| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BK 3,7 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Image copyright problem with Image:Ju87g 37mm.jpg edit
The image Image:Ju87g 37mm.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Rate of Fire edit
Kubanczyk, what's your point?
Very few automatic weapons have magazines or belts big enough for a full minute of fire, not to mention that their barrels may not survive that long without becoming red-hot. You are hardly the first one to notice that. Rounds per minute is the accepted parameter used for describing fire rates, it shows up in most articles on the subject. Adding "theoretical" to it is simply superfluous, everyone in the field knows the practical limits. The article was fine, you edits did not improve it. Do you really want to start an edit war over a non-issue? Textor (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, I freak out each time someone reverts my good faith edits. I remember I've read somewhere it is better to try to improve each others' edits, to try to understand other contributor, and to seek consensus. But, to the point. I most certainly agree with you: rounds per minute is the accepted parameter used for describing fire rates. Rates. So, let's make it clear:
- When I say "cannon can fire 160 RPM", this is simply a lie. Right? This cannon absolutely cannot fire 160 rounds in 60 seconds. This would require major design change.
- When I say "cannon fires at 160 RPM", I am vague (as in the original article). I use absolute minimum of words, but certainly some people will understand that correctly.
- When I say "cannon has a rate of fire of 160 RPM", I am right.
- When I say "cannon has a theoretical rate of fire of 160 RPM, although magazine contains only 12 rounds", I am right and I provide extra insight for non-experts. I do it by being superfluous.
- I do not assume that the person who wants to consult encyclopedia - and arrives here - is an expert in the field. In fact, I always assume the exact opposite. I assume that the average visitor is smart, 12-years-old kid and write for them. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Kubanczyk,
- not every good faith edit is also a useful contribution that improves the article in question. It really seems bizarre that you take such offense at the fact that rounds per minute describes a theoretical property that is not easily reached in practice. Manufacturers, users and reviewers of firearms around the World see this differently. They speak of "rounds per minute" all the time, and I'm afraid they outnumber you by a considerable margin. Just what do you expect: that each and every article mentioning the term now be rewritten to accommodate your personal tastes?
- This cannon absolutely cannot fire 160 rounds in 60 seconds
- It probably could, if you provided it with water cooling, and a sufficiently large magazine. No major design changes would be necessary, just the addition of ancillary parts.