Template talk:WWIIGermanAFVs/Foreign vehicle debate

Neutral opinions

For neutral parties who have an opinion on the matter.

Foriegn vehicles (debate in 2/05)

Almost every AFV produced by other nations has a German name and probably some mild instances of use after being captured. Only those vehicles which were used extensively should be listed here. Oberiko 14:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes that is true there were a lot, which is why I only listed a couple of the more well known ones there in addition to the 35/38. The idea that only extensively used afv's should be listed is exceedinlg contradictory as many of the non-experimental ones on the list had fewer then a 100 produced and saw only limted action, less then many captured vehicles.
• The three Nzbf's you mention were only the three that saw action in Norway and used for propoganda, there were some other earlier prototpyes that existed of that general class. They were not really the typical prototype's since they saw action, but I will agree they probably shouldn't go alongside the major tanks since it was so limited.
• Right now the template is a mix of high and low production vehicles of widely varying degree's of use. Depending on what threshold of use should be used it is either very incomplete or has many uneeded vehicles.
• I am going to try and make some more changes, though I will leave some things. Starfury 05:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The primary difference between the Panzer 35/38(t) and the T-74 & S-35 is that the Germans actively produced Panzer 35/38's after capturing Czechoslavkia. The other examples mentioned were simply models that they captured and pressed into use. I have seen no record of their producing further examples on their own initiative and for that reason do not believe they should be listed here. Oberiko 12:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• That is a good seperation to point out, though, in this case I think relative use is a important criteria as well. Really I am not so concerned which section the 35/38 go, but for inclusion of the more heavily used foreign vehicles. To me the difference between capturing a vehicle, and capturing a factory is not so critical as amount of use in total. For example, there are some vehicles whose amount captured was greater then amount captured and produced of say, the 35.
• This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks.
• I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. My thinking here had been to sidestep the issue and try and focus on use, rather then on this usually complicated nature of adoption. Starfury 21:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Debate in 4/05

I'm going to remove the foreign section, I don't want to have it for every nation (asides from MAYBE the UK since they were leased a very large number). I think it should be restricted to production only. Oberiko 14:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Im going to put it back, as the reasons I said still stand. The template needs to recognize the heavy use of these tanks. Starfury 00:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you plan on categorizing the T-34 and S-35 as German tanks on their pages as well? If you must have them, why not simply restrict to the List of German AFVs with a seperate heading?

Additionally, being that is you that wants to make a change, I think the burden of proof should be yours to the inclusion of the foreign vehicles or not. I have posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military for arbitration in the matter. I suggest we await their intervention. Oberiko 06:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tanks have been listed that way for quite some time now, it is you who want to change it. If you want it the other way I suggest you actually raise some points to contrary of my earlier ones, rather then running off to some group to force your way with some made up regulations.

The "burden of proof" as you say is in history, in the hundreds of vehicles that were used, modified, and eqipped with these tanks. If the template is to accurately give an account of the vehicles, then it makes sense to include them.

I apologize if I sound harsh here, but I thought the matter was settled after our last discussion. if your just going to keep changing it back after a few months when Im not around, then by all means then I will not pursue this any further. However, I would much prefer that you be convinced of the importance of having the these tanks listed. Starfury 20:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was originally without the foriegn vehicles, and you who wanted to change it to include; a move I have oppossed since the start. I have raised points contrary and supplied counter points for yours that are at least as valid. A quick example would be the hundreds of other French tanks that were taken whe France surrendered; will you include ALL of them as well? Again, I ask that you do not revert to include these until arbitration by a neutral party has been acquired. Oberiko 10:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hardly, its been this way for nearly two months now. You only made 2 comments, both which both of were refuted, and have now much later snuck back and decided to revert the page.

You already pointed out about how there was 'other' captured tanks- to which I already replied earlier Yes that is true there were a lot, which is why I only listed a couple of the more well known ones there in addition to the 35/38. Which I eloborated on later This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks.

I ask you that leave the page alone, or at least actually try and make a valid point about this, which so far you have not. Again, this is somewhat rude thing to say, but so is going back 2 months after a argument and reverting it. Starfury 18:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The time was because I hadn't checked this page in awhile, after I made the last arguement against including non-produced vehicles. None of my arguments have been successfully refuted: it's simply your :

• Relatively high use

vs my

• Never actively produced
• Vehicle not categorizied (by virtually anyone) as a German AFV

Mine are quite clear distinctions where as yours is some ambigiously defined number of vehicles. Is it 10 vehicles? 100? 1000? Does it matter where and how they served?

I will not simply leave this page, I argued against the change when it was first made and have been reverting when I could. Since you made the initial debated change. Oberiko 18:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted when you could? You made 2 points, which i thourghly replied to and left it for two months.

I already responded to your points about your proposed seperation, which you raised the first time:

*That is a good seperation to point out, though, in this case I think relative use is a important criteria as well. Really I am not so concerned which section the 35/38 go, but for inclusion of the more heavily used foreign vehicles. To me the difference between capturing a vehicle, and capturing a factory is not so critical as amount of use in total. For example, there are some vehicles whose amount captured was greater then amount captured and produced of say, the 35.

*This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks.

I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. My thinking here had been to sidestep the issue and try and focus on use, rather then on this usually complicated nature of adoption. Starfury 21:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your points re-hash

• "Relatively high use"- this is a oversimiplification.

vs.

• "Never actively produced" -I have already pointed out this is a a equally unclear distintion, and less important because it does not correlate to use.
• "Vehicle not categorizied (by virtually anyone) as a German AFV" -they are cleary marked as foreign, not german.

If your just going to come back in other few months and revert again, disregarding previous discussion then by all means, have your way. Otherwise I think you need to stop draggin up your orginal points-which have arleady been refuted and let this one go. Starfury 18:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an oversimplification. That's why I asked for hard figures. What numerical value and other criteria seperate the captured vehicles from making it here or not? Which source are you using to come up with it?

There is nothing unclear about never actively produced. If the Germans ordered the vehicle, and had the means to create it, then it's produced. If they didn't then it's not. Simple.

I aware of many books and other sources on WWII AFVs, none of which mention the disputed vehicles as German, unlike the Panzer 35(t) and Panzer 38(t) which are usually listed as such. Do you have any documention / sources?

And your arguing about my reverts is really a pot-kettle thing. You've done the exact same thing to me as well. We both want the page a specific way and you are at least as stubborn as I am about having it displayed your way.

Keep in mind this template is also to help users navigate. Are you going to put it on the T-34 page? Do you think it will fit in?

To prevent this from getting worse though (and continuing an edit war), I will leave the main article page alone until we have further input. Oberiko 19:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didnt care about your latest reverts, just that you came back nearly 2 months after the argument and reverted it. As for your points- the page already makes no distinction between use numbers: some points from earlier-

• Right now the template is a mix of high and low production vehicles of widely varying degree's of use. Depending on what threshold of use should be used it is either very incomplete or has many uneeded vehicles.

As for my examples, also from earlier

• "...the difference between capturing a vehicle, and capturing a factory is not so critical as amount of use in total. For example, there are some vehicles whose amount captured was greater then amount captured and produced of say, the 35.

"This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks. "

Im not 'stubborn' about having them listed a certain way, and would accept a wide varity of compromise versions. For example, as I said before Really I am not so concerned which section the 35/38 go, but for inclusion of the more heavily used foreign vehicles. What is important to me is that the template reflect the wide variety and heavy use of foreign eqipment by Germany.

Finally- also I said before I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. My thinking here had been to sidestep the issue and try and focus on use, rather then on this usually complicated nature of adoption. Starfury 19:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have requested a third opinion on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disputes. I will abide by the decision of the third party if/when they arrive. I hope you will as well. Oberiko 18:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As somebody who has worked on this subject earlier, as well as this specific template, I would like to give my opinion. The goal of this template is to provide a quick overview and link to all the major German combat vehicles of World War II. This goal has te be accomplished in a limited space; if the template gets too big, it is in danger of overwhelming the articles it is appended to. Furthermore, having too many entries in the template also makes it more difficult to keep an overview.

Taking this as my starting point, I have the following objections against including the "foreign AFVs" row in the template:

• From the start, the template has always been divided into groups of similar function vehicles: tanks, assault guns, self propelled artillery, etc. The group "Foreign AFVs" does not fit the pattern.
• Off the four types in the group, only two entries (the pkzw 35 and 38) go into extensive detail about these vehicles in German service; the T-34 747(r) entry just links to the general T-34 entry, which logically concerns itself mostly with the T-34 in Russian and allied service. The 35(s) is even worse, as there is apparantely no entry for this tank at all.
• Finally, to accomodate this group in the template, the groups "Self-propelled artillery" and "Assault guns" had to be shoved into one row, making the template that more confusing.

For these reasons, I would prefer it if the group "Foreign AFVs" was removed, with the pzkw 35 and 38 moved into the tank group, (between the panzer II and Panzer III frex.) and the two entries on the T-34 and the s35 can be removed from the template entirely. Finally, separate the "self-propelled artillery" and "assault guns" groups again. Instead of the group "Foreign AFVs" you could then include a link at the bottom of the template to an article about the use of foreign AFVs by the wehrmacht. --Martin Wisse 08:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Martin. Oberiko 09:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, those are very good points. Specifically, that the template does not handle the division well. I do however, disagree about the T-34 and the Somua, as there is actually a breif mention of its service with Germany, and the Somua, as many entries do not have articles yet. Starfury 20:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the T-34 in to the normal tank section, for several reasons. In terms of scale there were several hundred used, more then the 35/38 by the midwar period and up to 1945; they were re-eqipped sometimes with German cannons and other changes; there were actual re-eqipping and maintence factories. For these reasons, it formed a significant part of tank force and worth mentioning in a template. Starfury 20:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another issue is the combined assault gun and SPG section, that was done seperately not because of forg. tank section. The reason being it made the table smaller, and both were used for indirect fire. This was not part of the debate I dont think, so I will put that back as well. The forg. tank section though, certainly I will not put back. Starfury 20:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you again Starfury. For the same reasons as mentioned above and it will just mean transplanting the two tanks into the main tank section, still giving us a size increase.

I say (since we apparantly have three people now) that we have a vote on if to include the T-34 and any other non-produced but used tanks.

And I believe Martin stated a preferance for the seperation of Self-propelled artillery and assault guns. Something I agree with. Please change it back.

We'll close the vote in one week Oberiko 20:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No just the T-34 is back, and it does not increase the sice of the table. The sections are not really combined now either- they are seperated by a dash, which also achived the goal of making the table smaller. Starfury 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having the T-34 opens the flood gates. Why not the S-35? The KV? All were used. I disagree with having any of them.

All the other templates have the sections seperated. Assault guns are often more similar to tank destroyers then self-propelled artillery. They should be in seperate sections. Oberiko 20:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I already listed my reasons, which seperated it from those tanks. There were hundreds of S-35s used, but they did not see the same level of service. There not hundreds of KVs used, with much more limited use which is why I did not even list it before.

The debate over what sections should be combined is a seperate one, but they have been partially seperated on the line anyway. As far there relationship to other types it is largely model dependent, but in general they have things in common with both, but the tank destoroyer line is already crowded. Starfury 21:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know. But this is all your decision. What is the dividing criteria? Exactly what level of service must be had? Who'se determining this? Why was the S-35 good enough before, but not now? This is all extremely subjective.

And please recreate the seperate categories for assault guns and tank destroyers. Oberiko 21:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont care overly if assualt guns and SPGs are combined are not, in any case they are already partially seperated, just one a single line.. Nevertheless I dont think you do 'know'- I just stated why I only included the T-34 this time and have outlined several reasons of why it should be there. Starfury 21:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your reasons haven't answered my questions. What is this level of service? Why the T-34 and not the S-35? Exactly how many? I need figures. I need authorities who support this figures.

And you're against the grain here. Quoting Martin:

"and the two entries on the T-34 and the s35 can be removed from the template entirely"

Which seems to agree with me on not having them here at all. This is 2-1 on getting rid of them. Please take them back out and recreate the categories. The line division for SPA and AG is not seen on any other template and I don't believe it fits at all. Oberiko 21:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have answered your question, your just not looking at the reasons. Even if it was a 100 to 1 it does not change that there were hundreds of re-eqippeed t-34s used later in the war, more then the 35/38 at this time. As I said intially "In terms of scale there were several hundred used, more then the 35/38 by the midwar period and up to 1945; they were re-eqipped sometimes with German cannons and other changes; there were actual re-eqipping and maintence factories. For these reasons, it formed a significant part of tank force and worth mentioning in a template. " As for the line division, again it saves space and clearly shows they are seperate categories. If you dont want to the more compact format thats up to you, as those sections must be listed either way. Starfury 21:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Take a look here [1]. Many, many AFVs captured by the Germans was altered in some way. So it's back to numbers. You have not provided any number asides from "several hundred", of which a) more then the T-34 is applicable and b) is only your number. Oberiko 22:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, do you plan on adding the M4 Sherman to the Soviet tanks? Over 2000 of them were sent. Of course, then you'd have to add the M3 light tank and the M3 medium tank as well. Oberiko 11:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have serveral times now. My answers were also on the talk-page debate and included here. Im not interested in other pages currently and have not examined those, but yes, some of the more unique. and important lends-lease vehicle could be included- but this is distraction from our current debate. Neverthless, here are quotes is support of my reasons even from the same site. And as far as that goes, just because there hundreds of types captured does mean they all have to be listed, just some of the more common cases, such as the 34 and perhaps a french type. From that website alone: *"Captured T-34/76 was designated by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen T-34 747(r). Large number of T-34/76 tanks was captured and pressed into service..."

• "Germans were always more than happy to employ as many captured examples as they could and many served with various units. T-34/76 employment by German formations was not always temporary but sometimes permanent until the end of the war. "
• "Since late 1941, captured T-34/76 tanks were transported to a workshop in Riga for repairs and modifications, while in 1943, Mercedes-Benz in Marienfelde and Wumag in Goerlitz (now Zgorzelec) were also repairing and modifying T-34s as well. Captured T-34/76 tanks were modified to German standards by installation of commander's cupola, radio equipment..."
• "Known users of captured T-34/76 tanks were numerous along with many unrecorded ones. For example on October 15th of 1941, 1st Panzer Division's 1st Panzer Regiment had some 6 T-34/76 Model 1940 and 1941 tanks. Along with 1st Panzer Division, T-34/76 tanks were in service with 2nd Panzer Division, 9th Panzer Division (33rd Panzer Regiment), 10th Panzer Division (7th Panzer Regiment), 11th Panzer Division, 20th Panzer Division (21st Panzer Regiment) and 23rd Panzer Division. Number of T-34/76 tanks was still in service in 1945, for example with 23rd Panzer Division in Slovakia and East"
• "Waffen-SS units also did not hesitate to use captured T-34/76 tanks and 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" and 3rd SS Panzer Division "Totenkopf" pressed significant number into service. T-34/76 tanks used by "Das Reich" are of particular interest. When in March of 1943, SS Panzer Corps recaptured Kharkov, some 50 various models of T-34/76 tank were captured. All of those were being repaired in a local tractor (tank) factory that was overrun and designated as SS Panzerwerk (SS Tank Workshop). Shortly after they were repaired along with being modified to German standards, repainted and marked with German markings. Modifications included installation of commander's cupola (from damaged Panzerkampfwagen III and IV tanks), Schuerzen (armor skirts) and other equipment such as Notek light, storage boxes, tools, radio equipment and antenna. 25 of them entered service with newly created 3rd SS Panzer Battalion of 2nd SS Panzer Regiment of 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich"."

I would further point out, that along with the 35/38 on there main German tank page, the T-34 is only other non-german vehicle listed. http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/profiles.htm As I said in our debate 2 months ago I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. In this case the template should reflect the important of a few of the most captured and used tanks. Starfury 14:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I'm placing this page under temporary protection until we reach an agreement here. We'll discuss your constant reverts of the poll on your page Starfury. Oberiko 21:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection has been removed Oberiko 11:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that "constant reverts" phrase was objected to, as the reverts on this page were due to me reverting changes by Oberiko to a poll after I had voted in it. Starfury 14:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German AFVs

You can not simply revert everytime something happens that you don't like. Since we could not come to a consensous we called in a third party. I expect you to respect and concede to the opinions of the third party, just as I would have, even when it doesn't go your way.

And please don't alter polls to attempt to skew the vote. The T-34 and the Panzer 35/38(t) are very different issues; we both know that the latter is not actually involved. And please don't claim ownership of the poll, there's no such thing on the Wikipedia. Oberiko 21:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not "simply revert everytime something happens that you don't like", I reverted your changes to my poll, which materially changed the question I posed. I dont not change your poll. I did not agree to anything, other then to make compromises and when correct information is laid out.

They are not very different at all both were heavily used forgein made and produced vehicles. The only person who "altered" polls was you- and to your own ends.

You now abuse your admin powers, to both not allow me to respond on the page, force your choice on the page design, and change the information surrounding a poll to which I voted something different. Starfury 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for your latest response one the page, in the very Website you listed, exists information to the question you asked.

from elsewhere on that website

Since late 1941, captured T-34/76 tanks were transported to a workshop in Riga for repairs and modifications, while in 1943, Mercedes-Benz in Marienfelde and Wumag in Goerlitz (now Zgorzelec) were also repairing and modifying T-34s as well. Captured T-34/76 tanks were modified to German standards by installation of commander's cupola, radio equipment along with other non-standard field modifications made during service by the their new owners. Spare parts were never much of a problem and some 300 captured vehicles were maintained on long term bases. T-34/76s tanks were also used as artillery tractors and ammunition carriers. Badly damaged tanks were either dug in as pillboxes or were used for testing and training purposes. Number of T-34/76's upper hulls with turrets was also mounted on railway wagons designated as Panzerjaegerwagen (tank destroyer wagon). They were used as part of Panzerzug (armored train), Streckenschutzug (railway protection train) and Panzertriebwagen (armored locomotive), including Panzerzug "Michael

Furthermore you say you want a compact table, yet revert to a expanded version, and adding the Pzkpw 34(r) does not increase the width of the table. You disregard the compromises I have made, and continue to push your own agenda, disregarding the numerous facts about the T-34s use I have stated, and then resorting to abuse of admin priveleges. I suppose it doesnt matter anyway as you just come back in a couple months and just change it back regardless of the outcome as happened with our last debate about this. Starfury 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your poll was not about the issue; it was the T-34 we were argueing about, not the others. And we don't need two polls at a time; yours was, IMO, done out of spite.

The difference between the T-34 and the (t)'s is significant. The (t)'s were specifically ordered and made by Germans. They are here on Wikipedia under the German names. They are categorized as German tanks. They are worlds apart.

Check the link I put up, it lists probably about 100 captured AFVs, many others of which match your criteria of modification (asides from the specific number you haven't provided). Will you try and put them all in?

We brought in a neutral third person. He sided with my side of the issue and I am putting it exactly as he wanted it. It is a 2-1 majority.

I would like to remove the protection, but I can't have you simply change the page to match your tastes. I am asking if you will abide by the majority decision.

I do still think a compromise can be reached. How about if you list the T-34 and other foriegn variants on the German Armoured Fighting Vehicles of World War II where space is not an issue? Oberiko 23:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I take issue with many things you say there and with abuse of your admin powers, but in interests of ending this I shall keep it to the point.

How much more must I compromise? I have accepted the removal of the Foreign tanks, of the S-35. All I ask now is for acceptence of my more compact table format (a goal which you want as well), and recognition of the T-34 status.

Perhaps I have not done enough to convince you in this regards? In they very website you gave, it specifically states there were over 300 mainatined permantly, there were re-eqipping factories, and spares, and standarized versions produced.

By late to mid-war they were more common in the tank role then any other foreign tank, even the 35/38. Just like them many were captured even from factories.

In the end the only thing left that the T-34 does not have in as great or greater measure is that Germany placed a order for 35/38- which is not so meaningfull since there are a number of French types that also saw some significant use for which orders were also placed.

Finally remember that it is far from universal that the 35/38 are listed with others, and there are many sites that list them seperately. The Pz 35/38 were not German tanks- they were just used by them, same as the re-eqipped 34s. 00:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have read the website and I know the numbers. I also know that of the French tanks, several hundred of some models also fell into German hands, making 300 a poor numerical seperator, and one that's not set in stone anywhere. Many of those were also modified with German weapons. If we include the T-34, then we have to include about five other tank models as well.

But that's beside the point. The page is protected only to prevent an ongoing edit war.

I would like to ask one final time that you abide by the majority decision that we recieved from the third party. I personally think that going with the majority is a reasonable thing to do, and pretty much standard practice here. Oberiko 01:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not beside the point and I don't think you known the numbers since you have specifically asked me to bring up numbers- it is exactly the point. There were more then 300 used- that is just the number maintain in on-going fashion.

The french types were also used, but I accepted to not include them- or at least one of the most used ones the S-35. You most certainly do not have to include 5 other tanks, just because more notable ones are included.

The page is protected to support your own interests and stop me from responding directly and maintain your version of a poll to which I responded, but you changed the content of.

You ask one final time that I abide by a majority decision- but I already have accepted it for the thing we were debating- specifically the matter of foreign tank section. The other things were never part of the situation, and you have been contradictory in regards to the other issues, not mention that one other person is not much of a majority.

Specifically, in terms of table compactness you refused my compacted version which is equally clear about the seperation of types. Also, the mention of 34 as well does not increase the table width.

In all the only remaining reason is your refusal to recognize that the Panzer 34(r) meets every qualifier the 35/8 does, excpet a production order- meaningless since there were other tank for which there were orders that are not listed.

The Panzer 34(r) was used in greater numbers and over a greater period then any other captured type after the 35/38, they were captured a put into service- even from captured factories by mid-war, with many serving to the end- this is superior to french types which became obsolete during this period, and to the 35/8 which were also obsolete by later on.

I suspect you will just revert to the version you want in a couple months anyway like you did before, nevertheless if you want to reach a compromise I ask that it actually be a compromise. Right now you expect me to accept all these other points a single person made about things we did not argue about (e.g things beyond the foreign tank line) prefaced as a 'majority third party'.

As paltry a reason as this is, I have accepted removal of the S-35 and Foreign tank section, but to accept the added points of removal of my well supported position of the 34, and the compacted sections you need to bring up better reasons (or somone does) rather then just bludgeoning your way with abuse of admin powers and single other person opinions, whose views so closely align with yours Im not entirely convinced it isnt you. Starfury 02:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I'm sorry that you won't accept majority rule. I won't refute your points again as I've done so numerous times.

The talk is now unprotected. I have additionally listed the page on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I think it is only fair to ask you to agree beforehand to whatever decision the mediators make on the issue, as I will. Oberiko 08:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorrry you are lieing, as I did accept the majority rule for what we talked about. You wanted to extend this to other issues which you have not discussed. You have not refuted my points at all- in fact it has been the reverse. Starfury 13:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This talk moved from earlier page during protection period

Summary

these summaries of the debate were written for a aborted mediation on the mediation page, as there is a prior step it so it was moved (i.e removed) for the time being.

Hello all. Myself and user User:Starfury have been in contention of the format and vehicles of this page and there has been constant reversion.

To settle the dispute I asked for a Third opinion which was provided by User:Martin Wisse. Martin then stated a preference that was very much along the lines of what I had been arguing for.

Starfury has still continued to change the page to something different though, and revert when I put the template to the format that both Martin and I wanted. When I attempted to create a survey about the issue (the inclusion of the T-34 tank) he created a seperate poll to try and lump the T-34 with the panzer 35(t) and panzer 38(t), something no one was argueing about. When I merged the polls, he would then, again, continue to revert; claiming that it was HIS poll and I shouldn't be altering it.

I have placed protection on the page (something I would like to remove, but I don't want an edit war), and tried to talk with him on his user page, but he seems quite insistant of having the template displayed his way.

Any intervention would be appreciated. Oberiko 07:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, the opposing party in the Issue dispute this framing of the debate. My version of the time line is:

• Two months ago there was a short debate over if to have a separated Foreign vehicles section. It was left with the section for two months until Oberiko reverted to his version, which after I discovered a few days later.
• The debate again started up again this April. I asked Oberiko to present more valid points then he had made up to then- he refused and wanted a third opinion- which he did before I could agree to.
• Despite disagreement with this single third opinion I accepted it for the issue I thought was being debated- having a Foreign tank section in the template. However, Oberiko viewed a whole number of other issue's as being included in this- things that I still disagreed with and thought had not been discussed enough. Specifically the inclusion of the other foreign tanks at all in the basic format- the (S-35 which I conceded to be removed) and the Panzer 34(r) and some other template formatting.
• Oberiko then proceeded to make a poll, which I thought did not represent the issues at hand very well, so I made my own (which lumped the foreign tanks together). He then proceeded to delete his own poll and change the one I had typed in and already voted on, to his version, thus changing the meaning of my vote.
• I undid these changes to the poll I had created. He then locked, using his admin powers his modified version of this poll. He also locked the template. Another issue was the table formatting, such as if armored cars and half-tracks share the same line and how they are seperated.
• We have both further discussed the issues, to no avail. Currently, I am willing to accept a wide range of compromise versions of the template, over the matter of where and which exact foreign tanks are included, and over how the table is formatted. Starfury 15:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'd add points, but there's quite enough of both mine and Starfury's arguements on the discussion page in question. Don't need to drag it here. Oberiko 15:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polls

Poll 1

This vote is on if to include non-German produced foriegn tanks that had relatively high use, such as the T-34. This poll does not deal with the Panzer 35/38(t). For a different poll, please see the poll below.

This poll was created by Oberiko, and is disagreed with by the opposing party as being inaccurate to the debate issue's because it does not mention the Foreign Tank section issue, and describes the 35/38 as being Germany produced.

Closes April 13.

Against

• Oberiko
• GraemeLeggett (This vote posted before warning of dispute over poll)

Comments:

• The panzer 35(t) and 38(t) are not for debate here (as they were German produced), unless you honostly want to get rid of them Starfury. Everyone else seems to think they fit. This is about the T-34. Don't lump everything together. Oberiko 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is not YOUR poll question. It's a poll question. You are attempting to lump unrelated things together. The Panzer 35(t) and 38(t) are not part of this debate. Only the T-34 is. Oberiko 21:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have no interest in removing the 35 and 38 entirely, my interest is in having foreign vehicle section with a selection of the most used foreign vehicles that includes both them and other foreign types of equal stature. Furthermore, as for your point "panzer 35(t) and 38(t) are not for debate here (as they were German produced"- is incorrect. The 35 and 38 were designed and produced in Czechoslovakia. Starfury 14:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany prior to the war and it was under German administration. Not exactly very foriegn. You also might want to put a "for" vote here. Oberiko 15:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sources I have seen describe them as being designed and produced in Czechoslovakia, usually along with some reference that it was occupied. Event the wikipedia pages say this! Starfury 16:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and it continued production while occupied as well. Oberiko 20:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway, we have two polls now, one on your issue one on mine. Oberiko 15:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your poll does not make sense it attempts

Perhaps not to you. Oberiko 20:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll 2

This poll was created by Starfury, and consists of the issue which he considered the debate to be about

This vote is on if to include non-German produced foreign tanks that had relatively high use in a Foreign Vehicles section, including some of the most used captured types, including the Pz 35/38(t) and the Pz 34(r).

For:

• Starfury 14:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Against:

• GraemeLeggett 14:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oberiko 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• You could have stated the Poll question more clearly, and checked the spelling too. GraemeLeggett
• Alright. This can be a seperate poll. Yours is ALL foriegn AFVS, mine is non-produced only. Oberiko

No, mine is not "all" foreign AFVs. It is to include a small number of the most used Foreign tanks in a seperate Foreign tank section, such as the Pz 38(t).

• I do not consider the Panzer 35/38(t) to be non-German produced. I only vote to get rid of the captured examples. Oberiko 16:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does that include French types produced in occupied France then? Also, note that the Pz 34(r) were also ordered from factories, which were re-eqipped hulls with German eqipment. Starfury 16:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with numbers/sources for vehicles produced in France? I personally have yet to see any. Oberiko 16:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That what I asked him, you might try looking at these [2], from the site you mentioned earlier. Starfury 17:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no numbers for production there. Simply some conversions and which ones were captured. Any other sources? Oberiko 20:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dual poll comments

• This is pretty bizarre as no one wants to get rid of the Panzer 35/38(t). As far as I knew the only issue we had was on including the T-34 and S-35. Oberiko 16:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not just over if they are there, but where they are and the Foreign Tank section. Regardless, I suspect the 34, and the forein tank section will be rejected, but at least it will be done properly rather then via your shenanigans with changing polls around, and abusing you admin powers. Its likely you would have come back in two months anyway and just reverted as you already tried to do. Finally, note that we still have a disagreement about the format in regards to the line groupings. 16:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's something seperate. I changed the page when I made my last comment, I didn't expect you to change it back without additional support which is why I wasn't around for awhile (being that there are other things I do). And I've agreed to abide by whatever the outcome of mediation / comment is. Protecting a page from constant versions is hardly abuse Starfury. Same goes for getting a third opinion and mediation Oberiko 16:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No I dont think so, because you never replied on the talk page then. As for the other matter, you locked this talk page to stop me from reverting changes you were making to a poll I had made. Im not overly optimistic about your promise, given your past history either. Starfury 17:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd have to. I told you I was against the change and expected you to respect that and not change it until you had a greater consensous. I was surprised to come here and find you had altered it based on the same arguements I did not accept. Oberiko 20:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oberiko check your talk page. Starfury 21:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could someone remove the bloody tag?

That stupid "twoversions" tag is making a few dozen German tank articles look like they're heavily disputed. Could someone remove it? --Carnildo 18:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to, but this template is currently under dispute. It might be best if the template was removed from the pages where it is currently displayed. Oberiko 20:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Message for Oberiko

Oberiko: I have been re-reviewing my position on the template. Specifically I have tried to re-evaluate it being as objective as possible about it, as if I had not been involved and was coming at the issue again. I have come to certain conclusions:

• That it would reasonable to have a foreign tank section due to: a) there commonness in WWII vehicles websites B) there are many less important vehicles on the template c) a select group of foreign vehicles including the 35/38 and 34 were used heavily.
• On the other hand a) website tend to give higher priority to the 35/38 b) there foreign status is already marked by (t) c) no other foreign vehicle quite the same level and kind of use.

In short, on a different day of the week, I could have found myself arguing your position. Furthermore, you have worked very tirelessly on many articles, and, while I admit I don't approve of all your actions, I think that I could not have done much better in your shoes in dealing with the situation. More importantly, I don't think the amount of time wasted is worth the value compared to what you might be able to accomplish otherwise, especially when it is case where I do not believe in either side whole heartedly. So as a result of all these considerations, I withdraw my support for the foreign vehicles section template and related comments and the other formatting issue. In other words, I switch to your side of the dispute for the reasons I listed above. Hopefully this will allow you to get back to doing things you enjoy more and end the wasting of time on this. Starfury 21:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Starfury. I have also noted much of the work you have done on your articles and would like to have this incident placed behind us. Oberiko

Dispute resolved

I believe Starfury and I have come to a consensous. I will be removing the protection from this page now. Oberiko 00:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)