Template talk:Post WWII Soviet AFVS

new aspect
This is starting to look OK. The collapsible sublists are a good idea, like that there's still room for a link or two (List of armoured fighting vehicles by country for example). I'll go ahead with this and see how it looks. Maybe we could do with a better title for the navbox as it doesn't cover only soviet vehicles? Any suggestions? Raoulduke47 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, nice work!


 * Some comments:
 * Since most of the content is already collapsed to save space, I don't think it's necessary to use a smaller font. I would try a one-column arrangement with the four categories stacked vertically—this would also look more efficient or at least neater when one category is expanded: then it won't have a blank void to one side.
 * The sub-templates should have some of the dressing removed. For example, under "Soviet tanks", the "Post-World War II Soviet tanks" heading is redundant and so is the 1-pixel border.  The Russian and Ukrainian tanks subheading should look equal to or subordinate to the "Soviet tanks" heading, so they should have the same grey background (and/or, the "tanks" heading could have the lighter purple background). (As I said, I like simple, so my reflex is to remove as much decoration as possible while still getting the point across.)
 * Since the template heading already says "Soviet", the section subheadings can just say "Tanks", instead of "Soviet tanks".
 * The list encompasses Soviet and post-Soviet AFVs. The latter are a small minority, so it doesn't bother me too much that the name is just "Soviet".  What would be a better alternative: "Soviet and post-Soviet...", "Soviet-legacy...", "CIS..."?
 * How would it look if one of the subcategories was expanded by default (e.g., "tanks" in a tank article)? This would give the reader the opportunity to go in one click, but have more options available.


 * Hope I don't sound critical. This is looking great.  When you're happy with it, should we get some comments from the the Milhist project or the Weaponry task force?  This method could be used to streamline all of the large WWII AFV navboxes. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 18:23 Z 

I tried to take into account some of your suggestions:

You can try and get some feedback from the milhist project, but i'll replace the original template with this one as it's already an improvement(if you think that's OK). I'm all for setting a good example. And of course, feel free to edit it!

I think it could use a few extra links(lists or articles) Raoulduke47 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a modified version (at User:Mzajac/Soviet-legacy AFV Navbox). —Michael Z. 2006-10-31 05:25 Z 

This is not bad. It would be nice to have it start with one category open (e.g., "tanks" on a tank article), but I don't know how to do that. The ideal version would have four tabs across the top and shuffle between four virtual cards, instead of having four independent stacked sections.

I'm not happy with the exclusive definition "after WWII": we can link to WWII, but this template isn't about WWII stuff. I'd prefer an inclusive description like "Cold War and modern Soviet and post-Soviet AFVs", but I can't think of one that reads gracefully. —Michael Z. 2006-10-31 04:25 Z 


 * At Kirill's suggestion, I'm asking that further discussion be moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry_task_force. —Michael Z. 2006-10-31 05:23 Z 

Ballistic missiles
I've added the SS-21, which replaced the FROG-7. The following are "theatre" ballistic missiles, used at the army/front level. Do they belong here? —Michael Z. 2006-11-01 03:44 Z 


 * Scud
 * R-400 Oka (SS-23)
 * TR-1 Temp (SS-12/SS-22)
 * Iskander (missile) (SS-26)

Good question. I included the FROG-7 because the wiki article calls it an "short-range artillery rocket" and it made sense to lump it with the BM-30 and BM-27 but the definition of Armoured fighting vehicle forces us to reconsider that. An AFV:


 * is armoured
 * is intended for use on the battlefield

Most theatre ballistic missiles don't qualify: they are either mounted on trucks or they're meant to strike at logistic centres and other such targets behind ennemy lines. But then neither do such systems as the S-300 SAM or the BM-30 which are mounted on wheeled unarmoured chassis. Should they be included or needn't we stick with the definition of AFV?

Raoulduke47 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's okay to stretch the definition for tactical or operational fighting vehicles. Katyushas are not AFVs, but they are interesting and relevant enough to armoured warfare that they belong here.  Any artillery rocket launcher which could be deployed in support of, say, a division on the battlefield is okay too, but not something meant only to deliver strategic nuclear weaponry.  I don't know at what level they are deployed in the military organization, but rereading the articles, I see that they are designed to carry a variety of conventional warheads, so I think they could be listed here.  Perhaps there should be separate sections for Multiple rocket launchers and Ballistic missiles. —Michael Z. 2006-11-08 19:28 Z 

Well if thats Ok with you then so be it. It definitely needs an extra section: Short-range SSM or tactical SSMs as a sub-section of Self-propelled artillery. Raoulduke47 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
Nice work on this navbox, Raoulduke47. I hope you don't mind that I have taken some liberties with it already. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 20:39 Z 

Thanks Mzajac for the edits. I also think it makes sense to include Ukrainian AFVs that are often improvements on the original Soviet models. However this navbox is getting kindof large, and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to split it into several different navboxes ie: Tanks | APCs/IFVs | Artillery(towed and self-propelled) | Air defense vehicles.

Smaller navboxes would better cohabit with existing ones such as the "Modern Tanks" one and the "modern wheeled APCs and IFVs" one. After all, my purpose was not to saturate small articles with huge navboxes! Any suggestions? BTW Mzajac you forgot a Ukrainian APC: BTR-4 ;-)  Raoulduke47 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And it would grow larger, too, like the WWII templates. Some of those are too big.  Perhaps we could coordinate this at the Weaponry task force.  On the other hand, if we have a good idea how to improve things, we can just set a good example.


 * The problem (or is it?) with the smaller templates is that they don't provide a way to navigate between the separate categories. For example, the modern tanks template gets you to other tank articles, but not to Soviet AFVs or all AFVs.  Some solutions could be:


 * Redesign the navbox.
 * Maybe it would be neater with vertical subcategory menus.
 * It could have collapsible sub-lists, like the task force to-do lists at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
 * Have a category template (tanks) and a national template (Soviet) both on a page.
 * Link to other templates from the header or footer of a template.
 * Link from the templates to summary articles, like Tank and Soviet AFVs, or more specific: Soviet tanks.
 * Link to one of the List of AFVs lists (these need some kind of cleanup too: there are two or three un-synchronized lists with Soviet AFVs).


 * Maybe I'll mock up some of these ideas. I'd prefer a simple uncluttered solution, that provides just enough functionality rather than too much.  I'm open to ideas. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:01 Z 

OK how about this for a start:

Raoulduke47 19:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one with the collapsible sub-lists:

Too large
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)

AFV navigation templates
There's a discussion about AFV navigation templates at WT:AFV. Topics include style, and the organization of post-WWII templates. Please discuss there. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:09 z 

Armored cars and MRAP
This template is lacking armored cars like tigr and MRAP vehicles should they be added under APC section ?

sprut sd
shouldn't the sprut be in there somewhere I don't see it