Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/General weaponry discussion

To be honest, my objective is not quite the same as the stated goal of this project; I came to this project because it just seemed the closest approximation. I am concerned at the proliferation of large numbers of (often quite short) military weapon related articles which are poorly researched, badly organised, and often quite puerile. Two common themes are: but there are others. I am currently working on a substantial re-write of landmines and a complete re-write of grenades, but wondered if this might be an acceptable spot to organise an approach on the dozen or so others I've noticed, such as the pointless "ammunition for XXX" series copied from the 1911. Securiger 01:26, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Totally obsolete material taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia, "modernised" with a bit of common myth and schoolyard nonsense.
 * Articles about important classes of weapons which consist entirely of reports of activist oppostion, with no information about the weapons themselves


 * Well there's scattered people working on infantry weapons, they are certainly the most underdeveloped (since air and ships have there own proj.) but it seems to be progressing at least. 'Gun' stuff has had a hard time with low development, high rates of vandalism, axe-grinding, etc.. Im open to adding some more objectives, as, at this point its just stuff I put down in attempt to attract more people doing just the stuff your talking about. Getting proper lists and general articles for ammunitions and small arms is big priority, certianly. Greyengine5 05:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming conventions Currently, it seems as though there is a problem defining the parameters of weaponry. For example: What is modern? Is an M1 Garand "modern"? Is an M14 "modern"? Both of these weapons were designed over 50 years ago and are no longer in widespread usage. In addition, parameters need to be clearly set for what exactly is a "firearm" or "small arm". While technically anything that fires a bullet or a shell is a "firearm", I find it more than a bit misleading to put howitzers in the same category as a Derringer. The same goes for "small arm". Technically, anything that is man-portable is a small arm. Yet it seems more than a bit strange to group an M79 90mm Rocket Launcher as a small arm along with the aforementioned Derringer. Check out the grouping on List of modern weapons for an example. Maclyn611 05:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC) Grouping The usage of sections for weapon types is also very important. When a list has 300 entries on it and is only organized by nesting, it can get a bit confusing for the reader. Always try to group by using sections (see How to: Sections for info). See List of weapons of the U.S. Marine Corps as an example. Maclyn611 05:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC) Sub-lists Should the List of firearms be broken up into components (due to length)? Or, should a main list be kept whole while suplementing it with specific lists (of submachine guns, assault rifles, etc...)? Would it be better to only list major firearms on List of firearms and supplement with sub-lists?Maclyn611 04:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Modern' as 'still in use' is probably ok, but as far as that goes that whole page (modern weps) is problematic. Maybe a couple examples for each type (ship, air, etc...), along with link to a related list? Not really sure here as its so general.


 * List of firearmss is really a list of list of small arms when it includes things like mortors and AT weps as you point out. Since there's only a few of those, perhaps non-firearm small arms can be moved to there own page? I just never went through and moved these off.


 * Orginally I had the idea of it being super-flat long list to be organized like List of people by name. Having many lists is harder to update, and there's always confusion over which list things should be on.


 * Creating sub-lists and removing non-major types were things I had thought about, but it always runs into a big problem. To do this you have to know about, and go through each item, even aside from any confusion over a category. I had found a big list of submachine guns which would avoid this for at least that list, but could not find it for others (never got around to posting that one either)


 * The shorter lists have there merits though, so there's no reason not to begin them if you want to- but no need to do it at expense of the big list (break it up), I dont think.


 * The scattering of weapon related pages that have been made that aren't tied into anything, such as this 'list of modern.. ' thing you found certainly need to be fixed up. (Ill try to work on these) As for the current big list though, Im more inclinded to just to leave it alone, as far as a major break up or overhall, until everything else is more built up. Well thats all, later. Greyengine5 06:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Categorization
I would like to see a standard for the categorization of weapons. What I propose (for relatively modern weapons at least) is Country Type (Decade). Hence, things like German tanks (1940-1949) or American rifles (1910-1919) etc. The ordinance type would be shrunk or expanded based on the number of entries (It might be American rifles at first, but it would descend into American assault rifles and American sniper rifles etc.).

For cases where a weapon has difficult decade of use (designed in the late 30's, deployed in the early 40's etc.) I say we use the date when it was officially accepted for production.

The exception to this would be prototypes, where I think we'd have to use our best judgement. That is, if we don't simply categorize them separately.

In cases where there is a much longer period of time between significant developments (say, pre-Napoleonic), then we'd probably have to adapt the system, either having longer timespans, mixed nationalities, or mixed ordinance types.

Any thoughts? Oberiko 01:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice that someone's putting some thought into this, but I think decades are too fine a categorisation, and countries are kind of confusing. Unless you plan to make complete articles for every individual Mark, many of your decades will be empty. For example, the US has only been through 3 basic patterns of battle rifle (Garand, M14, M16) in the nearly 70 years since 1936, although there have been quite a few marks of them. This is not at all atypical. Another problem is that much military equipment is not specific to one country, but is shared out to their allies. The worst case of this would be the AK-series rifles, but there are zillions of others. You get cases such as the Australian version of the British Mk V anti-tank mine. Very similar to the original British version, but in a slightly different, locally made Mark that - to make this especially confusing - was used decades after the British stopped using it. There are many similar cases. So, do we categorise a weapon under country of original design, each country that manufactured it, or every country that used it (over a hundred, in the extreme case)? Securiger 08:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For cases such as slight modifications, we'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis. Most minor-change or local-variance ordinance are generally listed on the parent page to start with (an example would be the British Grant tank is discussed on the M3 Lee page, which is categorized as an American tank).  If the spin-off is large enough to warrant it's own article though, then it will be categorized for its local nation.


 * The decades is simply a rough indicator to help break it down for categories (such as fighter aircraft) which have many, many listings. For those with smaller, we'll have to put those in higher categories.


 * Ex. American tanks (1940-1949) would have the following parents: American tanks, Tanks (1940-1949) and American ordinance (1940-1949).


 * Since American rifles (1940-1949) would only have about two entries (the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine), it wouldn't be created. Instead, those would go into the higher level categories: American ordinance (1940-1949), American rifles and Rifles (1940-1949).  We'd then create children categories if any of those got to big. Oberiko 14:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Naming Standards
Without any organizational format naming of guns and other weapons is highly varied.
 * Famous Weapons get there own page names, like 'M16'
 * Manufacturers designation prefixed by company name 'Berreta M-82'
 * Government Designations, sometimes prefixed by country name.
 * There is no standard for a company name in terms of writing out versus acronym.
 * Sometime what the weapon is added like 'XXX' machine gun' or 'XX MG'
 * Sometimes manufacture name is used before a military designation, sometimes not.

Some thoughts on the matter

 * Many weapons have many variants with different names and different national designations, while on the other hand some national designations are weapons that are made by several companies.
 * If creating a list of weapons by type (List of firearms for instance), it may at times be necessary to list a weapon multiple times. For example: The American-designated M240 is known as the MAG 58 in NATO countries. It would be highly American-centric to only list the M240 designation. However, when creating multiple references, please keep brevity in mind. We don't need people listing Browning Automatic Rifle, BAR, M1917, M1918, and so on and so forth. Restrict yourself to the most commonly known names if at all possible.
 * If company names are long its probably better to use a shortened or acronym instead.

Categorization Proposal
Where possible, use a Country Type (Decade) format to categorize equipment. This will allow for a well structured hierarchical system and allow relative ease of comparison between variant ordnance.

In cases where the category created will be to small (one or two items), use one or more of the higher level categories for classification. Ex. American semi-automatic rifles (1940-1949) would have very few entries. Best to put the articles into American semi-automatic rifles, American infantry weapons (1940-1949) and Semi-automatic rifles (1940-1949). Use higher levels again if the resulting categories are still to small to be useful.

The category information section (CIS) would include any relevant templates, navigation aids and details about the following objects, such as pointing out which are prototypes or have special circumstances.

If an object falls in more then one type (airplanes are often listed in multiple roles) it is best to choose the primary role it filled (might not be its intended role at design) and then mention in the CIS the other categories which that particular object might belong to. That object would also be listed in the CIS of the other mentioned categories.

In the case of nationality of a weapon, for the most part, categorize based on the designer and primary user of the article in question. For special cases (like the Panzer 35(t) which was designed by the Czechoslovakians but only used by the Germans) categorize it under both nationalities.

If the weapon has numerous nation-specific variants, do not categorize it under the other nations in question unless the specific variants have their own articles. Instead, use the CIS of the foreign nation categories affected to link to and briefly describe that weapon.

It is recommended to avoid using the conflict where the weapon served as a basis of categorization. The weapon may have been phased out very early, arrived very late, used only in highly limited quantities, served very little action and/or been in multiple conflicts. For the purposes of grouping objects based on conflict, it is recommended to use templates and list pages, which can be in great number and highly specific.

Sample Tables
When using tables, please keep in mind that optimal table width is 250px. This setting allows users across all resolutions to view and comprehend the table without it overly obscuring the rest of the article. For information on using images, please see the Picture tutorial. The use of tables is totally optional. One of the existing tables can be used, you can make your own, or just list the data. It's whatever works best for a given article.

Table templates
The following infobox templates are available for weapons. Please use them instead of making up your own.
 * Template:Firearm -- A general-purpose infobox for firearms. Most suited to man-portable weapons.
 * Template:Artillery -- An infobox for towed and carried crew-served weapons.
 * Template:AFV -- An infobox for tanks, self-propelled artillery, amoured cars, armoured personnel carriers and tank destroyers.
 * Template:Grenade -- An info box for grenades
 * template:weapon-firearm -- An alternative info box for firearms (doesn't bother with designers name)
 * Template:Weapon-missile -- info box for, well you know.

Older tables/infoboxes
These are older table formats. Please do not use them for new articles.

Table
This table is a number of pages. Is done in html though.

''Also known as: 'xxxx' Caliber: 40 mm grenade Firearm action: Single-shot Barrel length: 12 in (305 mm) Overall length w/M16: 39 in (990 mm) Effective range: 492 ft (150 m)    Maximum range:  1,312 ft (400 m)    Rate of fire:  5 to 7 round/min Muzzle velocity: 250 ft/s (76 m/s) Weight, launcher (loaded): 3.5 lb (1.6 kg) Weight w/M16 (loaded): 11 lb (5.0 kg) 

Old Table
This table is not on very many pages, but it is in wikicode

 

Firearms stubs
I've moved many of the firearms out of weapon-stub designation and into firearms stubs. I haven't done so in cases where I'm not sure the technical designation "firearm" is correct. One such example would be AAA. I intend to do the same for mil stubs. The reason for so doing is I feel that it is incorrect, no, it IS incorrect that all weapons or firearms are by necessity military stubs. I can show you many examples of weapons which I perosnally own which are "military weapons", whereas I am not a member of the military. My feeling is because anyone can own these weapons (well, okay, perhaps not if you live in some country where you cannot, but that isn't my problem), the designation of military is incorrect. It is further reasonable to classify them all as firearm stubs for the purposes of sorting and editing. I think you'll find that this is helpful, and helps reduce the overall size of both categories.

Be bold afterall. Avriette 12:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)'