Template talk:Infobox Weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This non-article page 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
NA Non-article pages do not require a rating on the quality scale.
This non-article page is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Artillery

how does it work with an artillery piece such as the QF 25 pounder?GraemeLeggett 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to set is_artillery=yes; there's a full field correspondence table listed here that gives the exact conversion to use after that. Kirill Lokshin 12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it'll handle most things. GraemeLeggett 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
From a test, it also appears that weapons such as PIAT should use artillery rather than ranged weapon. Something to add to the notes perhaps.GraemeLeggett 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it might be necessary to have both is_ranged and is_artillery set for the more unusual variations on that, depending on which fields we want them to have. Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor issue. When is_ranged is set, part_length parameter displays as Barrel length; is_artillery however does not have the same effect, part_length displays simply as length (e.g. see the aforementioned QF 25 pounder). Is it a bug or should both parameters be set for artillery ? Bukvoed 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely a bug; I'll fix this shortly. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Kirill Lokshin 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's fixed, thanks. Bukvoed 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the box to some naval guns (artillery) and found many of them specified a traverse and elevation speed. It seems like a sensible measure, could we add this to the artillery section? Oh yes and a projectile weight? --Deon Steyn 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did this with the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 MLRS as an example when I set the is_artillery code to yes as well. Ominae (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Service duration

How do we determine service duration? There are numerous examples of military equipment being used by wealthy powerful nations first, and then passed on to smaller ones after the nation which developed them has replaced them (the AK-47 is probably the best example). Can we have multiple service durations or perhaps a 'foreign use' line added?

This might also be useful for equipment like the M22 Locust which was never actually used by the nation which designed and produced it. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume we can list multiple durations directly under the service field; there's nothing that limits the field to a single pair of numbers. Kirill Lokshin 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missiles, rockets and bullets

I think these definitely fall under "weapons". I'd like to add some lines for them unless there is an objection. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to roll this template out a bit before making it too complicated, but I see no reason why we can't add support for bullets/shells/cartridges. What fields do you think we'll need that we don't already have?
As far as rockets and missiles are concerned, I think we need to coordinate with WP:AIR (I think they're the ones who have dealt with rockets before) to try and figure out how to distinguish military rockets from genuine launch vehicle rockets. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Missiles have their own extant template see at Bristol Bloodhound which covers more specification eg wingspan body diameter - ideally they would want their own specification template to take that off into a different part of the article before applying an info box.GraemeLeggett 08:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
make that two templates {{Infobox Missile}}, {{Tl:Weapon-missile}}. Personally i prefere the latter, but I would, it doesn't use the word "contractor" and includes such niceties as the steering (as opposed to guidance) method. GraemeLeggett 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Font size?

Do we really need to shrink this? All of the other infoboxes seem to get away with 100%, and I'm not sure that making it less readable is really a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've downsized it for layout reasons, but it's probably a personal opinion of mine. I think it both looks better and allows for more words to be in the same line/field, making it take up a little less space. I've done this based on Template:Firearm, which in my opinion is a very good infobox. I'm sorry for any inconvenience; if I'm the only that prefers it with a slightly smaller font, feel free to revert it. —Squalla 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer to keep the styling more-or-less consistent among all of the military infoboxes; some of those are even longer, and haven't had many complaints about font size. The smaller font seems to me to be less readable, but it could just be my eyesight. ;-)
(Curiously, {{firearm}} uses 95% rather than 90%; did you mean to shrink it down even further here?) Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your reasons. I guess that, being an editor of firearms mostly (99% of my edits), smaller fonts on tables were common sight to me (previous infoboxes, prior to the conversion to this "standard" one, had for the most part smaller fonts), and I've become used to them. Personally I do not find them less readable, but I understand that a considerable number of people may have difficulty reading them, even though they aren't that smaller... Also, a widely-used infobox (Infobox firearm) prior to this one had a much smaller font, and I haven't seen anybody complain neither. As for the Firearm template using 95%, it actually uses that for the header/title only (not sure which is it, I'm not very good with templates), with everything else being 90%. I compared them side-to-side and the font size is identical on the fields. Again, I'm not really opposed to keeping the normal font size, I just prefer the smaller one. If I'm causing unnecessary trouble, feel free to revert. —Squalla 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Firefox
Firefox
Image:Infobox Weapon (IE).PNG
IE
Out of curiosity, what browser do you use? Firefox and IE handle 90% fonts somewhat differently, so it might be that we're talking about different visual sizes. Kirill Lokshin 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To demonstrate, the two screenshots at right. The top one is taken in Mozilla Firefox and the bottom one is in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Note that the infobox in the top screenshot has smaller text, even though both are rendering the 90% font setting. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... I'm using IE (don't have FireFox). Both infoboxes I've pointed out above look exactly the same (at least on the info fields). —Squalla 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've reverted it back to the full-size font for the time being, primarily because of the readability issue on Firefox. If anybody else thinks I'm being daft here, though, please feel free to change it back. Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

There are proposals to merge template:firearm and template:weapon-firearm into this template. Discuss. Circeus 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There's really no need to discuss these, as the conversion process is already moving forward; see the conversion tables here. Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the merge box popping and assumed someone was proposing, since sometimes they stay thus for long periods of time without discussion, I assumed it would be as well to set up a section. Circeus 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links

Hello. I am doing clean up related to disambiguation of "Shell". I would like to change this template so that it links to "Shell (projectile)" instead of "Shell", but was afraid of potentially damaging the template. I didn't know if it was as simple as just changing it, since this template seems rather complicated by my standards. Would someone who knows this template well please consider making this change? Your effort would be much appreciated. Thanks --Brian G 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, fast work, that. Thanks much. --Brian G 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding specifications header

Katyusha
BM-13 Katyusha multiple rocket launcher, based on a ZiS-6 truck
Type Multiple rocket launcher
Place of origin Soviet Union
Service history
In service 1939–
Used by Soviet Union and others
Production history
Variants BM-13, BM-8, BM-31, BM-14, BM-21, BM-24, BM-25, BM-27, BM-30

I'd like to use this box in Katyusha, to graphically tie the article in with other weapon articles, frame the lead image, and offer the barest minimum of information. The article is an umbrella covering a class of weapon systems, and even entering a range of specifications isn't possible. Can this template be displayed without the "Specifications" header? —Michael Z. 2006-08-05 15:42 Z

I'll see what I can do. Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Or is this an inappropriate use of the template? Looking at it now, I think may be misleading if it implies that the article is about a specific weapon system, rather than a class. Perhaps the heading should say "Katyusha multiple rocket launchers" (not quite clear, but better) or "Katyusha-type rocket launchers" (a bit awkward).
Picking nits, but it would be nice to add a "Models" field rather than variants, or perhaps to add a free-form field where I can type:
| custom1header = Models
| custom1data = BM-8, BM-13, BM-14, BM-21, BM-24, BM-25, BM-27, BM-27, BM-30
Just brain-storming. —Michael Z. 2006-08-05 23:50 Z
Well, I don't think it's too much of an issue in terms of using the box, as the reader really has no way of knowing what it's intended for. As far as he can tell, it's just a summary of the article; whether it talks about a specific model or a general type isn't really relevant to someone just glancing at it, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've set the specifications header to be hidden if none of the fields are given values. Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add it to the top of Katyusha.—Michael Z. 2006-08-07 05:53 Z

[edit] Bladed weapon infobox suggestion

For Task Force consideration, I propose that an optional parameter of a bladed weapon be some statement about its scabbard (for swords) or its sheath (for short-bladed weapons such as knives, daggers, bayonets). Jack Bethune 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just added it as sheath_type ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, thanks for the quick response. However, please consider using both relevant terms, scabbard vs. sheath, as it is customary to distinguish between the two. Scabbards are associated with long-bladed weapons such as swords, whereas sheaths are associated with short-bladed weapons such as knives, daggers, and bayonets. The Wikipedia entries on both terms will amplify this point, which I hope you will consider. Jack Bethune 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
We can add both links into the field label that displays on the finished infobox, if that's what you mean; but using a slash in the parameter name in the code itself can cause problems, so that's something I think we should avoid. Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It should display as "Scabbard/sheath type:" in the infobox now. Does that work? Kirill Lokshin 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks for the addition. Jack Bethune 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caliber and cartridge?

Qing Buqiang Zu QBZ-95 Light Rifle Family

Standard configuration QBZ-95.
Type Assault rifle
Place of origin China
Service history
Used by People's Republic of China
Specifications
Cartridge 5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95),
5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97)
Caliber 5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95),
5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97)

Is there really a difference between caliber and cartridge? I'm using here an example from the QBZ-95 article. Maybe these two should just be merged or one of them should be cut (preferably "Caliber"). --Ravenstorm 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Having two separate fields makes more sense for some weapons than others (e.g. artillery, older weapons that have gone through multiple cartridges, etc.), hence their availability; in cases where they're redundant, I'd just remove one of them. Kirill Lokshin 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks, I'll keep that in mind when doing my regular weapons-browsing. --Ravenstorm 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Calibre can only refer to the diameter of the barrel, cartridge is what goes in the breech end. Two weapons can have the same nominal calibre 7 mm but have different cartridges.GraemeLeggett 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then caliber is optional, since the cartidge of the gun should be enough information for the reader to know what the diameter of the barrel is. Although this is not necessary, I suggest we remove the Caliber section and add a comment for editors to understand how to adjust.
Cartridge information may not be enough for the average, or especially the uneducated, reader. GraemeLeggett 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Upon further inspection, a lot if not most major articles do not include caliber, but simply cartridge. The loss would not be important, but would instead clean up the infobox.--Ravenstorm 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
All the parameters are optional, actually; but again: caliber is needed for artillery, regardless of any other considerations. Just remove it in those places where it's redundant. Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that's good enough reason for us to keep it... although I will remove redundant information. --Ravenstorm 23:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to flog a dead horse, but this example (QBZ-95) was not completed correctly, the full cartridge specification should not be repeated under calibre. The calibre specification is very important/useful, because there are many cases where the cartridge name doesn't clearly specify the calibre, one example that comes to mind is the large group of 9 mm caliber cartridges with names like .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9 mm Luger Parabellum... different cartridges and names, but same calibre. --Deon Steyn 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit cost

Template:Infobox_Aircraft has a unit cost field, as does Template:Infobox_Missile. Would there be any objections to my adding it to this template, as well? TerraFrost 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, does that field make sense for anything that's not currently being produced, though? How would we apply it to historical weapons? Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The field could be left blank for older weapons, much as it is for older aircraft, such as the Hughes H-4 Hercules TerraFrost 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sound fine, then; I've gone ahead and added the field as unit_cost=. Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Added some info TerraFrost 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Though it has already been added, I think unit costs adds little information. For military weapons, the unit cost will vary from contract to contract and manufacturer to manufacturer. For example, the DA-11-199-AMC-508 contract awarded to Colt, the first large-scale purchase of the M16, the unit cost was $126.37 for the XM16E1 and $110.89 for the M16. The next contract, DAAF03-66-C-0018, also awarded to Colt, was $110.14 for the XM16E1 and $94.89 for the M16. H&R's contract for the M16A1 was $170.43 each and GM's was $151.54 each. These are contracts within a four year period, yet they vary wildly. These are all 1960s dollars of course. I'm going to assume most of the unit costs data will be taken from the US military's fact files or John Pike's FAS/Globalsecurity pages. Unfortunately, they provide no context. What year dollars were they? Which specific model of the weapon were they for? Does it factor in support, spare parts, etc.? Machine guns are going to go through barrels a lot faster than rifles. This doesn't even begin to consider how botched the weapons acquisition process for the United States is, and that a quoted unit price may only be set just to meet a budget requirement. I know that it's an optional field, and it doesn't have to be filled out, but putting it in there only encourages people to fill it out.Pettifogger 06:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the justification I gave on another Talk page:
I noticed you removed my addition to the M16 article. Although I can accept that the cost is fluid, I do believe there is value in noting, somehow, the price range it's in. I mean, although I'm sure, to some, it's obvious that it's in the US$100's of dollars (as opposed to US$1,000's or US$10,000's) and costs less, comparatively speaking, then an M60 machine gun, I suspect there are a large number of people to whom it isn't so obvious.
Unfortunately, none of the citations I have found discuss a price range, so short of that, listing an exact price seems, to me, to be reasonable. The fact that the price is fluid could be mentioned in the reference. A ~ could also precede the cost to better reflect this.
There is, also, precedent for including fluid prices. Consider the Boeing 747 or the BGM-109 Tomahawk, for example. I think the fluidity of their prices is almost a given, yet despite that, I think the article is better off for their inclusion. TerraFrost 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally dislike claims of precedent. For the sole reason that someone else did it in the past is insufficient reason for me. However, if you want to argue precedent, ships, automobiles, and video game systems do not list price. Wikiproject Automobile had a long discussion on it. Pettifogger 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, whether or not the field is meaningful will vary on a case-by-case basis. One point to note is that it's perfectly possible to include multiple prices, or a range of values, if that's a more useful statistic in the given case. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
One can insert, in context, a cost at one point. For instance, "The 'one-time-buy' of M16A1 rifles by the US Army was for a unit cost of $100." Even then, contracts are not exact either. A contract can have penalties, incentives, delivery costs, support costs, development costs, and an absurd array of factors which make any one number meaningless. Take the B-2 (if you're fond of aircraft, TerraFrost). Prices for individual planes hovered between $277m and $1.1b depending on who you asked. Prices, when they included the cost of development and support infrastructure have topped $3 billion for each aircraft. That's a lie, of course. If you were to have added one bomber to the end of the production run, it would have cost around $350m extra, IIRC. Is that the actual cost of the bomber then? Go to Colt and ask them to buy a single M16A4 and they'll quote you, hmmmm, maybe $1600 if you're a qualified buyer. Negotiate and you might get down to $1200. Ask them for 10 million of them and you might get them for under $500 apiece. None of these numbers mean anything in the context of this article. --Asams10 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that TerraFrost went around to a number of articles and added the unit cost. This is a bit arbitrary and I feel that all of these edits should be reverted until there is a concensus of sorts. I doubt, given this discussion so far, that there is a concensus.--Asams10 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with them being removed. I still think that the various articles would do well to discuss pricing issues, but I can accept that it needs to be discussed more (I didn't think anyone would contest the addition).
As I read the comments, though, I'm reminded of the article on the DDR SDRAM and the Intel Core 2. Neither of those articles include prices, either, for many of the same reasons as are being brought up here. I think there is a key difference, however, between those articles and the articles I edited. The items discussed in the articles I edited cannot be purchased anywhere near as easily as, for example, DDR SDRAM. I can't just walk into a local Wal-Mart, ask for the price of an M16A2, and expect to get a serious answer. You say that a qualified buyer might be able to get one for $1,600.00. How many people actually are qualified buyers of military issue M16's? I have a hard time imagining any civilian would be, and soldiers presumably wouldn't need to buy one for personal use since the army would be the ones who'd supply their troops. The fact that a separate civilian model exists suggests as much.
Of course, then again, I'm not at all adverse to the idea of including pricing information in the DDR SDRAM article, either. Even if it is fluid, I think there's virtue to being able to see how items cost, relative to one another (which isn't something that can, imho, really be done all that easily on wikipedia, atm) TerraFrost 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
American civilians can and do buy M16s, as long as they adhere to the National Firearms Act and state law. It would be silly to go to Wal-mart, because Wal-mart doesn't sell M16s. However, you can go ask places that do. [1] [2] There's even eBay-style auction websites. [3] Many law enforcement and private security officers also make individual purchase of weapons. Soldiers do also buy their own arms, because they just like guns or they're unhappy with their issued weapons. If you look at a pictures in Iraq, there's a bewildering variety of configurations that aren't government-issue. You can even find 40mm M203 grenade launchers for sale. Military weapons are even advertised for sale with price in magazines found on American newsstands such as Small Arms Review. So I don't think the difficulty of obtaining the information is a good reason.
The exact unit cost figures, from John Pike's FAS/GlobalSecurity page, are quite arbitrary, for reasons already explained. Cost needs context and John Pike provides none. For example, it doesn't state which year dollars are used. To use those exact costs to compare a M203 grenade launcher to a M16 rifle would be misleading. It becomes apples-to-oranges, because one doesn't know the circumstance. As noted on the Tomahawk talk page, what one source says is the unit price can greatly differ from another source. The only instance that I think unit cost will have any value is when there is competition in acquisition process, such as the Joint Service Small Arms Program, in which cost was a factor in the selection of the Beretta 92 over the SIG. In that specific case, it's a single point of time, at which someone is directly comparing the costs, so you can make an apple-to-apple comparison. Another example would be the Iraqi government's recent purchase of M16s instead of AK-47s. The unit cost of the M16s was $700. That was higher than the stated unit price on FAS. These cases can be handled in the text of the article.Pettifogger 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting - didn't know that about M16's. Incidentally, I was the one who disputed the of the Tomahawk missile. I still think there's value, though, in conveying, somehow, that the cost, in the case of the Tomahawk missile, is on par with an expensive house (I'd consider any house above $500,000 expensive), whereas an M16 is more on par with a laptop computer (the latter often range from ~$500 to $2,000+). Regardless, ya'll have made convincing arguments and I think I am having increasingly less of a leg to stand on. Do feel free to edit the stuff out :) TerraFrost 00:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armored Vehicles

I have been creating and updating quite a few armored vehicle articles lately (Cheetah MMPV, Grizzly APC, International FTTS, and I have a few suggestions for the vehicle portion of this infobox. Many of these vehicles straddle the line between weapon and automobile. I think more categories are necessary. Many of these are found in the automobile infobox, however, as these are military vehicles, the weapon infobox seems the most appropriate. However, I think some categories from the automotible infobox should be incorporated into the weapon infobox vehicle section. The most important of these would be "related" followed by "Ground clearance", "fuel capacity", and "transmission". Others that would be helpful with regard to military vehicles would be: approach angle, departure angle, and payload capacity. Reasons stated below.

  • Related - Many military designs are evolutionary designs of other weapons. This is not only seen in military vehicles such as the Cheetah MMPV, RG-31 and Mamba APC but also in firearms, such as the AR-10 and AR-15 or the AK-47 and the AK-74.
  • Ground clearance - most military vehicles are designed for off-road environment. Objectifying their offroad capabilities seems prudent.
  • Fuel capacity - I think this is relevant information
  • Payload capacity - this directly relates to how much armor they can carry. most armor today is modular, so it is not on all the time, but only when required.
  • Transmission - also relevant
  • approach/departure angle - most military vehicles are designed for off-road environment. Objectifying their offroad capabilities seems prudent.

What do you all think of these suggestions? Tmaull 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmaull (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Most of these seem like decent things to add; if nobody gets to them, I'll do so sometime in the fairly close future. The only one I'm sort of hesitant about is the "related" designs; how would we constrain that such that it didn't become a giant see-also section for every conceivably related weapon? Perhaps a more explicit field for evolutionary precursors and successors would be more useful? Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. By related, I meant that it was an evolutionary or almost identical design. I would try to make the modifications myself, but I haven't quite figured out how to do that. Tmaull 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added four fields to the template:
  • transmission
  • payload_capacity
  • fuel_capacity
  • clearance
As far as the other two are concerned:
  • Can the angles simply be listed in the ground clearance field?
  • I'm still not sure what the best approach for the related ones is; can we just use the existing "variants" field for this?
Kirill Lokshin 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But I'm not %100 sure they are needed. I think a torque field might be though. Also, alot of the field names could be made into wikilinks. Overall, looks good, thanks!
Tmaull 11:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armor vs Armour

For vehicle weapons with armor any article using this template is forced to use british spelling even if every other spelling in the article is american spelling. I suggest incorporating a second input for the template for just "Armor" rather than "Armour". This way american articles can retain spelling. Edit: as an example M1 Abrams. Ergzay 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. There's an is_UK flag that's already in place to handle such things; that particular label just wasn't configured to use it properly. Kirill Lokshin 00:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Is there a recommended way to indicate information source? A footnote or external link after a figure makes sense, but in some cases it would be nice to cite a single source or two for the entire infobox. —Michael Z. 2007-05-15 19:33 Z

There are probably various interesting ways of doing it, but one obvious one would be to put a footnote right after the name of the weapon, with something like "All data contained in this infobox is derived from ..." to indicate the sources. Kirill Lokshin 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion

I was wondering if we could alternate the row colours, like on Template:AFV. There may be a problem, considering that many rows may not be filled, but that probably can be solved with clever syntaxing. Also, I think the font can be reduced a bit. That makes it more attractive than what we have now.

I also think that for the Vehicles, the category name can be shown, like on Template:AFV (which IMO is much better looking)- so we would be able to see Mobility, Propulsion, Armor, etc. In this one, theres nothing of the sort, which makes it uninformative. Sniperz11 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The row striping issue has been brought up before; unfortunately, there's no reasonable way of doing it with the available MediaWiki syntax, since almost every field is optional. There's simply no way of predicting which fields are set in any particular case.
(It's worth pointing out, incidentally, that the format of the template is standardized across all military ones; see {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}.) Kirill Lokshin 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be possible to format the table using JavaScript. This is sometimes used, even without the constraints of Wikitext.[4][5] I think one would have to put the JavaScript code into monobook.js. Might be a bit more complex, to deal with the table subheaders—I think you'd want a light row to follow each subheader, and then it may just not look right in random combinations of even or odd rows in a section. —Michael Z. 2007-06-02 18:14 Z

[edit] Should the "used_by" attribute reflect the use of captured weapons?

When talking about WW2 vehicles in particular, the use of captured materials was widespread, with KVs, T-34s and Komsomolets tractors all serving in the German army, and T-28s and BT-5s serving with the Finns. Should we strive to document all such occurrences under the heading? Some of them were very minor indeed, limited to a handful of vehicles (Shermans in German use, for example), and I am concerned it'd be seen as nitpicking. --Agamemnon2 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest approaching it on a case-by-case basis; the basic question to ask is whether including the use will add to the reader's understanding of the topic. Truly trivial uses aren't going to meet this requirement, while major ones may. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
In wartime, many sides have used captured equipment, either for replacements, or coz they were better, or for behind the lines strikes. However, this does not make it a part of their regular force, unless they continue to use it after the war (like Iran has done with captured Iraqi equipment), and in large numbers, with well defined maintanence, logistics and supply lines. Also, they must be well integrated into the ORBAT or the force, which would obviously preclude those such as the use for training or research (like the US use of Mig-29s and the like). Obviously, these should be done, as Lokshin has stated, on a case by case basis, with extreme care. Sniperz11 09:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specification for specific model

The infobox represents a weapon in general, but often the specifications must refer to a specific variant. For example, the infobox for the T-34 medium tank refers to the entire 55-year plus career of both the T-34 and T-34-85 tank, but the specifications refer specifically to the T-34 model 1943. I suppose in some cases a range might be entered for varying values, but that wouldn't be appropriate here.

It would be nice to be able to add a qualifier to the specifications table sub-header for such cases. For example, "Specifications (T-34 Model 1943)". —Michael Z. 2007-06-02 18:32 Z

Good idea; I've added a spec_label= parameter that will provide that. Kirill Lokshin 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That looks great. —Michael Z. 2007-06-02 21:00 Z

[edit] Used by: List everyone?

Tangential to my query above, should every country to use a given weapon be listed? Only the most noteworthy? Simply say "Various, see below"? For vehicles such as the T-34 or the Sherman, used by dozens of countries over the period of several decades this is an important consideration. My gut feeling is that anything above 5-6 countries is pushing it, but on the other hand, I like the visual element of a "user list", particularly since it's my habit to format such lists by using Template:flagcountry as a visual aid. --Agamemnon2 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, more than just a few items bloats the infobox too much.
Personally, I would leave out the subheading altogether, rather than cluttering an infobox with incomplete data points. It goes without saying that the reader can seek more in-depth info in the text of the article.
Perhaps a produced_by field belongs in the production history section. T-34 could list the four countries which produced the tank, instead of the dozens which used it. Or would this additional field represent unnecessary infobox creep? I think it should only be used when place of origin doesn't tell the whole story, of course. —Michael Z. 2007-06-06 21:54 Z

[edit] "Cartridge" field

Could we rename the "Cartridge" field to something like "Ammo"? This infobox is used on articles for old weapons like muskets that didn't use cartridges. If not, could we add a new field that would be used exclusively by non-cartridge firearms? --Philip Laurence 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably a bit impractical to rename the field in the template code at this point, although it could be done. As a simple solution, though, would changing the displayed label to read "Ammunition" instead of "Cartridge" be sufficient here? Kirill 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I use the "caliber" field for non-cartridge guns, so maybe one day this can be policy? --Philip Laurence (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of barrels or tubes

Should this include a field for number of "barrels", "tubes", "rails" or "launchers" in the Artillery specifications section? I haven't thought through all of the implications, but this could be useful for multiple rocket launchers, gatling guns and chain guns, antiaircraft weapons, and some oddball artillery pieces. Example at BM-27. —Michael Z. 2007-08-17 04:29 Z

The Ontos seriously needs this field. —Michael Z. 2007-08-17 04:32 Z
Easy enough to add that; I'll try to do it tomorrow, if I get the chance. Kirill 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


The Ontos doesn't need the field (neither does the M40 recoilless rifle which it has 6 of) nor the ZSU-23-4 but things like the Nebelwerfer do. The BM-27 gets by without but the M61 Vulcan could probably use it. GraemeLeggett 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe the Ontos doesn't need it... But look at that sad little critter: it wants it with all its heart. —Michael Z. 2007-08-17 16:33 Z
Hehe. In any case, I've added barrels= as a parameter for ranged weapons (c.f. pepperbox pistol) & artillery. Kirill 17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I think it works on artillery pieces like the BM-27, etc, without the field "primary armament". It is a weapon, rather than being an AFV armed with one or more weapons. If it had a self-defence machine gun, I would just add secondary armament, without the primary. —Michael Z. 2007-08-18 18:23 Z

[edit] Cartridge propellant details

I feel it would be useful to have additional info fields for cartridge specs such as propellant type, quantity, primer type, fixed or separate loading round, bagged or cartridge case... but when I think of howitzer ammo where we have say 3 types of loading this could get messy. Or should I be using Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge to describe the ammunition used by a particular artillary piece instead ? But even that doesn't appear to provide for propellant nature and quantity e.g. cordite 8 oz. Rcbutcher 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The best approach, I think, would be to get the needed fields added to the cartridge infobox and then use that; if you can get me a list of things needed, I can take care of that. Putting everything into a single infobox for the weapon isn't going to work too well for anything that takes more than one cartridge. Kirill 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Service rifle/pistol

Would it be possible to add a new field for weapons that were standard issue like rifles and pistols. As an example, with the M1 Garand infobox in the "type" field we remove "service rifle" and put what it was, a "semi-automatic rifle" and then put the united states and years in the service field. Something along those lines. --Philip Laurence (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we already have a "used_by" field; can the dates just be added there? Given the complexity of the template, I'm somewhat hesitant to add new fields if old ones can serve the same purpose. Kirill 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missiles

These infoboxes can be used for missiles:

Infobox Weapon is the more mature and better featured infobox, but is missing a few fields:

  • Function
  • Wing_span
  • Ceiling
  • Flying_altitude
  • Launch_platform
  • Accuracy
  • Target
  • Steering
  • Max boost
  • Prime mover

I think that with these additions, Infobox Weapon would cover all of the items needed for a missile system. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Function" will, I think, be adequately covered by the current "type" field. Other than that, this looks reasonable; I'll look into the technical aspects of adding those fields sometime in the next few days. Kirill 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, added some fields:
  • Wing_span: added as wingspan=
  • Ceiling: added as ceiling=
  • Flying_altitude: added as altitude=
  • Launch_platform: added as launch_platform=
  • Accuracy: added as accuracy=
  • Target: not added, redundant to type=
  • Steering: not added, redundant to guidance=
  • Max boost: not added, not sure what this is meant to be
  • Prime mover: added as propellant=
Let me know if anything doesn't work as desired. Kirill 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Max boost is the max time that the engine(s) will run; steering is the actual system used to steer the missile, such as air vanes, jet vanes, vector control nozzle; prime mover is the vehicle that transports the missile, if separate from the launch platform. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok:
  • Max boost: added as boost=
  • Steering: added as steering=
  • Prime mover: added as transport=
Does that work? Kirill 21:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Actually, those were the three I needed for Pershing, and my fellow editor needed two for Redstone. Thanks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can remove the break on boost time; see Redstone (rocket). --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Kirill 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this is looking good. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think a separate infobox for missiles is required, considering how different it is from other weapons. Plus, adding more and more parameters to the weapons infobox will only make it more confusing for users. second, I suggest that Vehicle and missile sections be delineated, since its extremely confusing. Plus, there are still a few parameters missing. T/@Sniperz11editssign 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I found it works very nicely for Pershing missile, but not every system is the same. Of the infoboxes listed above, only {{Infobox Missile}} is still available. What critical parameters are missing from Infobox Weapon or why cannot Infobox Missile be used? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It should only be necessary to fit the major data in the infobox, trying to fit everything leads to bloat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to that, perhaps it is time with missiles to move to the Aircraft way of doing things with an infobox for some basics and a specification box for the rest. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a possibility, but the initiative for it should really come from the rocketry side of things rather than the weaponry one. I certainly have no objections if the various flight-related projects want to develop a unified infobox for rockets & missiles; but so long as there's no consolidation on that front, I think our best option is to continue treating missiles as just another type of long-range self-propelled weapon. (Certainly, many of the parameters would still need to be supported for things like RPGs anyways.)
Needless infobox proliferation is something to avoid, in my opinion; it just increases maintenance costs. Kirill 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not intending that my comment should mean another infobox, the current weapon infobox, (or the aircraft one if you wanted to be minimalist) would work, but the fine detail does not need to go into the infobox or split into severla more fields. What is the difference between a launch platform and a prime mover in this context and level of sophistication? (rhetorical).GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For a mobile missile system, you could have an integrated transporter erector launcher like Pershing 1, or you could have a launcher towed by a tractor such as Pershing 1A or Pershing 2. In U.S. Army parlance, the vehicle that tows an artillery piece is called the prime mover. It is actually called transport in the infobox. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I notice a few little flag icons popping up in some articles in the origin= field. In most other areas of the project this use is deprecated as it adds nothing in terms of meaning and unnecessarily emphasises nationality. WP:FLAGS is a shortcut to the manual of style page that explains in more detail when flags are likely to be useful. I therefore propose to remove, for example, the flag on Tiger II. If anyone has any good encyclopedic reasons for keeping flags used like this, this would be a good time to say them. Thanks, --John (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MILMOS#FLAGS for more on this topic. Kirill 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. On that basis I will remove flags where they are merely decorative, as in the example I gave. --John (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicle's ground pressure pressure and type of traction.

I have two proposals as to what is missing from the vehicle specifications: vehicle's ground pressure and type of traction. Many sources give vehicle's ground pressure which is measured in kg/cm². Also the type of traction would be useful (tracked, wheeled or mixed as in case M3 or sdkfz 251 APCs). As of now the type of traction is included in the type section (for example tracked APC) but it makes the type section unnecessarily long so it would better if traction would have it's own section. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)