Template talk:WWIIBritishAFVs

Armoured cars
Is there room on this template for the British armoured cars? GraemeLeggett 11:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Compared to the German template, I'd say there's room for anything the Brits could produce. They should be consistent, anyways.  Is there a list?  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-18 15:46 Z 


 * You can see it developing at List_of_armoured_fighting_vehicles_of_World_War_II I'm lumping all Marks of a vehicle under the same title so "Humber Armoured car" would include all the marks and variants. GraemeLeggett 16:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've created a second template based on some crude editing of this one it's very poorly named Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2 GraemeLeggett 16:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Did the British have a distinction between light and heavy armored cars? Oberiko 17:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not as such, from my understanding its a question of what you had before compared with what you got second. GraemeLeggett 19:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we need to make the distinction ourselves then? Personally I think they could all go in one row. Oberiko 19:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree; I think it would still be smaller than the German template. Like this? Is it a suitable order?  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-19 20:04 Z 

Armoured cars Humber | Daimler Dingo | BSA Scout | Rolls-Royce | AEC | Daimler


 * Have another look at how many there are now that I've updated the list. GraemeLeggett 20:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh. Perhaps we need a short history stub for each of UK AFVs and armoured cars.  Each template can link to the AFV and car article, so it's easy to navigate between pages carrying the two templates.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-19 23:12 Z 


 * (Can't be bother to indent that far) I think I now have the lot of them, perhaps two lines and just go by the manufacturers name. eg

Scout Cars

BSA | Daimler Dingo |Humber | etc etc

Armoured cars Humber | Daimler | Rolls-Royce | AEC | etc etc

On the subject of "Heavy", Recce units had Heavy Troops which used the larger armoured cars. GraemeLeggett 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opening up to the rest of the commonwealth
I know its already a bit of a large nav template, but is their room for the Australian and Canadian tanks (Sentinel, Ram tank)? We could have Aus and Can next to the names or even tiny flags :) GraemeLeggett 16:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * SP guns and tank destroyers could be placed on a single line, and Oz/Can AFVs on another, the way armoured cars and 1/2-tracks are treated in Template:WWIIGermanAFVs. I think the Commonwealth line could be differentiated by header colour, the way experimental tanks have a reddish header.


 * Also, perhaps the entire header also needs a common line at the bottom that lets you jump between main articles on the AFVs of each nation. I still don't know if I've seen all the WWIIxxxAFVs templates.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-15 16:43 Z 


 * Well, i've added the ram and sentinel, and split Cruisers onto three lines. But where do I put Kangaroo?


 * Perhaps a third item with the SP guns? —Michael Z. 2005-07-4 16:54 Z 


 * there was room on template:WWIIBritishAFVs2, i put it alongside the Bren gun carrier.GraemeLeggett 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to keep putting AC1 in front and inverted commas around the name Sentinel? None of the other tanks recieve this treatment, and most are just reffered to by name eg Comet, Centurion, Ram. It's already under Cruiser tanks, and has (Australia) right next to it making Australian Cruiser tank Mk1 a bit redunadant and the table inconsistant

BSA Scout
I wonder what is that "BSA scout". Is it a scout car prototype built by BSA which became Daimler Dingo ? If so, I don't think we need an "entry" (or an article) for it. Or is it something else ? Bukvoed 13:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the "BSA Scout" from the template. I failed to find any information about any such vehicle except the aforementioned prototype. Bukvoed 12:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Aromured cars issue once again
We have almost 30 British and Commonwealth armoured cars now (and there are still some omissions...). Some don't appear in this template yet (see Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2 ), but this long list of armoured cars in the middle of the template already does't look good, IMHO. And the template is already huge. May be it's the time to ask again: Is there room on this template for all these armoured cars ? Bukvoed 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stick to the major players and a link to a list of the minor ones? How does the German WW2 AFV template do it - it seems they had more uniform designs. hmmm. GraemeLeggett 16:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that the "Coventry" (too late) and "Beaverette" (homer defence) did not see service so could be choices for demotion.GraemeLeggett 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New version
I've created some new versions for this template with the main purpose of saving space. Any comments?

User:Raoulduke47/Template03

Raoulduke47 18:23, 12 December 2006 (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 00:08 z 

Deletion template
Pppery, I have removed the deletion banner from this template page as it incorrectly staes this template has been nominated for deletion. My reading of the instructions on WP:TFD and Template:Tfm is there is no specific banner to place on a template that others have been nominated to be merged into. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC).
 * I must have misread your (complicated) tfd nomination. There is a template for the merge target, and it it tfm (the same as all of the others it is merged into) &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Flags vs. symbols
Concerning the reverted replacement of the wingdings used as explanatory notes with flag icons: Respectfully, WP:TOOMANY does not apply here because the use of the flag icons is not redundant. There is a difference between using the flag icon as a gratuitous element, like in many infoboxes as explained in the guideline, and using it as a explanatory note, as here. Regardless, the symbols currently used cannot be kept. Per WP:EXPLNOTE, they should be replaced with an explanatory note template. So which shall it be? --Bsherr (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bsherr, my apologies if I have misinterpreted the policy. I feel the flags are a little distracting, but if the use of symbols (the ordering of which I drew from here) is inappropriate then it should again be amended.  Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC).