Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force

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:

• Tor missile system → 9K330 Tor
• SA-10A Grumble → S-300
• Buk missile system → 9K37 Buk

There are probably many more like this I haven't found yet and I would like ot move these as well.--Patton^t/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.--Patton^t/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...--Patton^t/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.--Patton^t/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?--Patton^t/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.--Patton^t/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.--Patton^t/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. EyeSerene^talk 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.--Patton^t/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. EyeSerene^talk 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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!--Patton^t/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)

A-Class review for 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash now open

The A-Class review for 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 00:16, 25 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)

A-Class review for Sd.Kfz. 10 now open

The A-Class review for Sd.Kfz. 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:33, 20 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. EyeSerene^talk 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)