User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/04/21a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Armament section of Airtemp

I see you've gotten in on this game as well. Unfortunately, the changes you made to the template leave a lot of whitespace (see XB-15, B-17, B-18), and the whitespace looks simply hideous. Also, it seems silly to have the armament section unbulleted when all the other sections of the specs are. Some of the linebreaks also seem gratuitous: why break lines to say that a plane can carry 10,000 lb of bombs? Ingoolemo ^talk 01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to be asking a different question: why have parameters for armament at all? A simple |armament= section allows editors to format it as needed for the aircraft at hand. Why do we need a header for bombs at all when you can simply say "3,000 lb (x kg) of bombs or missiles"? ericg ✈ 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I've set the template up, the more restrictive code can be completely overwritten by specifying |armament= (using template syntax {{{armament|more restrictive code}}}). However, many aircraft don't need the looser code option have armament sections structured almost identically to the system I designed for the stricter code option, so we might as well templatise it. With this system, we can accommodate both flexibility and easy of input. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be happier if I put all the guns, etc. on the same line? I seem to remember that you're not fond of linebreaks. See my changes at XB-15. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of clarity, not a hater of linebreaks. Having one line for each weapon type/caliber/whatever adds clarity. Having a separate section for each type of weapon, however, just adds cruft. Compare:

• 2× 20mm cannon in the wings
• 3× 7.92mm machine guns in the nose

versus

• 2× 20mm cannon in the wings, 3× 7.92mm machine guns in the nose

The former clearly shows the two types of weapons carried, while the latter does so much less readily - the 3× is not immediately evident. Sections per type, however, don't do nearly as much, and often clutter up an otherwise clear topic. I'm also unsure about mentioning cannon in a header called 'guns' - they're not guns, they're cannon, and 'Guns: 3 machine guns' is redundant anyway. ericg ✈ 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we were basically on the same page. The trouble with not bulleting the headings 'guns' 'bombs' etc. is that it inserts an extra (blank) line between the header and the bulleted list; had it not, I think we'd be on the same page formatting wise. I kind of overreacted, because in the classic skin inserting ; at the beginning of a line doesn't cause boldface. (If you could have seen what I saw, I think you'd understand my panic. But oh well.)

Your comment about the distinction between guns and cannon is an interesting one. I can see where your coming from, though I'd like to bring it up on WT:Air, because I'd be curious to get some more input.

'machine guns', by the way, is just meant to be a placeholder. Whenever possible, the exact brand name, and preferrably model, should be specified:

• Guns: 13× Browning M2 machine guns

Or something like that. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realize that ; was treated as a bastard stepchild by the Classic skin. I'll keep that in mind in the future. I agree that we need to bring up the gun/cannon discussion with the rest of the project - it's a bit weird, imo, to have (as we would in some cases) a line that simply says Guns: 4× 20mm Hispano cannon. What you've got in place now seems to work, but I'm wary of the structural <br /> markup that's required - it's easy to miss and easier to screw up for non-html-savvy editors. It could simply be that including |armament= in the subst templates is not the best choice. ericg ✈ 16:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the more restrictive parametres from the subst templates. I think it's best if we let new editors add to |armament=, and we can come along and clean up as we need to. Also, rememember that you often have to include <nowiki></nowiki> for the stuff enclosed by <code></code> to show up. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 19:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and oh yeah ;). ericg ✈ 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)