Template talk:Infobox Missile

Weight/Mass
Why change the "mass" to "weight" ? Mass is technically more correct (mass is expressed in kilogrammes and weight in Newtons), and I very much doubt that having "mass" instead of "weight" makes the entry cryptic and ununderstandable to the common reader, does it ? Rama 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just sticking to everyday language - after all we can only figure out the mass of it by weighing it? GraemeLeggett 16:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By oscillations. Common method used in spacecrafts.
 * As for everyday language, it's defendable if the technical word is really uncommon, but in this case, I see no reason to chance from the correct word to the inexact one. Rama 16:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I note that commonly we talk about the take-off weight of aircraft GraemeLeggett 20:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Capacity
Wouldn't it make sense to include the missle's payload capacity in this infobox? --Pifactorial 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * that would be the meaning of the entry warhead would it not, its the way it has been filled in for both this and Weapon-missile templates. GraemeLeggett 08:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was thinking specifically of the Taepodong-2 article, where "Warhead" is listed only as "Conventional & non-conventional; Satellite", with no further information. The article mentions that the capacity is "less than 500 kg" at maximum range, and "700–1000 kg" at short range.  How would this data be properly incorperated into the userbox? --Pifactorial 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * how you just wrote it.GraemeLeggett 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Layout is broken and unreadable
In Safari, all of the content of this template, including the green bars, projects outside of it on the right side, beyond the bounds of the browser window. The windows does not get a horizontal scrollbar though, so about 1/4 of the content is completely impossible to read.

Oddly, the empty infobox on the template page looks fine. —Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:48 Z 


 * I believe I have fixed this, but I don't understand all of the code in the template. It looks fine now in the dozen articles I have checked.  The previous template code looked way too complicated, with a mix of wikitable and HTML table tags, and for some reason three columns used for a two-column table.—Michael Z. 2006-09-10 15:46 Z 

Actually, this template is no longer officially sanctioned. Within the next year or two, we will be converting missile articles to use and. See WP:LV. Ingoolemo talk 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the status of that effort? I was about to use infobox missile to improve the Standard Missile article.  If missile specifications is the successor, better lay claim to it quickly.  (See next section).  Wdfarmer (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: missile specifications template
See missile specifications; it's been listed for speedy deletion as of February 12 2008 because "it is a deprecated or orphaned template that no longer serves a useful purpose". Is this true? Wdfarmer (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Please discuss at Template talk:Infobox rocket. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image caption
There should be a separate field for the image caption. On RBS-15, I'd like to point out that its the missile on the right, for example.--Adamrush 21:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

References parameter
I've added a parameter that can be used to pass in tags that apply to the "General characteristics" section as a whole. Applying those tags to the parameter didn't work very well because the black reference tags didn't show up well against the green header background. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stage4 parameter
I've extended the existing Stage1, Stage2, Stage3 parameters by adding a new Stage4 parameter. It was needed for RIM-161 Standard Missile 3. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)