Talk:Cannon/Archive 3

Fair use rationale for Image:For Those About to Rock We Salute You.JPG

Image:For Those About to Rock We Salute You.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you use this photo?

I just uploaded a photograph I took of a preserved American Civil War cannon on display at the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. I didn't know if you could use it anywhere in this article, but thought I'd put it here so those more knowledgeable contributors can determine whether it's a useful photograph.MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Need to Differentiate from 'History of cannon'

This article is to a large extant identical with History of cannon. I propose that we go through both articles, moving and removing as appropriate, so that the 'History of cannon' section here is much reduced, and any non-historical material from History of cannon is moved here. Discuss? --lk 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Plural

Okay, I'm a little confused by the plural nature of cannon. Do we use "cannon" or "cannons" in this article? bibliomaniac15 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically either is acceptable. For all articles in the cannon series, we use "cannon" ; per History of cannon, Cannon in the Middle Ages, and others that use this plural in the titles. --Grimhelm (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been changing them to "cannon", but "cannons" is also good... whatever is agreed upon works. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been using "cannon" as both singular and plural, and considering that the whole article is this way, it would be a waste of time to change them all back. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think using a "cannon" as the plural makes this article incredibly hard to read, especially as most people don't even know that "cannon" is apparently acceptable. 76.191.135.178 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. In fact, I almost edited the article before I read the notice. It's the same as making sure to use agendum in articles. I've noticed that wikipedia seems to favor the esoteric version of a word in a way that seems pseudointellectualist. ( In fact, pseudointellectual seems to almost have been made up by wikipedia. Pseudointellectualist has 37 hits on google) James (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe most scholars use "cannon" as the plural; I think we should leave it as is. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have to admit, I learned something by viewing this article. About cannon. James (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit?

O hai TSQUAD. Before you go for FAC, would you like me to do a fully copyedit of the article? If yes, you'll need to keep your hands off it for a few days (or however long it takes me), so comment below... Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do it, but this isn't done yet, so keeping our hands off it would be counterproductive... I'm actually trying to expand a couple sections today. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Gimme a yell when you're on content, a copyedit now wouldn't help. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help, actually... just doesn't help to stop everything else. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well if you say which sections you're working on, I can easily get started on the others tomorrow. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on "Middle East", and perhaps later "Modern Era". Feel free to edit those as well, though. I really don't see why you don't want to edit simultaneously (if it can be called that, since we're on opposite ends of the planet and are only awake at the same time for a couple of hours...). · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

The following links need a disambig:
C-17
C-5
Henry II
M198 (twice)
tube
Randomblue (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks. · AndonicO ^Hail! 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

picture titles

The picture titles without a verb shouldn't have a period at the end of the 'sentence'. (a few occurrences in this article) 71.245.169.69 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, did I find them all?Thanks--GrahamColm^Talk 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) .
• Missed one, but got it now. Randomblue (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Great FA, guys! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kudos to all. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Grats folks! I wasn't even aware the FAC had already closed. Well, it seems the referencing is fine, but I will try to look at prose later on, as promised. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Castillon

Wasn't it the first battle in Europe were cannons were the decisive factor? Why isn't it mentioned here? Matthieu (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"The first metal cannon was the pot-de-fer. Loaded with an arrow-like bolt that was probably wrapped in leather to allow greater thrusting power, it was set off through a touch hole with a heated wire. Such weapons were used by the French, and possibly the English, during the Hundred Years' War, when cannon saw their first real use on the European battlefield." That's all we have at the moment; I'll try to add something from the battle you mentioned. · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Page heads up

[1] - 19 May 2008 is your lucky day, guys! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, now our hard work can be vandalized (and subsequently read) by thousands. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame we didn't get it for the anniversary of Waterloo. Oh well, we'll have to settle for the anniversary of the Battle of Rocroi (even if there was not much more than a dozen cannon on each side). --Grimhelm (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's change it so it says there were hundreds. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tzatziki anyone? By the way, History of timekeeping devices is up for A-class review. Let's help give it its final push into FA so that the sadly retired J-stan can rest in peace. bibliomaniac15 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll be back to help soon. · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Plural form

The plural form of "cannon" is "cannons", right? 72.197.118.72 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to log in once again. DiamondDragon talk 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See Cannon#Etymology and terminology. · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are possible depending on circumstance, right? (AO: ;)) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that cannons didn't redirect to this article instead of to an obscure music album. --Mika1h (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; Cannons now redirects to Cannon. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

suggestions for improving this article

surely 2 of the most significant developments in the history of cannon design were

- ammunition which incorporated its own charge, rather than 6 people messing about with bags of powder (i have no idea what you call this: an artillery round?)

- explosive ammunition (ie shells as opposed to shot)

having looked at today's featured article for at least 8 seconds i can find no reference to either development, whereas there does appear to be a lot of absurd minutiae about obscure battles;

as a whole the article is poorly balanced

perhaps some wiki-jedi can assist, if they are not too busy reviewing [text deleted]

other comment: why is it necessary to keep referring to the "British" Royal Navy; as opposed to what? the Royal Thai Navy?

Dr Spam (MD) (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The changes in projectiles are mentioned (albeit somewhat offhandedly) throughout the article. It might be a good idea to add a "Projectiles" section, though. "British" was added in today, by an IP address; it's been removed. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Luru Vopo Vir Can Utriet

I'm fairly sure this is vandalism or a mistake of some sort. The text is not Latin--in fact it's probably gibberish. (There is a remote possibility that it is some non-European language; either way, it does not belong here.) I traced it down to this edit. It has been here for a long time, so I was leery of blasting it outright. Can somebody who knows the subject verify this? Otherwise I'll wait a while and replace the offending phrase with the word "charcoal". Freederick (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's believed to be a cipher and ought to be explained/footnoted as such (with a better ref than this one). Askari Mark (Talk)

Punctuation

While otherwise excellent, this article, has an excess of commas, which hinder its reading. --Graminophile (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They're correct though, as opposed to your second comma; also, "hinder" should be "hinders," as the noun is "excess," not "commas." · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My commas were added to emphasise the point, not to be grammatically accurate. And no, many of those in the article are not correct.

For example:
"This weapon, and others similar, were used by both the French and English, during the Hundred Years' War, when cannon saw their first real use on the European battlefield."

The 3rd comma should definitely go, or the sentence should be rearranged.

"As a result, field artillery became viable, and began to emerge, often used alongside the larger cannon intended for sieges."

The 2rd comma is pointless.

"For musical purposes, cannon are generally only used in grand, theatrical pieces,—often those with a military theme—due to their impracticality." ,— ?
These following sentences are just strung together by commas in a most ugly fashion. It really makes for very disjointed reading:

"The first airborne cannon appeared in World War II, but each airplane could carry only one or two, as cannon are heavier than machine guns, the standard armament. They were variously mounted, often in the wings, but also high on the forward fuselage, where they would fire through the propeller, or even through the propeller hub. Due both to the low number of cannon per aircraft, and the lower rate of fire of cannon, machine guns continued to be used widely early in the war, as there was a greater probability of hitting enemy aircraft.[7] However, as cannon were more effective against more heavily armored bomber aircraft, they were eventually integrated into newer fighters, which usually carried between two and four autocannon." --Graminophile (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, changed the Hundred Years' War one; the "field artillery" sentence's second comma is correct. If it weren't for the dashes in the third sentence, it would be like this: "For musical purposes, cannon are generally only used in grand, theatrical pieces, due to their impracticality." Dashes added in, commas left alone. Removed one of the autocannon commas, the rest seem alright. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Simulation of cannon.

I don't think that warrants a mention here; why not mention inflatable dummy tanks in tank, for example? This article is about cannon... this belongs, in any case, in military deception, IMO. · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point of the edit. By your own comment, see also text should be worked into the body. By not having any link there is no opportunity for the further discovery empowered by the hyperlink (I like "See also" sections).

re.": Inflatable tanks: Great idea. I'll put that into Tanks tomorrow. Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there isn't an article on inflatable tanks, as they've never been notably used in wartime. So that's a moot point. Secondly, I'm unaware of any consensus that "See also" sections are discouraged, as alluded to in your edit summary. Thirdly, the point is that the article is question does bear a direct connection to this one, and so it would appear prudent to link it. If it cannot be linked in-article, it should be added to a "See also" section. This appears to be directly from the Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I read WP:ALSO over a year ago: apparently it was changed since then. By the way, inflatable tanks have been used notably in wartime. Perhaps a notable instance of Quaker gun usage should be mentioned in the article (probably in the rather short Civil War paragraph), rather than a short or see also section? · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Grimhelm has done an admirable job of resolving this by writing a full section on the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of help. :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)