Template talk:US missiles

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nothing here about drones like these[edit]

Nothing here about drones like these, not even a Wikilink: QF-86 Sabre, QF-100 Super Sabre, QF-102 Delta Dagger, QF-4 Phantom II, QF-16, QA-4 Skyhawk, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.180.7 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox is for missiles and missile-like drones that have been assigned designations as missiles within the United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation system. The aircraft you listed are drone conversations of piloted aircraft, and thus were not assigned missile designations, nor are they within the scope of this navbox. However, some F-102 drone conversions were assigned a designation within this system, PQM-102, and that one is listed here. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization is not useful[edit]

Wouldn't it make much more sense to use the category code (MIM, AIM etc.) to group similar missiles together instead of 1-50, 51-100, 101-150 etc.? The organization by numbers doesn't really carry any semantic meaning beyond the roughest of timelines. Phiarc (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just did and am now waiting for the revert as per BRD Phiarc (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I missed your post yesterday, but less than a day to make such major change is unreasonable. This navbox is intended to be a numerical list of US missile designations, and is useful as such. I use it that way all the time. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @ZLEA:, our current aviation navbox co-guru, and @The Bushranger:, in case he's around, as he was the previous guru. BilCat (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going through Category:Missile templates I see only this template being a plain list, almost all other templates are organized by missile type e.g. Template:Standard family of missiles, Template:USAF early missiles, Template:USN missiles, Template:Chinese missiles, Template:DPRK missiles, Template:Indian missiles, Template:Indonesian missiles, Template:Iran missiles, Template:Japanese missiles, Template:Missiles of Pakistan, Template:Russian and Soviet missiles and so on. Outliers are "United States Army missile and rocket designations 1948–1963" (which is organized by the four designation systems used in that period) and Template:USAF missiles (which breaks down by "air-to-air missiles" and "everything else") -- and this one of course, which is just a listing of some 200 designations. Phiarc (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a designation navbox. A numerical listing of the designations is a valid purpose, especially when there's nearly 200 of them. BilCat (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The designation navboxes have been around for a lot longer than most of the others. The reason this is such an outlier is that the designation system itself is unique. The other navboxes came much later. BilCat (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most missile navboxes are divided by missile type because they either have separate numeric sequences for different types, or they don't follow a numeric designation system at all. The 1963 US Tri-Service designation system, however, features a unified sequence for all types, which is inconvenient for organizing a navbox. I propose a layout similar to Template:Canadian Forces aircraft, in which the numeric sequence is listed at the top (without type codes), with a secondary list below with sections for each type.
On a side note, I would remove the undesignated missiles entirely because the navbox is intended to cover the 1963 Tri-Service system. Perhaps another navbox could be created for missiles which never received a designation under any US system. - ZLEA T\C 21:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I still don't see the value of a plain numerical list for this scheme it's a compromise I would support. I've implemented it here: User:Phiarc/US missiles. I am undecided on the extra grouping level. It does rob quite a lot of horizontal space. Here is a revision without it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Phiarc/US_missiles&oldid=1081469661
I agree on the category being quite odd in the infobox given the title (however, it would fit with the name of the template page). Another inconsistency is Template:US military rockets being a separate navbox, though the article and designation system this navbox links to covers that area as well. But that might be a discussion for another day. Phiarc (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if we want to group US missiles by role, why not create a new navbox for all US missiles, which would include the undesignated missiles? I think that might be a better route, and better matches what is done with other countries' navboxes. Also, the reason the rocket sequence is separate is primarily because the navboxes were created before the advent of navbox groups and smaller fonts. (It might be interesting to look at what we had to work with in the early days!) I'd have no issue merging the two 1963 sequences in one box if we put the roles in a different navbox, as I still believe designation sequences are useful. BilCat (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fond of breaking up numerical designation sequences, especially when the navbox specifically covers said sequence, and a single navbox for all US missiles would be bulky as it would require merging the pre-1963 navboxes into this one. I re-arranged the navbox in my sandbox to be similar to Template:Canadian Forces aircraft, but I probably broke the record for longest military navbox in the process. I now propose separate navboxes; one for the numerical sequence and one for each mission (as Phiarc does it, but with a section for each launch environment). - ZLEA T\C 17:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with separate role navboxes. There's also the possibility of nesting separate navboxes into one overall navbox, as with Template:U.S. premium television services. BilCat (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered that, but I didn't know how to do it. That's a better idea in my opinion. - ZLEA T\C 23:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it done very often. I ran into the TV one last year, and was able to find it today without much searching. BilCat (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat How does this look? - ZLEA T\C 00:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me. BilCat (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've updated the template. - ZLEA T\C 00:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this is the first time I've seen a nested navbox like this and it seems very messy and very much unlike normal navboxes to me. One of the issues with this approach is that opening the navbox, there are no navbox contents - just more navboxes, all of which are closed. If you want to navigate between similar missiles, for example, you have to open the missile navbox, then find the correct sub-navbox out of the nine others, open that and now you can nav. In a normal navbox, even with a complex group structure, it's much easier to navigate, because the current article is highlighted. It's also very strange that some categories are repeated, e.g. Mxx is "Land/silo-launched", Lxx is "Land/silo-launched", Rxx "is "Land/silo-launched". Both Cxx and Fxx are "Container-launched", despite Fxx being man-portable systems. There are some other errors as well, like the 109G is missing from the ground-attack subnavbox. Lastly, the organization into sub-templates makes it unusually difficult to edit the template. Phiarc (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the way the Tri-Service missile designation system is set up makes it hard to create a practical navbox without nesting. You could group missiles of the same role but different launch environments like you did in your sandbox, but that only half fixes the problem with the original template. As for Cxx and Fxx being similar, the US military has its reasons for having separate letters, so it doesn't make sense to break consistency by merging the two categories. Editing the sub-navboxes isn't as difficult as you say, as each sub-navbox is clearly labeled and has its own edit link (I'd imagine the average editor can find the edit link of a specific navbox is less than five seconds, not unusually difficult). And finally, the current article is still highlighted even in the sub-navboxes, as any link within an article to itself (not a section) will be highlighted, no matter where it is in the article (observe, Template talk:US missiles).
Thanks for pointing out the repeated categories, that was an error on my part. I'm not sure why you say the BGM-109G is missing, though, as it is included in the surface-attack navbox. If you notice any more errors, feel free to correct them. Simple errors like these aren't really a reason to criticize a navbox layout as they could happen to anyone, anywhere. - ZLEA T\C 17:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"As for Cxx and Fxx being similar, the US military has its reasons for having separate letters, so it doesn't make sense to break consistency by merging the two categories." See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:US_missiles/Drone&type=revision&diff=1082542349&oldid=1082397171&diffmode=source unless that was intentional.
"Editing the sub-navboxes isn't as difficult as you say, as each sub-navbox is clearly labeled and has its own edit link" editing is not just clicking on the E, now you have 9x revision histories, 9x pages to watch, multiple pages to edit for a single change etc.
"I'm not sure why you say the BGM-109G is missing, though, as it is included in the surface-attack navbox." Missed it. "Simple errors ... could happen to anyone, anywhere". Indeed. Phiarc (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Phiarc isn't happy with the new changes, can we just go back to the way it was so at least one of us is happy? BilCat (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've reverted to the original version, but I'd like to keep this discussion going so that we can try to reach an agreement. Phiarc, if you don't approve of my version, just say so. You don't have to use easily fixable errors to inflate your list of arguments against it. - ZLEA T\C 20:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the new layout and the sub-templates, as long as you are. There are other options, such as a separate role box for the sub-boxes, if we want to go in that direction. That could include all US missiles, but I don't have any idea how large the individual sub-navboxes would be. We could also ask for other opinions at WTAIR and WTMIL to get a broader consensus. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My or your happiness isn't relevant (and likely not impacted by) the discussion of how to lay out a navbox and so it should not influence anything.
Yes, I don't think nested navboxes are the solution, like I said. A simple split by mission doesn't quite do it, I agree. I can't see the interim version you made as the sandbox is deleted, but considering that the content area would be narrower due to the horizontal nesting, I can see how it would be too large for a navbox (and there are some fairly large navboxes). For the same reason, uncollapsing the nested navboxes is not a solution either. For the meantime the original version, just with the sequence, is preferable, until a solution emerges that is - in essence - better in every significant way.
A direction that has not been touched at all yet is not strictly using the categories of the designation system itself (they are unambiguously defined, which is nice though), and going for groups which are broader, similar to the other missile templates, hence reducing the number of groups.
A possible advantage of that approach could be that it makes fitting undesignated missiles into groups easier. I see the discussion on changing the scope of the navbox as a relatively separate topic, though. Phiarc (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm in favor of keeping this navbox the way it's been for years. If y'all want to keep discussing improvements, go ahead, but I'll probably sit out until some concrete proposals are made, but I'll probably still prefer the status quo. To be honest, given the amount of US missiles involved, a list article for the roles is probably the best solution going forward, as navboxes. are.for simple navigation, which this one is. BilCat (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coming late to this tempest in a teapot - agreed there should be a list, and that the navbox should be left as-is. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if we remove the launch environment and mission letters to make the list more uniform (M-1, M-2, M-3, etc.)? - ZLEA T\C 02:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is they aren't ever listed that way, but I seem to be an outlier on that on most designation navboxes. BilCat (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, "M-n" is the most basic designation which can be used to identify the missile. AIM-9 can be called "M-9" and it would still be recognizable as the Sidewinder. The advantage to removing the first two letters in that many missile types had variants of vastly different launch environments and/or missions. The M-109 Tomahawk had four different combinations (AGM, BGM, RGM, and UGM), all of which are currently listed in the navbox. A lot of combinations are missing from the navbox as well, mostly training variants. In order to preserve consistency while maintaining navigability, I think removing the designation modifiers would be the best approach if we don't split the list by prefixes. - ZLEA T\C 03:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some of the variants have different launch environment and/or mission letters. Removing those doesn't make it easier to determine which model is being searched for. As an example, but from a different navbox, I added the MQ-20 to the UAV navbox here. You removed the Mission designators, and replaced them with obtuse Roman numerals. To me, that's not very helpful to the reader, as it requires them to open the linked article so see which is which. Putting "RQ" and "MQ" is more informitive, assuming the reader already knows which one they want. If they don't, then they'll have to click anyway. BilCat (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point, I've re-added the mission modifiers as sub-designations of "Q-20". Perhaps something similar could be done here. For most missiles, all variants are covered in a single article, so removing the modifiers wouldn't affect the navigability. For those with conflicting designations or variants in other articles, the links could be added in parentheses under the base designation. - ZLEA T\C 15:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List article for the redlinked missiles[edit]

Most of the redlinked missiles in the 1963 United States Tri-Service rocket and guided missile designation system are apparently not notable enough for their own articles. However, would it be possible to make a list-type article with brief synopses of these missiles? I have no idea about what it would be titled, and we might have to make it a summary of all the 1963 system's missiles. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have similar lists for aircraft designations, so I don't see why not. We might also consider including the "Rocket" (R) and "Probe" (N) sequences, as they are also covered by the same designation system. - ZLEA T\C 05:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I was in a hurry, so didn't mention the rockets and probes. BilCat (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:US_missiles&oldid=1170790558"