Talk:320 mm Type 98 mortar

Ouch
This article has suffered from a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth it seems. I found it today to be in a sorry state of competing statements about all different weapons, when the original DYI, and article, was about a specific Japanese weapon. Instead of simply clipping out the spoiler, every other example of the 320 was put INTO the intro, and now it makes no sense at all.

We need to decide what this article is about: is this about the Japanese WWII weapon, or is it about any 320 mm mortar? Either choice is fine, we just need to select one. I believe that the relatively short length of this article recommends the later choice: we could add in sub-sections for all of the other weapons without making this page too large. That's based on the assumption that the other weapons are similarly or even less famous than this one.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment that we should go for the latter. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree—I feel that the relevant parts of the article should be moved to Type 98 320 mm mortar and devoted wholly to the Japanese WWII weapon. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I too prefer names that are very specific. However, that will leave very little in the "generic" 320 article. I don't think that's a real problem though. Any objections? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and remove info about not relating to the Japanese weapon from the intro, since the article doesn't mention them again and seems to be specific to Type 98. I googled for the Italian weapon, but couldn't find anything. Otherwise I'd create a stub for it, but I have no idea what such an article will be called. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)