Template talk:Weapon infobox

Length and weight

Should length and weight be added? --Dragonclaws^(talk) 04:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be. I asked RR to add length, width, and height to the template, but I've never seen weight. If the weights out there some where (which it probably is) then you should add that, too. --Uneven elephant 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Melee

Could we not add Melee effectiveness? For something like a Brute Shot, it's melee power is a major selling point.

New Design

I was just browsing Halopedia like any other day, when I noticed some of the info are gone. Then came the "Oh cool, new design." But here are some questions I have:

• What do we fill in for "variant"?
• What do we fill in for "In service"?
• What do we fill in for "feed system"?

Call me a noob if you want to, but Im just trying to learn to do my part. —S331 _{(Tank beats Everything!)} 11:04, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

All of these fields are based off Wikipedia's. To answer your query:

• "Variant" is for weapon variants. An example is that MA2B is the stripped-down variant of the MA5B. If there's none, don't add anything to this field.
• "In service" refers to the weapon's release date to the military. For example, the MA37 was released to the UNSC in 2437.
• "Feed system" is essentially the amount of ammo you could fit in the weapon. Don't confuse this with the maximum ammo you could carry.

An example of an updated weapon article is the MA5C/MA5B. Use them as reference. — subtank 11:09, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Awesome. Thanks. :D —S331 _{(Tank beats Everything!)} 11:15, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

New fields

Since the width and height of weapons is now commonly given, should fields for the width and height be added to the template? It would prevent the need to rename the "length" field to "dimensions" and just simply look more attractive. NightHammer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2014 (EDT)

This infobox follows the styles of Wikipedia's weapons infobox: see AR-15 as an example. That being said, information on weapon's width and height is treated as not important and/or crucial detail since they are not integral to the weapon's functionality. That tidbit of information can be covered as a trivia. Doing what you stated in your second sentence is also a good alternative if an editor feels it's necessary. — subtank 09:19, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

I don't really see why basic info like that should be left out of the infobox though. Having it as its own entry in the trivia section would be super confusing to most people, who look for that sort of information in the infobox (besides it looking out of place as a trivia entry). The Length field can of course be converted into "Dimensions", but just having the width and height as their own fields would be a lot simpler for editing's sake. If we don't know said dimensions for a particular weapon, they just won't appear. If they are filled, they extend the infobox about as much as having them as bullets in an impromptu "Dimensions" field. So I don't see the harm in having them. Wikipedia is a decent source for formatting but as a fictional universe wiki, we can be allowed to be a little more meticulous with our detail. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 13:40, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

Agreed fully. When I first started coming here I found the template lacking in detail that could be added. In a lot of cases, I have not added any more known detail because of where it would be put (inappropriately as trivia) was such a turn off, I felt it was cleaner not to have the info in scattered places so did not add it at all. Despite what Wikipedia does, how is an object's width or height less meaningful or important than its length? I would say all are meaningful or all are meaningless, equally. I'm all for extending the infobox's utility. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

The very reason why this infobox is designed in such a way like those in Wikipedia is to treat a subject as a real-world content and not merely as a game object. As I said previously, "information on weapon's width and height is treated as not important and/or crucial detail since they are not integral to the weapon's functionality [and specifications]." A weapon can have an attachment added to it, increasing its height and/or width (MA5 with attachments): the contrary applies when taking away an attachment from a weapon (i.e. BR85 without a scope). Anyway, I'll concede and will make the appropriate amendments.— subtank 15:25, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

With many of Halo's objects, not a great deal is known. Even the full functionality of a weapon like the MA5 is speculation, since the weapons do not function like our real-world counterparts in many ways, so when evaluating what is factually known about most Halo objects, its dimensions are among the few truly knowable data. That makes it significant in my opinion. This should extend to ships, weapons, equipment. Despite Halopedia's similarity to Wikipedia, it should strive to accommodate all verifiable data and remove all non-verifiable speculation (unless it's stated as speculation) to keep the content in the realm of facts. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

Alright, I have gone ahead and filled in the infobox with the new fields. I may have missed a couple of them, as only weapons/equipment that appear in Halo 4 seem to have information all three of the new fields so I really only edited those articles. NightHammer (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2014 (EDT)