Talk:Mortar

The difference of a mortar from any other gun

Hi, MacGyverMagic Your edit (or should we say reductionism} "Mortar (weapon), a modern military weapon which fires shells at high speed": how does that differ from an ordinary gun, or a howitzer, or a cannon? They all fire shells at high speed. The trouble is a mortar fires shells at much lower speeds, and it pitches them at an arc trajectory rather than fires them more directly at the target. If you are going to give a meaning then it should be a correct one. Dieter Simon 00:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mortarboard?

Has any one ever called a mortarboard a mortar before?

Target impact not correct

Regarding the weapon, the page contained the phrase "their shells explode on impact with target." I deleted this phrase, because: a) this is a dab page, and each item should have just enough detail to find the correct link, not try to summarise the actual article. As impact fuzing is not a defining characteristic of mortars, the phrase was superfluous; and b) it is not correct, as mortar shells (bombs) have several fuzing options available apart from impact (and indeed, a few types of mortar bombs are not even explosive.) -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Mortar → Mortar (disambiguation)
• Mortar (masonry) → Mortar

– There are a couple of articles with a claim to mortar as a logical article name, but I think the most well-built claim belongs to mortar (masonry) as WP:PRIMARY. This material has been fundamental to architecture for the past five thousand years or so and is still widely used today, so I don't see any holes in its case. I really don't see how the others stack up. I recognize that those other topics are important things, and definitely not just filler, so I don't think this is a no-brainer at all. Nevertheless I think that mortar should house an article on the masonry substance used to build things. (Did I just lay a foundation for this move with a series of really bad puns? Well, I'd better brick that habit soon!) Red Slash 02:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(Other editors are kindly requested to use a pun in their response if they are able, whether they support or oppose--hopefully we can make this stick and we won't have a combo bricker. ) Red Slash 02:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the first thing I think of is the weapon, and many people think the building product is cement or grout instead of mortar. Ofcourse, cooking you could be using the mortar as well, which is the grinding bowl implement. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the issue is WP:PRIMARYWP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I would argue that no usage of "Mortar" is primary. Leave Mortar as a disambiguation page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Sticking my pestle in, WP:PRIMARY is not at all relevant; I believe WP:PTOPIC is what was intended. That out of the way, while Mortar (masonry) is the doubtless the most commonly used, and arguably the most important, among the subjects, the Mortar (weapon) article apparently gets about twice the traffic. The pounding vessel is the primary sense etymologically, and Mortar and pestle shows slightly more traffic as well. It is clearly not the case that the architectural mortar is “more likely [sought] than all the other topics combined”.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have said "..and pestle", but whichever, there is no WP:Primarytopic. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I worked in construction but have to agree with the other comments that say mortar doesn't have a strong enough primary definition. Sionk (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: no one usage seems primary. PamD 13:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I fail to see a case being made for the proposal. Since there is no clear primary topic, leave the dab page at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No clear primacy here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I work on fixing incoming links to this page on a regular basis, and the most common sense for which links are made is the military sense. bd2412 T 12:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect revision to Ancient Mortar

The revision made by Aurangzebwardag on 19 Dec 2013 is incorrect because the first use of bricks is not attributed to Roman Ghirishman, and because this article is about the first use of mortar, not the first use of bricks. The reference cited by Aurangzebwardag discussed the first use of bricks and does not discuss the first use of mortar. If Aurangzebwardag does not revert back to the original text, I will do it.Tvbanfield (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)