Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force/Archive 2

Subproject
Will tanks be declaring itself its own subproject of MILHIST? It will likely bring in more members than staying "independent" for lack of a better word. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  11:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Affirmative, sir. I'm not quite sure yet. Will be waiting for more community consensus and response. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 14:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

MY EYES
Change the color scheme before I go blind! Jesus Christ that's bright! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 14:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Tanks ad
Guys, I created an ad-banner for the WikiProject:

∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

user cat and ubxes
Hey fellow tankers, userbox or topicon templates are now available for your userpages to categorize you guys into the tanker category. G'day! It's optional, but I encourage it! Check 'em out at WP:TANKTEMPLATES ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 15:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagging template
I have created the tagging template (by borrowing code from MILHIST and modifying), and the categories to go with them. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  21:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice job! ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Book referencing formats
Any history of WWII British tanks will involve some of the major references on the subject, two of which, from one of the major authors, are:

These are widely cited, and frequently rather messily. To clean this up, last night I started by creating citation templates for them: I then proceeded with (so far) around 100 edits across a few dozen articles, mostly to make the cites linked to the refs. As Fletcher is a prolific author and sometimes has four different works cited in the same article, this linkage is valuable. Too many of these articles have cites of "Fletcher, p 99" and it is going to be an awkward job to finally sort them out. Matilda II tank and Valentine tank are some of the most awkward.
 * Book-Fletcher-Great Tank Scandal
 * Book-Fletcher-Universal Tank

These changes are already being reverted and edit-warred (Infantry tank). See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring   Other editor's opinions are welcomed on the question of how citations and references like this ought to be handled.

Depending on the result of this, I was thinking about doing something similar for the other major reference books, such as the Chamberlain & Ellis Encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, per what User:AustralianRupert said, you probably should've got consensus before reverting the edit, probably by using WP:RfC. The book cite templates were a good idea, actually. If you create the book cite template for the "Chamberlain & Ellis Encyclopedia", you should get consensus before implementing it onto articles. Best of luck and cheers,  ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 01:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't have a drama with them being created and used in general, but their use should not be imposed on an article if there isn't consensus for it on that article. The format is different to some citation styles that are used relatively frequently (and accepted as being good practice), and an article that was going for FAC or even A-class review would have to rectify the inconsistency for it to pass. That would essentially involve all citations using the template's style (if it were considered a requirement as opposed to being optional), ergo imposing a new citation style. That is contrary to citation variation policies, and would potentially create drama where the energy could be better focused on more important aspects of the articles (e.g. the actual content). Templates are meant to make life easier for editors and while yours certainly has that potential, imposing it on articles has the opposite effect. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to create a shortcut method, you should make a template based on the existing cite format and Subst that in as necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A subst: is not a template. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These aren't intended for use on Tanks in the Australian Army, that's an article which has already got its references pretty well sorted (although I don't know why you had to revert this to get rid of the authorlink to David Fletcher). If you think an article has already got to a state of working references without doing it efficiently, then by all means leave them out. The reason for doing all this work in the first place, and putting up with all the crap and IP trolling since (I hope that's not you again, Hengistmate)) is for articles like British armoured fighting vehicle production during World War II, Matilda I, Matilda II and Valentine tank, where the references are simply an unintelligible mess, but seemingly must be preserved against all change because someone likes it that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The revert to Tanks in the Australian Army was me . FWIW I've added the link to David Fletcher as it was not my intention to remove it, although I will say that I have a number of misgivings about this template being imposed on articles. Anotherclown (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The above does not allow for proper linking in the harv-cite method WP:SRF (Shortened FootNote template, sfn), which is the current preferred one in use. You need this style to work: For its simplest (and most common) usage, a citation uses three parameters, for example. The first two parameters (author surname and year) uniquely identify the source out of all of the sources used in the article. In the above example, the author's surname is Smith and the year the source was written is 1985. The last parameter identifies the location in the source, e.g. "p=484" means page 484. To indicate a page range, use something like "pp=50–57", and to indicate some other location in the source use something like "loc=Rear cover", "loc=foreword", or "loc=xxiv". If the source has more than one author, simply extend the second parameter with addition surnames, e.g. Here is another example for the end of a sentence.

Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it works perfectly with sfn. Use the default and you get a clear disambiguation (and a meaningful one, which is what these articles need) for the main two Fletchers.


 * It not only works like this, it was already documented on the template to explain this. The template is already set up to accept a ref parameter as a passthrough to Cite book, so you still have full control over any linkage you might want. harv doesn't work (it doesn't work for Cite book either) because both volumes were published in the same year, and so the identifiers would end up the same. If you want to distinguish them in a non-meaningful fashion, then use: ref




 * You can even use: ref if you insist on labelling them in the wrong order, with the wrong year, a sacred format so important that it seemingly justified edit-warring and abuse of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually one can make harv, in conjunction with sfn work, when two books are published in the same year as it has been done by noting that in the author's name box; but with that said, since it appears this another way will obtain the desired result and the discussion is in relation to these two works, then so be it. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So the solution to a bad article, with bad citations, is to never improve it, because all change is bad?  And if you want to disambiguate two references, the solution to that is to abuse the template parameters and put an invalid value in for the author name, screwing up any metadata?
 * I am tired of this. I am tired of sheer falsehoods being spouted by other editors: it is untrue that these templates " does not allow for proper linking in the harv-cite method" or that, "use of this template also creates a harv citation error" - especially not in an article that doesn't even cite it. If you don't like changes to one of your articles, then that's another matter, but nor does it excuse abusive 3RR edit-warring, or obvious sock-puppetry. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy, who are you talking to? I don't know who you are saying is "3RR edit-warring" with yourself or who is engaging in "sock-puppetry"; I was only concerned above with the general RS citing method to be used on this "special project". You guys cite the two works above, however consensus agrees to; I have better things to do with my limited time. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the original post here. I've already been 3RR-warred over this and then Special:Contributions/82.132.247.182 pops up just to join in. " better things to do with my limited time" is great, but do you not think I might have too? I put two or three hours into cleaning up a few dozen of these article the other night, and all I get for it is abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Raseiniai
Alright people, I need some help. I'm trying to get this article, Battle of Raseiniai, up to B-Class on the WikiProject MilHist, but I can't find any sources for a few citations. There's only like three of them, and you could probably find them in a book. Anyone who can help, please do! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, would this article fall under mid-importance or high-importance? The battle was key in preventing a Panzer division from reaching Leningrad in time to slash Soviet supply lines, which turned the tide of the battle to the favor of the USSR. I just wanted to consult the community before making any other changes in terms of importance. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Two articles which need work
Tanks of the interwar period and to a lesser extent Tanks in World War II both need copy edit and WP:RS citing work. I have done it as to both articles in relation to Japanese tanks, but it is the other sections which need review and work. Especially, the "interwar period" article which has been tagged since 2009. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks
I've propose the WikiProject to be merge with or from one of the WP:MILHIST task forces, WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. If you are intrested join the discussion here. Cheers! NgYShung huh? 15:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@NgYShung I believe WikiProject Tanks SHOULD merge with the Military land vehicles task force, which is a part of the Military history WikiProject, for the following reasons, 1) They both cover the same topic, 2) the Military land vehicles task force is a part of a bigger Wikiproject, and 3) the two projects could help each other out with some backlog problems. -JustAGuyOnWikipedia

I've removed the template on the front page of WP:Tanks, as no consensus was reached. I believe that because of this event, we should revert to the default. In this case, I believe the default would be to leave both projects alone. As the discussion was archived, there is no controversy about my decision because, as I have said, no consensus was reached. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Type 4/5
Keep this notice at the top. Do not remove it

Do not edit this article until further research can be done. Obviously, there are three possible reasons for this article's existence:

1: This vehicle existed, and the Japanese Government covered up the plans after WWII, therefore minimizing public knowledge (Most plausible explanation)

2: This article is based on a tank made up by Wargaming.net for a holiday or event (Ruled Out)

3: This article is simply a hoax about a rarely-questioned topic (least plausible explanation, IMO)

Stay tuned! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I know it seems like I'm making this into a big deal. It kind of is, because we've really just been sitting around like this WP is more of a 'club' than a 'WikiProject'. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This article just popped up on Japanese armor. I cannot find anything RS to confirm it. I revert one cited source as it is only a web-blog. Needs a closer look and I don't have time at the moment. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this tank actually existed, but it was two different types, Type 4 Heavy and Type 5 Heavy. The only place it's actually mentioned is the World of Tanks forum. I actually play the game WoT, and I've never seen that tank anywhere other than in the game, so perhaps the game made it up for a holiday or an event. They HAVE done it before, so it's a possible theory. Until then, refrain from nominating it for deletion. For all we know, it actually existed and the Japanese Government destroyed the documents before the war ended. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know WoT is not an RS source. I wanted to give notice of the article and requested another pair of eyes to review it, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't review it now (I'm at school, so the site is blocked). I could do it later tonight, around 6 though. It'll probably be done by then though. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey. Just to inform you, WoT doesn't make up tanks, they put them in the game with some basis of research done... Like the LTP tank, ya know? The game "tank-adders" visit many military museums around the world, then make a list of the tanks they haven't put in the game. For example, Spähpanzer SP I.C. or Spähpanzer Ru. ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 00:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure, and I just added it as a possibility. I play on WoT:Blitz, and sometimes they have promotions, like a camouflage design with the Steam logo. We can rule out the second possibility now, I guess. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I play that game too. I did some research into the game's internal "protocols"... ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 22:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Type 4/5  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Activity
Guys, we need to be more active. If we don't start showing some activity, we could fail before we even get off the ground. No, but in all seriousness, this WikiProject won't take off unless we start showing some more activity! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , Hey, is anyone there?? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm here. One thing that could be done is adding photos to tank articles and looking to see what more rare models don't have articles. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forwards to improvements. By any chance does anyone know if the subject of Flakpanzer is in the scope of WikiProject Tanks?. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FW, yes it would be so. Kierzek (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I suppose so. After all it is an AA Tank. I.e., after all it is a arty vehicle having a hull of a Panzer tank mounting a flak gun! ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 13:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite right. We need more awareness about this WikiProject. Anybody got suggestions to gain more members? ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 13:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyways, like I wrote on my userpage, I am quite inactive now, but I plan to get active soon. School break is coming, going to have more time. ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 13:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even I have school! Though I am already so old... ya know, training and learning to work... Will start being more active in about a week or so. ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 13:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Tank battles
Guys, I need help in the code of Template:Tank battles; can't get the " " to work. ∞ Target360YT ∞ ( talk · contribs ) 14:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Photos of Japanese tanks
Chris.w.braun has been good about adding photos for articles as to Japanese tanks, etc. Some articles that still need photos (or drawings) are (I will list only the tanks): Type 98 Chi-Ho, Type 5 To-Ku, Ho-Ri II - paper/design variant under the Type 5 Chi-Ri article and a photo for the article Type 98 20 mm AAG Tank, of the prior single gun prototype which was designated the Type 98 Ta-Se. Taki's Imperial Japanese Army Page has photos of two of the above and they are public domain according to article 23 of old copyright law of Japan (English translation) and article 2 of supplemental provision of copyright law of Japan. I would do it myself but at this time don't have experience in the upload process. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I now know how to do it, so I will take care of these photos myself. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

DEFA D921 gun - rifled or smoothbore?
The Panhard AML article claims (unsourced, naturally) that this is rifled. Yet it fires fin-stabilised rounds and all visible sources describe it as a smoothbore. This misunderstanding is now appearing in tank gun. Can we sort it out properly? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * AFV Profile 39 Panhard Armoured Cars refers to AML H.90 turret with 90mm smoothbore gun. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A source has been added to support "rifled", but the cited page doesn't seem to mention it, one way or the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, as I added this information to the Panhard AML article I feel somewhat responsible for the confusion, so here's my two cents.


 * The gun is indeed nearly smoothbore, but possesses shallow rifling. It's a somewhat odd design that doesn't fall into the category of conventional smoothbore or rifled tank cannon. Page 71 of Technology of Tanks, Volume One (1991, Macdonald and Jane's Publishers Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7106-0595-5) states, "The guns produced in France by EFAB have also had a calibre of 90mm, like their Mecar forerunner, and shallow splines with a very slow twist to impart a low rate of spin to the projectiles, sufficient only to reduce the effect of any minor asymmetries." -- Katan gais (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the AMX-30 source. That's starting to make it clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Armored cars
I thought y'all just covered (full-)tracked vehicles? So why am I seeing your banner added to armored car articles that I've watchlisted?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also including armored cars with heavy weapon attachments, as they are very close to tanks in many ways. This is the most obscure topic that we will be covering, which means no regular armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc.,. I hope this cleared things up! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, but the OA vz. 30, forex, only had MGs for armament. Heavy weapons, IMO, should only include 25 mm and up, as 20 mm was pretty common.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it. I was going through List of interwar armoured fighting vehicles and was rapidly adding the templates. A few of those will probably pop up, so I'll look through it. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the others, but in the case of Type 92 Heavy Armoured Car, it was really a tankette or "cavalry tank". Tankettes' should be included. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tankettes are already included UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just making a point; btw, please put the template on the rest of the Japanese Tank and Gun tank articles when you can. Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of doing that, so almost all tank and SPG related articles should be completed with templates by January 2017 (don't quote me on that, but that's what I estimate.) UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Iazyges
I thought Iazyges left the Project? How is he a coordinator? I'm not trying to edge him out, I just thought he left last week. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, I resigned as coordinator of this project a few days ago. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. Are you still a member of the Project? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 15:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Milhist March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello everyone. I am a coordinator at the MilHist project, and I heard of this project very recently. It seems to me that this project almost entirely overlaps with a task force we have at MilHist: the Military land vehicles task force. I am aware that a failed merger proposal was made soon after this project was founded. However, I would point out that there have been subsequent developments. Since its founding about a year ago, the project has only attained a membership of nine, and the February coordinator elections failed to garner any participation whatsoever. The lead coordinator has also not edited since February.

So with all due respect, I ask the members of this project to once again consider a merger with MilHist's Military land vehicles task force. True improvement is prevented when efforts are divided; by being unified in pursuit of the projects' common purposes, we can meaningfully improve the relevant articles.

If the members of this project agree to a merger, their membership could be automatically transferred to the task force. Excluding duplicates, such a merger would increase the task force's membership by almost 30%. If requested, I could also talk with the other MilHist coordinators about the possibility of special accommodations, such as a greater degree of autonomy for the task force.

Pinging all the members of this project:, , , , , , , , and. I thank everyone for their input. Biblio (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. P.S. I think renaming "Military land vehicles task force" to "Armoured warfare" would also increase scope and participation. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And then what happens to all the non-armoured military vehicles. Do all the trucks, jeeps that make the logistics and haul the guns that drive combat end up friendless and unloved? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with GraemeLeggett, let's keep the TF name as is, has broader scope. DPdH (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support a merger with the Military land vehicles task force, especially since this project also covers an assortment of armored cars and other gun-armed vehicles which are not tanks.-- Katan gais (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the merge, providing that any useful components of this WP are salvaged and included in the mentioned TF. E.g.: tank portal, discussion page, templates, some awards, some userboxes. It could even be converted to a special TF like "Majestic Titan". Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that that is a good idea. Renaming it "Armored Warfare" would refer to almost all military fighting vehicles. Great idea! American474 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you'd have to spell it right though. You missed a 'u' out of the name.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the widespread support for a merger. Based on the discussion above, here is my preliminary proposal: I am also interested in DPdH's special project suggestion. Iazyges tried to create an Operation Tanks special project last year, but it never really garnered much participation. Nonetheless, if there is a consensus at MilHist, it is perhaps possible that we could convert the broader MLV task force into a special project.
 * The Military land vehicles task force will retain its name; as Graeme pointed out, not all military vehicles are armored.
 * The members of this project will have their membership automatically transferred to the MLV task force.
 * The unique, operational components of this project (such as its discussion page, portal, some templates, awards, and notability guide) will be integrated into the task force where possible.

I will notify the other coordinators of this discussion so we can start working out the details.

Once again, pinging all interested parties:, , , , , , , , , , and. Biblio (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Biblio's proposal as summarized above. Hope that the special project is endorsed, and that the userbox can be an improved version of the current for "Tanks". Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just checked the special project's page, and to me its scope fully aligns with this WP's, which BTW seems to have started also in 2016. Please go ahead witn the merge, especially into the special project. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support the merger under those terms, and furthermore recommend that all this project's banners be removed from non-tank related articles (armored cars and light gun carriers, etc) and replaced with the standard MLV template. -- Katan gais (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good with the merger proposal. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. I think we should merge the project into the MLV task force first, and then discuss the possibility of converting it into a special project. Special projects are major commitments that must be thoroughly planned.
 * I will allow a few more days for any further comments. If there are no outright objections by next weekend, I will proceed with the merger. Biblio (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no objections, so I will begin the merger. Biblio (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)