Yeti

List of armoured fighting vehicles of World War I

I have tagged the articles in this list for the task force, however there are a number of red links if anyone is looking for a project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Icon image

I noticed that the beige-on-beige tank image in the task force icon lacked contrast, so I created a gray derivative - also resized for better icon aspect ratio and removed labels. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the change to the icon, can a coordinator please help? New image is Image:Mil Land Vehicle Icon.svg and looks like this:

Award image is in the works, but may take a little while due to non-voluntary wikibreak. Dhatfield (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kirill ^(prof) 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure which icon was changed - I was thinking of the userbox icon, but I got over my dimness attack and changed it. Please comment if you preferred the old colours. Dhatfield (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no difference in it except for the fact that it's uglier. But than that's just my opinion. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for anything you've got

Just finished a translation of Gepanzerte Pioniermaschine from GerWP, with my handy-dandy Ger-Eng dictionary, which (I think) makes this the first new page under the TF. The page needs checking I didn't mangle things too badly, at the very least. Regards. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

List of main battle tanks by generation

There appears to be no supportable citation for the definition of MBT generations used in this list. Can someone provide any evidence that it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-07-16 20:54 z

This is an interesting discussion and any way the list is presented one could argue "point of view". As you mention in the talk page of that specific list, the Soviets/Russians recognize at least four generations worth of tank design, while the West tends to recognize three generations of main battle tank generations, which may also refer to medium tanks - the early Patton series, then perhaps the M60 Patton as a second-generation tank (even if it was technically a redesign of a first-generation tank) and then the M1 Abrams as a 3rd generation tank. I'm not sure if literature specific to the United States even specifies technological generations, since the United States missed one due to the Vietnam War. In my opinion the list should be redesigned to define generations by date, and therefore the "generations" would be specific to Wikipedia as opposed to one of the world's nation's idea of technological generations. JonCatalán (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII. The second generation MBTs have better sights in comparison to the first generation MBTs. Also second generation MBTs were the first ones to use laser sights and APFSDS rounds. The third generation consists of tanks armed with high caliber and velocity guns like M1A1 Abrams. Third generation tanks also use composite armour as well as armour made out of highly resistant sintered ceramic materials. Third generation tanks also have full stabilization system for the main gun. There tanks between second and third generations, like Soviet T-72 which has powerful gun which would classify it as a third generation MBT but at the same time the stabilization system is much too primitive for it to a third generation MBT. It also lacks engine power to be a third generation MBT and has ammunition with less quality. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for any verifiable evidence at all to support your opinion. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:19 z

What I wrote there is a translation of most important parts of MBT generations description from two websites: [1] and [2]. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of that categorization is inconsistent. For example, APDS were put into service in 1944 and fin-stabilized APDS were not really viable until the advent of the smoothbore (which was introduced a lot earlier in Soviet tanks) - APFSDS in rifled guns were limited to a L:d length of 7:1 (see: Simpkin, Richard, Tank Warfare). Ceramic armor (which is not always sintered in modern tank armor - some ceramics cannot be sintered) was introduced, really, in the late 1940s. The German 12.8cm tank gun had about the same muzzle velocity as modern 12cm tank guns. If the T-72 doesn't make it as a third-generation tank then neither should the T-80, although it should be noted that hundreds of these types of tanks have been retrofitted with modern ballistic equipment. That's why I think we should go with our own system and define it in the article. JonCatalán (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When we have to, we can break up articles about tanks by decade, or by historical events, by hard characteristics, or whatever. (We already have several lists including MBTs.) But it is against the principle of verifiability to make up our own tank generations and then create a list specifically to promote our original research. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:19 z

Then I suggest the list be deleted, since it's not really veriefiable in the first place and any type of categorization would have clear POV. JonCatalán (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Panzer I now open

The A-Class review for Panzer I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for illustration

We (illustrators) have a very hard time finding articles that need diagrams or illustrations to better explain the subject. Is there a template for this? Does this fall under supporting materials? Ideally, the relevant talk page should have a description of what type of diagram is needed and it's components / labels. I think this is an area where WP can improve dramatically, and we can lead the way. Thoughts?

I agree, although I'm a horrible illustrator. Perhaps I can make diagrams from my photographs? JonCatalán (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask some of the folks at Commons who have uploaded the images in Category:Aircraft line drawings... though I think they are just copying from Air Force websites. Either way, those diagrams would be so useful to us that I don't see why we shouldn't ask. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Units

Do units whose primary mission include the use of land vehicles (such as tanks) fall under the scope of this task force? I've been tagging a number of articles, and then I bumped into the Soviet Tank Corps... I'd have thought yes, and tagged it so. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Same issue with sciences and tactics, such as armoured warfare. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything that is related to land military vehicles is under the scope of this task force therefore use of land vehicles, sciences and tactics all fall in that category. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. I think I've doubled the current count of tagged articles. Hope to double that before the weekend. bahamut0013♠♣ 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I A-Class Review Re-opened

The A-Class Review for Panzer I has been reopened. Your comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TAM tank A-class Review Open

An A-class review for TAM (tank) has been opened. Your comments are welcomed! Thanks!. JonCatalán (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page notification inquiry

Does anybody care if I leave notifications about articles relevant to this task force going through an A-class review, peer review or FAC on your talk pages? JonCatalán (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer no notice unless I've edited the article. I do check the wikiproject talk pages occasionally, and will pick and choose those article which are more appropriate for me to comment on. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Navigation templates

The navigation templates for AFVs need some coördination and refurbishing.

Examples are listed at Wikipedia:AFV#Navboxes. Some necessary tasks come to mind:

1. Organize these into coordinated template categories
2. Base them all on {{military navigation}}
3. Make them all consistent in style
   • Use the default style instead of “wide”?
4. Resolve any conflicts or omissions
   • Add {{Cold War tanks}}, or convert the APC and tank templates into “Post-WWII” ones?

What else needs to be done here? —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 01:43 z

There is another template, although it's only for the portal, which you can see here - {{TankTopics}}. It should have most tanks listed on it, except for a few which I don't know about or haven't added on yet (like the TAM and Nahuel.

I think there should be separate templates for 'Post Cold-War Main Battle Tanks' (the main battle tank distinction is important, otherwise why not include modern light tanks? And this refers to light tanks for their role, not for their weight class - the TAM, for example, can be classified as a near light tank for its weight, but it is a main battle tank in role), 'Cold War Medium Tanks' (for tanks such as the AMX-30, Leopard 1, M47 Patton, M48 Patton, M60 Patton, T-55, T-62, T-64, et cetera), and others. The Cold War template, in my opinion, is necessary to link these tank articles together and ease navigation. Tanks which may not make the cut for said template would be like the Spanish Lince, which was never mass produced or put into service.

On that note, would anybody contest me starting a template for Spanish tanks? There aren't that many of them, and it would be used to link the currently existent articles Leopard 2E, Lince and Verdeja. In the near future it will also link AMX-30E, Trubia light tank and whatever else I can find sources on. I'm not sure about adding the Panzer I and T-26, since those articles already have a number of templates in them. That said, I do like that some templates are "wide" and some are the width of the infobox, since it allows these to be spread apart, without really bunching the article. JonCatalán (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my sandbox for an example of a Cold War Tank navigation box. I included four heavy tanks. JonCatalán (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. The default templates stack nicely under the infobox, and will be collapsed if there's more than one, right? Some may still be much too tall, though, so perhaps we should stick with the wide format for the bottom of an article (which most of the navigation boxes already do use)?

Should we break up AFVs into Cold War and post-Cold War, or unify them all into post-WWII? Of course we'd have to include light and heavy tanks going back to 1945. MBT kinda has two definitions: one meaning a country's main tank, and the other a more functional definition—if we accept the latter, then the TAM might be considered a “medium tank,” in which category I've also seen it placed. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:10 z

Accessibility

There's a problem with the navigation boxes under the infobox - they do not fall under MoS guidelines, and when they do they create a whitespace. For example, the SpanishTanks template had to widened and moved to the bottom of the page. JonCatalán (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Which MOS guideline is the problem?

For now, I propose we stick with the style=wide navboxes for the bottom of an article. If we use the Mil Nav templates, they are flexible enough to easily change the location and style later.

[Aside: couldn't this be fixed by designing the infobox to accept a navbox as an inclusion, putting them both into one table or div?].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Layout and the discussion on SandyGeorgia's talk page. JonCatalán (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely something new; campaignboxes have been using that layout for years, and nobody has complained about accessibility issues with them. If that argument sticks, we may need to totally rework the whole navbox stacking design project-wide. Kirill ^(prof) 03:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about navboxes at WT:ACCESS, but I'm not 100% clear on how this may affect the campaignboxes, etc. I've posted a specific question at WT:ACCESS#Military history campaignboxes. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 15:39 z

A screen-reader user replied and said “they're not much of a problem,” with a brief comment. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:04 z

That's good to know. Kirill ^(prof) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

List of templates

See Wikipedia:AFV#Navboxes. —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 17:30 z

Comments regarding TAM on {{Post-Cold War tanks}}

Please see existing commentary on the talk page, and reasons for its inclusion. I want to gain more support for its inclusion to avoid a potential edit war (it seems one has almost begun, as edits have been reverted at least twice to remove the TAM from the template). JonCatalán (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fed up with the constant squabbling over individual tanks on that template. There aren't enough participants in the talk there to develop a focus. I think it has to get redefined, again, here at the project where we may have enough editors looking at the big picture.

We need a more comprehensive template, or more of them, so that all post-WWII tanks are included in navigation somewhere. We need a scheme that is inclusive and objective, to reduce the arguments.

How about two separate navboxes, allowing significant overlap?:

1. Cold War tanks: tanks introduced and in active service in the period between 1945 and 1991. Sections for light, medium, heavy, and MBT.
2. post-Cold War tanks: tanks introduced and in active service in the period starting 1989, including significant new marks, refurbs, and rebuilds. Sections for MBTs and other tanks. I would prefer to leave out the prototypes, many of which are marketed or in extended “development,” but may never see service.

Note that some tanks will have both navboxes, but they are collapsible to save space. The only problem is that IFVs and APCs are not also clearly divided into the two eras. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:27 z

One of the issues is how one interprets the role of a tank. For example, the TAM in role is a main battle tank (it's designed to fight against other tanks, provide infantry support, et cetera), even if in weight class it may not be up to par with other tanks (it's handicapped by the government's weight requirements and cost requirements). Apparently, some don't see it like this. So, it's only natural that we debate until consensus is reached. On the other hand, the edit wars which sometimes arise over the template are pointless - there should be something to promote discussion on the template's talk page. I'm afraid of re-including the TAM because I feel that it will be taken off again, without the editor even discussing it on the talk page (or now this page). However, we need a clear definition of the type of tank which fits within the scope of the template. That way editors have a clear idea of what they can add and what they can, and then we will successfully avoid the majority of the arguments that the template talk page gets.

Regarding the two templates, I believe they should be separate. It's OK if they overlap, although I don't think they will. I think the current post-Cold War Tank template is fine, although perhaps we should rename it to moderntanks, because most of the tanks listed in the template began production prior to the Cold War. In that sense, what we're really doing is splitting tanks up by generations. I also think we should leave IFVs and APCs out of the template, and later on create templates for these. Navigation should be easy and huge, confusing lists should be avoided. JonCatalán (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to rethink it all from the top down. I'll state right now that every type of AFV should be represented in the navigation templates. The TAM belongs in there with other tanks, and so do a lot of the other ones which have been left out, including older tanks in service, refurbs, etc. I don't know yet whether this means adding subdivisions to the tank template, or something else.

The problem is this: WWII AFV navigation has been subdivided into templates by country, by long-standing consensus. For post-WWII AFVs we have a mix of by country (British, Soviet) and by class (tanks, IFV & APC). There isn't a comprehensive set of post-WWII AFV nav templates, so why shouldn't we shift gears and follow the WWII example? —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:01 z

Progress

I've converted many of these templates to use template:Military navigation. Like the campaignboxes, they will show up in the narrow style by default, and wide if given the parameter style=wide, so they can be used below the infobox or at the bottom of an article. —Michael Z. 2008-08-30 00:55 z

Too large (taken from this talk page)

OK, we tried a lot of different ways to collapse this HUGE box. We need to take action though!!! What do you think of this one?

I basically merged 3 huge tables (AAM, SAM and SANM) into one nice and neet navbox.

Thanks, Germ (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for AMX-30E now open!

An A-class review for the article AMX-30E has been opened. Any and all editors are invited to participate! Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for Panzer IV opened

Panzer IV is now going through an A-class review. All comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed at T-80

Does anyone have a bit of time to weigh in on a dispute getting out of hand at talk:T-80? At issue is the use of self-published sources. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 18:22 z

Can we get a link to the specific subsection? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many, but the point may be moot as one of the players seems to have left the game. Thank you. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 05:23 z

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Military land vehicles

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Shouldn't {{Infobox Weapon}} be added under templates? Or should we create a separate infobox for vehicles? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm new to MILHIST and not sure about how exactly things work. Chamal ^Talk ± 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same infobox - the infobox is universal for all weapons. JonCatalán (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then, I've added it. Can someone please edit it as necessary, since the example shows a rifle and I think that would be confusing on the Military land vehicles task force page? By the way, is this task force still working, or is it non-functional now? Chamal ^Talk ± 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just founded about a month ago. It's still active. JonCatalán (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it was started in July. Since not many details were on the page and few changes had been made, I thought maybe it was abandoned. Sorry about that :) Chamal ^Talk ± 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

TAM (tank) up for peer review!

Greetings, the article TAM is going through a peer review. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cold-War Tank Template

Please take a look at my sandbox. What do you guys think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good.

IS-3 should probably be added, since it first saw real service after WWII. Perhaps heavy tanks should be separated from medium/main battle tanks, since a few more are likely to be added. —Michael Z. 2008-09-29 23:29 z

Agreed. How do you separate that type of template? JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Group# and list# parameters. Unfortunately, the titles can't be put in a line, but only in a left-hand box. Feel free to fiddle with the example below.

[update] I took the liberty of creating {{Cold War tanks}}. —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 17:02 z

That looks good. We should start discussion on that talk page and set up some parameters for the tanks that can be included. For example, I don't think national variants (such as the AMX-30E) should be included. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the scope of the Post-CW template, which is still causing bouts of edit-warring, should be expanded to include more than just MBTs. —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 17:07 z

Actually, let's post a link to both templates' talk pages and discuss them here, since work on both should be coordinated (see also #Navigation templates above). —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 17:09 z

Ok, so I think we should start coming up with parameters for inclusion, and if we want to expand the PCW tank template to include light tanks. A list of light tanks would be difficult, since most light tanks have not been put into production yet (Spanish LT-105, Swedish CV-30-120, et cetera). So, what would some basic parameters be? JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we should include vehicles that entered service during the period. The main article should be linked. Broken-off sub-articles, such as those about specific national variants, or those which list variants and operators should not. Do we include the following?

• Older vehicles in front-line service
• Older vehicles which are significantly modernized
• Older vehicles which have major structural rebuilding (e.g., Romanian TR-85 M1)
• Vehicles which are in second-line service (Russian T-80, T-72 for post-Cold War)
• Vehicles in production but not yet accepted for service (Arjun MBT)
• Prototypes expected to enter service but not yet (K2 Black Panther)
• Prototypes or for-sale designs with no orders (Black Eagle tank)
• Vehicles never seen (Russia's future MBT, widely rumoured to be called T-95)
• [what else?]

Thanks to the new template design, it's no problem to put both templates in a tank's article. So we could avoid redundancy by strictly listing only new tanks in the respective period. E.g., the M1 Abrams could be listed in only the Cold War template, but would also have the Post-Cold War template in the article—so it would be easy to navigate to any of its contemporaries during its 28 years of service. —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 06:50 z

M1 and Merkava appear to be the only tanks listed in both. I suggest that both of these be listed in the earlier template only. Less redundancy will reduce confusion. Listing articles strictly by period of the tank's introduction will avoid countless, potentially valid arguments for including about a dozen older models in the Post-CW navbox. —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 16:04 z

I think that the Merkava article it self should be split into at least two individual articles. the informations in that article is Farley enough to make two good articles, besides that the MK-1/2 represent a generation of tanks or at least a standard of performance, while the MK-3/4 represent another. maybe if that happened, we can put the Merkava-1/2 in the cold war template, and the Merkava-3/4 in the post cold war template. One last pharaoh (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Then the Post-Cold War template should not longer be synonymous with "modern tank", since the M1A2 SEP is still one of the most modern tanks in the world. Leopard 2 should be put in the CW template, as should TAM (tank) and K1 88. But it may seem that these tanks are no longer in use, even though they will probably remain in service for another two decades (Spain's Leopard 2Es, for example, will remain in service until around 2025 according to the Ministry of Defense). But yes, doing so will probably reduce the amount of arguments for including other tanks in either template. In regards to the previous comment—I don't think modernizations of older vehicles should be included, neither should tanks with major rebuilding, nor prototypes (including the Arjun and the K2 Black Panther, and especially not the Black Eagle tank). Future vehicles should probably be left out too, and we could do a template for tank prototypes. The T-72 and T-80, despite being older than the T-90, are still present in greater numbers than the T-90, and so at least the T-80 should be included in the PCW template (especially since it's also Cyprus' MBT and has been sold in large quantities to Pakistan, by Ukraine)—except, if we decide not to include vehicles like the M1, then the T-80 should be left out, as well. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one aim of renaming the P-CW template from “modern tanks” was to move away from having to argue and edit-war over the definition of the term. Enforcing a strictly chronological classification works towards the same ends. As it stands, I don't think there's any implicit judgment about tank quality in these templates. (An alternative would be to combine them into one with two sections, but the current arrangement is more flexible.)

To keep these templates simple, most of the upgraded tank articles should be treated as broken-out sub-articles, covered by a section or at least a short summary in the main article, and a “main article” link back. If we choose to enforce this strictly, then arguably the following tanks are not stand-alone models:

• M-84, PT-91, T-90 (local modernizations of T-72)
• Type 59, Type 69/79, (T-54A clone and modernizations)
• T-84 (T-80UD development)
• Type 88 (tank), Type 96, Type 99 (not really sure about the relationships here)

I'm undecided about the prototypes and future tanks. Some of them are quite real and have medium-sized articles, although they tend to have a lot of speculation and self-published sources. I can't think of a real reason not to have them represented in navigation links. What if there was a separate template section for prototypes etc? —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 23:41 z

I should mention that whether or not the T-90 is a modernized T-72 is up to argument, since it has a very different turret. I think it would be same to say that the T-90 is influenced heavily on the T-72, but just like the T-80B was influenced heavily on later T-64 model prototypes (the turret is united on both series). JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I didn't think for a second that we could get away with removing the T-90 from the navbox, but we have to consider all of this to develop a consistent policy.

But it seems to me that the T-90 is simply a modernized T-72 has a new welded version of the same turret—it was actually going to be called the T-72BU, but was renamed for marketing reasons. It's too bad, because if we include it, then fans of all the foreign-built T-72 versions will demand that these tanks be represented too. C'est la vie.

I believe the T-80's turret and carousel autoloader were a development of the T-64's in the first place, so unifying them was in effect an upgrade for the T-64. But the two have different chassis, suspension, and power plant. The diesel-engined T-80UD and T-84 arguably constitute a different model from the turbine-powered T-80 on the other hand (the T-80UD was reportedly to be called T-84, but they didn't bother).

Anyway, after all that, I think all these tank articles should probably stay on the template.

By the way, I also added a template:Interwar tanks. —Michael Z. 2008-10-02 02:34 z

I think that we are giving this template much more attention on "what tanks to be included?" than it really needs. Why not simply including tanks that were produced after the cold war ?

This template should not be used to classify the performance of tanks, it is concerned with the period these tanks were produced. for an example; the T-90 would have the template in it's article as a post cold war tank, and another template regarding that it is a latest generation tank, or modern tank if we considered new prototypes of tanks.

In the other hand, the T-80 would have the cold war template where it is listed -that describes the period it was produced in-, and another template regarding it performance.

In another word, each tank would have two templates; one for it's classification according to performance, and another for it's classification according to which period was it produced. That way, it would be much more simpler to include tanks in their right places, since the attention would be separate, i mean that we would have to classify each aspect of the tank separately into period, and performance. because the Ramses II for example in clearly no match for the M1A2 for example, but also it is also absolutely wrong to put it in the cold war template; so the right thing to do is to include it in the post cold war tanks template, and including it in another performance template regarding it's performance.

That way, i think we would avoid endless discussions, and move for ward to better classification.

Now, i know that maybe we have only one part of the equation complete -the periodic classification-, but 50% right is better than 100% wrong. we should now look in the right direction which is creating templates regarding the performance of tanks regardless of the period they were produced. One last pharaoh (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the M1 Abrams continued production well beyond the end of the Cold War, and the T-72 and T-80 are still in production (in Ukraine). So, defining tanks and their era by production dates is still not very clear. A good idea is to link variants in a template under the "main tank", so that it's easy to navigate through the different articles, instead of cluttering these templates with every single tank and their variant. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not what i meant, i was talking about the year serial production started, and that means that even if a certain tank production was stopped, it still hold it's place in the period when it was first produced.

I partially agree with your idea, but i think we do not need it since each main variant can hold a link to it's other variants in it's article just like the T-54/55 article; however even if done, it still wont solve the confusion about main variants of different tanks.

While thinking about the T-80, and how it's mass produced started well before the cold war ended in the soviet union, yet how the T-80UD entered service with Ukraine only in 1999, 8 years after the end of the cold war.

And i came up with an idea; just like diagrams, we can divide the single template. for example, the T-80 would exist in both the cold war, and the post cold war templates, but it would be noted in each template that it also exists in the other.

One way to do that, is to add stars (*), and follow them with a brief illustration of what they mean, just like the casualties section in the yom kippur were two stars mean some thing while one star means another.

Another is to add colors ! for example the red tanks are the one existing in more than one template, while the ones in the standard wikipedia blue are the ones that exist only in this certain template.

The whole point here, is that if we cannot place a certain tank in only one template, we can place it in more than one, and nominate that in the templates where it exists. Suggestion ? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated, in my opinion. Readers need to just see the tank, with minimal duplication, and click a link to read about it. I'd prefer to see each tank just represented according to its start of production, listed only once. We can also subdivide templates by class (e.g., light & heavy tanks), but there's no way to quantify performance.

The only problem is that some editors might object if the M1 were only to appear in the Cold War template, or that the Panzer II only appeared with Interwar tanks, and not WWII tanks. To me this just reflect is that the M1 is a good design which has lasted a long time. —Michael Z. 2008-10-06 18:34 z

I agree. i still think that dividing the articles it self would solve the issue

Dividing the Abrams so that the M1 has it's own independent article, and the Merkava as illustrated above.

The templates are fine, the articles are the ones that need most of the work, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting articles to make them fit our navigation scheme seems backwards. Even if Merkava was split, then there would still have to be a main summary article at Merkava. —Michael Z. 2008-10-07 03:56 z

I agree, although if one was to write an article with enough information I don't see why one couldn't make separate articles for the Merkava I, II, III and IV, and then a main article at Merkava. However, I'd only propose this if it was well sourced and to at least A-class quality. I actually had plans to do this, once I reunited enough source material on the Merkava series (and got the main article to FA status). But, this will be a long time in the future, as I will have quite a lot on my plate with Tank. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but let's not forget that these templates are primarily navigation mechanism for helping readers find as many relevant articles as possible, and not a “list of modern tanks” or some such. Even if we decide that Merkava, etc, belong in two templates, it should probably be the top-level Merkava summary article that were linked, rather than a more specific model article. —Michael Z. 2008-10-07 13:36 z

Well, if there were separate articles for each model I would only suggest adding the main article to one of the templates, and creating a template for the Merkava series. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not agree. There can be a main article for the Merkava regarding history, and so on, and separate articles for different models -which are greatly different at least in case of the MK-4 compared to the rest of the series-; The same goes for the Abrams.

The suggestion is not only to solve the templates problem, it just seams that these tanks deserve having separate articles, and that there are enough infomrmations to do that, or at least get a good start, and continue improving the articles over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What “template problem?” You seem to be saying that (someone) should write a bunch of new articles for the sake of the navigation templates. That is backwards. These articles don't exist, and there's no urgent need to split the main articles right now. The purpose of the templates is to provide readers with links to existing articles, and we're just trying to figure out how to make this best for the reader. —Michael Z. 2008-10-10 15:06 z

I agree with Michael, and besides, four poorly referenced and written articles is not better than one poorly referenced and written article. I'd like to cite the Leopard 2E and Leopard 2 articles as examples. The only reason I undertook writing the Leopard 2E article is because I knew I could make it of high quality. I would never attempt, OTOH, to write about the Leopard 2S or Leopard 2HEL, because I know the quality of those articles would not justify their existence. I could, actually, probably write separate articles for all the M1 variants, but I want to wait until I could get all the articles to FA status. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tank series navigation

Since we don't want to clutter the period navigation templates with every single variant article, we need a way to point readers to other members of a series, for example:

• T-34, T-34 variants, Monument to Soviet tank crews, Mandela Way T-34 Tank; variants: SU-122, SU-85, SU-100
• T-54/55, T-54/T-55 operators and variants, Type 59, Type 62, Type 69/79, Type 88 (tank), Al Zarrar, Rameses II, T-72Z Safir-74
• T-72, T-72 operators and variants, Lion of Babylon tank, M-84, M-95 Degman, M-2001, PT-91 Twardy, Tank EX, TR-125, Zulfiqar (tank), T-90
• M4 Sherman, Lend-Lease Sherman tanks, M4 Sherman variants, Postwar Sherman tanks, Sherman Firefly ; variants: DD tank, T34 Calliope; related: Tommy cooker

Can we insert yet another navbox under the infobox? I think so, considering that 3 works just fine in, e.g., Operation Barbarossa, although we should limit this to variants and models of one tank series—if we extend it to include related tanks, then we may end up adding another two or three navboxes to many articles. I suggest we name these after the main article, e.g. {{T-54/55 navigation}}, and arrange them from specific to general, i.e. related tanks, then tanks by period. —Michael Z. 2008-10-04 21:48 z

I've added an example here. Since the T-54/55 series includes tanks from two periods, both the relevant navigation templates should accompany it. —Michael Z. 2008-10-06 18:52 z

I've added the block of T-54/T-55 templates to the relevant articles. Please have a look through all of them and see if it makes sense. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-10-07 16:42 z

Would it not be possible to merge the Cold War and Post-Cold War templates into one and have only the main tank of any given series included? Then, variants and spin-offs can be included in a second template unique to that series (like the T-55 template). I think this would solve a lot of problems. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)