To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Military Technology" under the main section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:
Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.
How do you propose that your information should be linked to this article? As a source? As a general reference? Moreover, explain your claim about being non-commercial. One problem I see about mentioning your organization is that you are not an actual contributor to building/creating technology. Maybe your request is misplaced? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Milspecnews hasn't edited Wikipedia at all in last 4 years, and that the site aforementioned is no longer active, its domain has been taken over by some different firm.-Brain (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That was an obvious 'fail' on my part. All my questions are answered! Thanks! Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This article lacks any pre-20th century military technology. For instance, it doesn't mention horses or ditches. Hyacinth (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Scope limitations? Should the application of the word ″technology" be limited to modern context or expanded? Of course, allowing the expanded view could make this task enormously difficult. What if we start with modern technology and work our way back? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Eras could be a way to divide. Stone age, bronze age, iron age, gunpowder, combustion engine, radio wave, nuclear, IT, or whatever divisions make consensus.SovalValtos (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And the modern "era" could be divided into subheads: radio, nuclear, IT (Cyber), space, electronic countermeasures (stealth) Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am going to be bold and start on a structure for the History section.SovalValtos (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
More is not better on its own, though I agree more is needed for this page. We will have to do some careful editing so as not to duplicate material which already has its own pages. A stand back overview might be the way forward? SovalValtos (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Correct, but remember - general topics do refer and borrow material from other broad or specific topics as necessary. It would be impossible to construct an article on a broad subject if you cannot cite specifics or refer to the technology itself. I wonder if it is better to go with a definition standpoint and cover the eras and break it down by technology type... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed specifics and the technologies themselves must be allowed their place. A comparison with the Technology page is helpful. What is the point of the article other than taxing the focus of its editors!? SovalValtos (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Overlapping or broad concepts are not meant to tax the editors with a burden, but are representative of a concept that is very broad and difficult to properly assess. It is far easier to work within a very limited structure or focus than it is to represent the whole. This comes as a matter of broad-based knowledge is very different than the specific. The former structure was to be an index to more specific military technology than be an article on the development and use of that technology itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)