Talk:Leopard 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Additional text[edit]

From a dup, possibly useful text:

"The Leopard 2 is Germany's main battle tank. It has a 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, an EMES-15 gunners sight, with 3X and 12X thermal sight, and a 12X daysight, as well as a fero-Z auxilary sight. The gun is stabilized in both the vertical and horizontal direction, and the tank has full fire on the move capability. The gun can operate in 3 separate modes, normal, emergency, and manual. In normal mode, the gun is fully stabilized, and laser range finder, dynamic lead all works. In emergency mode, the gun and EMES-15 sighting picture is not stabilized, but the laser range finder still works. In manual mode, the gun is completely unpowered, and is moved with hand cranks. In the Leopard 2a5, this operation is done with a small powered stick."

Stan 03:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Leo in Sweden[edit]

Sweden has never used the original Leopard tank. Leopard 2 however is currently in use by the Swedish army, where it replaced Centurion and Strv 103. I'm removing the reference to Sweden in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selleriverket (talkcontribs) 02:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


Should this page not be moved to Leopard 1 and make Leopard tank a disamiguation page, because there are at least two other German tanks referred to as Leopard, obviously the Leopard 2 as well as a WWII tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

National naming[edit]

Australian Leopards[edit]

The Australian Leopard was designated the Leopard 1 AS4. It had a V10 MTU multi-fuel engine. Capable of producing 985 BHP at 2200 rpm. The loaded combat weight of this varient was 42.4 Tons. It carried three MG3 AA/U machine guns in addition to the 105mm main armament.

I have my original driver training and gunnery wing books if anyone just needs the hell out of some more info on the Aussie Leopards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Should it be doubted that the Australian Leopard was called AS1 from the very beginning see: --MWAK 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Leopards[edit]

I believe the Canadian Leopards were designated "Leopard C2". They underwent a modernization and turret replacement in the '90s, but have been recently retired. Can someone more familiar with the subject elucidate? Michael Z. 2005-09-26 14:09 Z

I've uploaded a few photos of Canadian Leopards, made available by DND. Michael Z. 2005-10-2 05:23 Z

I have changed the news report that the tanks would be brought [to Afghanistan] by ships (it's a landlocked country!) to airlifted by American forces, and added a citation - hope I didn't screw up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Found that the Leopard 1 has 70mm rolled armor, from Modern Tanks and Fighting Vehicles (3rd Edition) by Christopher Foss. Ctifumdope 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

58 or 66 in Canada?[edit]

According to Wiki, it says that 58 remain in service, but the official Canadian Army site referenced says that 66 Leopards remain in service. Which might it be? Petercorless 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know for sure. I just found that 58 figure last month, and it seems to have been updated to 66, and the statement that they were intended to serve until 2011 removed. Apparently the tanks were all in the process of being liquidated in favour of the Mobile Gun System, which plans were halted suddenly. Some recent news articles also say that the arsenal is 66 in the process of being reduced to 44. Historically, there's usually been a specific number in service in the field, plus several vehicles used for training and as replacements, and it's sometimes hard to say which of these figures is being cited.  Michael Z. 2006-09-14 19:22 Z

The number of 66 was intended to be the vehicles that would be replaced by the MGS (Mobile Gun System). With that program cancelled, the remainder were in the progress of being towed out to ranges to be used as targets, or having their barrels filled with cement to be used as monuments. The word on deploying tanks to Afghanistan came as this process was underway, meaning that currently more than 66 exist, but how many are servicable is unclear. The original intent in cancelling MGS would have seen Leopard C2s continue in service until 2015. With the additional wear and tear of an operational deployment, this date may be optimistic. 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The CF currently page says:[1]
  • Number in Service: 66
  • Sold to companies in North America: 23
  • In museums or used as monuments: 4
  • Used as hard targets on ranges: 21
 Michael Z. 2006-11-01 15:13 Z

Confusing statement in 1A3 section?[edit]

"Although the level of armor area density was equivalent to the A2's new welded version, the internal volume was increased by 1.2 m³ and the effective protection level by half."

If I am reading this correctly, it states that the 1A3 had as much armor as the 1A2, but nevertheless had half as much protection. This seems odd, can someone expand on this a bit? Or is it wrong? I found the identical wording on another site, although lacking the last bit about the protection level.

Maury 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the prototype phase suggested that the armor could stop a 20 mm round. I assume the real armor is much thicker. This should be included. Maury 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The increased protection was due to the use of laminated armour with a plastic foam filler. The first production version was not uparmoured beyond the original specifications which, it should be emphasised, demanded that the side armour were immune against 20 mm rapid fire cannon. It could stop old T-34-85 AP rounds in the frontal arc :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


I have added Lebanon to the list of operators as the deal was finalized with Belgium. Here's the link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talkcontribs) 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Operators Flags[edit]

This is quoted from the talk pages.

Why did you remove the flags of the Leopard 1 Operators ?? --Zaher1988 ·Talk|Contributions 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the flags because WP:MOSFLAG says that icons and flags should only be used to “help the reader rather than decorate”. In an alphabetical list of countries, the flags don't provide any useful function at all. But in an article body they do detract from nearby running text, by distracting the reader's eye. Michael Z. 2009-01-10 05:10 z
Its manual says the following:
The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables [...] They should not be used in the article body [...]
If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.
--Zaher1988 ·Talk|Contributions 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quotations, but I'm familiar with the guideline. I don't know what exactly you are trying to justify. If you are selecting those quotations to imply that all “lists and tables” should have flags, then you are quite wrong—the guideline does not say that at all. Michael Z. 2009-01-10 14:02 z

What's the point of moving this here, almost two weeks later? Your quotations of the guidelines support my point of view? I think it would be more helpful to actually respond and clarify what you're getting at, rather than copy our discussion around Wikipedia. (And it would be nice to let me know). Michael Z. 2009-01-23 15:32 z

I have requested a Third Opinion, that's why. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a second opinion, since you haven't stated one at all? Michael Z. 2009-01-23 23:20 z

outdented. I don't understand or support the rationale that flags in the infobox or operator list of this article detract the presentation in any way. Hohum (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe they do detract and support their removal. Skinny87 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Michael Z, I have an opinion (support) and you have stated your opinion (against), so we need a third opinion as a way to solve this dispute. Thanks for the replies guys. Expecting the formal reply.. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 11:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But Hohum, the guideline, rightfully, requires that they benefit the article, it's not good enough to not detract. Any design element which doesn't contribute does detract. Michael Z. 2009-01-24 16:58 z
Well, I phrased my reply that way since I was countering your earlier assertion that they did detract. To be more specific, I find them helpful in infoboxes and lists, and not at all distracting. They allow my eye to flick quickly to the flag of the country I am looking for. However, perhaps that's just me. Hohum (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's just as easy to find a country in an alphabetized list of linked or bolded names. Personally, I'm skeptical that most readers can recognize more than a few 22×13-pixel flag icons, large arrays of them become a jumble of hard-to-distinguish colour patches (e.g.), and they are much more visually disruptive than even bold text, whose use is avoided (except for major landmarks on a page like the leading term and section headings). And I'm a strong believer that any element of a design that doesn't clearly make it better detracts, by adding needless complexity.
These kind of tchotchkes also reinforces stereotypical formulas which are bringing down a lot of AFV articles, for example when a few rumours and news-bites[2] get repeatedly elevated to prominence because bullet points and flags are fun to add to Wikitext.[3]
I know you've heard it from me before, Hohum, but I want to state my argument about flag icons clearly here. I'm dismayed by arguments from some editors implying that something ought to be added merely because it doesn't violate the guideline. Following such lines of reasoning would turn Wikipedia into Myspace. Michael Z. 2009-01-25 00:54 z

outdented. Your first example is a very good one for not having flags in that article, as it definitely presents a distracting and confusing array of them. However, we're talking about this article, where the list is fairly short. I'm not set on always having them in lists, or always not, or just because it "doesn't violate a guideline". Well, in fact, I'm not exactly set on having them in this article, but I do feel on balance, here, they would do some minor good. Hohum (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on flags in list of operators[edit]

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. The section in question, Leopard tank#Operators, is a list. Flag icons there do not seem to me to violate the guideline. — Athaenara 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, so we can now restore the icons, right? --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 11:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. — Athaenara 12:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you:) --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 12:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The key word is Long .They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information . This is not a long list Gnevin (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a discussion, not a ballot. No one has stated a single reason to tag these list items with icons. No one has stated how they benefit the reader. “They don't detract” and “don't violate the guideline” is not a reason to add a design element. I could add a thousand things to the article which don't detract, and when I was done it would be completely destroyed and unreadable.
Zaher, you are fishing for support without offering a single thought of your own to any discussion with me, and then rushing to update the article without consensus. This is not dispute resolution. Why won't you discuss this first? Michael Z. 2009-01-24 16:58 z
Because Athaenara's reply is a formal reply for this dispute. He is replying for the request posted on the third opinion requests page. Anyway, I will request a mediation which is the step that comes after third opinion in dispute resolution. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't think it's very responsible to involve other editors and even consider going to the Mediation Committee when you've put no effort at all into discussion. Michael Z. 2009-01-24 17:32 z
There isn't anymore anything to discuss, I have stated my point, and you have, others did the same, and there is still no agreement. The subject itself does not bare anymore discussion. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I missed the bit where you stated your point. How do you expect to ever get anyone to agree with you if you don't say anything to them? Seriously, have a look over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For other editors' reference, this went to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Leopard tank and back, rejected for lack of attempts at dispute resolution. Michael Z. 2009-01-24 22:27 z

Flags in operators list[edit]

A dispute whether flags can be added to the operators list or whether that is now allowed is taking place. —zaher1988 (via posting script) 09:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Commenters should be aware of the 300-word Milhist guidelines on flags, the 3,200-word general guidelines on icons and flags, and a recent month-long discussion (4,500 words) about interpreting those guidelines at the Military History Wikiproject. Michael Z. 2009-01-25 16:56 z

Ok, I just read those. The linked discussion didn't achieve a consensus (I tend to agree with Jon Catalans points). The guides don't expressly request or forbid the use of flag icons as proposed for this article. I can understand that some people want clearer guidelines, but we have the guidelines that we have (and aren't changing them with this discussion). This ends up with personal choice and consensus on an article by article basis. There doesn't appear to be much room for comprimise for this article, either the list has flags or it doesn't, the arguments either way seem marginal at best (including my own). Personally, for this article, I don't think it adds or loses a great deal by having or not having flags, and certainly doesn't cause a significant blot on it either way. Perhaps we'd all be better served by using our time on cooperating on things we do agree on. Hohum (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the guidelines desperately need some hack-and-slash improvement (3,500 words! I applaud you for reading over it).
I quite agree with your sentiment, but this comes up continually. Even when it's not under discussion, articles experience constant icon creep as novice editors discover how fun and easy it is to add icon images to everything under the sun, and instantly experience the thrill of making a visible impact on the encyclopedia. If we don't stay on top of it, the visual tone begins to resemble Myspace more than Britannica, and serve as both a further inspiration, as well as a precedent in discussions, for tarting up more of the encyclopedia. I'll do what I can to prevent this.
And although adding icon images isn't prohibited, there is a clear overarching directive to only add them for a clear purpose: “Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, . . . icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not [likely to be useful].” So based on the guideline's advice, I will oppose addition of redundant icon images when no one articulates a benefit. Michael Z. 2009-01-26 00:09 z
It may be more productive to fight the battle in articles where the difference between having flags and not is less marginal, unless your fight is for an almost blanket removal of flag icons. Also, you are never going to stop fresh editors doing all manner of things... they won't have read about it. Hohum (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been seeing flags in the operators lists since the 1st day I started browsing Wikipedia, I wasn't even a member. This is the only article in which I found someone removing the flags. So basically it is a common approach to add flags to the countries list. Sometimes when looking at a list, the flag catches my eye and gets me to what I am looking for without having to read the text one after another, thus flags have a vital role is making the list clearer rather than distract the eyes. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 07:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Good to hear from you at last. You are confirming what I said about why icon images creep into articles – I remember how encyclopedia articles looked without them.
They're not really “vital” to this article though, are they? I'm sure that even without the pictures you could find, for example, “Lebanon” near the middle of an alphabetized list of fourteen countries, in somewhat less than one second. Michael Z. 2009-01-26 17:59 z
I agree with Michael and Gnevin; the flags add nothing, are merely decorative, make the article look a little cheap and cheesy, do not aid navigation, and should therefore be removed. The same goes all the more for the one in the infobox of course. --John (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Flags in Operator's List[edit]

Hello, I am accepting this case with the Mediation Cabal.

From what I have read from the discussions, the dispute is over whether or not to use images of flags in the list of operators. From what I've gathered, the flags would be placed in the first list, at the beginning of the section. I would like to start with both sides giving rationale for having/not having flags in the list. While Michael Z. has pointed at the MOS quite a few times, I would still like a bit of elaboration as to why flags should not be used here, but should be used in other places. From Zaher, I would like an explanation of why flags should be used, preferably with references to policy.

Below I am leaving level three headers for comments from the users and a general discussion of the dispute. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion[edit]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been more than a bit busy over the last few days (school, swim meets, ACT).

Michael Z. believes essentially believes that having icons in the list is distracting to the actual content, a view that he supports mainly with WP:ICONDECORATION. He does note, however, that in the general guidelines for icons, it states “some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon [sic].” He strongly disagrees with this, although it must be acknowledged that this is a fairly accepted policy on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, Zaher believes that the icons do indeed help the reader, though he does not specifically cite any policy. He adds that "there is no clear rule on Wikipedia stating that 'flags should not be used on operators lists'." This does appear to be true, though I must add that this is a very specific case.

In my opinion, at least one of the following must be agreed upon before this dispute can successfully be resolved:

  1. What is the "correct" interpretation of WP:ICONDECORATION?
  2. Does using icons in lists like this actually help or inhibit the reader in comprehending the content of the list? (i.e. Would having icons in the list help people recognize the countries?)

I would now like both users to add their interpretation of WP:ICONDECORATION in relation to this specific case. Also, I would like to ask Michael Z. if the main problem with the icons is that they disrupt the flow of the list? If that is the case, can Zaher think of any means by which the images could be resized to not disrupt the list.

--ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
Alright, so concerning the Wiki policy, they say that Icons can be very helpful because they aid navigation in lists "as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon", which is something I mentioned in my point of view explanation before. The policy states that icons should not be used for decoration, but rather to aid readers, and of which a proof is mentioned in the previous sentence. The example provided there of a list with distracting icons that are only used for decoration features 1st, large icons, 2nd, a lot of repeated icons, and 3rd, a lot of text next to them. In our case and in all operators list cases the icons used are really smaller, the icons could not be repeated (one country per list), and ultimately there is only the name of the country next to it.
The policy continues stating the inappropriate use of icons, it talks about avoiding redundancy (under "do not use too many icons"), which is something that can't happen in operators list. It talks about the legitimate scope which is also respected here as the icon represents the corresponding country, and it talks about readability, something I spoke about above.
So basically, the common approach used by many Wiki users on the operators lists is something very helpful, and is something preferred by many editors, else we could have see the same argument that is taking place here on many other articles with operators lists using icons, we could have seen other members removing icons and others returning them. The fact is, this is the first article in which I find in someone insisting on removing the operators flags, if this issue [the issue of distraction] was so obvious many more senior users would have realized it before and acted as Micheal did, but that didn't happen.
--Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This may be of useful information to this debate. Note: WP:ICONDECORATION is not a WP:Policy. It is a WP:MOS guide that was recently expanded with a small consensus of editors. And it's status as a MOS guide is under dispute because of vagueness, lack of WP:NPOV wording, and WP:CREEP, despite the fact that advocates for the guide keep removing the dispute tags. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: Michael Z. appears to be very active in the discussion of WP:ICONDECORATION, on the side that icons should hardly, if ever, be used. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this important? Yes, the discussion here brought that guideline debate to my attention, about three days ago. The requirement to “help the reader rather than decorate” has been present in the guideline since I started referring to it, and at least since April 2007Michael Z. 2009-02-08 19:20 z
I understand that. I just wanted to state what appears to be your opinion in general. Also, what would you consider "helping the reader"? Please give an example. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdented to make discussion readable)

As I have been reading over various relevant policy to this discussion, I came this section of the manual of style, which states "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." This section is heavily supported by the ArbCom, which has issued two rulings in favor of it. The first mainly deals with different types of spelling, though the second expands the previous ruling to include "American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style." The second ruling also explicitly states that the examples given are not an all inclusive list. The ruling goes on to say "Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." I believe that for the purposes of this discussion, it would be best to follow the MoS and two ArbCom decisions. Looking through the page history, I have found this diff, which seems to suggest that flags were in the article before Michael Z. removed them.

While, as a mediator, I do not have any true authority to end this argument, I would like both of the involved editors to consider this in the discussion.


ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. Basically I believe what is said in the manuals which you have quoted from supports my idea to keep the flags. As I mentioned before, using flags in operators list was not only a common approach in this article, but is and remains a common approach on most [if not all] of Wikipedia operators lists. So going back to the basics, and to the original contributions in this article means returning to the flags, and having the flags here from the first place was based on that common approach followed all over Wikipedia.
Thank you. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 07:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Any comments from Micheal?--Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
He has informed me via user talk page that he is in the midst of composing his reply and will post shortly. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Michael Z. has not posted anything here in a week and a half, though he has been active on-wiki, could we possibly say that he has lost interest in the discussion? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry, sorry. I'll post back here today, before I write anything else on Wikipedia. Michael Z. 2009-02-21 17:35 z'

(outdented) Ok. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now what??? should we stay waiting? decision please... --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the article back to having pictures. If Michael Z. objects, he may raise his objections here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation from Michael Z.[edit]

Why flags should not be used here, but should be used in other places – In short: they shouldn't be used here, and they shouldn't be used in almost any other place either.

This is supported by the guideline for icons, which provides lots of advice on why and where to avoid icon images, but can't even suggest a real example where they should be added. 3,200 words of advice, and the best it has to offer is the insupportable assertion that “some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon [sic].” (it begs for [citation needed])

The guideline's key is “help the reader rather than decorate.” The guideline requires a functional justification for adding icon images to an article.

The content of an encyclopedia article is written text, conveyed by typography, illustrated with photos and diagrams, and annotated with data in tables and lists. Its interface consists of headings, page numbers, and leaves of paper in print, and links and navigation bars on the web. Little icon images serve no function as either content or interface.

Specifically, we have an alphabetized list of 14 countries. How does the reader use this? Scan down the list. The blue country links lead the eye to the anchor points, a vertical row of capital initials serves as an index. Figures representing numbers of tanks stand out in the scanning, too. If the reader is interested in one particular country, its presence or absence is confirmed in a half second or less. How can this nearly optimal design possibly be improved?

Now add 14 icon images to “help” – fourteen variously-proportioned, brightly-coloured rectangles, each chunkier and glitzier than any single word or heading on the page. Each ten times more distracting than the bands of yellow highlighter that a grade-school student might thoughtlessly swipe across the pages of a library book. What do they do? We read words and letters, not blocks of colour. The little pictures push the initial letters back from the start of the line and distract the eye. Their various heights spoil the even rhythm of lines of text. Scanning the list is slowed, and instead of an alphabetized list, we now have a game of flash cards or a string of unmatched beads. How does this help the reader? Of course it doesn't help, but hurt. Michael Z. 2009-02-05 07:45 z

Explanation from Zaher[edit]

Thank you for opening the mediation, and sorry for my late reply, I was away for a while. In spite using flags is a very common behavior and approach on Wikipedia operators list, there are more important things to mention. First off, I refute the idea that flags distract the reader, or that they are only for decoration. Flags can have a positive role in reading the list, at many times people quickly reach their target by the flag. Additionally, there is no proof, and it is not at all clear that flags mess the list or distract the reader, as I said it makes reading the list a more pleasant experience.

Secondly, there is no clear rule on Wikipedia stating that "flags should not be used on operators lists". --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion[edit]

While I have no interest in the Leopard tank article, I do edit other similar articles and I see this issue come up over and over.

I have always found the flag icons to be useless. They are a bit distracting and I have to agree with the notion stated here that elements that make no positive contribution to a design tend to weaken it. I can't think of an example of a flag icon helping in any list with which I've worked. For those who believe it can be helpful, I'd love to hear some evidence that the flag icon works better than the text itself. For example, would you favor a list with flags but no text? If not, why not? If the flags themselves have that much meaning, can they be substitutes for text or are they always meant as supplements? If they are supplements only, I don't see how the flags help.

As a header feature they make some sense. For example, at the head of a category in a table composed of several categories, a flag icon might be an easy way to convey opposing sides. But even there, words are just as good and possibly better. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.

The other case I can think of is in clarifying ambiguity. For example, if text merely says "Germany" I can think of several possible states (Imperial Germany, Weimar Germany, Nazi Germany, the DDR, the FRG.....). A flag icon might be an instant means of sorting out which Germany is meant.

So....I'd love to see flag icons disappear from lists. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You say: "If they are supplements only, I don't see how the flags help." Consider the meaning of the word "supplement." It is not synonymous with "superfluous." Oicumayberight (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Leopard 1[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we move this article to Leopard 1. "Tank" is an unnecessary qualifier, and should be removed. "Leopard 1" is it's commmon name. See also Leopard 2, Challenger 1 etc.--Pattont/c 18:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree The article only talks about the Leopard 1, not the others, which have their own articles. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree Also the same reasons posted above. Additionally, this article can become an overview about the Leopard tanks and something like this. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
True, but I highly doubt anyone will get Leopard 1 confused with an animal. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Leopard 1 can never mean an animal. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Leopard tank is definitely not correct. If anything it should be Leopard (tank). Having said that, I agree with the move to Leopard 1. I also think that Leopard (tank) should become a disambiguation page because there are three tanks having the name Leopard. See Leopard (disambiguation). This page could remain as a redirect to Leopard (tank). •••Life of Riley (TC) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Either disambiguation or a general overview about the Leopard tanks. --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I would normally favour Leopard (tank) for this as the common name, but, we are faced with an issue of ambiguity even then. So Leopard 1 is the most common name that does not conflict, I think. Especially as the Leopard 2 will increasingly become the common meaning of 'Leopard tank'. So yes. Leopard 1 for this article, Leopard (tank) to be a disambig and Leopard tank to point there? --Narson ~ Talk 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Leopard tank should be the disambig. There's also a spanish tank called the leopard, so 3 tanks for disambuation.--Pattont/c 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Patton123 make the move and Leopard tank should become a disambig page that should at least include Leopard 2, Leopard 2E anad Leopard 1. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More on Operators[edit]

Alongside 'Germany' it states: 'Germany—2,437 originally. 724, last shot 2003'. Somebody has asked what it means; could it be the last time their guns were fired before being replaced by Leopard 2 (although what such a statement is doing there is beyond me). RASAM (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Germany has a strict export policy for military equipment; Greece, Spain and Chile, while still dictatorships, purchased the French AMX-30."[edit]

We should probably remove this line. Spain did not buy the Leopard 1 because the UK did not want to sell the L7 main gun to a fascist country and because the AMX-30 was cheaper, according to the AMX-30 article. Greece, during its dictatorship period, purchased Type 209 submarines from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC) shane — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leopard 1. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leopard 1. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leopard 1. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)