Talk:Tank/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Tank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020
 | This edit request to Tank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In terms of firepower, the focus of 2010s-era R&D is on increased detection capability such as thermal imagers
The 2010s are done. Please change "is" to "was". Thank you. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Done - thanks for spotting this. Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
how to edit help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgisby (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Variety of English
Please can one be chosen? Red Jay (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to be already in British English with 'armour'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I changed the page to British/Commonwealth English, but was reverted and told to raise it here. Further down there are non-British/Commonwealth spellings. Red Jay (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I went back three years and it was consistently 'armour' and 'calibre' then. Suspect occasional US spelling may have slipped in along the way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per MOS:ENGVAR, we should keep whatever version was first used consistently through the article, but when I was spot-checking versions going back 10 years, I didn't find any full consistency. (I could have missed one, since I'm certainly not going to review all the thousands of versions individually.) However, I agree "armour" definitely dominates, which given the subject seems significant. Therefor I've reinstated the version that officially switched to British English, and support maintaining that for this article. Thanks all above for input. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, note that we should remove all the rest of the non-British spellings as soon as possible, to make this fully consistent and official to fulfill ENGVAR. I must leave this to others, since I'm American and unlikely to catch them all. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- after a quick find-on-page, I don't see any -ize/ise, -or/our, -nse/nce or other usual differences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Issue closed, then. Thanks all again. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- after a quick find-on-page, I don't see any -ize/ise, -or/our, -nse/nce or other usual differences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- I went back three years and it was consistently 'armour' and 'calibre' then. Suspect occasional US spelling may have slipped in along the way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I changed the page to British/Commonwealth English, but was reverted and told to raise it here. Further down there are non-British/Commonwealth spellings. Red Jay (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it was American
Literally the very first edit on this page (which certainly wasn't a stub) is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&oldid=287081
"armor" is used consistently except when linking to another article, as per general practice back then. This article is American English. Red Slash 00:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This was discussed way back. in a 2013 discussion you participated in. Local Consensus was stick with BE, can you show consensus has changed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:LOCALCONSENSUS literally says not to go with local consensus. I let it go back then, but it was completely against policy then and it is still ridiculous now. Just because an editor or two on this page really really like British English, we cannot override policies like WP:RETAIN that literally tens of thousands of editors have relied on project-wide. Red Slash 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- retain says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." Consistent usage in BE was established over ten years ago. We could flag this up to the milhist project for more input. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Literally within the last week it's obviously had both varieties, though. Red Slash 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- retain says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." Consistent usage in BE was established over ten years ago. We could flag this up to the milhist project for more input. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive
This all seems rather pointlessly disruptive. I'm not going to add to it but it's not really enhancing the article. Although it'd be nice if Wikipedia actually properly sorted out this matter once and for all because it's causing endless problems. --Vometia (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
previous discussion
Talk:Tank/Archive_7#Article_actually_is_in_American_English_(or_should_be) - a change to American English was rejected then. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
April 2022
Another year. Could editors please note that policy is quite clear on the matter - when an article is established in a language setting, that cannot be changed without wide consensus and very good reason. Could editors please respect the earlier consensus. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Citations
This important article remains very poorly cited, with some sections and many whole paragraphs not sourced at all. The encyclopedia has moved in the past fifteen years from being edited more or less without attention to sourcing, to a more thorough and careful approach which demands reliable and accurate sources for every subject. Most MilHist articles are indeed extremely attentive to their use of citations. It is time that this article caught up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)