Wikipedia

Talk:General Motors LAV

(Redirected from Talk:LAV (armoured vehicle))
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Natg 19 in topic Requested move 17 February 2024
Learn more about this page

LAV III Crew

edit

Reverted 205.206.153.235's edit to an earlier one and left the following message on his/her talk page:

The LAV III article you edited refers to the vehicle used by the Canadian and New Zealand militaries. As such, the information regarding "7 troops" was taken directly from (and referenced to) the Canadian National Defence website, which I invite you to verify. Upon verification, you will notice that the crew is indeed made up of a vehicle commander, a gunner, a driver, and 7 infantry soldiers — not 8. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of the name 'Kodiak'

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've yet to find an official source referring to this vehicle as 'Kodiak'. The name was proposed, but never adopted. I'm removing references to 'Kodiak' until an official source is cited that describes it as such (DnD, other government sources etc.) - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was adopted, at least insofar as was published in all materials presented to the public when adopted. I'm honestly not sure why the name was dropped as it was convention to name all military combat vehicles since they were first introduced over a century ago (i.e the LAV II is still called the Bison, vehicles introduced after the LAV III were named such as the Wolf. And even variants of the LAV III were named such as the LAV III Nanook. trackratte (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for Merger with NZLAV

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus here seems to be to merge the NZLAV article into LAV III. No major differences in the vehicles stated. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

See: NZLAV

Articles describe the same vehicle. There are no significant differences between the Canadian and New Zealand versions of the LAV III. Unique elements on the New Zealand page can be incorporated into a section for LAV III in NZ service on the LAV III page. - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That seems sensible. It would be possible to write a full article on the NZLAV as their procurement was controversial and sparked a government inquiry, but that could always be split out if anyone ever writes this. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. While the articles are related, there is actually very little overlap. Readers interested in the LAV III are very unlikely to care how many NZLAV are sent to which NZ regiment.
A merge is a serious disservice to anyone who wants to have NZLAV on their watchlist, but not LAV II, or vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
As it stands now, half the background and all of the technical information on the NZLAV page is a duplicate of the information on the LAV III page. The only unique pieces information on the NZLAV page are the distribution among NZ military units, and variants in use, so it is, in fact, mostly overlap. All of this information could be easily incorporated into the LAV III article under a separate section for New Zealand. It isn't a unique vehicle, it doesn't have a unique production history, and most other military equipment articles don't have a separate page for international users simply because that country chose a different name for it. It's a needless duplication of effort. Anyone who actually has NZLAV on their watchlist has had ample time to reply to the proposal merger notice, and the NZLAV links will simply redirect to LAV III, so no one will be missing out on information. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Agree. As it stands, I don’t see why it can’t be a section on the LAV III. If there is some substantial information on its purchase (a controversy) then it might warrant its own article. But not as it currently stands. Chwyatt (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Disagree. I am a New Zealander This page belongs as separate and specific to New Zealand. NZ has a serious transport issue and an armour issue. Due to available limitation of funds, time of aquisition, limited use to date and inability of some government members to forsee there could be a need in the future, politics-always politics, and distance from anywhere else. The Nz Lav is up for change and specifying to this countries unique usage requirements. Further more the page is strikingly shallow in information and this will change. There arn't many of us- i know the other four million by first name- so it will take some time for information to be lodged but it will come. Leave our page alone. To use a New Zealand colloquialism Bugger Off!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.202 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think nationalism is a valid reason for the page to exist separately. The page has existed for over three years now, and the only unique information on the page are the variants, and distribution. If and when there is enough information to distinguish the NZLAV from the LAV III, then it should have it's own page, not before, and not on the hope that 'there will be more'. The NZLAV is just a LAV III by another name... it's like making the argument that there should be a page for every international user of the Centurion, or M60, or M113. - Jonathon A H (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
"it's like making the argument that there should be a page for every international user of the Centurion, or M60, or M113" Good point Jonathon. Seems to me like this discussion is resolved. Every uniquely NZ point can easily be incorporated into a main LAV article. Chwyatt (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. These IFV aren`t the same vehicle, the specifications on all of them are significally different, don't merge these; because the canadian variant is totally different of tne newzealandese version.   Pliniochaaaaaaaaaaan!!! (Discussion) 16:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LAV II Bison Accuracy - Use in Africa

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have three minor issues with the factual accuracy of the article, one of which I doubt can be fixed. Unfortunately this requires an explanation likely as long the article. Please accept my apologies in advance for the great detail I need to go into over admittedly minor factual inaccuracies. The inaccuracies are in reference to these two sentences in the article and the associated photo.

“One of the vehicles was destroyed by a rocket-propelled grenade.[14] A second vehicle was damaged when it rammed a more heavily armed, but unarmored Technical vehicle.” First inaccuracy

The Photo titled “Canadian AVGP Grizzly destroyed by an RPG in Darfur” is not a photo of the AVGP claimed to be destroyed by the RPG. The Photo is actually a picture of the AVGP claimed to be “damaged when it rammed a more heavily armed, but unarmored Technical vehicle.” In fact you can see the Technical vehicle crushed underneath the AVGP in the photo. That should be an easy fix by renaming the photo or using different one.

This of course leads to the next inaccuracy, that being that the AVGP in the photo was actually destroyed not just “damaged” as the article claims. The source [14] does not state that the APC that rammed the technical was damaged; only that it rammed it. It certainly could be assumed that some damage occurred because of the collision; however I do know for a fact that the APC involved in the ramming (pictured) was in fact destroyed not damaged. Again this is supported by the picture. More accurately, the AVGP rammed a Rebel technical vehicle, but was unable to separate itself from the wreckage and was destroyed in the resulting fire.

The third inaccuracy I am less certain of. I suspect that the statement about the RPG may be inaccurate. I do not doubt that the APC was struck with an RPG, I am actually quite certain it was, however I believe the APC was not destroyed by the RPG, but by having been “burned in place” by the belligerent forces during the raid. However there were a lot of incidents and not all may have reported accurately and some reports may have been “merged” so I can’t be certain. Unlike the second inaccuracy above the source used clearly states that it was destroyed by an RPG so without another source not much we can do.

That being said if anyone does have the time and the access to sources here is the basis of my suspicion. I have nothing to go on other then verbal reports that the APC was not manned, but was hit with an RPG, and then burned in place. My suspicion that the RPG was not the cause of its destruction is based on an unrelated RPG strike on another Grizzly in 2006 crewed by a driver and gunner that resulted in no casualties. The Grizzly was still fully functional after the strike i.e. able to move and fight.

I do apologize for not editing the page myself. Although I have never edited a page I would have taken a crack at it was it not for my complete lack of verifiable sources. I am hoping some editors may have access to other more detailed sources that could be use to verify my claims. I have searched the web but was unable to turn up anything that specific and not being an academic with access to military journals I don’t have anything else I can do. I fully realize that what I “know” or “believe” are irrelevant without sources.

Thanks and sorry for all the fuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.248 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Operators

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is listed here that Saudi Arabia will get 900 modified LAV-III vehicles (called LAV6.0). None of the references state that these 900 vehicles are modified LAV-III. In fact, they are not LAV-III/Piranha III chassis at all, and are not called LAV6.0.

However, the Canadian army has purchased 550 LAV6.0 vehicles (as discussed, but not named in paragraph two of the 'Future' section). These are not the same vehicle/chassis that is being delivered to Saudi Arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.4.43 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

LAV VI vs LAV 6.0

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have worked extensively on the LAV Upgrade program. I have never seen the use of "LAV VI". The only terminology I have ever seen is LAV 6.0. In fact, the vehicles themselves have "LAV 6.0" markings. See marketing brochure from GDLS-C http://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-6.0.html I have gone ahead and change this article to use the proper name. -unsigned comment

I think we are confusing marketing brochures with military naming conventions. The manufacturer switched from numerals to "software development" language (ie 6.0) for marketing purposes to appear more "cutting edge", so how the company markets the vehicle externally and refers to it internally doesn't change the fact that military naming conventions for vehicles and equipment is to use numerals (i.e LAV II, Sherman V mk II, etc) and always has been. I mean, it's in the title of the article (LAV III). Look at all of the other vehicles in the same family in the CA for example, LAV I Cougar, LAV II Coyote, LAV III Kodiak (initially, name was dropped in common usage for some reason), and now the LAV VI. Even look at something like the Spitfire article, whose variants are listed as Mark I through XVI. As a result, the proper designation as a military vehicle is LAV VI, regardless of how the manufacturer markets it.
You can also see the following with reference links:
  • CBC: "engineering tests are being conducted on the mammoth LAV VI", "General Dynamics Land Systems to support testing of the LAV VI".[1]
  • ADGA case study: "With the upgrade to the LAV VI, the Canadian Army committed...", "The LAV VI and its predecessor, the LAV III, are the mechanized backbone of the Canadian Forces on land" [2]
  • Standing Senate Committee on National Finance: "Did I understand that the LAV VI is a new vehicle, or is it a LAV III that's just been reworked?" [3]
You're right though in the sense that the manufacturer's marketing terminology has caused a huge amount of confusion for this vehicle name, as even internally in the Canadian Army they were just putting manufacturer's marketing posters on the walls, and using the manufactuer's language in official documents during the procurement process, so now the LAV VI is the first vehicle since forever really that you see this "6.0" type numbering cropping up. It is still wrong in the sense that the military's naming conventions for vehicles, aircraft, etc is to use roman numerals. trackratte (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're basing this entirely on speculation. All sources cited use 6.0. I'll be happy to switch to VI where applicaable (if you find a source designating them as LAV VI for the Canadian Armed Forces, then the CAF variants can be renamed as such) if/when there's a given source. Until then it should be left as described in the given sources. Jonathon A H (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
What are you going on about? I just put three sources above! Including from Parliament. And as can be plainly seen, all vehicles in the Army use numerals not software development nomenclature, clearly. Further, look at the title of this article! Common sense in conjunction with the above cited sources makes it abundantly clear what the convention is. trackratte (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
And none of them in the actual article. That's what matters, not the talk page. Jonathon A H (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
How Wikipedia generally works is that if you make a change (as you did), and it gets undone (as it was), then you discuss at the talk page to avoid edit warring. The onus is on the person making the change (ie you). So I include the references here for discussion/proof, and have avoided restoring the status quo to avoid edit warring. So it's not entirely relevant at this time if the references are in the article, the point is that they exist, so pretending that they don't because they haven't been added to the article yet is counter productive.
So, the naming convention (numerals) is abundantly clear, there are references, and the title of the article also further underlines the convention. Now I will restore the long standing use of numerals in the article, and can add references if the consensus is that they are required in the article. Generally speaking, they aren't required for something as simple and normally not subject to debate but that's fine.
I can always add a note with the above referenced plus a reference from GDLS website explaining the situation, which is within the Army it is LAV VI, however, the manufacturer markets the vehicle as the LAV 6.0 ("LAV six point O). That way it's rendered clear, supported by references, and is an accurate account of the reality suitable for encyclopaedic entry. Satisfactory? trackratte (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

History of the LAV series

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just gone through and cleaned up all of the LAV articles regarding the design history. As per this page[1], the LAV I (LAV-25) was an in-house upgrade from the AVGP project. From that point forward, all fo the GM Defense (now GDLS) designs were internally developed. While similar to the MOWAG concepts, they used all North American sourced systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codesmith (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ http://tanknutdave.com/the-wheeled-piranha-a-lav-family/

Reduced Saudi Order

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.janes.com/article/82959/saudi-arabia-reportedly-cuts-lav-order

Kind of big news, would someone add this to the article? Jurryaany (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merging GLDS-C LAV Pages

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

As the LAV VI is more than simply another variant of the LAV III (it sits closer to a completely new design given the substantial changes to the hull, engine, and suspension), I think it makes sense that a separate section/sub-section in or after the Variants section should be added detailing the LAV VI. It also makes sense to migrate the information contained in the Development section on the LAV VI to the new section. Burnsnet27 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is an area that has been bugging me for awhile, as the family of vehicles as progressed and been upgraded over the years (like the LAV III to LAV VI) but was spread out over a number of different articles without any clear linkages using different naming conventions. So, I've just been bold and added the separate section you've asked for (that will have to be properly added to to fill it out) as well as adding sections for all the other generations as well (so the same logic applies for LAV III and LAV VI as for LAV I and LAV II). trackratte (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
While I'd like to thank you for adding the separate LAV VI section, I don't agree with your decision to merge all GDLS-C armoured fighting vehicle articles into a single page. While the AVGP, LAV II, LAV III, and LAV VI all share a common manufacturer and design base, there are so many substantive differences between the vehicles that creating one page for them is inefficient for both readers and editors (and their differences in naming conventions is sometimes factual: I can find no sources that say the AVGP family was called the 'LAV I,' see here, here, here, and here.). I'd like to suggest that you revert the merger, but keep the LAV (Canada) page as a 'family tree' page similar to the MOWAG Piranha page. That being said, each of the reverted pages should include more clear connections between each other as you originally suggested. And the Coyote/Bison should have a common page under the title LAV II, given the substantive differences between the systems are limited. Burnsnet27 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
UPDATE: I've reverted deletion of the AVGP, Coyote, Bison, and LAV III pages and added the Wikipedia:MERGEPROP template to each one to encourage discussion on the merger Burnsnet27 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
LAV I was based in the Piranha I (as in the Piranha article you linked above). Also, this site seems to have a detailed history and refers to it as the LAV I [4]. Obviously the LAV I was never called that in the CA as it was just an Armd vehicle. It was only after the LAV II and LAV III did it begin to be referred to as the LAV I. There's also [this article http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/mdn-dnd/D12-11-17-3-eng.pdf].
As for the rest, there is a significant difference between the LAV I and all the later versions, but the LAV II, III, and VI are very much mark numbers of the same basic vehicle (an average reader/person would be very hard pressed to distinguish them in a photo for example). And the LAV VI program and acquisition process was called the LAV UP(grade) and so was not conceived or procured as a new vehicle.
We could keep separate articles, but I really only think the LAV III article would warrant it as all of the rest are essentially just stubs as they are now in their own. In this way you could merge all of them into the parent LAV article, but for the LAV III pare it down on the parent article and have a "for more detail refer to the LAV III article.
As it stands now, we have a whole bunch of small articles that repeat word for word what's in the parent article. trackratte (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
While the AVGP was based on the Piranha I 6x6, all successor models were developed separately by GM Defense/GDLS-C with only minimal cross-over with the other Piranha series vehicles (the exception is the LAV III, which as I understand drew some features from the Piranha IIIC/IIIH models; yet it was still a separate design).
As for the LAV I designation, I would point to your argument vis-a-vis the LAV 6.0/LAV VI: as that designation was applied retroactively and not used by the Canadian military while the vehicle was in service, it stands to reason that AVGP is the more logical name to use, as it is more easily identifiable for readers due to it being far more common. That being said, the retroactive designation change should be noted on the main AVGP page, and I do think it could be listed in this article on the LAV family.
As for the proposed merger, I still believe there should be separate articles for the AVGP, the LAV II Coyote/Bison, and the LAV III. While each of those articles are not particularly lengthy, they are definitely not stubs; each represents a factually different vehicle and so deserve their own pages. As for the LAV VI, while it was an 'upgrade program,' in practice it involved a massive change to the vehicles underlying design (literally everything but the turret was replaced with a different design), and gave birth to its own derivative vehicle, the Saudi LAV 700.
And yes, while the separate pages for each vehicle and this page are repetitive, it gives other editors a chance to compare the formats and provide their own feedback on the merger. Alternatively, I'm willing to re-designing this page into a true LAV family (Canada) page that provides more specific information on their relationship while removing the redundancies, which would end the need for the merger. Burnsnet27 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
All good stuff. I think at its root this discussion comes down to a bit of an Occam's razor in "when is a vehicle a variant and when is it a completely different vehicle?". Is a vehicle that has different dimensions, features, powerpack, main armement, etc an unrelated vehicle? Well obviously it depends, and it's "family lineage" might matter more than its specific characteristics.
To use an example already thoroughly established here, the M4 Sherman is a good one in that it includes the entire family of M4 Shermans, even though as you clearly see in the Infobox, different marks had different vehicle dimensions, five or six different engines, many different types of armaments, different features, and different variants such as flamethrowers, engineer vehicles, flail, etc.
In my mind the LAV should be treated in a similar way for ease of "one stop shopping' for readers and editors on this particular vehicle, including all of its Marks and different variants.
The only time I would see a logical need for a separate article is if a given Mark had way too much content so to reduce article length one might think it reasonable to carve a portion out to a more detailed stand-alone article. The only Mark number I could see meeting this requirement is possibly the Mk III.
As for the LAV II Bison and the LAV II Coyote, if they were to have a separate article absolutely they should be merged, as they are quite definitely not two separate topics, they are literally the same vehicle in every way (and same Mk #) save for one has a turret on top and one has a raised deck instead. trackratte (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, the "when is a vehicle a variant or a separate vehicle" really is the heart of this issue. I definitely think that this page is the right place for the 'family lineage' info, but I still think it makes sense to keep separate articles for each vehicle.
While I see what you mean with the Sherman (and frankly, a lot of other armoured vehicles), I don't believe that applies in this case because of one thing: time. Variants of a distinct vehicle tend to be created in a limited time-frame during/after the vehicle's initial development, while successor vehicle's normally emerge decades later. In this case, the LAV family vehicles are really a series of successor models, as all were developed at least a decade after their predecessors. After all, the most common Sherman variants were all developed and produced between 1941 and 1945, while the various vehicles of the LAV family have been produced from 1976 to present.
Also, the issue of article length is pretty significant for this merger, as this article is IMO incredibly long and disconnected at the moment, and would probably remain so if the full merger occurs. That would definitely negatively impact readability and editing.
In terms of the Bison/Coyote merger, I've started a draft article at Draft:LAV II that I think solves that issue. I've also gone through and updated the info in the article so it's more comprehensive, accurate, and better cited (as the existing articles are not of a high quality). Once it's done, I think we can push ahead with merging the Bison & Coyote articles using the content from the draft (unless someone objects to the merger). Burnsnet27 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perfect. I would suggest starting with paring down the LAV III article first and amending the LAV famiy (parent) accordingly. Then we could make the LAV article flow better all see what we have in terms of length and if we even need to break out something like the LAV II or I into it's own article. What I'd like to avoid is making the parent article essentially nothing but a list (ie have it to be a useful and substantial one-stop shop with readers only needing to go into a separate article to get a "deep dive" on that specific mark). Currently as I've said, all of them except for maybe the LAV III are very superficial but that may change.

As for LAV I, I think it's also worthwhile mentioning that AVGP was the vehicle program that produced the Cougar and the Husky. After a LAV II came in, the LAV obviously picked up the "I" mark number. I.e the Canadian Army Journal article usage. This in the same way as the LAV UP program produced the LAV VI. Certainly pedantic maybe, but it also has the benefit of jiving with the rest of the vehicles in the family and we have sources supporting it. trackratte (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I'll start editing the LAV III article in the next while. And I agree that the AVGP article should clearly mention its retroactive re-designation as the LAV I and its relationship with the LAV family, so I've added that based on the sources you mentioned earlier.
I've also gone ahead and removed the Merge Proposal headers from the various articles involved. As for the Coyote/Bison merger, I'm continuing to prep the page for it at Draft: LAV II, and once it's done I think it makes sense to go through with that merger alone (provided there aren't any objections from other editors). Burnsnet27 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 22 February 2022

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested move request. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

LAV (armoured vehicle) → General Motors LAV – Needs to be disambiguated with the Cadillac Gage LAV-300 and LAV-600, as well as the general class sometimes called the light armored vehicle. WP:AIR/NC and WP:AUTO/NC advise using make/model to disambiguate. Schierbecker (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • The usual practice is to use the make of the OG manufacturer. GM Defense (originally GM Diesel) wasn't bought by General Dynamics until 2003, so it was a GM product for almost 30 years. At least, I think. It's hard to keep track of all the mergers and acquisitions in defense. Schierbecker (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Note: WikiProject Canada has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 February 2024

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago18 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving to proposed target. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

General Motors LAV → LAV (armoured vehicle) – Undo this poorly attended RM from 2022. General Motors LAV is a poor title - the LAV was originally built by GMD, not GM, and has been built by General Dynamics for the last 20 years. I'm also unaware of any reliable sources that refer to this vehicle as "General Motors LAV". No objection to LAV (Canadian armoured vehicle) to address the OP's ambiguity concerns. 162 etc. (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

General Motors Diesel LAV?.Schierbecker (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

LAV series, LAV development ? e.g. BMP development. (Hohum @) 16:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
How are they any better than the proposed disambiguation? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
LAV is unavailable since it's a disambiguation page and taking it would require evidence that this vehicle is the primary. LAV (armoured vehicle) has issues per elsepost in this thread. General Motors LAV is a problem because of multiple manufacturers. LAV series and LAV development actually describe the page for what it is. (Hohum @) 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but LAV series and LAV development don't narrow it down at all. They look like generic pages on the development of armoured cars! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll note that my original request offered LAV (Canadian armoured vehicle) as an alternative - @Necrothesp: Would this not address your ambiguity concerns? 162 etc. (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not really. It's not the only LAV ever used by Canada. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
But this family of vehicles is the only one with the WP:COMMONNAME "LAV". 162 etc. (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apart from:
(Hohum @) 19:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, LAV (Canadian armoured vehicle) would be unambiguous with all of the above. 162 etc. (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it wouldn't, because any LAV (i.e. armoured car) used by Canada could be described as a Canadian LAV! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Motors_LAV&oldid=1214770507"