Talk:List of countries by level of military equipment/Archive 2

MBT list
Can somebody fix the MBT list? It goes by the first number and not the total one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.255.77 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem still hasnt been fixed Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

US submarines
Not an expert, but Im pretty sure the US has more than 2 operational submarines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.17.177 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, please notice that the US in fact has 74 + 2 submarines since nuclear and non-nuclear submarines are separated (as it turns out non-nuclear submarines are not as useful these days). Secondly this data is taken from the International Institute for Strategic Studies' "Military Balance 2015" a reputable source on the matter. If you have a valid source contradicting this data please share it and the article will be changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auguel (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - And just what are the names of these 2 non-nuclear subs that the US has in service? - the WOLF  child  03:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the source discussed above. As seen on page 44. The US Navy has 2 SSA (submersible auxiliary support vessel) used for testing. Whether this data should be included in this list is open to debate, but that is where the data originally came from. - Auguel (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not part of the deployed fleet and aren't counted among the numbers on other USN pages. Adding them here just creates confusion and inconsistency. - the WOLF  child  00:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly either way, but it should be noted that this is probably not the only instance of testing vehicles being counted in the data - Auguel (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The US Navy, along with many other navies, have all kinds of additional vessels used for testing and training, etc., but they aren't part of the deployed combat force. Since we now know of these two, they should be removed. If there others, they should be removed as well. This page really does need some updating and clean-up. - the WOLF  child  00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case feel free to clean-up and update the page - Auguel (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article looks remarkably up-to-date in my opinion. You will notice Auguel went to a good deal of time lately to update the table to the 2015 edition of 'The Military Balance' from the IISS. I suppose the only real issue is a few values in the submarine column that might refer to submersibles that are not attack submarines. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The list should only denote actively deployed ships. Once we get into other types, such as training ships, test beds, target ships, inactive, decommissioned, under construction, ready reserve, reserve fleet, awaiting disposal, on donation hold, etc., etc., etc... it can become unwieldy. - the WOLF  child  00:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Mystic, a DSRV, is electric and still active isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DSRV-1 Mystic went out of service in 2008. But this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Even when it was active, it could hardly be considered a "deployed submarine". It was a rescue submersible. If we include that, then what next? Remote-controlled units? - the WOLF  child  01:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely would have considered it active and "deployed". It had a human crew, was an official naval vessel and one active duty. Just because there was only one of it doesn't make it less valid as a boat. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Going by that logic, we should count every single RHIB, life boat, row boat and any other little "vessel" that is officially owned by a navy, is being actively used and can be manned by a human crew. We have to draw a line somewhere. - the WOLF  child  01:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we wouldn't. How many rowboats does the navy have that are named and have a hull number? Regardless, you've made it abundantly clear that unless is has a crew of 100, you don't think it's important. And since the Mystic is no longer an active vessel, this is moot. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...you've made it abundantly clear that unless is has a crew of 100, you don't think it's important. - I didn't say any such thing, so relax. If you want an idea of what types of ships I think should be included, just have a look at;
 * List of active Royal Navy ships
 * List of current ships of the United States Navy (Commissioned)
 * List of active Russian Navy ships (Ships in service)
 * List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships
 * There are numerous other "List of active ____ Navy ships" articles as well. I think the inclusion criteria for these lists is quite consistent across the board and could be a useful guide here. - the WOLF  child  02:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When I'm fed sarcasm, I tend to respond with it. So when you come off with some sarcastic BS like "we should count every single RHIB, life boat, row boat and any other little "vessel", figure on sarcasm in return. So you relax. And no, looking at other lists won't change my mind. If the Mystic were still active, it would be included here. Now have the last word. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Um sure... whatever you say there, oh angry one. But just for the record, it's the community that decides on content, not just you. As for; "Now have the last word." - LOL! Are you trying to reverse-psychologize me? I guess it worked! Anyway, why don't you just stick with "this is moot " ? - the WOLF  child  04:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, you respond with sarcasm, give me a condescending order to relax, then call me angry? Passive-aggressive much? And yeah, after 8 years, I figure out the whole community content part, but thanks for some more condescending nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you got all that off your chest... do you feel better now? I hope so. Have a Great Day! Smile.png - the WOLF  child  00:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I suspect we probably agree on more things than not and this just took the wrong tone. In any case, thank you for archiving the old threads. I planned to do that later in the week. Thanks for cleaning that up. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The start of something beautiful... - the WOLF  child  01:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Israel: Nuclear Submarines
Israel has five nuclear submarines, all supplied by Germany. Please make the necessary changes, the English Wikipedia's editing for tables is extremely complicated for me.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-newest-sub-leaves-germany-bound-for-haifa/ http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/01/12/445535/Israel-submarine-Dolphin-Germany-/ http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-IDF-high-command-tout-new-German-made-submarine-441247 Jewnited (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - Per Dolphin-class submarine, the table is correct. These subs are diesel-electric and only 3 are active. - the WOLF  child  23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
I recently found errors with the numbers of one the countries on this list. Considering that this page's content is supported almost entirely by a single source, it brings the accuracy of the entire page into question. Every entry needs to be checked for veracity and additional reliable sources should be found for each country. - the WOLF  child  04:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The lack of variety in the sources is a little troubling. Essentially, this page is just a single report being put into table form. I did just remove a single use source that hardly passes RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Your discovery only underscores the problem. The main source had errors, and now one of the very few additional sources turns out to be unreliable. The numbers on many of these list articles are supported by main or parent articles, and are updated as those articles are updated. It's a very common pratice. But another contributing editor to this this page is now insisting that every. single. entry. be supported by an additional source. Based on that, there is a lot of work to be done here and I hope this particular editor steps up and helps out. - the WOLF  child  04:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see 5 sources. 3 of the sources, the last 3 used, are there to support a single claim. The 4th source is used several times, but only to support the claim of nuclear weapons. That leaves all the rest of the tanks, ships and aircraft being sourced by....yes, a single source. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed having a single source for all the data points is worrying, but I believe the state of the article is preferable now compared to before revision 675968613, but I leave you to judge for yourselves. And I'm sorry for offending you by asking you to include sources in your edits. From your previous reverts enforcing strict adherence to the wikipedia guidelines, I thought you would be eager to follow them yourself. However, if it is consensus that this page should only serve as a summary of data found in other pages then I will make no more objections. Auguel (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "revision 675968613"... Why, that wouldn't happen to your edit, would it? - the WOLF  child  08:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it's my edit, and yes I am a little emotionally involved in this page. That doesn't nullify my previous comment from which you only retained the part that would serve to discredit me and ignored the rest. My position is still that if there is a consensus that this page should only serve as a summary of other pages without needing to be sourced directly I will not make anymore objections. Auguel (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That you are getting "emotional" is obvious, but also unnecessary... it's just Wikipedia. No one is trying to "discredit" you, just letting you know about a common practice. You have less than 100 hundred edits, once you gain a little more experience, you'll see this for yourself. There is no need to "object" to anything... no one is stopping you from adding additional sources. In fact, due to your recent revert, it's been discovered that this page is in fact sorely in need of additional sources. As I said, I have provided additional sources for the individual numbers I've updated, but there are plenty of other entries on this table that currently rely on a single, questionable source, so feel free to begin adding more sources for the rest of the content on this page. Don't take anything here personally, we just want to improve the project. Happy editing! - the WOLF  child  17:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you be clear about your position on sourcing then? You originally seemed to be opposed to sourcing every data point since you did not source them yourself but are you now saying that every point should be sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auguel (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not "opposed to sourcing". I was simply explaining a common practice here, and the reason for my edit. You reverted that edit, requesting an additional outside source, and I provided that. But in the course of doing so, found that not only does this article rely largely on a single source, but that source was, in the case of the entry I was editing, incorrect, therefore bringing that source, and the content of this entire page, into question. We don't know how many of the entries on this table are correct or incorrect, (though there is a lengthy archived talk page full of numerous complaints of errors), but we do know that this page needs additional sourcing, and that all the entries should be confirmed along with that sourcing. It's big job... feel free to take it on if this article is important to you. Cheers. - the WOLF  child  17:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

errors - Sweden & Finland
I see many numbers wrong. For example numbers for Sweden and Finland are totaly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.121 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all surprised. This table clearly needs updating, with properly sourced info. Feel free to help out if you like. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

errors - Germany
245 nuclear submarines must be wrong! Peter Michor 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look. It's actually 245 Combat Aircraft Auguel (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Should helicopter carriers be included under the section 'aircraft carriers'?
yes helicopters are aircraft but the Aircraft carrier article seems to differentiate the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auguel (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Classification
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force wiki page only list 26 actual destroyers in active service, 10 are just frigate, while 4 are helicopter carrier.

we should classified ship base on common ship classification than "politicized" classification? but then if we do, we probably have to downgrade some US cruiser to destroyer too since modern destroyer exceed the power of those cruiser, especially the DDG-1000 which could be class as cruiser themselves... Akinkhoo (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

US frigates being replaced with littoral combat ships
Littoral combat ships should be included toward the number of US frigates. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. Auguel (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They are already aren't they? The US doesn't have any other frigates. Rob984 (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Click to rearrange
Why can't we click columns to rearrange, high to low, low to high, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony717 (talk • contribs) 22:36:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You should be able to, the table is sortable. I am able to sort all the columns with a click. Check again - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Syria
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Syrian_Army#Tanks syria has more tanks than NK. 13:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gendalv (talk • contribs)

Suggestion
The table is kind of wide. This could be solved be separating the power of the army, navy, and air force into 3 different sections. Should this idea be implemented?

1.126.111.65 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Total" row entries are incorrect.
Total numbers are incorrect. e.g. Total cruisers are listed as 27, but the US is said to have 22, Russia 5, Egypt 2, and PROC 1; 22 + 5 + 2 + 1 = 30, not 27.

The entries for the totals are just strings containing numbers that a user has put in. Can we make the totals equal to the sum of all entries in the corresponding columns? --The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy

 * Pakistan has one nuclear weapon? According to the Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction article, it has 150-160.
 * Attack helicopters - does that include naval helicopters (SH-60, naval Lynx & NH90 etc) armed with torpedoes or just helicopters used mainly over land like the AH-64, Tiger and Mil Mi 24/28 (and armed transport helicopters like the UH-60 & Mil Mi 17)?
 * Amphibious warfare ships - this can be deceptive of true naval power projection when a smaller landing ship is compared (numerically) with USS Wasp type amphibious assault ship. 82.45.152.152 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Saudi Navy ships
@Thewolfchild The entire list uses the IISS classifications for all the military equipment. That's why the it says the US navy has 19 frigates even though it officially doesn't have any because the IISS consider littoral combat ships to be frigates. Its the same way with the Saudi Riyadh class ships are classified as destroyers by the IISS even though they are officially frigates. Amaan4210 (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your OSE argument fails on both ends; On the LCS page, as well the pages for two LCS-classes, there are numerous references to those ships being compared to frigates, considered as frigates and at point even possibly being re-classed as frigates. On the Riyadh class page, and the original French class page, both list those ships as frigates, with no mention of destroyers, of them being destroyers, considered as destroyers or compared to destroyers (as I mentioned before, and you have still haven't addressed). This is just a list page, a collection point of info found on WP, with links to WP articles, it shouldn't be at odds with the content of those articles. - wolf  21:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, the list only uses one criteria to determine which ships are classified as destroyers and frigates which is the IISS's classification. According to it, if a ship has an FLD greater than 4,500 tons, than it's a destroyer. All the other countries in the list use the same classification. Amaan4210 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jtbc, what "doesn't matter"? Are you addressing a particular item? (or just dismissing my entire reply). We don't change ship classifications, on a list that can impact multiple articles, just because a single source has drawn a random line on tonnage. Do you have anything else other than that to support your edit? - wolf  20:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire source only uses one single source to prevent disputes "All data apart from the number of nuclear weapons is taken from The Military Balance (2020 )." if you start using multiple sources, you'll have to end up rewriting the entire listAmaan4210 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also can you give a better source to use because you can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaan4210 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point 1) Not necessarily. Having an entire page rely on a single source is generally a bad idea. If it's wrong... then what? Also, there is nothing wrong with adding more sources on a per-edit basis. This does not require that the "entrie article be rewritten". Point 2) I'm not using any WP pages as refs for content I'm adding to the page, I used them to support my revert of your edit to the page. By drawing your attention to these other articles, if the straightforward issue of uniformity isn't enough for you, then there are always the sources cited on those pages to make you question your edit, and again support my revert of it. Lastly, what is kinda' odd about this is that you are repeatedly arguing for your original edit, based on the original source, instead of asking yourself if your edit is really even correct in the first place, again based on a single source. (fft) - wolf  03:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Riyadh ship page does not cite any source which says that the ships are frigates. Also, there is no consensus on what type of ship a destroyer or frigate is. Any country's navy can acquire a ship and call it what they want. Therefore, it's better to use one source that is independent, unbiased and has a fixed criteria for defining ship types. Amaan4210 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? The only source for the Riyadh-class in the Frigates section on the Saudi Navy page, clearly states it is a friagte. Further to that, the class is based on the La Fayette-class frigate, and all the sources on that page (more than a dozen) clearly state that the class are frigates. Conversly, you are relying on a single source that doesn't even mention these ships, but instead has apparently drawn an arbitrary line based on displacement. There's nothing here even close to being sufficient enough to support your edit. Other than that, I really don't think there's anything more to say about this. - wolf  09:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)