Template talk:Tank

'''Note: this template is being replaced by template:AFV. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 22:35 Z '''

Using the template

Try to be specific about the exact vehicle model or version, because specs can vary greatly between similar vehicles. Use a photograph of the same model if possible; if not then label both the table and photo.

Enter "?" for missing data or "–" for non-applicable fields. Caption is optional; omit it if there isn't something interesting to say about the photo.


 * length—In metres. If possible, use hull length, which is better for comparisons than "length over gun", or the overall length of a vehicle with a main gun projecting over the front of the hull.
 * width—In metres.
 * height—In metres. If possible, use height over the hull roof, turret roof, or commander's cupola, rather than the clearance including a machine gun or other removable equipment.
 * weight—in metric tonnes, short tons (US, 0.907 tonnes), or long tons (UK, 1.016 tonnes). If possible, use loaded weight or "combat weight", rather than empty factory weight.  Sometimes this can be inferred from NATO "bridge classification" markers; round yellow labels on the front of an AFV bearing its maximum weight in tonnes.
 * suspension—common types include leaf-spring, Christie, and torsion-bar.
 * speed_road—maximum speed, in km/h.
 * speed_off—
 * range—the maximum road range, in km.
 * primary—main armament. If an AFV only has a machine gun, that is its primary armament.  If an AFV is unarmed, enter a dash ("–").
 * secondary—secondary armament.
 * armour—Thickness, in mm.
 * engine—Type.
 * hp—Horsepower (0.746 kW).
 * kW—Kilowatts (1.341 hp).
 * crew—How many personnel. If it's not obvious, you can write something like "3 (commander, driver, and radio operator)".  Personnel carriers can use a notation like "2 (+6 passengers)".

Proposed formatting
I've been messing around with the formatting of the AFV infoboxes. Have a look at User:Mzajac/sandbox; what do you think? &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 03:54 Z 


 * I've got no problem with the alternating colours to break up the lines, but it is low contrast so might not be fair on those with poorer eyesight. Can't say I care for your choice of characteristics to feature either. nWould you mind doing a second example with the Churchill data in it? GraemeLeggett 08:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I just used the T-54/55 data that was on the page. I'll do one up for the Churchill, but it may be a day before I get to it.  Let's see what people think of the contrast; I can always make the grey darker.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 13:21 Z 


 * Fair enough. I think the tank:template should include one or more of the following:
 * suspension (not always obvious from a picture, also opens the template up for use on the "non-tanks" like armoured cars and half tracks) cross country speed, power weight ratio - as those two tell you as much about performance as anything.On the other hand I don't want to see the box get overladen either GraemeLeggett 13:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, two out of three proposals are already included in the template (suspension and cross-country speed). Halibutt 15:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not in Mzajac's alternative. GraemeLeggett 15:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm proposing a visual format. I'm not saying anything about what headings should be in the table.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 16:29 Z 


 * As to your proposal: I'm not sure I like it. Obviously it's more pleasant-looking and much more descriptive (it reminds me of the infobox someone created for the paratrooper and special units of WWII), but... IMO it's too descriptive. Too much text makes it harder to follow and lack of grid makes it even less readable. I believe that the basic facts should be obtainable from such infobox with one glance, while one has to read through the infobox you propose.


 * To make long things short, the drawbacks I see:


 * 1) lack of header with a name of the AFV
 * 2) lack of grid
 * 3) lack of pic caption
 * --Halibutt 20:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've revisited this design, and implemented it in the template (please comment in the new section below). I think I've addressed your concerns:
 * The header is moved down below the picture, with the explanation "general characteristics". I've changed the format so it draws the eye quite well, and uses a similarly-coloured background to the previous template (but now a web-safe colour).  The top of the info box is now a nice straight edge, which neatly align with the top of the article text.
 * I've darkened the tone in the stripes a bit, so it doesn't seem to disappear on 16-bit Windows displays any more (right?).
 * It works equally well with or without a pic caption.


 * In response to your remarks about the template being more descriptive: I'm not proposing any changes to the template text here; I just happened to pick the T-55 article for my example because I like the picture, and it just happened to have a wordy info box. It was also a good example to illustrate what happens if some heading or content table cells are two or three lines tall.  Cheers.  —Michael Z. 2005-09-10 05:10 Z 

Fields
I have no problem with having several versions of the template with different sets of fields. E.g., Template:AFV tank, Template:AFV wheeled, Template:AFV APC, etc. Template:AFV tank modern could dispense with the armour thickness, since we usually don't know what it is. Sub-templates could be used to keep common elements of the table code in one place.

Regarding the order of fields: I would suggest:


 * crew first, since it's separate from all of the physical components, and it's very important.
 * armour right after dimensions, since it is a quantitative physical characteristic.
 * speed and range last, after power plant, since they are dependent on it.
 * power plant would remain after armament, since everybody wants to know about the guns.

Should we consider higher-level information, like whether the vehicle is employed in tank, reconnaissance, artillery, or mechanized infantry units? This aspect is unfortunately often ignored, to the point that some editors believe that tanks, self-propelled guns and IFVs can be interchangeable. Perhaps a simple field like:

| role:  |  reconnaissance  |

&mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 16:47 Z 


 * I'd suggest we adapt the tank template as little as possible rather than devleop alternative templates. Crew could be first but i suggest last. If you add carried troops in the box it doesn't look so bad then. Role is a bit of a misnomer with the WW2 tanks since that can change with the variants - so I wouldn't go for that. The role is probably (ought to be) explained in the opening paragraph which sits opposite the infobox. Needs much musing anyhow, a day or two to think on it. (perhaps even time in the sand box!) GraemeLeggett 16:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you give some examples of variants that would make the role problematic? If the role changes by e.g., armament, then it would refer to the primary example in the infobox.  If the infobox refers to several variants, then something like this:

| role         |  tank or reconnaissance | ...           | main armament | 45 mm gun, or           | |              | 2&times;7.62 mm machine guns  |


 * I know there will always be exceptions, which can be explained with a short note in the infobox, a footnote at the bottom of the infobox (e.g., in T-64), or a separate explanation in the text. And don't get too hung up on developing the perfect unified infobox template, because there will always be the exceptional infobox that has to be built by hand (e.g. Patton tank).


 * Come to think of it, many AFV articles would benefit from a comparative table like the one in Patton tank, with two or more models featured. But then, this would probably always be a custom table that singles out the significant characteristics in the particular AFV series.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 17:45 Z 


 * The Patton is a bit of a red herring since half the fields are the same for both variants. I don't think the term role is correct really either. I'll return to this after I've had a day or two to mull it over. (we are expecting our first child soon, so excuse me if I get distracted) GraemeLeggett 20:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point about the Patton. It could have a single infobox, then a four-row table highlighting significant differences between all the variants in the body text.


 * "Role", "class", "kind", "type", "employment", "assigned to"? Specific info like "employed by independent tank battalions, attached to tank and mechanized divisions, after 1942" can go in the body copy.


 * Don't worry about getting distracted by the real world. It'll be so much easier to sneak some changes past you.  Cheers. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 22:13 Z 

New look
I've changed the way the template looks. It's similar to my proposal that was discussed above, but I think I've addressed the drawbacks that were pointed out. Features are listed below. —Michael Z. 2005-09-10 04:56 Z 


 * Eliminates extraneous borders gaps, etc., which distract from the content.
 * Has a square top which aligns nicely with the top of text in an article.
 * More compact; looks fine with a 250-pixel-wide image.
 * Thin grey lines and tone harmonize with Wikipedia's default style sheet.

WikiProject AFV anyone?
There are many AFV articles to add this template to. It might also be nice to discuss the standard organization of article sections, which is widely but not universally used. Would anyone participate in WikiProject AFV? —Michael Z. 2005-09-10 05:21 Z 

One heading or two
I've been thinking of this as having a single heading describing what the table is, e.g., "M1 Abrams general characteristics", or "General characteristics of the M1 Abrams". I see no reason to split this into two headings, making the hierarchy of headings and the info-box's visual design slightly more complicated. The article already has a main heading with the name of the AFV, so the info-box heading merely needs a sub-heading to identify itself as the summary of its "general characteristics". Sorry to split hairs about this, but keeping the headings and other meta-information streamlined helps it stay out of the reader's way and maintain focus on the content. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-09-23 17:16 Z 


 * I've merged the two headings into one. —Michael Z. 2005-10-2 21:21 Z 

Revision
Just some suggestions, having used this template for a while. I'm assuming that we want it to remain very concise, and to keep the units consistent, to make comparisons between different vehicles meaningful. It's useful to compare performance or effectiveness so, for example, we show a vehicle's road range but not its fuel capacity. Finally, I also think it's important to differentiate primary or measured characteristics with derived ones (e.g. metric vs. imperial units).

Fields:
 * Remove off-road speed . This is essentially meaningless; on flat hard-pack an AFV can travel at practically its road speed; on very rough or soft ground it may have to slow to a crawl.  Many sources don't provide this figure, and in other cases it will be an optimistic number affected by national pride or marketing goals.  We have no idea how it was derived by different sources, so it's misleading to try to compare different vehicles.
 * Add power-to-weight ratio . This can be derived from the other common statistics.  It's an indication of speed as well as things like hill-climbing power, and so is a good way to compare off-road mobility of different vehicles.
 * Add ground pressure . Just ask the Germans after the spring of 1942 how important this is.
 * √ Change " Maximum armour " to " Armour ", so a range can be entered (other editors are already entering ranges or front/side here). [Done —MZ]
 * √ Length: do we prefer hull length or overall length ("length over gun")? Different vehicles have different amounts of gun overhang, and guns can be changed, so for comparison's sake I would say hull length .  [Added to instructions —MZ]
 * √ Weight: do we prefer empty weight or combat weight? The difference can be ten tonnes or more, so we should set a policy so that it's possible to compare vehicles.  I realize that in many cases we won't know the answer, although combat weight can be inferred from a vehicle's bridge classification (round yellow label on NATO AFVs).  Since it's a real-world figure, I would say combat weight .  [Added to instructions —MZ]

Layout:
 * I still think crew belongs at the top

Technical:
 * Let us type the content all the fields in full-text, instead of having the units built into the template.
 * Many modern AFVs have no armour figure, so a floating _mm looks silly.
 * U.S. and older British AFVs have their primary characteristics in imperial units such as feet and inches, horsepower, mph, short or long tons, which can go in the template as XX ft (YY m), etc. (look at M2 Bradley.)
 * Some vehicles need a bit more flexibility, Example
 * I realize this would require editing the content up to 150 pages to correct. And this is not critical, as

Some of these problems have been worked around nearly successfully, but it doesn't quite look right (e.g., in Churchill tank).

If no one objects, I'll start making these changes shortly. —Michael Z. 2005-10-2 23:46 Z 


 * Why Crew at top? The structure at the moment is roughly physical size and weight, then performance, then armament, then everything else. GraemeLeggett 09:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I just think the soft things inside the AFV are in some way more important than all the other bits. It's not critical.  What do you think of the proposed additions and deletions of fields?  —Michael Z. 2005-10-3 09:39 Z 

I've added some instructions to the top of this page, incorporating a couple of these suggestions. I also expect to make some minor changes to the template. —Michael Z. 2005-10-10 23:32 Z 

Replacement for Template:Tank
Users have been working around the limitations of Template:Tank. Some examples are U.S. or older British AFVs, where the primary dimensions are in feet, inches, and miles, not metric units. Some other details are discussed above. It would be much more flexible if the units weren't hard-coded into the template.

Removing the units from template:Tank would require all of the ~150 articles it appears in to be updated at the same time. It would be much more graceful and easier to create a new template and replace them at our (my?) leisure. So I've created template:AFV.

Here's an example of how it could be used for M1 Abrams, where (most of) the figures are originally non-metric feet/inches/miles/hp. Please have a look at the notes at template talk:AFV, and comment here or there. —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 07:22 Z 


 * I'd like to get on with implementing this template. Please comment at template talk:AFV.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 21:36 Z