Template talk:WWI tanks

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 

a notice
the article for the Holt Three Wheeled Steam and the Holt Steam Wheel describes the exact same armored fighting vehicle (AFV) but with a different name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.210.237 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Reduced scope
and 85.72.100.111, I have given this sidebar a good pruning as it had become too large and unwieldy and I believe now no longer assisted in navigation. In a nutshell I: I think there is scope to include tanks that achieved production status but not service. My intent now is to create national WWI AFV navboxes (if sufficient articles exist), much like we have for WWII. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC).
 * changed the header to “WWI tanks”
 * included only tanks that saw service in the war
 * I didn't see this until just now. After I left a message on your talk page. There are some vwhicles tht didn't see service directly but are important to the subject or the different approaches taken "Little Willie" or the Steam Tank for instance, GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, as I have said above let’s add them in. Currently this template fails almost all of the guidance at WP:NAVBOX. For now can we at least agree to amend the header and reduce the scope to tanks only? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC).
 * I have just made a start on the first national AFV navbox, Template:WWI British AFVs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC).
 * & 85.72.100.111, what are your thoughts on the suggestion above to amend the header of this template and reduce the scope to tanks only? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Having thought on it there are two approaches. One is a template with tanks only; now given the multiplicity of oddballs and experimentals and that "tank" hasn't settled down to means turret-and-tracks yet could still be large (compare with Template:WWIIBritishAFVs. The other is multiple templates working together; a template for WWI tanks that saw service, and one for the experiments etc. But either pair them together within an envelope of another template, or stack them one after another on WWI 'tank' articles (my preferred location for the navbox is the bottom of the article rather than tucked under the infobox).
 * To that end, I would expect something like template:WWI_tanks (but 'tank' would include the Mark IX and the Gun Carrier, and template:WWI_tank_prototypes which would include Killen-Strait, Flying Elephant (because it has an article), Little Willie (perhaps link framed as "No. 1 Lincoln Machine / Little Willie"
 * A brief discourse on naming, unless the common name includes the manufacturer eg "CLB 75", I would leave it off the link for brevity as much as anything GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Whilst in my previous edit I reduced inclusion to just those that saw service, as I have have said above I think there is scope to include experimentals, but the caveat must be that they were actually produced, not just a design. I’m unconvinced by the idea of multiple templates.
 * My personal preference for “tank only” and “variants” templates in this series is they are used as collapsible sidebars immediately below the infobox, with the national navbox(es) at the bottom of the page.
 * A good start would be removing all armoured cars, artillery tractors etc, as currently this template is a strong candidate for deletion.
 * Can we agree to the last? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Suggested template
, right is my suggested list for a reduced scope template, I have included everything that was actually produced during the war. What are your thoughts? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC).


 * First thoughts, don't use "tankette" as it's anachronistic term and hard to nail down. By comparison the Matilda I has same layout as Renault FT but isn't generally called a tankette. Also "Sturmpanzerwagen" generally not used, just A7V. British Medium Mark C prototype finished before end of war, contemparaneous with Medium B. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with all, amendments made. I think we should make the change then add / amend as required. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC).


 * Suggest first duplicating the current content to a "Other WWI AFV" template, then stripping out those elements that are in your suggested form. The second template can then be swapped out for the current calls of this template from articles which aren't on it. As that will means no "loss of content" considered as a totality, this should keep the IP editor onside and avoid a revert battle. As an aside, the edited template seems to cure a strange glitch which means for me that the template preview hangs half off the right hand side of the browser window; I guess that a strange format or character in one of the other links causes it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t agree with the idea of an “Other WWI AFV” template, it serves no practical purpose, it would remain far too big for a navbox as well as being full of redlinks, and it does not fit within the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. I would support the creation of a list page instead, properly cited of course.
 * The template hangs over the side of my browser also, I think it is the German SP Arty. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC).
 * The initial creation of a separate template would be followed by pruning and trimming of that template, but having it as a separate template would move the drama away from this template. Alternatively hive off the armoured cars and truck bodies to a template as most of those are bluelinks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I've drafted a navbox for US vehicles of the period. Redlinks, and the nebulous defintion of 'tank' for the period make getting the groups right tricky. But it's a start. Template:US_WWI_Vehicles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good, but be aware WP:EXISTING advises to avoid redlinks, whilst all national weapons navboxes I am aware of are not sidebars.
 * Re your suggestion about an “othe WWI AFVs” template, I appreciate your intent, but it is creating a navbox just to appease a single editor’s ego, and it will mean the inevitable confrontation happens there. Additionally, a such a navbox is not a “well-defined group of articles” that “relate[s] to a single, coherent subject”. I still think a list page, a link to which can be included within this navbox, meets the guidelines, whilst the creation of national navboxes should also help. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Wasn't suggesting another sidebar navbox (except for specific instances like campaign boxes, I'm not for putting links below infoboxes), it would be for bottom of articles.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have cut all of the vehicles currently within the template into a draft list, Draft:List of armoured fighting vehicles of the First World War, it could do with some images and currently nothing is cited, but I believe this should keep the IP busy ensuring it meets verifiably requirements. Thoughts? Kind regards Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

They are already deep into List_of_combat_vehicles_of_World_War_I but there's room for a list that groups by type. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, I was blissfully unaware of that page, I personally don’t see any need for my duplicated list also so will request it be deleted. Given List of combat vehicles of World War I exists, I see no impediment to reducing the scope of this template immediately. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Give it a go, then. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Holt G9 tank
The Holt G9 seems from picture to have tracks, an armoured bodywork and small turret. Shouldn't it be under 'tanks'. I see some discussion here of their exact configuration but no published sources mentionedLandships forum. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)