Talk:Tanque Argentino Mediano

New version of this article might have lost relevant information from the previous version
Hi all, I've noticed that on 2008-08-09 this article was totally re-edited by user Catalan, with whom I believe had a productive conversation days ago. I'm happy with the "new" article and it seems to be a candidate for a "good" one, hovever I do have the following (minor) concerns: Please let me know if anyone concurs, and maybe suggestions for further improvement of this potentially "A-class" article. I'll liaise with the (initial) editor of this version to discuss enhancements and share ideas. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The structure differs significantly, hence makes difficult to locate and assess if all the relevant info (compared to the "previous" version) is in place (eg: relevant web links and bibliography);
 * It's based primarily on only one bibliographic source (de Mazarrasa, Javier, La Familia Acorazada TAM, in spanish, which is not listed in the References section) bieng cited, which makes it difficult to assess if the information is accurate and unbiased;
 * The very dense layout of the text makes it difficult to follow/understand.


 * I'll try to give responses to those three concerns -
 * In all the tank related articles that I've done I've decided to delete the "see also" section, because those sources aren't really reliable - to Wikipedia standards.
 * The previous version had two sources, with most of the information unreferenced. The problem is the lack of sources available.  Mazarrasa's book is probably the only book published on the TAM that can be found on the internet, or outside of Argentina - so, diversifying sources is difficult.  I've tried to diversify where I can, if the information is supported by those other references are included.  But there is really no other book as detailed as Mazarrasa's, so it's hard to find a source that covers the same amount of information he does.
 * What do you mean by dense layout?
 * JonCatalán (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jon, thanks for your responses to my concerns. My feedback to them:
 * Reliability sometimes can be a subjective appreciation, and wikipedia requires verifiability for the information that is included in the text. As I've seen in other Talk Pages (I guess was on the Main battle tank article), wikipedia cannot validate/endorse if what a verifiable source states is true or not. Hence, IMHO, additional material that might not be "reliable" enough to be included int the text (printed or online) could be referenced in the "See also" sections, even more if the material comes from wikipedia itself. This can also be used to "highlight" additional concepts that might be useful to a casual reader and could not be visible enough when embedded in the main text.
 * I agree that there seem to be few printed sources, even within Argentina (at least, AFAIK). I'd like to grab a copy of Mazarrasa's book which seems to be the only dedicated entirely to the TAM. I was able to find a few other sources that will share with you (probably in your Talk Page).
 * With dense layout I intended to mean that a fairly large amount of text (all relevant) is condensed in few sections with long paragraphs. Additionally, some information (as for instance the variants ennumeration) is much easier to digest in a list format (as was in the "old" version of this article). I admit being no expert in writing articles, it's just my opinion as a reader.
 * I will leave you short a message in your talk page (which has a structure that I liked very much!), to see how we keep collaborating in this very good article. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From experience the "see also" section has normally been discouraged for these types of articles, especially since none of the links that are normally in the "see also" section can be used as sources (when the article is going through a featured article candidacy, and ultimately this article will be put through it - once I can diversify sources a bit more and go through a thorough copyedit). Furthermore, a lot of the sites on the internet have incorrect information, including Globalsecurity.org and FAS.  It's actually pretty sad, because most English sources on the TAM, including Janes, also have incorrect information (for example, the "new" source I added yesterday - Armour & Artillery - makes it seem that Argentina is a third world country that hides information on its military, justifying in that way its lack of up to date information (Mazarrasa, despite being published 10 years earlier, has more accurate information than that source).
 * You were talking about magazines in dedicated military history stores in Argentina. Would there be any way of buying these online?  Or any way for me to get into contact with the store owners?  I'd be very interested in buying them.  In any case, I added Foss' Armour & Artillery, but it still really can't displace Mazarrasa.
 * This is the way I've found that people have preferred when the article goes through A-class or through FAC; it's more professional. I will edit the variants section later and format it in a quasi-list, but also in paragraph form.  We'll see if that's more agreeable. JonCatalán (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jon, thanks for your comments. Maybe the "format/info" issues I've raised are a matter of personal preference, so your proposal in the 3rd bullet is OK to me. As for the "See also" I have to kindly disagree, but again no issues: if that's the way featured articles are, let it be. Sad that those "additional" sources are lost to the casual reader, seems that editors (myself included) are judging if a source is reliable or not based on ... what criteria? As for Jane's, it is a source considered quite serious in the Defense industry. Maybe details could differ with other sources, but it has a good reputation. I haven't read De Mazarrasa's book (can't find it on any online bookstore!) to give it so much credit without assessing his own sources. And yes, the argentinian military tend to hide infomation, as an example the air force in the 80's used to alter the registration codes of aircraft in pictures that released (maybe as disinformation after losses in Malvinas/Falklands war?). I'm unsure how much argentinian printed material can be purchased online, will have a look and leave the links I find in your "Talk Page" (please do the same in mine if you know where I can buy De Mazarrasza's TAM book). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection
"It has 50 millimeters (2 in.) at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the vehicle's sides. "

this seems impossible, I look at the picture of the tank, and I think that actually a glacis plate is 32 degrees, and sides are 75 degrees.

can anyone check this?

is thickness 50 millimeters on both hull sides and glacis plate?

M., Croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.235.254 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When armor is measured, 90 degrees refers to a horizontal slope and not a vertical slope, and that's why your measurements are different. And yes, that's 50mm on both the front and the side of the chassis. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War
Currently the article says The TAM did not participate in the Falklands War, although it had entered service by the beginning of the conflict. But how can it have entered service by the beginning of the conflict when it says that it entered service in 1983 and the falklands was 1982? Editing the article to reflect the fact that it entered service after the Falklands War, even if it was actualy in a full state of use for the army, it had not been entered in to service. User:JozorP(Talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Falklands War (2)
Currently (Oct'09) the article says: The TAM did not participate in the Falklands War, as it had not entered service before the end of the conflict. what solves the issue mentioned above. AFAIK, it was said that the TAM was not deployed due to technical issues related to the soil in the Falklands being too soft (note that the AMX-13 was also not deployed, nor the Sherman), and that thanks were held in the mainland to prevent potential actions from Chile. Hence only the AML-90 Panhard was deployed in the islands. I need to find verifiable sources to support my statements, however I'd like to know the source of the fact quoted above. Thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Attemp to export to Iran
In the relevant section, the following paragraph caught my attention: This failed when TAMSE lowered the price of the vehicles, angering the Iranian government, which subsequently canceled the offer... Why Iran would cancel an offer if the price was lowered? Maybe ts should say raised instead? Which is the source of this comment? Please ammend as appopriate. Thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Asessment for WP Argentina
IMHO this article should be rated MID importance for this WP, as the TAM was significant in modernizing Argentina's armored forces, a huge industrial effort, and placed Argentina in the (not so long) list of countries that produced their own armoured vehicles. Have rated article as such. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to add
Many people ask: But why would they have a MEDIUM tank be their MBT? The answer is the Argentine geography. They needed a tank which could tread on all the different types of terrain (large plains in Patagonia, mountains in the Andes, urban cities as Córdoba or Buenos Aires, or even Chilean geography, due to political tensions). That is why almost all other types of armoured units are based on the same chassis. I haven't found sources other than YouTube videos of tank operators saying this, but I'll keep looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.240.43 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Main Battle Tank ?
TAM is being categorized as "Main battle Tank" in the right info Box, though Argentina defines them as "Tanque mediano" = medium Tank. Correction required... --194.203.215.254 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Main battle tanks essentially are medium tanks. It's just that heavy tanks have ceased to exist, and medium tanks have like most military hardware gotten bigger. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

move to more descriptive and unique title?
Should the article be moved to Tanque Argentino Mediano? – Kaihsu (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Snorkel
What is this snorkel we're seeing?? Why isn't it explained in the article? Opus33 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a unique thing. It was developed during world war 2 and has been given to about a half of the tanks made since then. It allows a tank to cross a river by driving on the bottom. GMRE (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

7 version, or 8?
The comparison table in the "variants" section lists 7 of them, but none that would be armed with a 105 mm gun. The main infobox claims that the main armament is a 105 mm gun, meaning that there 8 different vehicles. The comparison tabe should be updated to include the 105 mm gun version. GMRE (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The basic vehicle is the 105mm gun-armed TAM tank; the other 7 are variants of the basic vehicle. Hence the table is OK with 7 columns; no changes needed here. Regards, DPdH (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks to a subsection heading is a bad idea...
I came to this article via a wikilink that had, as its target, a subsection heading within this article -- 'Tanque Argentino Mediano.

While this is common, in the namespace I think it is a maintenance nightmare, in article space.

The technique is a confusing disservice to readers. Readers expect every click on a wiki-link will take them to the lead paragraph of a stand-alone article. But clicking on faux links like those directed here, takes them to text without a lead section to provide the necessary context.

The technique is a confusing disservice to readers, as, when they suddenly find themselves somewhere unexpected, without warning their back key doesn't work, as expected. With normal wikilinks the reader only has to press their back key once to return to where they were. Invisibly, and without warning, wikilinks to subsection headings require two clicks of the back key to return to where one was.

The technique is a confusing disservice to readers, because it is a maintenance nightmare for contributors. Ordinary wikilinks are robust. Thanks to helpful robots, the WMF software makes sure ordinary wikilinks continue to point to the correct articles, even when those articles are renamed. This is a huge improvement over the regular world-wide-web, where links get broken all the time. But this does not work properly with wikilinks to subsection headings. Even the smallest amendment to the section heading breaks the link. Changes to the Capitalization, spelling, punctuation, or word order of section heading break links, when that section heading is the target of a wikilink.

The technique is a confusing disservice to readers, because it erodes the usefulness of watchlists.

The technique is a confusing disservice to readers, because it erodes the usefulness of the "what links here" button.

In my opinion, if a topic is significant enough to merit its own wikilink, it is very likely to merit a standalone article. I strongly urge other contributors to think twice before they employ this highly problematic technique. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No thanks. I'll link what I want, how I want, as I best understand the guidelines, and as best helps the reader find what they are looking for. Also, many sections of articles aren't suitable for stand-alone articles, as they are often quite short, or would be out of context by themselves. Finally, your rant is not really about improving the article itself, and really should be posted somewhere in wikispace like Village Pump, not here. - BilCat (talk)


 * , you claim to link "as best helps the reader"? Yeah, well I am a reader, and I explained here how the link didn't help me.  So, if you really care what "helps the reader"", why shouldn't you consider my feedback?


 * Articles have a lede section, that provides context for the rest of the material, at that link -- none of which will be present when people link to subsections within existing articles.


 * WRT short articles -- what makes you think there is something wrong with short articles? Geo Swan (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This technique is explicitly allowed by Redirect. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tanque Argentino Mediano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817155050/http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1447&lang=3&pdb=1 to http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1447&lang=3&pdb=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612142210/http://www.mindef.gov.ar/info.asp?Id=1496 to http://www.mindef.gov.ar/info.asp?Id=1496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/71383/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tanque TAM 2C.jpg