Talk:Tank

Cleankeeper.

Hello, Mr. Cleankeeper.

Please explain, without the use of exclamation marks, how providing additional, historically correct, referenced information is contrary to the Talk Page consensus. In fact, please explain what the Talk Page consensus is. I am unable to detect one. Hengistmate (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Article actually is in American English (or should be)

Since the article is about a topic that has no clear ties to any one version of English, we need to go with the first contributor's version. Which was American English. Check the history--it was U.S. English (aka armor) up until this edit, whose only/main purpose was to switch the national variety of English used into Commonwealth English. My plan is to adjust the article accordingly, but I thought I'd post here first. Red Slash 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

While it starts in October 2001 as armor, it changed in August 2002 and has been "ou" spelling since. Little to be gained from changing now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the versions cited there as "the beginning" are past being stubs. They'd even still just be disambigs, if such had been recognised at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of a stub is different than mine, clearly. At about 4,000 bytes of text, I mean, really? That's not a stub. Red Slash 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, after over 10 years there is little to no reason to make such a change (or fight over it). Also MOS looked very different at the time.TMCk (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to suddenly change the version of English of this article after such a long time. I have reverted the sudden change made two months after no consensus was made to do so here. (Hohum ^@) 11:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. 10 years ago, there was a single edit made by a single editor that was against our practices, even back then, that unilaterally changed it from U.S. English to British English. I just undid that change. Not one editor said "you shouldn't do it", they just said that they didn't see the gain from doing it. I didn't mind doing it and going by what our guidelines say, going with the first non-stub version. No fighting needed. Red Slash 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is no need to correct a "mistake" made many years ago. And Guidelines allow for some flexibility when there is a consensus; policies are the immutable positions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't do it. Hengistmate (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted again. Localconsensus versus a guideline is a red herring in this case. (Hohum ^@) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good to see there are still isolated pockets of the Wiki where consensus trumps dogma. Doug (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Da Vinci

Can we somehow stop contributing to the myth that Leonardo da Vinci "invented" the "tank"? His proposed vehicle incorporated the three elements - mobility, protection, and weaponry - that are present in the tank, but that had been present in vehicles of war for at least 2,000 years before da Vinci. Although it contained some small refinements, it was still muscle-powered, wooden, and mounted on wheels. It fails to meet the criteria set out in the article. It was not tracked; it was not armoured in the sense in which the term is applied to tanks; it did not incorporate an internal combustion engine; it did not have "independent, all-terrain mobility"; the presence of cannon is a matter of degree, not a fundamental design principle. I don't understand why we need to include in an article on the tank so much information about something that is not a tank, and that was not historically significant or influential. It seems reasonable to debate at what point between 1903 and 1915 the tank was invented, because it was during that period that it was invented, but it was not invented by da Vinci, any more than the automobile was invented by Kirkpatrick MacMillan. I don't understand why this machine is singled out for special mention. It is even overshadowed by the Hussite war wagons that predated it. They, at least, existed and fired their guns while on the move. I fear that the almost mandatory references to da Vinci's design afford it an importance it does not merit and subliminally reinforce the impression that it played some real part in the process. Of course, to omit reference to it altogether would simply invite the misguided to insist on its inclusion. Sadly, therefore, we must acknowledge its existence, but I think the arguments for its being a tank should be refuted more robustly than at present. At the very least, let us stop referring to it as "a tank." Hengistmate (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Its a mention in passing at the moment, I wouldn't give it any more attention than it deserved and wouldn't use the word tank with it. No need to specifically say it isn't tank unless there are some sources that do claim it as one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The point I was rather hoping to make is that many sources make the claim. If one puts the words "da Vinci" and "tank" in a search engine, then one will find a great many assertions that the former invented, to a greater or lesser extent, the latter. In fact, in the development of the tank, da Vinci's proposed vehicle is irrelevant. It was just another shed on wheels, albeit a rather aesthetically pleasing and slightly complicated one. The trouble is that the belief has become so ingrained that one dare not omit mention of it for fear of being accused of an oversight. The more disturbing, then, that in April 2013 an anonymous "editor" inserts into the paragraph that debunks the da Vinci claim an image of a modern reconstruction, and does use the word "tank". And since many sources do "claim it as one", I believe there is a need to specifically say it isn't one. Hengistmate (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

in that case per wikipedia policy, one has to report that some sources identify it as a tank, and that some do not and leave it to the reader to take a side. Unless either there is a nuance in the sources that has not been drawn out in the text, or that these sources are not authoriatative. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Porsche as inventor of torsion bar suspension?

What is the source for this claim? Torsion bar suspension was first used on J.G. Parry-Thomas' racing cars in the 20s. First use on a tank is the Swedish Strv L-60 of 1934. Where does Porsche come in? Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors of articles, particularly ones as wide-ranging as this one are not experts in all areas of tank technology. You appear to be an expert on torsion-bar suspension, which is great, we need your input! This was asserted by Deighton, which many have noted is not a particularly authoritative source. Also, I may have misinterpreted what he wrote. However, the article on the Strv L-60 gives no citation and I'm reluctant to change this without one because I have no better information on hand. If you can supply some more detail and particularly citations, I'd suggest you WP:Be bold. Edits with citations may be rewritten for style, but they are very unlikely to be reverted. Doug (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Early German Development.

The reasons for Germany's belated and rather desultory entry into tank production were more complicated than "lack of capacities and resources." It was more to do with lack of belief in the tank's potential. Also, specific mention of the A7V seems overly detailed for inclusion in the lead par. There's no equivalent mention of earlier and more numerous Allied types. That tends to happen with the A7V. Suggest we tone this down a bit and allow the details to emerge in the later section on German development. Nothing will be lost, and the lead par will be better balanced. Hengistmate (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Instead, work should be done on equivalent allied vehicle, like British Mark Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimsky.cheng (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Design section incomplete

I came to the 'Tank' article hoping for information on why the design of tanks changed radically after WW1, reverting from the track-all-round-the-edge design to something more like the abandoned Little Willy design. Could anyone contribute something on the reason for this? For instance, was it entirely because the WW1 design had to cope with trench-warfare conditions? The 'Tanks in WW1' article touches sketchily on this but I'd have thought there was more to be said; and it belongs in the Design section of the main 'Tank' article. Dayvey (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)