Template talk:Infobox weapon

Layout for self-propelled guns

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

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

Template-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

I would like to add several elements to this Infobox:

• Developed from
• Developed into
• Predecessor
• Successor

If we take for example the Canadian armoured vehicles LAV, all evolve from each other, and some replace each other. The LAV III replaced the LAV. The LAV 6 replaces the LAV. They also take their origin from the Mowag Piranha family, and were also developed into the ASLAV, the Stryker, the LAV 700.

There are so many weapons that were an evolution from another vehicle, it would help to get with the 4 bullet points a better understanding for the context of the existence of the vehicle in a very concise manner. Fabrice Ram (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Fabrice Ram: Thank you for the suggestion. This sounds like a useful addition to the template - could you add your suggested code to Template:Infobox weapon/sandbox? When you have added it and checked that it works as expected, please reactivate the edit request. Also, it would probably be a good idea to advertise this discussion at the relevant WikiProjects to see if anyone has feedback on your suggestion. (There should be a consensus for the change you are proposing, although an absence of discussion here after a few days can also be a kind of consensus.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I came here to make this recommendation and will instead bump/second Fabrice's recommendation. The Wikipedia Aircraft infobox (here) has this as well and it really helps with navigating through various derivations, variations, and developments. Would definitely help with the AK family, missiles, and various other systems. Fabrice, if you were looking for the source code to base your proposal on, I would refer to what I tagged earlier. Bumbliciousness (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What does predecessor/ successor mean in this context? Those are not fields in the in Aircraft infobox and sound more like something I would expect in an navbox than a summary infobox GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ambigious Field Use

(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)