RIM-67 Standard missile extended range and RIM-161 Standard missile 3. There has been some objection to the names selected, as noted at Talk:RIM-161 Standard missile 3 and that name would affect the names of the rest. Unfortunately we can't use SM-1, SM-2 and SM-3 since RIM-66 is both SM-1MR and SM-2MR and RIM-67 is both SM-1ER and SM-2ER. We also need a centralized location for this discussion to be held. Since these are shipboard missiles and I have asked WP:Ships for input as well. Another problem is where RIM-156 SM-2ER information should be placed. Its not quite enough for its own article, I was leaning towards putting it in the RIM-66 Standard ER article. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to generally avoid too many specialized articles and would prefer a solution with single articles that list all modifications of a weapon. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Project on Commons for Weapons

Good Evening Wikiusers

Once I had a idea for creating a project for weapons to exchange information and list new galleries 'cause I think now we have a little chaos. What do u think about that? But I probably need your help 'cause I never created such a project. Some words about me: I actually work only with modern firearms. I also started an discussions on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms--Sanandros (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A tree structure for weapons on commons would be a good idea. But how exactly should it look like? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) now open

The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxis in general weapon articles

Tank
Soldiers from U.S. 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment provide overwatch for troops from their M1 Abrams tank in Biaj, Iraq
Typearmoured fighting vehicle
Place of originUnited Kingdom and France
Service history
In service1915–present
WarsWorld War I and many since
Production history
DesignerBritish Landships Committee, William Tritton

Does it make any sense to put a simple version of Template:Infobox Weapon on articles for general categories of weapons?

It would serve as a place to feature some quick-reference info, like date and place of introduction and employment, e.g., range of displacements of heavy cruisers, the range of specs which define a medium-range ballistic missile, etc. It may be useful to add some more generalized fields for this, e.g., "Role".

This would also help visually tie these articles to the project, to each other, and to the more specific weapon articles. It would also serve as a convenient place to put navigation boxes for more specific articles, as is done for wars/campaigns/operations/battles, thus further reinforcing the hierarchy (e.g. personal weapon > sword > Japanese sword > katana, or list of military vehicles > armoured fighting vehicle > tank > tanks in World War I > Mark I tank). Stacking such navigation templates and taking advantage of intermediate summary articles might also lead to a more efficient replacement for ugly monolithic templates like template:WWIISovietAFVs, but I haven't given this idea much thought yet. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 06:14 z

Seems like it could be useful, yes. Obviously, some articles will be less amenable to it than others—something like firearm will only have a few fields—but, if nothing else, an infobox provides a neat shell for a leading image, and a good place to put {{military navigation}} boxes. Kirill (prof) 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Verdeja now open

The peer review for Verdeja is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Verdeja now open

The A-Class review for Verdeja is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PRB 408

  • I have created this article, but I don´t know the type of mine this is. Can somebody help me with this so I can place it in the propperly section of the List of landmines?

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

Hey everyone try to take care of one or more items on the To-do list this weekend. For my part, I just hit infrared scope and starlight scope with redirects. I'm not sure what should be done with guided torpedo; a while ago I created (with help from Seed 2.0) a guided torpedo article; the article was deleted, and while some of it was merged into acoustic torpedo, most of it was trashed. Any and all opinions will be appreciated. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This "To-do list" should be also embellished or upgraded. I think it can be more organized with tables, lists or something and not just a waste-like deposit of red links, all continuous and tedious of indexing -- Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . 15:49, 23 July 2008 (GMT-6)

Cutlery Project

Well, it might be a stretch, but I'm putting together a "Wikiproject: Cutlery" to cover knife and bladed weapons. As I obviously have "crossover interest", I was wondering if any of you might have the same. Maybe a task force under this project? Let it be known here:[1]. Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's going to cover a lot of non-military topics, I suspect that it'd work best as simply a related but otherwise independent project; it wouldn't really make sense to integrate it further into the military history tree. Kirill (prof) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Panzer I now open

The A-Class review for Panzer I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Warhead

A warhead is only a projectile which has a self propulsion system and a explosive or it can be also something like an artillery shell?, this can be explosive, but not propelled. What about the gravity bombs?, although there are some smart bombs that can modify their trajectory during free fall, they are not self-propelled things. The 'warhead' article also mention the kinetic projectiles (which redirects only to projectile) as a type of warhead, and they have no explosive payload at all. It can be warhead something that lacks of propulsion and/or explosive properties? This needs to be more accurate and clarified and I will apreciate if someone who knows can clarify my doubts. -- Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . 15:50, 23 July 2008 (GMT-6)

A-Class Review for Panzer I Reopened

The A-Class Review for Panzer I has been reopened. Your comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TAM tank A-class Review Open

An A-class review for TAM (tank) has been opened. Your comments are welcomed! Thanks!. JonCatalán (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for AMX-30E now open!

An A-class review for the article AMX-30E has been opened. Any and all editors are invited to participate! Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for Panzer IV opened

Panzer IV is now going through an A-class review. All comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon now open

The peer review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Weaponry

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Firearm

I see that this article has been selected for Wikipedia 0.7 for publication on CD/DVD. As this is a core topic, would any editors like to invest a little time improving the article? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

need research help

I'd like to create an article on a new weapon being fielded to United States Marine Corps units. Currently, internal notices ar etelling us that we will be recieving the Rifle, 7.62 MM, M39, Enhanced Marksman Rifle (EMR) in order to deplace the Designated Marksman Rifle (both are based on the M14 rifle). I have some great photos and technical manual information from internal messages. Unfortunately none of these are publicly available, meaning I have no valid references! I haven't been able to find any reliable sources online about this (just some discussion forums)... would I be wrong in referencing a technical manual that isn't available to the average reader? bahamut0013♠♣ 14:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agh, the temptation is killing me! I have oodles of technical information on this weapon, and the manuals taunt me! bahamut0013♠♣ 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I invite you all to help improve M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle. bahamut0013♠♣ 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Foil (fencing) article, specifically Image:Anatomyoffoil.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Corps

Hi all, I have been slowly improving Chemical Corps (United States Army) over the last year. There's tons more to do and any assistance (fellow Dragon Soldiers come out of the woodwork now) would be appreciated by me, and the article's readers. There are some red links that might be fun to create, maybe some good DYKs there. Anyone who wants to help should stop by. I have compiled a bunch of sources on the talk page and there is an open question there that could use some input too. Thanks. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WT:MILHIST --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SDK carbine

I just came across this article this morning and at first thought someone was pulling my leg; a quick Google search does seem to confirm that this rifle existed but that's about it. There was a claim in the article that the SDK influenced the British DeLisle Commando Carbine, which I removed- I've read extensively on the DeLisle and until this morning I'd never heard of the SDK carbine, which suggests that it didn't influence anything. The SDK article itself isn't well written ("Hitler Assassination Rifle"???) so it might be worth investing some time and research into cleaning it up, if anyone's interested. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Civilian gun ownership laws in the U.S.A.

Hi, I'm currently working on M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and would like to add a section about civilian ownership. Unfortunatly I haven't been able to find reliable sources on the matter. I would be grateful if someone here could point me to one. Thanks in advance :-) Patton123 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mauser C96 Article Improvement Assistance Requested

Given that the C96 is one of the most famous and influential handguns of all time, I think it deserves a better and more thorough article than the currently standing one. I've begun a re-write (with the addition of references) to try and expand it and get the article up to FA class; I'm open to suggestions, ideas, or assistance on how we can improve the article! Commander Zulu (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Surface to Air batteries at the Pentagon?

I am involved in a forum discussion on the web concerning the 9/11 incident at the Pentagon. Some people contend that there are automated surface to air missile batteries at the Pentagon. I do not believe, from what I have been able to gather in regular news sources that there are SAMs at the Pentagon. Can anyone in this project provide an authoritative answer to the question of whether SAM batteries exist at the Pentagon, when/if they were installed, etc.? Thanks in advance. 99.232.67.58 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move many Russian missile articles

Russian missile articles are currently a mess. Some are called by their Russian name (9K31 Strela-1), some by their NATO reporting name (SA-10A Grumble), and some by a descriptive but otherwise fictional name (Tor missile system). I propose we move all articles about Russian missiles to their Russian names. These are the articles I'd like to move:

There are probably many more like this I haven't found yet and I would like ot move these as well.--Pattont/c 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The naming guidelines incline towards article names like S-300 missile, but "Tor missile system" fits quite well with what is written in the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Qualifiers aren't needed, and the common name should be used. These are the common names.--Pattont/c 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm torn. We currently have a mix of names, but this proposal doesn't completely standardize them anyway. For example, Nato name SA-10 Grumble moves to S-300 instead of the artillery agency name 5P85. Of course it's impossible to completely standardize, because the Soviets and Russians use so many different names, and some apply only to parts of the system, others to multiple components collectively.
Early Cold War missiles are much better known by their Nato names, like the SA-2 which shot down a U2 spy plane.
I think a review to improve standardization of the naming is a good idea, but let's not get too enthusiastic about form over function, since we can't use a single naming scheme for all of these articles. The common names rule should still be applied. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 17:09 z
We already have S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna...--Pattont/c 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should rename SA-10 to 5P85; I'm just citing an example where diverse titles are justified. Let's not over-standardize everything for the sake of standardization alone. (But although I've been familiar with the SA-5 Gammon since the early 1980s, I didn't find out until just now that it is also called S-200 Angara.) —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 20:26 z
Isn't tha systematic bias? I'm sure many Russians have ever heard of the NATO names.--Pattont/c 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't what systemic bias? I'm just pointing out my experience.
The guideline is clear: use the most easily recognized name, in English. Renaming articles en masse risks applying systemic bias if it favours standardization over the variety in most common English names of article subjects. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 21:33 z
I agree with Mzajac - the WP:NAME policy is to use the most common English name for something. Yes - those names differ from what the Russians know them as internally. That's an unavoidable conflict though - things names change around the world, and we can't use a single name or single spelling and have it be universal. Even if we seek to avoid anglocentrism, there's no avoiding having to pick one preferred naming scheme, and "the one native to native speakers of the language" is going to confuse the fewest normal people using Wikipedia.
The Russian language Wikipedia should have it named their local name, and interwiki links should go back and forth between the two, but I think the rename proposal is a mistake. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with "Tor missile system" and the like. They definitly need to be renamed. NATO or Russian name?--Pattont/c 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm not trying to put the kibosh on everything, either. I think tweaking the form of the Buk and Tor titles to match others is pretty uncontroversial, for example. M-11 Shtorm would match a bunch of other articles if it were Shtorm M-11 (or is it the other way 'round?). I think there are others in Category:Surface-to-air missiles of Russia, Category:Soviet and Russian air defence vehicles, Category:Russian and Soviet Anti-aircraft weapons, and Category:Anti-aircraft guns of the Soviet Union. I would decide which is best for such oddball titles and just move them without discussion.
Some other cases should be mentioned in the appropriate venue, and maybe a few should be put to the vote. Have a look at talk pages and do a quick search comparison in Google books to help decide.
Maybe I'm second-guessing Patton123 too much. Sorry for that, but I wanted to make sure that stuff ends up under the right title, so that it doesn't happen again later. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 22:42 z

←I did a Google test by searching for the terms 9K31 Strela SA-9 Gaskin. "9K31 Strela" garnered 583 hits, while "SA-9 Gaskin" had 205,000. Even searching for the term "Strela missile" brings up only 25,000 results. I think we can safely assume that the NATO names are the most common. Do you want to move them to their NATO names? I hate to do this because I prefer to keep the native names for things.--Pattont/c 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the post-Soviet models might not be called by their Nato names as much. —Michael Z. 2009-02-18 00:03 z
Yes I agree, but Cold War-era missiles were known mostly by their NATO names.--Pattont/c 12:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern Reproductions

There's an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USFA Custer Battlefield Gun currently ongoing and it's generated some discussion about whether or not reproductions of guns go in the main article (as with WP:GUNS#Variants), or whether there are some guns- like the Colt Single Action Army and the M1911 pistol that have spawned so many reproductions, knock-offs, and clones that a separate article dealing with those reproduction/clone guns is warranted. Any thoughts on the subject? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the knock-off notable or different enough in its own right? Is giving details of a lot of copies useful? In most cases I suspect not. Save it for a section of the original.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the right approach. Any article has to stand on its own merits, and while there will undoubtedly be some reproductions that are notable in their own right, I'd guess most wouldn't be. In any case, I think starting with additions to the main article is probably best; if more information emerges and notability can be established, the additional content can always be split out into its own article later. EyeSerenetalk 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

missile and rocket naming standard

FWIW, FYI

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles

Though I notice this task force wasn't informed of the matter...

76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah thank, hadn't seen that before.--Pattont/c 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It's really unfortunate that this task force isn't informed of renames, since that WikiProject is considered inactive, and notices on its talk page don't get much reading. 76.66.193.90 (talk)
The lack of an RfC for the naming standard is also disconcerting 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that rocketry stuff apparently passed under the radar (heh), though I can't see any after-the-fact objections to the page moves. While many of those articles are weapon systems I honestly don't know how involved we are, as they seem to get more interest from the space-related WikiProjects. If you object to the renaming though, it might be best to raise the issue with the various projects tagged on the article talk pages and we could perhaps sort out somewhere central to reopen the discussion more widely. EyeSerenetalk 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need firearm peer review in Mexican Drug War

Hi folks! I am in a one sided dispute with the editor of Mexican Drug War concerning the type of weapons used by the cartels, as well as how they're getting them. I have provided verifiable cites, and have significantly used the cites by the editor himself that originated in the article. It's pretty obvious he's not going to give me much play. Can ya'll help? CTone (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

M777 howitzer

I have nominated a picture of a M777 howitzer to be a featured picture. I am looking for some help with the caption as I am not familiar with these things. It would be nice to include a technical description of the firing of these weaspons, including the gases which can be seen emitted from the muzzle break. If anyone can help, the nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/M777. Many thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Rocketry

FYI, WP:LV WikiProject Rocketry is reorganizing, since rocketry is related to your subject of concern, this is to inform you. See WT:WikiProject_Rocketry#WPSpace 76.66.193.69 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lajinaa - a "pirate spear"?

Comment from weapons experts would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lajinaa for an article about a kind of "pirate spear"; no reliable source can be found and the article is suspected of being mostly, if not completely, hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Move Colt CMG-1 machine gun to CMG-1

There is a proposal here to move Colt CMG-1 machine gun to CMG-1. Thanks!--Pattont/c 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bayonet

Copied from WT:MILHIST  Roger Davies talk 06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bayonet is peppered with "citation needed" tags, with statements that aren't tagged as needing a cite but nevertheless do, and the overall article has been templated with "This article needs additional citations for verification" since July 2007. Anybody interested in working on this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Term query on Bayonet

I've posted a terminology query at Talk:Bayonet#Hilt, handle, or ? and would appreciate your input. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Firearm article structure

There is a proposal regarding the structure of Firearms articles on the main milhist talk page here. All task-force participants are welcome to comment. EyeSerenetalk 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Becker/Oerlikon family of autocannon

I think nearly all articles relating to weapons in this extensive family require improvement. (The MG FF page may be an exception.) I already did some work to improve the 20 mm Becker article, and correct the biggest errors in the description of the Type 99 cannon. But there remains a lot of work to be done: The 20 mm Oerlikon page gives very short and probably inaccurate descriptions of the numerous versions of this important weapon, the Type 2 page is a mere stub, and there is no MK 112 page yet.

I also tried to get a description of the Becker API blowback operating mechanism into the blowback (arms) page, but for reasons that appear to be quite unrelated to the facts of the matter, this seems to be controversial. Please check if you can contribute to the accuracy of that page... Perhaps autocannon mechanisms should be described separately from those in small arms, although that might be confusing to users. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

20 mm Gun Table

The accuracy of some lines in the 20 mm Gun table which is included in many articles related to such weapons, seems a bit dubious. It seems to be derived from this table, but there are various mismatches. Probably the table should be in a single location and linked to by the various articles, that would make it easier to maintain. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to rate the table as verging on the OR and remove it altogether in favour of a reasonable See Also section listing similar weapons. If there are sources that do mkae comparisons between the guns then their opinions could be inclulded in the main text. Guns which are of documented common link could probably be covered by a suitable Navbox to link them together. The table is badly formatted to my mind as well so if it is retained then it will need a substantial overhaul. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [2]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request concerning weapon naming conventions

There's a move discussion going on at Talk:M2 Mortar about whether or not to capitalize words like "mortar" and "howitzer" in article titles. Feel free to participate in the discussion there. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.
Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.
 Roger Davies talk 06:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New article Inuit weapons

Copied over from main milhist talkpage. EyeSerenetalk 17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I realised that there's very little info on this subject online, and even a handful of folks asking about it on various answer websites with no replies. I found a GB limited preview with a lot of content, basically all saying that various Inuit groups used hunting tools as dual-purpose weapons. I've found references to "war hapoons", "war clubs", and using spear-throwers in war, but if anyone has anything else to add, or better cats, it'd be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but is this Notable? I mean, most tribal peoples have spears and clubs. What's so special about Eskimo/Inuit ones? Commander Zulu (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
From the weapons side, nothing big. From the Inuit side, however, I think it's something that a reader would find enlightening. It's definitely a facet of Inuit life, and there's enough detail out there that it's worth having an article rather then just be in the article Inuit. Arguably, a larger article called Inuit warfare might be even better, but for the meantime this article covers the weapons side, and also fits into the Category:Weapons tree. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dardanelles Gun

This article seems to have shrunk in half, and been renamed, over the Summer, with mention of the "Basilic" cannon totally excised. Could someone have a look over it? It apparently was the target of an edit war. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Identify a sword?

A thread has been made here by myself, linking several photographs of an unknown sword found in the Eastbourne Redoubt regimental museum. Any help identifying it would be appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Biological warfare at peer review

A new portal Portal:Biological warfare is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Biological warfare/archive1. I put a bit of work into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Firearms articles to translate/mirror from French, German, Italian wikis

Transferring this from the general WP:MILHIST discussion board

I went through the firearm sections at fr.wiki, de.wiki, and it.wiki and found 30-some articles with no parallel at en.wiki (and linked a few others that existed but were not cross-linked). Below are the MILHIST-related examples, so if anyone wants to take a stab. "Translate" is maybe not the right word, as some articles aren't so great and would be better built from scratch in English (and then linked to the it/fr/de version), while others are quite developed, have photos, bibliography, etc.

German: de:Erma ESP 85 A, de:Falcon (Gewehr), de:FN Model 30-11, de:Gallager Carbine, de:IMI Galatz, de:Le Protector, de:Mauser K98 Spanisch (Santa Barbara) FR 8, de:MG 11, de:MP 41/44, de:Pardini SP, de:Raketenpistole, de:Sturmgewehr 58, de:Tabatièregewehr, de:Terzerol, de:Truvelo SR, de:Tesching, de:Turret-Revolver, de:Vz.24 (Pistole), de:Wieger

French: fr:Fusils et mousquetons Berthier, fr:K3 (fusil), fr:Fusil-mitrailleur de 7,5mm modèle 1924/1929 D, fr:Gorjunov SG-43, fr:RMR, fr:Frontier Bulldog, , fr:Pecheneg, , fr:Ruby llama, fr:Star Modèle 1914 fr:Bakalov, fr:Le Français 6,35 mm/7,65 mm/Modèle Armée (knocked out cross-out ones last evening)

Italian: it:Schioppo a vento Gilardoni, it:Fucile Vetterli-Vitali, it:Winchester - Maxim (this last one, does this item even exist?)

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Translated Puteaux SA 18 from the Polish

New article (with some nice pics by the Poles) about a tank-gun used by the French in WWI. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Barrage (artillery) now open

The A-Class review for Barrage (artillery) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Portal:Biological warfare as a candidate for Featured portal status. Feel free to comment, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short now open

The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles Within Scope

Sorry, not a member here.

Just thought that these articles are within the scope. Ballistic knife Switchblade Gravity knife

Cheers Iankap99 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so; they're not military weapons, per se.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The ballistic knife was used by the soviet spetnaz, the switch blade was used as a utility knife in many different armies. And the gravity knife was a paratrooper tool. I would add the box but i don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder now open

The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry

FYI, there is a proposal to create a WikiProject on Medieval Weaponry, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Brian in denver/List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog designation

any interest out there for this? anybody know any SNLs? Brian in denver (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for FN P90 now open

The peer review for FN P90 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Nomination List of improvised weapons

This is to notify the members of this project, within the scope of which this article falls, that List of improvised weapons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of improvised weapons. - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for FN Five-seven now open

The peer review for FN Five-seven is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Weaponry articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Weaponry articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry_task_force/Archive_5&oldid=1232552077"