Talk:Great Turkish Bombard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Great Turkish Bombard: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
Contents |
[edit] infobox
The infobox has empty fields that can be filled by someone in the future with more information on the gun, so we should leave it for now. Chessy999 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the interests of not having a lame edit war about this I've restored the spare infobox fields (and tidied it up). I have, however, kept my into changes. Instead of reverting the whole thing with an inaccurate edit summary (there's nothing "incorrect" about removing blank fields from an infobox), this is what should have been done in the first place. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, emptied one's can be filled later by people with better sources of information. Chessy999 08:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] links
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm how can someone put this such idiotic and subjective link here!? direct quote from site: "Called the "Precursor of Antichrist" by Christians because he was a sadist, a bisexual, and a sodomite, Sultan Mohammed II of the Ottoman Turks laid siege to Constantinople in April, 1453." that is unacceptable and not suitable for wikipedia, so i am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.70.197 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Precision error
“762 mm”? Please, people. It seems quite clear that 30 inches is an approximate calibre, and 762 is a conversion at far too high precision. The variation in calibre is probably several centimetres. The other stats are also unreasonably precise, are unsourced and in fact conflict with the sources in the references section. I’m tempted to delete it, but this page seems to have been the subject of enough silly revert-warring already. -Ahruman (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It fired large granite balls, not a standard artillery round. Chessy999 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- That’s sort of my point. Granite balls hand-hewn to 762 mm in diameter with less than half a mm of variation is immensely unlikely, even if the Turks happened to be using the modern definition of an inch, which isn’t very plausible either. As such, the stat “Caliber: 762 mm (30 in) is clearly wrong. -83.252.216.147 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (bah, logged out. -Ahruman (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
[edit] 90 days
Constantinople was attacked in April 1453, then, article says "After about 90 days, on May 29, 1453 ...". 90 days can't fit into two month... --Tigga en (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It took time to knock the walls of down, read here walls of Constantinople Chessy999 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
IN the wiki article on fall of constantinople it states the guns sucked and the damage was repaired before turks could exploit it. I think the fall of con. article is more acurate and this one is obviously a glamourfication of the events yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.140 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
