Template talk:Weapon-firearm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
Related task forces... Weaponry task force

 
<!--SCROLL DOWN IN ORDER TO EDIT THE ARTICLE-->
{{weapon-firearm|
|     image=
|   caption=
|      name=
|      type=
|    nation=
|       era=
|      date=
| prod_date=
| serv_date=
| operators=
|      wars=
| spec_type=
|   calibre=
|    barrel=
|      ammo=
|       mag=
|    action=
|       rof=
|muzzle_vel=
|    weight=
|    length=
|   variant=
| num_built=
|     range=
}}

[edit] Use

Apply generously to all firearms without infoboxes. GraemeLeggett 10:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste the text above to drop into the article, then add data after the "equals" sign. GraemeLeggett

[edit] Template changes

In regards to removal of platform and target categories: The platform and target categories are redundant and too generalized, and are not even in the other firearm tables. Platform in regards to weapons can mean different things, but in the case of the table it is a poor way to try and classify weapons. Most rifles, pistols, and lighter firearms are only ever going to be for a individual. When firearms are not, such as in the case of crew-served or vehicle mounted, they tend to be used on huge variety of mounts and the platform is unclear. The target category is rather dubious as well, as firearms are multi-purpose. Lighter firearms and rifles are usually used for hunting and target shooting in addition their military function. Heavier weapon's targets tend to be very widespread in military use, as there is a focus on multiple use. The result is that while the info in other categories on the table varies a lot but is very specific (numbers, wars, nations, etc.), info about platform and target is not very meaningful. It is better for the main article to describe the usually complicated nature of use and mounts, rather then in these indeterminate categories. Ve3 20:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Too redundant? How? And because something is not in other firearm tables is not a good reason for its removal. As far as the possibility of there being multiple mounts, in that case you should just put "See section", where section is a link to the appropriate section. Same goes for target.

I think that some things in this template definitely should be removed, such as a couple of dates as well as the conflicts used (overlaps with era and too much info), I think that platform and target should stay. The infobox is for quick technical information (which is why a few items should go), and I think that platform and target counts in that sense. Surgo 04:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I concur on conflicts, since that should be adequately covered in the text. Perhaps target and platform can be incorporated as a short phrase under type eg "Vehicle mounted". GraemeLeggett 09:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the spelling of "calibre" to "caliber." It seems that the American spelling is preferred on Wikipedia as the article with the British spelling is just a redirect. --Askaggs 06:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The rule for different spellings is that the first one in use stays. Its to limit US English / BE English wars (see Gasoline talk for an example) GraemeLeggett 08:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I did check the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page and the first author rule is a suggestion of last resort, not the primary rule. It seems to me that it's kind of amateur to purposely spell it differently than the actual caliber article page when there is nothing on this page that is British specific. I was only trying to add some consistency to the wikipedia. I'm not looking to get into an edit war though, so if you absolutely insist on this spelling I won't change it back again. --Askaggs 18:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I changed "Magazine" to "Feed System". This is better as it is more generally with respect to this topic. A belt is a different type of feed compared to a magazine, so to use magazine to describe a belt feed is erroneous.

[edit] Change proposal

There's a lot of redundant information in this template, and things that don't belong in an infobox. I propose the following changes:

• Top
  • Add platform back in. This is a fairly important piece of information, I think. Is it a personal weapon, an aircraft weapon, etc.? If there's more than one, you can always put a "See section" in.
• Remove the entire "History" section.
  • Remove "Date of design". This isn't a specific date often enough, and shouldn't really be in the infobox in the first place.
  • Remove "Production period". Again, this is covered by "Era" and doesn't have much of a place in the infobox.
  • Remove "Service duration". Covered completely by "Era".
  • Remove "Operators". This is covered by "Nationality".
  • Remove "War service". This is especially covered by "Era".
• Specifications
  • Remove "Type". It's already there in the top.

Thoughts? Surgo 20:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

yes,

• era is just a shorthand for the (rough) period of the weapon, at a glance you get an idea of when it was developed/used
• Production dates and service dates then give more details and identify weapons produced over a short period of time - Sten, or those with a longer production period - Lee Enfield.
• service lifes of weapons may be much longer than production period - M3 Grease gun
• operators may be a longer list than the originating nation of the design - FN FAL (Belgium)

in service with half of NATO

• Platform can probably be more simply described as part of type eg vehicle mounted machine gun, infantry rifle
• War service was another shorthand to show contribution to actual conflict - it can be lost more readily than the others.
• the second typoe is for more precise description though it obviously overlaps with "action"

GraemeLeggett 08:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If anything, I'd rather remove "era" than "production period". After all the era should be mentioned in the lead section of the article itself, while in the infobox we should stick to hard data. Also, the era is always problematic. For instance, what would you say about Vis pistol, which was produced 1935 to 1945 and then from 1992 onwards (same model!)? Halibutt 15:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is the difference from Template:Firearm

What is the difference from Template:Firearm--210.82.118.225 08:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone??? I come across many firearms pages which don't have either template and I'd like to fix it, but which one would be best? This one or Template:Firearm? At the moment I'm leaning toward the latter. To make matters worse there are other templates also floating around like Template:Semi-automatic pistol (and probably more). Deon Steyn 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I fancy this one over Firearm, but then I would, but go see Template:Weapon which seems more consistent with Template:AFV, and will probably replace "firearm" and "weapon-firearm" GraemeLeggett 10:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about using "qif"s?

A possible resolution to the issues/concerns/whatever above could be to use some "qif"s in the template, such that is a field is not populated, it doesn't show up at all. This would give everyone the option of using something like "Wars" and "Rate of fire" when deemed appropriate, but if the info was not filled in, it wouldn't show. Check the source for the company infobox template for an example. Just a suggestion. The Deviant 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)