Talk:Obturating ring

Cleanup

Removing redirect leftover from previous move... scot 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/atmos/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael F 1967

Your reputation for accuracy (or rather not) precedes you. Source your claim for Welin screw breeches being described as 'breech blocks', or else don't use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've no idea what your intention is here. I'm just maintaining consistent terminology inside Wikipedia.

To use your language: source your claim for Welin breech block being incorrect terminology or stop changing the wording.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Welin breech block terminology

I've no idea myself what the correct terminology is. But there's a Wikipedia article Welin breech block - and the idea that the component illustrated it a breech *block* makes sense to me, being the thing that "blocks" the breech itself. Now then, if that's all wrong - well, where's your reliable source? A personal assertion's no good even if you are right. Cite a reliable source by all means - and then let's get the article title/name changed. If not, surely retaining consistency inside Wikipedia makes most sense?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

WP is not WP:RS. Is this another thing that has to be explained to you? Do not re-add this.

Certainly don't try and justify this addition on the basis of cod etymology. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about cod etymology - what are you on about? I'm just going by common sense and maintaining consistency. Do you have a reliable source to justify your repeated personal opinion? I mean, there's the Wikipedia page Welin breech block identifying the component - and all you've got is your repeated assertion that it's wrong and you're right. Your personal opinion isn't a reliable source.

If you are right - well cite a reliable source and that'll be that. Please do so.

No, I'm not being sarcastic - I'd love to find out what's what one way or another.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course I no more have a source for "The Welin breech screw is not called a breech block" than I do for one stating that it's not called a 'Big Brass Marshmallow' or the obturator a 'Combat Doughnut' (it's not an infantry mortar!).

But the obvious first place to look is Hodges (1981). The Big Gun. pp. 47–48. ISBN 0851771440. where the description of the BL 12 inch Mk IX (either the first with a Welin screw, the first built in quantity, or at least close to it) clearly describes the component as a 'breech screw' and emphatically not a 'breech block'.

BL do not have breech blocks. QFs have breech blocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I made the point that I wasn't being sarcastic. I can however spot sarcasm when I see it. So, you've got one book which uses terminology in one particular way. Fair enough. I've done some Web searching and found lots and lots of references to the Welin screw mechanism being a breech block. E.g. "The mechanism consists of the breech, and an interrupted screw breech block on a hinged mounting." and "The breech block is a stepped, interrupted thread breech." https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C240739. So, who's to say that the labelling of one illustration in your book gives the definitive answer to this question? Lots of sources on the Web seem to disagree with your personal interpretation of the labels in that illustration.

Yes, the illustration you supplied identifies the breech screw - which is a component of the "interrupted screw breech block on a hinged mounting" according to the source I've cited.

What to do? You seem to think that it's blindingly obvious that the term "Welin breech block" is wrong, but I don't follow your thinking and I do know that your personal view is not a reliable source. I've found any number of on-line sources which seem to indicate that your personal view is wrong.

Since you've failed to cite a definitive reliable source for the change in terminology, I've reverted it one more time - simply to maintain consistency with terminology inside Wikipedia in the absence of any better information.

One more time: your personal opinion is no more a reliable source than Wikipedia, and without a reliable source by way of a guide, I suggest that maintaining consistent terminology inside Wikipedia is a better idea that just going with what you say.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Every time I've encountered you, you have edited in exactly the same way. You force some clueless opinion into an article, and are then utterly impervious to all sources presented to the contrary. Hodges isn't the only book I have on the subject, but as the generally agreed canon text on naval heavy artillery of this era, it's the only one I'm going to bother opening and giving you a literal page number for. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on your part. I'm making no personal comments about you - perhaps you could offer me the same courtesy? I've certainly not forced my opinion into anything. I was just aiming at maintaining consistency with Wikipedia's terminology in the absence of any other information.

Now then: I've found a source which contradicts your opinion and also shows how the illustration you kindly posted is entirely consistent with the mechanism being described as having a screw and also being a "screw breech block" - as described in the source I cited.

Perhaps you should read your book a little more closely? I strongly suspect that it agrees with the source I found.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Your 'personal comments' just so far include dismissing sources as "your personal view" and also suggesting that I can't read. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are you making overtly false claims about me? Why are you descending to personal remarks at all? I don't get it.

Your first false claim about me: your initial edits really were based on nothing more than your personal opinion with no sources supplied.

Your second false claim you've made about me is that I've suggested you can't read - that's utterly absurd. There's nothing at all I've written which suggests that at all.

I've no idea what you're thinking - except that obviously, you want to get things right. So do I - and I've cited a source which seems reliable enough to me, while also being consistent with terminology in the illustration you posted.

How about assuming good faith, eh? Stop the personal attacks and deal with the matter in hand.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at Hodges, and from the 3 snippets available in gbooks (of the 5 total results for “Welin”) – pages 46, 47, and 59 – he’s clearly talking about the interrupted thread specifically, which is what I suspected, since that was Welin’s actual innovation. Breechblock is the term for the device used to seal a breech. The idea that QF guns have them but BL don’t is simply preposterous. Andy, a simply trawl through google books would have quickly netted you hundreds of books that refer to Welin’s device as a breech block (such as The Battleship Builders, French Battleships 1922–1956, the US War Department’s TM 9, etc. This is a storm in a teacup, Michael is correct, let’s all move along. Parsecboy (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)