Talk:Mobile Protected Firepower

Scope of the article

Is this article about the program or the GDLS entry? My desire would be that when MPF is type classified, the article moves to that title (e.g. "[Model number]-[Person it is named after]"). Not enough can be verified about the other competitors tanks to justify splitting the article. We already have articles about the M8 Armored Gun System, Hunter AFV and General Dynamics Griffin. (tagging: User:Fnlayson.) Schierbecker (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• This looks like an article for the Mobile Protected Firepower competition and acquisition program. I've been expecting a seperate tank article for GDLS Griffin II light tank (probably under its military designation when it gets one). However, this article is not that long and it could serve as the background for the new light tank. We have these things both ways at WP:Aircraft where I'm mainly involved. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd rather start with one article and split if it gets too lengthy. It's a pain to unmerge a messy split if consensus changes (currently going through this with the AGS and several other articles I wrote). MPF could still be canceled and someone would have to go to the trouble of undoing the divorce. Schierbecker (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

M10 Booker

since the MPF has officially been designated the M10 Booker, maybe we should change the name of the article as well TwinCaves174 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This needs an RM discussion, as General Dynamics Griffin was recently moved to M10 Booker, and then moved back. Alternatively, a new article could be created, and leave this one to cover the competition itself. All these options have merits, and in my opinion should receive proper discussion before a move is made. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I will start an RM later tonight. Schierbecker (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Following. Thanks, Schierbecker. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2023

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: no consensus. A split can be discussed separately (or just do it, seems to have implict support). (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Mobile Protected Firepower → M10 Booker – As announced today by the the U.S. Army, the production XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower will now be known as the M10 Booker. One article encompassing the MPF acquisition program, winner selection and production is all that is needed. When I first started writing about the M8 Armored Gun System (now a very readable 6000 word A-class article), I had written two articles: one titled Armored Gun System, another titled M8 Armored Gun System. I later retitled and expanded the scope of the former to encompass many Army efforts, including MPF, to replace the Sheridan. I propose very much the same solution for MPF. M10 Booker (formerly MPF) should mostly focus on the development of the GDLS model. M551 Sheridan replacement process should incorporate more information from the current MPF article. Side note: I found some very interesting mostly forgotten technical descriptions of a lightweight Abrams tank designed by GDLS c. 1997 in the Philip W. Lett collection at Auburn. GDLS's interest in light tanks goes back even further to its collaboration with Teledyne for the AGS (I found lots information about this proposal too).

Whatever course of action is chosen, I will help put it into practice. Schierbecker (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - This article was started as a program or competition article. Changing its scope to a vehicle article will probably lead to MPF competition details being deleted. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Fnlayson, do you feel we should have a separate article on the M10 as adopted? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes, I posted about that in an earlier section above. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Sorry, missed that. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Fnlayson. A new article is probably suitable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I really prefer two separate articles, but what we have here now is quite short, and unlikely to be expanded much in the future. Over my 17 years on Wikipedia, the pendulum has swung several times between having more, shorter articles or less, longer articles on a given subject. While my personal preference is for shorter articles, as I find them easier to comprehend (grok) in one reading, the current trend is for longer articles. That, coupled with Schierbecker's experience in these kind of articles, leads me to support moving and expanding this article, albeit weakly. If the article does prove unwieldy in the future, it can always be split at that time. BilCat (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good points re: the current trend towards longer articles, Schierbecker's experience, and the possibility of a future split if the article grows to justify it. - TROPtastic (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with Schierbecker—two articles is the way to go. Both can always be expanded if length is an issue. --BobMcGeoff (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • BobMcGeoff, if I understand Schierbecker's proposal correctly, they are proposing to have 1 article: an article named M10 Booker that contains the information of this (renamed) Mobile Protected Firepower article. They are not proposing to have the Mobile Protected Firepower article exist alongside a new M10 Booker article, but instead to fold some of this article into the existing "M551 Sheridan replacement process" article. - TROPtastic (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support - My main concern with having this article be renamed to the M10 Booker article (without creating a separate one) was that readability could suffer for those who are mostly interested in the design and specifications of the M10 vehicle and not of the multi-year development process of MPF. However, I think that rewriting parts of this article to be more focused on the GDLS Griffin II / M10 Booker Design and Specifications while still having a History section that summarizes the MPF would be a workable solution. The revised M551 replacement process article (as suggested by Schierbecker) could be linked under the History section as a more comprehensive "Main article", and on mobile in particular, having a long History section would not be an obstacle to reading other sections. - TROPtastic (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Separate article support – i support the option of keeping the program its own article, with the M10 Booker gettings its own article. BAE systems will probably try to salvage their own product on the export market, like so many previous examples, thus needing its own article.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Blockhaj, the BAE prototype already has its own article: M8 Armored Gun System. Schierbecker (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, ty. Still, i support the option for a separate article rather than a move. Blockhaj (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Somehow there seems to be a misunderstanding about which side to oppose or support, but the box above indicates that the "support" is for whoever supported the article to be renamed to M10 Booker. For me, I choose OPPOSE because I think the technical information for the tank (M10 Booker) should get its own page, let this page be the information page for MPF Program. Surijeal (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

M10 Booker

Ait bois, time for someone to launch a new article for the M10 Booker.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The link, M10 Booker is a redirect now. It needs to be converted to an article and fleshed out, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made a start using content from the General Dynamics Griffin article. This will at least give less-experienced editors something to work on for now. I suspect Schierbecker has something more comprehensive. started somewhere offline, or at least in their head, which is fine. They can feel free to replace anything. and everything I started the article with. However, be sure to incorporate any good faith changes any other users may make in the meantime.

Also, the Griffin article was already quite skimpy, and is even more so now that I've pulled out some content. However, it is about three different models, not just the Griffin II/Booker, and I'm not certain how similar the Griffin II as designed and the final M10 are. That article could use some more fleshing out on the other variants to let it stand on its own. BilCat (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I will probably take a look at this next week if not over the next few days. Does anyone have access to a recent Janes yearbook "Land Warfare Platforms", maybe from their library? I'd like to see what they've written about MPF. Schierbecker (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Last time i checked in they had deleted their library, apparently they dont keep books anymore, just selling them, etc.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)