Template talk:Infobox weapon
 | Template:Infobox weapon is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox weapon template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Layout for self-propelled guns
[edit]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
Full-width image
[edit]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:
This requires some minor changes:
- {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}: add
cellpadding=0tomain_box - {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}: add
padding-top:1px; padding-bottom:1pxtoimage_boxandimage_box_plain - {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}: add
padding:1px;toheader_bar - 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
Ambigious Field Use
[edit](Sorry, I'm not that into templates, I hope I use the correct nomenclature.)
The field labels for {{{cartridge}}} and {{{cartridge_weight}}} both link to Shell (projectile), which is a clear contradiction, as "cartridge" does not seem to ever refer to only the projectile. (While "shell" seems to be ambigious.)
This came up in KwK 36 and KwK 43. In both articles, "Shell" is pointing to the cartridge and "Shell weight" is pointing to the projectile. (Actually I think I will fix the contradiction in these two articles, but I suspect the same problem exists in a large number of other articles.)
I can't find alternative fields that would allow all four pieces of information, ie. cartridge, cartridge weight, projectile and projectile weight.
As I said I'm not familar with templates, so I can't think of a straightforward solution. I also suspect that some prescriptivism with regard to the "correct" use of the terms plays a part. (FWIW, a google picture search for "gun shell" mostly points to entire cartridges, partly to empty casings and only rarely to projectiles.)
In any case, there seems to be a problem. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Case in point, there is not even a clear way to fix the articles. I don't want to remove the info about the cartridge (eg. "88 x 571mmR") as that seems to be quite significant. The label however would still point to the projectile. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone? --91.5.99.247 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've come here from Template talk:Infobox#Request for Help for broken Template. I don't see a problem. By default the links in question go to
[[Cartridge (firearms)|Cartridge]]i.e. Cartridge. For individual articles, you can alter this to[[Shell (projectile)|Shell]]i.e. Shell by setting|is_artillery=yes. If you need more eyes on this, WT:MILHIST is really the best place to go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've come here from Template talk:Infobox#Request for Help for broken Template. I don't see a problem. By default the links in question go to
Edit request 30 June 2025 – tailspan parameter
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| AGM-88E Advanced Anti‐Radiation Guided Missile | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Specifications | |
| Mass | 361 kg (796 lb) |
| Length | 4.17 m (13.7 ft) |
| Diameter | 254 mm (10.0 in) |
| Wingspan | 1.13 m (3 ft 8 in) |
| Tailspan | .61 m (2 ft 0 in) |
Request addition of a tailspan parameter for missiles, to compliment the wingspan parameter. The change has been tested in the sandbox here, an example of the rendering is to the right. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC) - Paine Ellsworth, thank you very much. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to help! Paine 10:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Paine Ellsworth, thank you very much. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
