Talk:PPG tankette

Old talk
Where does the name PPG come from? Zaloga 1984 calls it Obiekt 217. —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 17:55 Z 


 * Many Russian sites call it PPG.--Nixer 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
If you dont know the characteristics, it doesent mean nobody knows.--Nixer 15:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True. And if somebody has enough information to fill an infobox, then let's add one.  Let's add information, but not add a bunch of empty spaces—it just makes the article look unfinished.  The big box overshadows the actual text, which I assume is why you deleted the lead sentence I added to the article, in your rush to revert my edit.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 18:24 Z 


 * It makes the article to look standard. Also there are some values in the box already. In other articles also the boxes arent filled out.--Nixer 19:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The infobox isn't a decoration so that you can tell this is an AFV article. It's meant to present a series of stats for an overview of an AFV's capabilities.  An empty infobox just looks unprofessional.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 22:27 Z 


 * It looks like a tub. Many stubs have empty infoboxes.--Nixer 13:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Without the infobox it looks like a short article, or stub. With it it looks like a short article or stub with an empty infobox.  It looks worse.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:44 Z 


 * With infobox it is easier to add information. Why did you delete infobox from ZiS-30 article instaed of adding information? I this page infobox also consists some information. Of course it is possible to describe the whole information in all the military articles without infoboxes, but this is wrong way.--Nixer 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nixer's revert
Please don't batch-revert a series of changes without an explanation. I can't tell whether you disagree with everything, or you are just too lazy to make individual changes instead of reverting. Don't call my edits vandalism. You are continuing to abuse Wikipedia rules after I've warned you about your behaviour.


 * You also revert without explanation, delete my edits and all my changes. WHAT ABOUT YOUR BEHAVIOR AND deletions????????????????????????????????????????????????--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you really can't tell why I made those edits:
 * Empty infoboxes don't belong in articles
 * We make the article's title term bold in the lead sentence
 * We don't use spans for indicating language, we have a template lang-ru which is used by convention on hundreds of pages
 * We usually don't italicize Cyrillic text, because some browsers don't display it correctly
 * We don't put quotation marks around foreign terms or transliterations
 * "Mobile Chaingun Point" is not a good translation: the DT is not a chain gun. Machine-gun nest is both a direct translation, and a common English idiom
 * Relevant terms which may be unfamiliar, like tankette and DT machine gun should be linked when there are Wikipedia articles about them
 * mil-vehicle-stub is more specific than mil-stub

If you don't understand anything, I'll be glad to explain. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 03:14 Z 

[re: empty infobox] It is not empty here.--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[re: span indicating language] I thied to use a template.--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

First it was mil-stub. Then you changed it to mil-vehicle-stub. I accepted. Now you're changing it back to mil-stub and arguing with it your revertions!!!!--Nixer 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dont remove the infobox because it is a stub article and anibody will add relevant information, if not - it already contains some.--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I got confused with the batched reverting and missed that you had changed the stub template. Thanks for not reverting all the other changes again.  I still totally disagree about having the nearly content-free infobox; let's get some more opinions on that.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 19:10 Z 

Empty infoboxes
Let's take the discussion about unfinished infoboxes to Template talk:AFV. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 20:54 Z 

Category
Shouldn't it be in Category:World War II tankettes rather then in Category:World War II armored cars ? And Schofield tank and NI tank somewhere in Category:World War II tanks ? Bukvoed 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course!--Nixer 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)