Open main menu

Template talk:Infobox weapon

Active discussions
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated NA-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


how does it work with an artillery piece such as the QF 25 pounder?GraemeLeggett 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to set is_artillery=yes; there's a full field correspondence table listed here that gives the exact conversion to use after that. Kirill Lokshin 12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it'll handle most things. GraemeLeggett 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
From a test, it also appears that weapons such as PIAT should use artillery rather than ranged weapon. Something to add to the notes perhaps.GraemeLeggett 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it might be necessary to have both is_ranged and is_artillery set for the more unusual variations on that, depending on which fields we want them to have. Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor issue. When is_ranged is set, part_length parameter displays as Barrel length; is_artillery however does not have the same effect, part_length displays simply as length (e.g. see the aforementioned QF 25 pounder). Is it a bug or should both parameters be set for artillery ? Bukvoed 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely a bug; I'll fix this shortly. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Kirill Lokshin 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's fixed, thanks. Bukvoed 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the box to some naval guns (artillery) and found many of them specified a traverse and elevation speed. It seems like a sensible measure, could we add this to the artillery section? Oh yes and a projectile weight? --Deon Steyn 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did this with the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 MLRS as an example when I set the is_artillery code to yes as well. Ominae (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Service durationEdit

How do we determine service duration? There are numerous examples of military equipment being used by wealthy powerful nations first, and then passed on to smaller ones after the nation which developed them has replaced them (the AK-47 is probably the best example). Can we have multiple service durations or perhaps a 'foreign use' line added?

This might also be useful for equipment like the M22 Locust which was never actually used by the nation which designed and produced it. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume we can list multiple durations directly under the service field; there's nothing that limits the field to a single pair of numbers. Kirill Lokshin 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Missiles, rockets and bulletsEdit

I think these definitely fall under "weapons". I'd like to add some lines for them unless there is an objection. Oberiko 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to roll this template out a bit before making it too complicated, but I see no reason why we can't add support for bullets/shells/cartridges. What fields do you think we'll need that we don't already have?
As far as rockets and missiles are concerned, I think we need to coordinate with WP:AIR (I think they're the ones who have dealt with rockets before) to try and figure out how to distinguish military rockets from genuine launch vehicle rockets. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Missiles have their own extant template see at Bristol Bloodhound which covers more specification eg wingspan body diameter - ideally they would want their own specification template to take that off into a different part of the article before applying an info box.GraemeLeggett 08:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
make that two templates {{Infobox Missile}}, {{Tl:Weapon-missile}}. Personally i prefere the latter, but I would, it doesn't use the word "contractor" and includes such niceties as the steering (as opposed to guidance) method. GraemeLeggett 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Font size?Edit

Do we really need to shrink this? All of the other infoboxes seem to get away with 100%, and I'm not sure that making it less readable is really a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've downsized it for layout reasons, but it's probably a personal opinion of mine. I think it both looks better and allows for more words to be in the same line/field, making it take up a little less space. I've done this based on Template:Firearm, which in my opinion is a very good infobox. I'm sorry for any inconvenience; if I'm the only that prefers it with a slightly smaller font, feel free to revert it. —Squalla 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer to keep the styling more-or-less consistent among all of the military infoboxes; some of those are even longer, and haven't had many complaints about font size. The smaller font seems to me to be less readable, but it could just be my eyesight. ;-)
(Curiously, {{firearm}} uses 95% rather than 90%; did you mean to shrink it down even further here?) Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your reasons. I guess that, being an editor of firearms mostly (99% of my edits), smaller fonts on tables were common sight to me (previous infoboxes, prior to the conversion to this "standard" one, had for the most part smaller fonts), and I've become used to them. Personally I do not find them less readable, but I understand that a considerable number of people may have difficulty reading them, even though they aren't that smaller... Also, a widely-used infobox (Infobox firearm) prior to this one had a much smaller font, and I haven't seen anybody complain neither. As for the Firearm template using 95%, it actually uses that for the header/title only (not sure which is it, I'm not very good with templates), with everything else being 90%. I compared them side-to-side and the font size is identical on the fields. Again, I'm not really opposed to keeping the normal font size, I just prefer the smaller one. If I'm causing unnecessary trouble, feel free to revert. —Squalla 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what browser do you use? Firefox and IE handle 90% fonts somewhat differently, so it might be that we're talking about different visual sizes. Kirill Lokshin 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To demonstrate, the two screenshots at right. The top one is taken in Mozilla Firefox and the bottom one is in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Note that the infobox in the top screenshot has smaller text, even though both are rendering the 90% font setting. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... I'm using IE (don't have FireFox). Both infoboxes I've pointed out above look exactly the same (at least on the info fields). —Squalla 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've reverted it back to the full-size font for the time being, primarily because of the readability issue on Firefox. If anybody else thinks I'm being daft here, though, please feel free to change it back. Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


There are proposals to merge template:firearm and template:weapon-firearm into this template. Discuss. Circeus 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There's really no need to discuss these, as the conversion process is already moving forward; see the conversion tables here. Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the merge box popping and assumed someone was proposing, since sometimes they stay thus for long periods of time without discussion, I assumed it would be as well to set up a section. Circeus 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with linksEdit

Hello. I am doing clean up related to disambiguation of "Shell". I would like to change this template so that it links to "Shell (projectile)" instead of "Shell", but was afraid of potentially damaging the template. I didn't know if it was as simple as just changing it, since this template seems rather complicated by my standards. Would someone who knows this template well please consider making this change? Your effort would be much appreciated. Thanks --Brian G 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, fast work, that. Thanks much. --Brian G 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding specifications headerEdit

TypeMultiple rocket launcher
Place of originSoviet Union
Service history
In service1939–
Used bySoviet Union and others
Production history
VariantsBM-13, BM-8, BM-31, BM-14, BM-21, BM-24, BM-25, BM-27, BM-30

I'd like to use this box in Katyusha, to graphically tie the article in with other weapon articles, frame the lead image, and offer the barest minimum of information. The article is an umbrella covering a class of weapon systems, and even entering a range of specifications isn't possible. Can this template be displayed without the "Specifications" header? Michael Z. 2006-08-05 15:42 Z

I'll see what I can do. Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Or is this an inappropriate use of the template? Looking at it now, I think may be misleading if it implies that the article is about a specific weapon system, rather than a class. Perhaps the heading should say "Katyusha multiple rocket launchers" (not quite clear, but better) or "Katyusha-type rocket launchers" (a bit awkward).
Picking nits, but it would be nice to add a "Models" field rather than variants, or perhaps to add a free-form field where I can type:
| custom1header = Models
| custom1data = BM-8, BM-13, BM-14, BM-21, BM-24, BM-25, BM-27, BM-27, BM-30
Just brain-storming. Michael Z. 2006-08-05 23:50 Z
Well, I don't think it's too much of an issue in terms of using the box, as the reader really has no way of knowing what it's intended for. As far as he can tell, it's just a summary of the article; whether it talks about a specific model or a general type isn't really relevant to someone just glancing at it, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've set the specifications header to be hidden if none of the fields are given values. Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add it to the top of Katyusha.Michael Z. 2006-08-07 05:53 Z

Bladed weapon infobox suggestionEdit

For Task Force consideration, I propose that an optional parameter of a bladed weapon be some statement about its scabbard (for swords) or its sheath (for short-bladed weapons such as knives, daggers, bayonets). Jack Bethune 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just added it as sheath_type ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, thanks for the quick response. However, please consider using both relevant terms, scabbard vs. sheath, as it is customary to distinguish between the two. Scabbards are associated with long-bladed weapons such as swords, whereas sheaths are associated with short-bladed weapons such as knives, daggers, and bayonets. The Wikipedia entries on both terms will amplify this point, which I hope you will consider. Jack Bethune 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
We can add both links into the field label that displays on the finished infobox, if that's what you mean; but using a slash in the parameter name in the code itself can cause problems, so that's something I think we should avoid. Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It should display as "Scabbard/sheath type:" in the infobox now. Does that work? Kirill Lokshin 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks for the addition. Jack Bethune 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think blade hardness might be a useful optional property to add to this template in the bladed weapon section. It is a property that is mentioned in modern knife advertising, so it wouldn't be very useful for centuries-old swords, for instance. There are articles on specific knife models, where it would apply. My background is in materials science and I would make the addition myself, but I don't know enough about templates.--TDogg310 (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Caliber and cartridge?Edit

Qing Buqiang Zu QBZ-95 Light Rifle Family
Standard configuration QBZ-95.
TypeAssault rifle
Place of originChina
Service history
Used byPeople's Republic of China
Cartridge5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95),
5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97)
Caliber5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 (QBZ-95),
5.56 x 45 mm NATO (QBZ-97)

Is there really a difference between caliber and cartridge? I'm using here an example from the QBZ-95 article. Maybe these two should just be merged or one of them should be cut (preferably "Caliber"). --Ravenstorm 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Having two separate fields makes more sense for some weapons than others (e.g. artillery, older weapons that have gone through multiple cartridges, etc.), hence their availability; in cases where they're redundant, I'd just remove one of them. Kirill Lokshin 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks, I'll keep that in mind when doing my regular weapons-browsing. --Ravenstorm 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Calibre can only refer to the diameter of the barrel, cartridge is what goes in the breech end. Two weapons can have the same nominal calibre 7 mm but have different cartridges.GraemeLeggett 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then caliber is optional, since the cartidge of the gun should be enough information for the reader to know what the diameter of the barrel is. Although this is not necessary, I suggest we remove the Caliber section and add a comment for editors to understand how to adjust.
Cartridge information may not be enough for the average, or especially the uneducated, reader. GraemeLeggett 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Upon further inspection, a lot if not most major articles do not include caliber, but simply cartridge. The loss would not be important, but would instead clean up the infobox.--Ravenstorm 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
All the parameters are optional, actually; but again: caliber is needed for artillery, regardless of any other considerations. Just remove it in those places where it's redundant. Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that's good enough reason for us to keep it... although I will remove redundant information. --Ravenstorm 23:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to flog a dead horse, but this example (QBZ-95) was not completed correctly, the full cartridge specification should not be repeated under calibre. The calibre specification is very important/useful, because there are many cases where the cartridge name doesn't clearly specify the calibre, one example that comes to mind is the large group of 9 mm caliber cartridges with names like .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9 mm Luger Parabellum... different cartridges and names, but same calibre. --Deon Steyn 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unit costEdit

Template:Infobox_Aircraft has a unit cost field, as does Template:Infobox_Missile. Would there be any objections to my adding it to this template, as well? TerraFrost 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, does that field make sense for anything that's not currently being produced, though? How would we apply it to historical weapons? Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The field could be left blank for older weapons, much as it is for older aircraft, such as the Hughes H-4 Hercules TerraFrost 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sound fine, then; I've gone ahead and added the field as unit_cost=. Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Added some info TerraFrost 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Though it has already been added, I think unit costs adds little information. For military weapons, the unit cost will vary from contract to contract and manufacturer to manufacturer. For example, the DA-11-199-AMC-508 contract awarded to Colt, the first large-scale purchase of the M16, the unit cost was $126.37 for the XM16E1 and $110.89 for the M16. The next contract, DAAF03-66-C-0018, also awarded to Colt, was $110.14 for the XM16E1 and $94.89 for the M16. H&R's contract for the M16A1 was $170.43 each and GM's was $151.54 each. These are contracts within a four year period, yet they vary wildly. These are all 1960s dollars of course. I'm going to assume most of the unit costs data will be taken from the US military's fact files or John Pike's FAS/Globalsecurity pages. Unfortunately, they provide no context. What year dollars were they? Which specific model of the weapon were they for? Does it factor in support, spare parts, etc.? Machine guns are going to go through barrels a lot faster than rifles. This doesn't even begin to consider how botched the weapons acquisition process for the United States is, and that a quoted unit price may only be set just to meet a budget requirement. I know that it's an optional field, and it doesn't have to be filled out, but putting it in there only encourages people to fill it out.Pettifogger 06:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the justification I gave on another Talk page:
I noticed you removed my addition to the M16 article. Although I can accept that the cost is fluid, I do believe there is value in noting, somehow, the price range it's in. I mean, although I'm sure, to some, it's obvious that it's in the US$100's of dollars (as opposed to US$1,000's or US$10,000's) and costs less, comparatively speaking, then an M60 machine gun, I suspect there are a large number of people to whom it isn't so obvious.
Unfortunately, none of the citations I have found discuss a price range, so short of that, listing an exact price seems, to me, to be reasonable. The fact that the price is fluid could be mentioned in the reference. A ~ could also precede the cost to better reflect this.
There is, also, precedent for including fluid prices. Consider the Boeing 747 or the BGM-109 Tomahawk, for example. I think the fluidity of their prices is almost a given, yet despite that, I think the article is better off for their inclusion. TerraFrost 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally dislike claims of precedent. For the sole reason that someone else did it in the past is insufficient reason for me. However, if you want to argue precedent, ships, automobiles, and video game systems do not list price. Wikiproject Automobile had a long discussion on it. Pettifogger 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, whether or not the field is meaningful will vary on a case-by-case basis. One point to note is that it's perfectly possible to include multiple prices, or a range of values, if that's a more useful statistic in the given case. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
One can insert, in context, a cost at one point. For instance, "The 'one-time-buy' of M16A1 rifles by the US Army was for a unit cost of $100." Even then, contracts are not exact either. A contract can have penalties, incentives, delivery costs, support costs, development costs, and an absurd array of factors which make any one number meaningless. Take the B-2 (if you're fond of aircraft, TerraFrost). Prices for individual planes hovered between $277m and $1.1b depending on who you asked. Prices, when they included the cost of development and support infrastructure have topped $3 billion for each aircraft. That's a lie, of course. If you were to have added one bomber to the end of the production run, it would have cost around $350m extra, IIRC. Is that the actual cost of the bomber then? Go to Colt and ask them to buy a single M16A4 and they'll quote you, hmmmm, maybe $1600 if you're a qualified buyer. Negotiate and you might get down to $1200. Ask them for 10 million of them and you might get them for under $500 apiece. None of these numbers mean anything in the context of this article. --Asams10 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that TerraFrost went around to a number of articles and added the unit cost. This is a bit arbitrary and I feel that all of these edits should be reverted until there is a concensus of sorts. I doubt, given this discussion so far, that there is a concensus.--Asams10 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with them being removed. I still think that the various articles would do well to discuss pricing issues, but I can accept that it needs to be discussed more (I didn't think anyone would contest the addition).
As I read the comments, though, I'm reminded of the article on the DDR SDRAM and the Intel Core 2. Neither of those articles include prices, either, for many of the same reasons as are being brought up here. I think there is a key difference, however, between those articles and the articles I edited. The items discussed in the articles I edited cannot be purchased anywhere near as easily as, for example, DDR SDRAM. I can't just walk into a local Wal-Mart, ask for the price of an M16A2, and expect to get a serious answer. You say that a qualified buyer might be able to get one for $1,600.00. How many people actually are qualified buyers of military issue M16's? I have a hard time imagining any civilian would be, and soldiers presumably wouldn't need to buy one for personal use since the army would be the ones who'd supply their troops. The fact that a separate civilian model exists suggests as much.
Of course, then again, I'm not at all adverse to the idea of including pricing information in the DDR SDRAM article, either. Even if it is fluid, I think there's virtue to being able to see how items cost, relative to one another (which isn't something that can, imho, really be done all that easily on wikipedia, atm) TerraFrost 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
American civilians can and do buy M16s, as long as they adhere to the National Firearms Act and state law. It would be silly to go to Wal-mart, because Wal-mart doesn't sell M16s. However, you can go ask places that do. [1] [2] There's even eBay-style auction websites. [3] Many law enforcement and private security officers also make individual purchase of weapons. Soldiers do also buy their own arms, because they just like guns or they're unhappy with their issued weapons. If you look at a pictures in Iraq, there's a bewildering variety of configurations that aren't government-issue. You can even find 40mm M203 grenade launchers for sale. Military weapons are even advertised for sale with price in magazines found on American newsstands such as Small Arms Review. So I don't think the difficulty of obtaining the information is a good reason.
The exact unit cost figures, from John Pike's FAS/GlobalSecurity page, are quite arbitrary, for reasons already explained. Cost needs context and John Pike provides none. For example, it doesn't state which year dollars are used. To use those exact costs to compare a M203 grenade launcher to a M16 rifle would be misleading. It becomes apples-to-oranges, because one doesn't know the circumstance. As noted on the Tomahawk talk page, what one source says is the unit price can greatly differ from another source. The only instance that I think unit cost will have any value is when there is competition in acquisition process, such as the Joint Service Small Arms Program, in which cost was a factor in the selection of the Beretta 92 over the SIG. In that specific case, it's a single point of time, at which someone is directly comparing the costs, so you can make an apple-to-apple comparison. Another example would be the Iraqi government's recent purchase of M16s instead of AK-47s. The unit cost of the M16s was $700. That was higher than the stated unit price on FAS. These cases can be handled in the text of the article.Pettifogger 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting - didn't know that about M16's. Incidentally, I was the one who disputed the of the Tomahawk missile. I still think there's value, though, in conveying, somehow, that the cost, in the case of the Tomahawk missile, is on par with an expensive house (I'd consider any house above $500,000 expensive), whereas an M16 is more on par with a laptop computer (the latter often range from ~$500 to $2,000+). Regardless, ya'll have made convincing arguments and I think I am having increasingly less of a leg to stand on. Do feel free to edit the stuff out :) TerraFrost 00:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A note to Pettifogger's point about availability of M16s to American private citizens: the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 included a provision that made it illegal to manufacture automatic weapons for sale on the civilian market (importing firearms for sale on the civilian market was made illegal under the Gun Control Act of 1968). So there's no point going to Colt, FN Manufacturing, Bushmaster, what have you (or their distributors) and asking for a quote on a newly made M16 variant, because they won't sell it to you. The only M16s you can buy (subject to compliance with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and state law where applicable, as some states prohibit private ownership of automatic weapons entirely) are ones that were already in private ownership prior to 1987. Because the supply of automatic weapons that can be transferred between private citizens is static, prices are well in excess of what it costs a government agency to buy a new one. A 30 year-old M16A1 typically fetches around ~US$15,000 (more than a new Honda Civic). Euromutt (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Armored VehiclesEdit

I have been creating and updating quite a few armored vehicle articles lately (Cheetah MMPV, Grizzly APC, International FTTS, and I have a few suggestions for the vehicle portion of this infobox. Many of these vehicles straddle the line between weapon and automobile. I think more categories are necessary. Many of these are found in the automobile infobox, however, as these are military vehicles, the weapon infobox seems the most appropriate. However, I think some categories from the automotible infobox should be incorporated into the weapon infobox vehicle section. The most important of these would be "related" followed by "Ground clearance", "fuel capacity", and "transmission". Others that would be helpful with regard to military vehicles would be: approach angle, departure angle, and payload capacity. Reasons stated below.

  • Related - Many military designs are evolutionary designs of other weapons. This is not only seen in military vehicles such as the Cheetah MMPV, RG-31 and Mamba APC but also in firearms, such as the AR-10 and AR-15 or the AK-47 and the AK-74.
  • Ground clearance - most military vehicles are designed for off-road environment. Objectifying their offroad capabilities seems prudent.
  • Fuel capacity - I think this is relevant information
  • Payload capacity - this directly relates to how much armor they can carry. most armor today is modular, so it is not on all the time, but only when required.
  • Transmission - also relevant
  • approach/departure angle - most military vehicles are designed for off-road environment. Objectifying their offroad capabilities seems prudent.

What do you all think of these suggestions? Tmaull 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmaull (talkcontribs) 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Most of these seem like decent things to add; if nobody gets to them, I'll do so sometime in the fairly close future. The only one I'm sort of hesitant about is the "related" designs; how would we constrain that such that it didn't become a giant see-also section for every conceivably related weapon? Perhaps a more explicit field for evolutionary precursors and successors would be more useful? Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. By related, I meant that it was an evolutionary or almost identical design. I would try to make the modifications myself, but I haven't quite figured out how to do that. Tmaull 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added four fields to the template:
  • transmission
  • payload_capacity
  • fuel_capacity
  • clearance
As far as the other two are concerned:
  • Can the angles simply be listed in the ground clearance field?
  • I'm still not sure what the best approach for the related ones is; can we just use the existing "variants" field for this?
Kirill Lokshin 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But I'm not %100 sure they are needed. I think a torque field might be though. Also, alot of the field names could be made into wikilinks. Overall, looks good, thanks!
Tmaull 11:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Armor vs ArmourEdit

For vehicle weapons with armor any article using this template is forced to use british spelling even if every other spelling in the article is american spelling. I suggest incorporating a second input for the template for just "Armor" rather than "Armour". This way american articles can retain spelling. Edit: as an example M1 Abrams. Ergzay 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. There's an is_UK flag that's already in place to handle such things; that particular label just wasn't configured to use it properly. Kirill Lokshin 00:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing sourcesEdit

Is there a recommended way to indicate information source? A footnote or external link after a figure makes sense, but in some cases it would be nice to cite a single source or two for the entire infobox. Michael Z. 2007-05-15 19:33 Z

There are probably various interesting ways of doing it, but one obvious one would be to put a footnote right after the name of the weapon, with something like "All data contained in this infobox is derived from ..." to indicate the sources. Kirill Lokshin 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A SuggestionEdit

I was wondering if we could alternate the row colours, like on Template:AFV. There may be a problem, considering that many rows may not be filled, but that probably can be solved with clever syntaxing. Also, I think the font can be reduced a bit. That makes it more attractive than what we have now.

I also think that for the Vehicles, the category name can be shown, like on Template:AFV (which IMO is much better looking)- so we would be able to see Mobility, Propulsion, Armor, etc. In this one, theres nothing of the sort, which makes it uninformative. Sniperz11 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The row striping issue has been brought up before; unfortunately, there's no reasonable way of doing it with the available MediaWiki syntax, since almost every field is optional. There's simply no way of predicting which fields are set in any particular case.
(It's worth pointing out, incidentally, that the format of the template is standardized across all military ones; see {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}.) Kirill Lokshin 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be possible to format the table using JavaScript. This is sometimes used, even without the constraints of Wikitext.[4][5] I think one would have to put the JavaScript code into monobook.js. Might be a bit more complex, to deal with the table subheaders—I think you'd want a light row to follow each subheader, and then it may just not look right in random combinations of even or odd rows in a section. Michael Z. 2007-06-02 18:14 Z

Should the "used_by" attribute reflect the use of captured weapons?Edit

When talking about WW2 vehicles in particular, the use of captured materials was widespread, with KVs, T-34s and Komsomolets tractors all serving in the German army, and T-28s and BT-5s serving with the Finns. Should we strive to document all such occurrences under the heading? Some of them were very minor indeed, limited to a handful of vehicles (Shermans in German use, for example), and I am concerned it'd be seen as nitpicking. --Agamemnon2 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest approaching it on a case-by-case basis; the basic question to ask is whether including the use will add to the reader's understanding of the topic. Truly trivial uses aren't going to meet this requirement, while major ones may. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
In wartime, many sides have used captured equipment, either for replacements, or coz they were better, or for behind the lines strikes. However, this does not make it a part of their regular force, unless they continue to use it after the war (like Iran has done with captured Iraqi equipment), and in large numbers, with well defined maintanence, logistics and supply lines. Also, they must be well integrated into the ORBAT or the force, which would obviously preclude those such as the use for training or research (like the US use of Mig-29s and the like). Obviously, these should be done, as Lokshin has stated, on a case by case basis, with extreme care. Sniperz11 09:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Specification for specific modelEdit

The infobox represents a weapon in general, but often the specifications must refer to a specific variant. For example, the infobox for the T-34 medium tank refers to the entire 55-year plus career of both the T-34 and T-34-85 tank, but the specifications refer specifically to the T-34 model 1943. I suppose in some cases a range might be entered for varying values, but that wouldn't be appropriate here.

It would be nice to be able to add a qualifier to the specifications table sub-header for such cases. For example, "Specifications (T-34 Model 1943)". Michael Z. 2007-06-02 18:32 Z

Good idea; I've added a spec_label= parameter that will provide that. Kirill Lokshin 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That looks great. Michael Z. 2007-06-02 21:00 Z

Used by: List everyone?Edit

Tangential to my query above, should every country to use a given weapon be listed? Only the most noteworthy? Simply say "Various, see below"? For vehicles such as the T-34 or the Sherman, used by dozens of countries over the period of several decades this is an important consideration. My gut feeling is that anything above 5-6 countries is pushing it, but on the other hand, I like the visual element of a "user list", particularly since it's my habit to format such lists by using Template:flagcountry as a visual aid. --Agamemnon2 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, more than just a few items bloats the infobox too much.
Personally, I would leave out the subheading altogether, rather than cluttering an infobox with incomplete data points. It goes without saying that the reader can seek more in-depth info in the text of the article.
Perhaps a produced_by field belongs in the production history section. T-34 could list the four countries which produced the tank, instead of the dozens which used it. Or would this additional field represent unnecessary infobox creep? I think it should only be used when place of origin doesn't tell the whole story, of course. Michael Z. 2007-06-06 21:54 Z

"Cartridge" fieldEdit

Could we rename the "Cartridge" field to something like "Ammo"? This infobox is used on articles for old weapons like muskets that didn't use cartridges. If not, could we add a new field that would be used exclusively by non-cartridge firearms? --Philip Laurence 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably a bit impractical to rename the field in the template code at this point, although it could be done. As a simple solution, though, would changing the displayed label to read "Ammunition" instead of "Cartridge" be sufficient here? Kirill 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I use the "caliber" field for non-cartridge guns, so maybe one day this can be policy? --Philip Laurence (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of barrels or tubesEdit

Should this include a field for number of "barrels", "tubes", "rails" or "launchers" in the Artillery specifications section? I haven't thought through all of the implications, but this could be useful for multiple rocket launchers, gatling guns and chain guns, antiaircraft weapons, and some oddball artillery pieces. Example at BM-27Michael Z. 2007-08-17 04:29 Z

The Ontos seriously needs this field. Michael Z. 2007-08-17 04:32 Z
Easy enough to add that; I'll try to do it tomorrow, if I get the chance. Kirill 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ontos doesn't need the field (neither does the M40 recoilless rifle which it has 6 of) nor the ZSU-23-4 but things like the Nebelwerfer do. The BM-27 gets by without but the M61 Vulcan could probably use it. GraemeLeggett 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe the Ontos doesn't need it... But look at that sad little critter: it wants it with all its heart. Michael Z. 2007-08-17 16:33 Z
Hehe. In any case, I've added barrels= as a parameter for ranged weapons (c.f. pepperbox pistol) & artillery. Kirill 17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I think it works on artillery pieces like the BM-27, etc, without the field "primary armament". It is a weapon, rather than being an AFV armed with one or more weapons. If it had a self-defence machine gun, I would just add secondary armament, without the primary. Michael Z. 2007-08-18 18:23 Z

Cartridge propellant detailsEdit

I feel it would be useful to have additional info fields for cartridge specs such as propellant type, quantity, primer type, fixed or separate loading round, bagged or cartridge case... but when I think of howitzer ammo where we have say 3 types of loading this could get messy. Or should I be using Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge to describe the ammunition used by a particular artillary piece instead ? But even that doesn't appear to provide for propellant nature and quantity e.g. cordite 8 oz. Rcbutcher 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The best approach, I think, would be to get the needed fields added to the cartridge infobox and then use that; if you can get me a list of things needed, I can take care of that. Putting everything into a single infobox for the weapon isn't going to work too well for anything that takes more than one cartridge. Kirill 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Service rifle/pistolEdit

Would it be possible to add a new field for weapons that were standard issue like rifles and pistols. As an example, with the M1 Garand infobox in the "type" field we remove "service rifle" and put what it was, a "semi-automatic rifle" and then put the united states and years in the service field. Something along those lines. --Philip Laurence (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we already have a "used_by" field; can the dates just be added there? Given the complexity of the template, I'm somewhat hesitant to add new fields if old ones can serve the same purpose. Kirill 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


These infoboxes can be used for missiles:

Infobox Weapon is the more mature and better featured infobox, but is missing a few fields:

  • Function
  • Wing_span
  • Ceiling
  • Flying_altitude
  • Launch_platform
  • Accuracy
  • Target
  • Steering
  • Max boost
  • Prime mover

I think that with these additions, Infobox Weapon would cover all of the items needed for a missile system. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Function" will, I think, be adequately covered by the current "type" field. Other than that, this looks reasonable; I'll look into the technical aspects of adding those fields sometime in the next few days. Kirill 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, added some fields:
  • Wing_span: added as wingspan=
  • Ceiling: added as ceiling=
  • Flying_altitude: added as altitude=
  • Launch_platform: added as launch_platform=
  • Accuracy: added as accuracy=
  • Target: not added, redundant to type=
  • Steering: not added, redundant to guidance=
  • Max boost: not added, not sure what this is meant to be
  • Prime mover: added as propellant=
Let me know if anything doesn't work as desired. Kirill 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Max boost is the max time that the engine(s) will run; steering is the actual system used to steer the missile, such as air vanes, jet vanes, vector control nozzle; prime mover is the vehicle that transports the missile, if separate from the launch platform. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Max boost: added as boost=
  • Steering: added as steering=
  • Prime mover: added as transport=
Does that work? Kirill 21:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Actually, those were the three I needed for Pershing, and my fellow editor needed two for Redstone. Thanks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can remove the break on boost time; see Redstone (rocket). --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Kirill 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this is looking good. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think a separate infobox for missiles is required, considering how different it is from other weapons. Plus, adding more and more parameters to the weapons infobox will only make it more confusing for users. second, I suggest that Vehicle and missile sections be delineated, since its extremely confusing. Plus, there are still a few parameters missing. T/@Sniperz11editssign 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I found it works very nicely for Pershing missile, but not every system is the same. Of the infoboxes listed above, only {{Infobox Missile}} is still available. What critical parameters are missing from Infobox Weapon or why cannot Infobox Missile be used? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It should only be necessary to fit the major data in the infobox, trying to fit everything leads to bloat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to that, perhaps it is time with missiles to move to the Aircraft way of doing things with an infobox for some basics and a specification box for the rest. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a possibility, but the initiative for it should really come from the rocketry side of things rather than the weaponry one. I certainly have no objections if the various flight-related projects want to develop a unified infobox for rockets & missiles; but so long as there's no consolidation on that front, I think our best option is to continue treating missiles as just another type of long-range self-propelled weapon. (Certainly, many of the parameters would still need to be supported for things like RPGs anyways.)
Needless infobox proliferation is something to avoid, in my opinion; it just increases maintenance costs. Kirill 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not intending that my comment should mean another infobox, the current weapon infobox, (or the aircraft one if you wanted to be minimalist) would work, but the fine detail does not need to go into the infobox or split into severla more fields. What is the difference between a launch platform and a prime mover in this context and level of sophistication? (rhetorical).GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For a mobile missile system, you could have an integrated transporter erector launcher like Pershing 1, or you could have a launcher towed by a tractor such as Pershing 1A or Pershing 2. In U.S. Army parlance, the vehicle that tows an artillery piece is called the prime mover. It is actually called transport in the infobox. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! For missiles : Is it possible to allow wingspan? Thanks, --Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a wingspan parameter. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


I notice a few little flag icons popping up in some articles in the origin= field. In most other areas of the project this use is deprecated as it adds nothing in terms of meaning and unnecessarily emphasises nationality. WP:FLAGS is a shortcut to the manual of style page that explains in more detail when flags are likely to be useful. I therefore propose to remove, for example, the flag on Tiger II. If anyone has any good encyclopedic reasons for keeping flags used like this, this would be a good time to say them. Thanks, --John (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MILMOS#FLAGS for more on this topic. Kirill 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. On that basis I will remove flags where they are merely decorative, as in the example I gave. --John (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken from User talk:Vladimir Historian#Flagicons:

Hi Vladimir Historian, you stipulated "Several editors advised me not to use the national flags in the vehicle infoboxes as senseless info. I agreed." and you removed the flagicon... Why was that? Who are those editors? As part of the Weaponry Task Force, we advise to use flagicons and their template such as: {{Template:RUS}} or {{flagcountry|Russia}}. Thanks, and have a good day! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if so - I can only support the idea and to return back to flagicons as I liked before :) But in this case, please, "fight" with the editors who suggest to remove flagicons.....
Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if they "fight", they must have their reasons. I really don't see the negative side of having a small flag in the infobox. If you look at the battle or the conflict infoboxes (such as this one), there is always a small flag to visually enhance the article. Anyway, I can't wait to see their reasons... --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion there is nothing bad to add a small flag in the vehicle infobox, I support the idea. But I also think that battle infobox is a differ thing - we should show the participants (countries), so flags are very important in such a case. Perhaps, some kind of importance is for ships - to show their national state flags. For vehicles it is less important as some editors tried to explain me, and the name of the country of origin is enough.
Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken from User_talk:TheGerm#Flag icons:

Hi. The consensus so far has been not to decorate AFV infoboxes with flag icons, as per WP:FLAGCRUFT#Help the reader rather than decorate. I notice you cite WP:WEAPON in your edit summaries, but I see nothing there but some examples without flags. Michael Z. 2008-09-01 03:44 z

Good day Michael, your manual of style DOES recommand the use of a flag for the AFV infoboxes : "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results, and cannot be expressed better with text. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once."
In the case of the AFV infoboxes, the flag gives the reader a quick reference about the nationality (i.e. Soviet vs Russian, US vs Canadian, ect). Thanks, and have a great day! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, again. The guideline doesn't say “put flags in all infoboxes.”
You'll notice that the examples cited are lists of items, when the topic of the list is intimately tied to nationality. For example, adding flags to the lists of generals in battle boxes can show you at a glance e.g. that out of a couple dozen generals on one side, most were German, but a minority came from other countries. Decorating the name of a solitary country with a flag doesn't provide a “navigation aid ... which cannot be expressed better with text,” unless you count the absolutely illiterate as part of the article's target audience.
You'll also notice that the examples of infoboxes on the page don't have flags. [comment edited by TheGerm and Mzajac —MZ]]
This has been discussed numerous times, and meets with consensus. For example, lately at Template talk:Infobox Weapon#Flags. If you have a problem with it, please bring it up again there or at WT:MILHIST, and get some support to change the practice. Otherwise, please don't add flags to solitary country names. Michael Z. 2008-09-01 14:00 z
I understand your point, but I still believe the flag icons are not just decorative in the infoboxes. They really add something and help differentiate allegiance and political context. Am I the only one to think so? --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how. If I read “Country of origin: Yugoslavia”, then I know that the M-84 comes from Yugoslavia. If I also see a Yugoslavian flag, then I have learned what Yugoslavia's flag looks like, but nothing at all about the M-84. Even if seeing the flag did demonstrate something about Yugoslavia's allegiance or political context—which it doesn't—that is not what the article is about.
Please let me know if I've missed anything here. Michael Z. 2008-09-02 02:43 z
A four year old discussion - let's see if anyone still bites. I've just been challenged for not obtaining consensus for this edit. Do we need to do another ten rounds here about WP:INFOBOXFLAG, or can I assume that the documentation for this template still reflects the consensus obtained four years ago? Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Vehicle's ground pressure pressure and type of traction.Edit

I have two proposals as to what is missing from the vehicle specifications: vehicle's ground pressure and type of traction. Many sources give vehicle's ground pressure which is measured in kg/cm². Also the type of traction would be useful (tracked, wheeled or mixed as in case M3 or sdkfz 251 APCs). As of now the type of traction is included in the type section (for example tracked APC) but it makes the type section unnecessarily long so it would better if traction would have it's own section. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

“Wheeled” is often mentioned under “suspension”, and tracked usually assumed or implied by different suspension types. Perhaps we should be more consistent in the way the contents is formatted?
Including ground pressure was discussed a very long time ago (in template talk:AFV, I think), but including it didn't meet consensus because it is often not available, might not be determined consistently, and may differ according to different track type mounted on a vehicle, etc. But I wouldn't be against adding it if it is available in citable references. Michael Z. 2008-09-02 03:05 z


It would be nice if this template had a location field as well when that is relevant, like say in Tsar Bomba for geographic coordinates (so we can get rid of the terrible hack that is currently more or less in use) --IceHunter (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox tampered?Edit

Has someone tampered with the font size and style settings in the infobox recently? Had it show up smaller and more tightly condensed than normal for a day and assumed it was done here, but I cannot find any edits relating to this. Has anyone else experienced the same problem? Koalorka (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The code for the Infobox doesn't appear to have any stylistic settings. If you're using Firefox 3.0, I'd poke around in your settings (particularly the new-style "zoom"); I had some unexpected presentation changes before I figured out how the new system works. Chrylis (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

General adviceEdit

  Resolved: Added the note. Michael Z. 2008-10-26 21:14 z

Sometimes the infobox's function is abused, in good faith. I'd like to add some advice for its use:

The infobox is intended as a quick reference. Don't add non-data items, like “see text”, or links to article sections (the article's table of contents already does this). Only add “unknown” to assert that an information point is unknowable, not as a placeholder to show that it is missing from the article. Choose a representative model and indicate what it is with the spec_label parameter, instead of listing multiple data items in one field.
The template can also be used for general categories of weapons, such as tank and Katyusha rocket launcher. Be careful not to overspecify.

Any comments or objections? Michael Z. 2008-10-01 16:35 z

Layout for self-propelled gunsEdit

Self-propelled guns fall into both afv=yes and artillery=yes. Please see the example infobox in T28 Super Heavy Tank.

Can we rearrange the layout a bit so that these two work better together? Specifically, the primary_armament field should be shown at the top of the arty specifications section (within the horizontal rules). I suppose secondary_armament should immediately follow that section, but perhaps armour belongs after that, so it is not separated from the rest of the vehicle specs.

Some of the relevant fields, i.e. barrels, range, max_range, elevation and traverse, might also be useful for tanks or other AFVs in general, and are commonly found in references. Perhaps these should be available when afv=yes? Michael Z. 2008-10-08 23:12 z

And should we mention in the docs that both afv and artillery can be set to “yes”? Michael Z. 2008-10-08 23:23 z

Rearrange blank template for ground vehicles vs missilesEdit

  Resolved: I've changed the blank template fields. Michael Z. 2008-10-26 21:18 z

Is there any problem with rearranging the fields in the blank template to separate out the missile/torpedo specs? This would reduce the picking about when applying the template to a ground vehicle. It may be possible to separate out another “ground vehicles only” group to make things easier for missile editors, but I don't have the experience to do this.

Any objection to rearranging the last section of fields as follows? Any suggestions for further refinement? Michael Z. 2008-10-08 23:22 z

<!-- Vehicle/missile specifications -->
<!-- missiles only -->

Sorry to bother like thisEdit

... but I've been bending my brain for months now and I've finally decided to ask for some help (yes, I'm a proud bugger) and I don't know where else to go. I've been trying to put together a wiki as kind of a hobby for some time and, let's face it, a brainiac I ain't. My problem is outlined here and basically boils down to this: how the hell do I suppress rows where the value is nada?????

I'm sorry to do this here and yes, I suspect I'm violating some kind of etiquette... thing... or something, but I'm at the end of my rope, guys..... :(

Sorry to bug ya. Grugnir (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your wiki's version info, it doesn't seem that you have the ParserFunctions extension installed; without it, the conditionals (#if, etc.) won't work correctly. Kirill (prof) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
YES!!! That's it! Why is it always the simplest things.... Thanks a million, mate :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grugnir (talkcontribs) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Full-width imageEdit

It's always bothered me that the image is just a few pixels narrower than the steel-blue header bars (a compliant 300px image is 5 pixels narrower, and has a visible margin of 2 px on the left and 3 px on the right). The uneven white margins looks like a mistake.

I made up a demo of an improved version—compare:

  1. T-54/55
  2. User:Mzajac/T-54/55

This requires some minor changes:

  1. {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}: add cellpadding=0 to main_box
  2. {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}: add padding-top:1px; padding-bottom:1px to image_box and image_box_plain
  3. {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}: add padding:1px; to header_bar
  4. In articles: insert images at 305 px wide

For pixel-perfect reproduction of the old style, the simplest solution would be to add padding:1px; to every tr, instead of adding it to some table cells. Most efficiently done in a stylesheet rather than in the template.

My demo code is at User:Mzajac/Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style.

Any comments about or objections to this change? Michael Z. 2008-10-26 21:06 z

Artillery shell weightEdit

Having done a lot of artillery articles it would be nice if I could use display shell weight as part of the infobox if I don't want to take the time to lay out a table covering all the ammo used by that particular weapon. Explosive weight covers only the filling used by the shell. Differentiating between HE and AP would be nice, but I can always split that out manually on separate lines. Something like: | shell_wt = Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The parameter "ammo_wt" used to exist at one time, it's still in the parameters on the 25 pounder page. It would belong as a part of the shell/cartridge parameters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's still there, but doesn't display at all. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
From looking over the edit histories it would appear that when Infobox Weapon replaced the template "Weapon-Artillery" (in August 2006) ammo_wt was not coded into the template, neither was it eliminated from the artillery infoboxes. If someone could add ammo_wt into the template code, it could go as part of the cartridge/shell line.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now added as cartridge_weight= (to match the existing cartridge= parameter); please try it out let me know if anything doesn't work properly. Kirill [pf] 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Works fine, many thanks. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Except we now have shell linked twice in the infobox. I suppose technically its shell weight for a given type of shell but the cartridge space can take either a single fixed round or a cased charge or a bagged charge. British examplesGraemeLeggett (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the cartridge field for artillery displays as shell, not cartridge. I've been using it to show if the weapon used fixed, bagged or semi-fixed ammunition. Can we change it for if artillery=yes to display as ammunition instead? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Auxiliary infobox for armor layout?Edit

The armor line in the general infobox is pretty limited. How about creating something to concisely display the detailed armor layout of a vehicle? It would need to differentiate between turret and non-turret vehicles to suppress the display of turreted parameters for non-turreted vehicles. It should have the convert template built in so that people can simply place the numbers and units as appropriate, although that might require a link to the convert template page for people who don't use that template, but I'd really like to avoid having to type it out each time. It should also show slope in ° from vertical or horizontal to cater to the differing US and European conventions on calculating slope. It would be nice to be able to specify which side it displays on to avoid unnecessary scroll-downs on short articles.

Perhaps something like (more focused on necessary information than graphic layout):

Name (model)


turret front/side/rear

gun mantlet

superstructure front/side/rear

upper glacis

lower glacis

hull side/rear

Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify that you're not thinking of putting it in the template Infobox Weapon; the infobox is supposed to be a summary, detail is for the article itself, hence the current entries tend to be either a maximum or range of armour thickness. I wouldn't call it an infobox at all.
I wouldn't worry about specifying a right hand or lefthand side display. The space required for all the info would probably be quite wide when all is said and done, thinking about additional layers of slat or applique, so it might as well take the left hand side - thinking about a comparison with aircraft specifications. I can think of a few examples where articles have a table for the armour values for one or models. I can see the point of using a template to simplify layout compared with making a wikitable up each time. The use of built in convert might be useful, but I note that majority of armour thickness is quoted in mm and seldom inches except for the maximum value.
Have you thought about trying a wikitable layout in an article of choice and then we could use that as a layout exmaple for the template?GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
One possibility, which has been mentioned before but never really discussed in detail, would be to create a new {{Infobox Military Vehicle}} that would include such parameters in the infobox proper. Kirill [pf] 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Found a good example to work on Panther_tank#Detailed_specifications has all its armour listed. I'll try a table for it there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about an auxiliary infobox, not adding these lines to the regular infobox, although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a new Military Vehicle infobox like Kirill mentioned if it can display the armor information compactly, which I'm dubious given its single-column format. A lot of US WW2 vehicles have their armor specified in inches, so the conversion template would be useful. I'd prefer a more compact table like the one I just added to the Nashorn as example. The name/model and turret lines should be suppressed if empty or not relevant. I'm not real pleased with how the unit conversions display, but I don't think that there's any real choice unless we want to make the slope a separate cell. Hmm, maybe we should have the gun mantlet/shield on its own line instead of lumping it in with the turret info. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of reformatting that Nashorn example; abbreviating mm, multicolumn header and moving the model to external caption. Its a bit more compact now so no there's more space for indicating the slope. I can see the merits for a wide table in perhaps the appropriate area of design and development of the article, but a lengthways is more amenable for putting the specs of two models side by side. Perhaps we need some space to showcase different attempts. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added both tables to my very obscure page on the Pz.Sfl. II so we can compare versions without disrupting casual visitors. Is there some better way to do this, perhaps in the sandbox, that accessible to anyone who wants to play? At any rate I really like the display of mm, versus spelling it out (I didn't even know that it was possible!) and the external caption, but I think that the thickness/slope is better moved to the beginning of the same line as the location. And I've added a third version that spells out how the slope is measured and added gun mantlet/shield on its own line. In general I like this one the best so far, although I'm not happy with how the thickness/slope from the vertical displays, but I do think that it's necessary lest somebody get confused how we're measuring the slope. I'm not sure how to compare models except to extend the table to the right with extra cells unless we can put two of these tables side-by-side. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

More stats for AFVsEdit

It would be nice to be able to borrow the data for elevation and traverse from the artillery section for AFVs, particularly for self-propelled guns. You can currently do this if you set artillery=yes, but it looks a little odd as it sets them off in their own little section. You can see an example in the Panzerjäger I article I'm working on.

I'd also like to show fording depth, trench crossing, obstacle height and maximum grade information in the infobox. Some might argue that the infobox is supposed to briefly summarize the vehicle's data, but I much prefer to show all that data neatly organized and standardized in the infobox rather than in some lengthy detailed specification section that often duplicates some of the contents the infobox. Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor coverage of missilesEdit

I have opened a discussion as to whether Template:Infobox Rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) might be better to cover missiles. Please see this discussion page --GW 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Caliber: unit conversionEdit

If the calibre (I'm English) of a gun is described in imperial units, is it correct to also have a metric conversion? If so, what precision should be used?
I'm thinking of the article BL 7.2 inch Howitzer Mk.I, where the infobox has:

|caliber= {{convert|7.2|in|mm}}

which shows as 7.2 inches (180 mm). However, I consider that a misleading conversion: it implies an exact metric calibre, whereas using a more precise conversion (3 decimal places) would show 7.2 inches (182.880 mm). A back conversion (also to 3 dp) shows that the calibre cannot have been exactly 180 mm (7.087 in) because this doesn't tally with the description of the piece as a "7.2 inch Howitzer"; so, what is policy? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be converted, IMO. My rule of thumb is no more than one digit past the decimal point. So I'd be happy to round off your example above to 182.9 mm. 3 digits seems very pedantic to me, especially since the last one is a zero. But that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine - 182.9 is far better than 180 in this case. I'll amend article to show 1 dp. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify my position, every number should be converted at least once and I'm not inclined to go to one decimal place for numbers over 100 mm; the nearest whole number is fine, IMO. But that's just my sense of esthetics. 76.2 mm is OK, 102.4 mm looks kinda silly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind if either 182.9 or 183 are used. What I objected to was the over-rounding to 180 mm. The difference between 180 mm and 183 mm is 3 mm (0.118 in) which is significant. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Convert}} automatically rounds according to the precision of the input. It does so to show that it's not an exact conversion which makes sense for measurements but these are specifications where false precision is not the problem. JIMp talk·cont 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but I find converting 4 inches to 100 mm or 6 inches to 150 mm aggravating when that's not really true. Upon further reflection I think that conversions to 3 significant figures is about as far as we need to bother with. That covers pistol calibers, nobody would be happy about rounding .30 caliber to 8 mm when it's really 7.62 mm, all the way up to the biggest artillery pieces ever made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Caliber meaningEdit

A little bit of leaping before looking here: caliber had been a little confusing regarding the meaning in firearms versus the meaning in artillery, plus the blur of sundry other meanings mixed in. So, I split off the artillery meaning to caliber (artillery) (after a note on Talk:Caliber). Now I'm looking to resolve the linking from the weapon infobox. Any pointers? ENeville (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your boldness just hosed every single usage in my numerous artillery and ship articles where I had it linked directly to the caliber (length) heading of the main article. Now I got the wrong usage linked since you can't make a redirect. I think that this is probably a change for the better, but I would have appreciated a bit more notice before you carried your nefarious plan through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I edited the template documentation to clarify which caliber is used in the template. Caliber (artillery) isn't even used therein, a reader will have to calculate it manually from bore length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Markup showingEdit

The infobox is now displaying some markup before the infobox:

Light Tank M24

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back to an earlier version and the rogue display seems to have gone. Didn't certain templates used to carry a warning about the esoteric nature of the code? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe you are looking for {{Intricate template}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fire ModesEdit

Has there ever been any discussion about adding a "fire modes" section to this? This would be helpful, particularly for rifles. It would denote whether they were Semi-Auto, Full-Auto, Burst, etc. Thoughts?? Zackmann08 (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Turret and Hull should have separate Dimensional ValuesEdit

Vehicles that have turrets need to have their height recalculated because the current height values are both the Hull and the Turret combined.--Arima (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Military trucksEdit

Any guideline should this template be used for military trucks, or should Template:Infobox automobile be used instead? Sisu A2045 is with the weapon template whereas Sisu SA-150 with the automobile template. --Gwafton (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ground pressureEdit

I suggest the addition of the parameter ground pressure, very important characteristic of any armoured tracked vehicle. Cainamarques (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Why isn't rifling one of the specifications with artilery and ranged firearms (e.g. Rifling: 4-groove right-hand twist)? M11rtinb (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M11rtinb (talkcontribs) 11:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The UK parameter - moving into more general caseEdit

At the moment the 'is_UK' parameter serves to display the appropriate spelling armour/armor and caliber/caliber. Since - although documented - this is open to misinterpretation/confusion, what would it take to shift it to something like "is_British-English"?

I presume that one could introduce the parameter as an synonym calling the same function, as in the project template where "British=yes" is a shorthand verison of "British-task-force=". And then once that was shown to work, then go through and change the parameter name to the other.

Is that desirable/feasible GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Any interest in this? Perhaps a draft template ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

New categoriesEdit

Infobox should contain some new categories like |Protection that could be further branched into |active and |passive.

Many new modern complex weapons systems have some form of protections that does not come under term Armour in classical sense like steel armor plates. For example smoke grenade launchers are form of passive protection and not armament nor armor, etc...

Loesorion (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle/missile specifications "Drive" optionEdit

I believe a "Drive" option should be added to the vehicle specifications options. By this I mean 4x2, 4x4, 6×4, 6x6 or tracked etc. Currently for vehicles this is usually listed under suspension and occasionally transmission which is not satisfactory. What are others thoughts? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC).

Template-protected edit requestEdit

All I have done is changed the "weight" section to "mass". Weight is not the same as mass, but this parameter is designed for the mass. I’ve implemented this to the sandbox. IWI (chat) 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  Note: could be confusing because the parameter name is weight. Maybe leave this a few days to see what other people think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I obviously couldn't change the parameter though. IWI (chat) 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Pinging; consensus via silence. IWI (chat) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough.   Done. I added a new parameter mass whilst keeping weight as an alternative. Note there are other fields with "weight" in them, so this may cause confusion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Primary_weapon parameterEdit

I came across this template while trying to help someone having problems with it at WP:THQ#Infobox not displaying correct information (the sandbox draft can now be found at Draft:T23 armored car). Has |primary_weapon= been deprecated or otherwise changed? Perhaps it's no longer a recognized alias? It's listed as an optional parameter on the documentation page, but it doesn't seem to be displaying when used. Maybe someone can help sort this out? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

-Marchjuly I'm having the same issue and it would really be good if someone could give a solution. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Drive" optionEdit

Request to add a "Drive" parameter to the Vehicle/Missile section of the Infobox. The description should be along the lines of:

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC).

  Not done please make the changes in the sandbox first. If you are just discussing this matter feel free to continue below. — xaosflux Talk 10:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, change made to the sandbox as requested. The results can be seen here. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC).
re-queued. — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done Sceptre (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Infobox weapon" page.