Talk:Tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tank:
  • Improve citations as appropriate
Former featured article Tank is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
February 3, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Comment moved from ANI[edit]

The "Tank" page was changed to British English. While the tank was first used by British forces, American tanks and tactics were used in the most recent conflict that was internationally recognized. America has manufactured more tanks than Britain in every war since WWI, and British tanks are adaptations of American tanks, not the other way around, and have been for decades. For these reasons, I hold that the article should be in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingoutagain (talkcontribs) 15:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC) moved from WP:ANI by Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Helpingoutagain: I moved your comment here because it's relevant to this article, and isn't a matter requiring administrators' involvement. Please discuss here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the page was changed back to British after it was changed to American by you, which, per wp:ENGVAR and wp:RETAIN, is something we normally don't do. - DVdm (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to be off-topic but - British tanks are certainly NOT adaptations of American tanks. There is zero basis for that remark. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that the discussion from 2013 reached the conclusion that raising objections more than a decade after the change is simply too late and that the article should remain in British English. As for the argument that number of tanks produced should be the determining factor, I think all agrees that having the article in Soviet English is a bad idea. BP OMowe (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Da. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Major tank battles are... ?[edit]

I agree to having a section on Tank#Major tank battles; it's an notable part of what it means to have tanks. But recent additions have made it somewhat long, losing any implied meaning of "most important" tank battles. Do we have criteria for inclusion here? Also, what is the sort criteria? Both these criteria should probably be stated in the article, or at least as hidden comments so other editors will know how to contribute to this. Or maybe this should be a table, not just a list, so the criteria (and dates etc. for context?) can be displayed. (Pinging Don Brunett who made most of the additions.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems the user that created the long list, Don Brunett, won't respond here; editor is unfortunately blocked and retired. Please, does anyone else have a guess on what the inclusion and sort criteria may be? Such a long list cannot be maintained without this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added comments for a very few of these that might explain their reason for inclusion. I'm having trouble finding the significance for the next few. It would be helpful if any other editors can add something. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the whole section should be removed or pared down very significantly, on the order of 90%. First, I cannot imagine defining what a 'tank battle' is. To take an obvious example, Kursk is traditionally referred to that way amongst amateurs, but any halfway serious study demonstrates it was a combined-arms operation on both sides, just as were most major engagements of both world wars and indeed most major modern wars. Second, even if we can define a 'tank battle', which ones would be included? the biggest? the most important? Those which led to some innovation? Those that had some decisive effect? Third, no matter what we decide now, this sort of list is bound to produce repeated arguments and back-and-forth editing.
So, my suggestion would be to remove it entirely. My second-best suggestion is to re-name it as "Notable usage of armor" or something to that effect, and then have a very limited list, perhaps something like : Cambrai (first usage), Battle of France (first major power defeated through modern tank-led combined arms offensive), Kursk (largest and probably most decisive armor engagement), and maybe Sinai (1973) or 73 Easting as modern examples of where the state-of-the-art is with mechanized combat.
Just my thoughts. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I hoped the list could be improved as-is, but I must admit that I cannot discern the criteria, which makes it unmaintainable. I like the idea of converting it to just a few items that highlight a history of tank warfare firsts, though I agree if we can't keep that well-defined it may be best to scrap the whole thing. I'll give it a day or two for additional comments before I give it a shot. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the above, I've rewritten this section completely; it's now a table of just a few entries. Others are welcome to modify and expand, but we shouldn't allow this to become as unwieldy as it was before. The section is now called Tank#Tank combat milestones. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good? Interesting. Third Ypres was the first attempt to employ tanks, was it? Historical accuracy not a criterion, then. "Few" isn't very encyclopaedic, is it? How do we define "successful"? After all, most authorities consider Cambrai a combined-arms operation. No mention of first use by the French or Germans? Good grief. This will need more passes than the Six Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.157.169 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to improve the list by citing sources.
I don't think first use by each nation is much of a milestone concerning tanks in general; it's notable just for that nation. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow 5.81.157.169, I don't know what your personal problem is but that was uncalled for. A D Monroe cleaned up a huge mess. Feel free to help continue the effort. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Milestones[edit]

It isn't good enought to put grossly inaccurate information on Wikipedia and wait for it to be corrected. Wikipedia imagines that it is an encyclopaedia, and some people look things up in it and believe what they read. I wonder how many people will now be declaring that the first use of tanks was at the Third Battle of Ypres, thanks to Wikipedia. While Monroe's ill-conceived, badly researched, and, in my view, unnecessary section is in the article, it is misleading people. It is preferable to do what real encyclopaedias do, which is to get the facts right and then publish them.

To judge from his contributions elsewhere, Monroe believes himself to be in a position to make pronouncements on this topic and closely related ones. Therefore, for him to be ignorant of the date and place of the first deployment of tanks does little for his authority. It doesn't seem that any research was done at all. Those facts are freely available - they're on Wikipedia - so where this misinformation came from is baffling.

The second attempt is a little better in that respect, but is still lamentable. No attempt seems to have been made to find out the number of tanks deployed, and while Sheffield's book is technically acceptable as a source, it is a simple matter to link to the battle of Flers-Courcelette on Wikipedia, which is a much more detailed account. The citation is, I believe, improperly used here, and lacks a page number.

Cambrai needs a fuller explanation than this table allows. It was an initial success, and the biggest deployment of tanks so far, but it is not regarded by authoritative sources as a tank battle. Indeed, the title of Monroe's source indicates that the notion is a myth. Hammond's whole argument is that Cambrai was an all-arms battle in which the tanks played a partThat's why his book is calledCambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle. It can't be offered as a reference simply because it contains the words "Cambrai" and "First Great Tank Battle".

As for the rest of it - I'm not in a position to comment in detail on interwar and WWII, but it seems to me that this is a hostage to fortune and will lead to endless arguments about what constitutes a "milestone". This is already evident in Monroe's argument that French and German developments are of no interest to anyone but the French and Germans. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that it is not widely known that France developed tanks at the same time as the British and was the second nation to use them. And people do tend to associate tanks with Germany, but might be unaware that the first "panzers" appeared during WWI.

So I suggest that a poorly researched, factually incorrect, incomplete and anglocentric piece of work such as this can't be left on Wikipedia to mislead people, and propose to remove it accordingly. If Monroe wishes to undertake some elementary research and apprise himself, for example, of the number of tanks deployed at Flers-Courcelette, accurately reflect the significance of Cambrai, and so on, some might think it worthwhile to reintroduce the section. I would not be one of them. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that it is easy to insert dreadful stuff such as this, but a monumental, time wasting job to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.139.78 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No one has said the section can't be improved. All of WP is a work in progress. We don't just delete sections with a long history just because they need improvement. If the section has long-standing problems that appear intrinsic to the subject, then it should be deleted. So far, no such problem has been stated, much less supported by any evidence. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Another needlessly obnoxious comment. I wonder if this IP user is the same as the last critic who showed up here. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear 85.75.139.78. "It isn't good enought to put grossly inaccurate information on Wikipedia and wait for it to be corrected." This is a common misconception - publishing information that stands a risk of being corrected is exactly what we should do. If Wikipedia exists, it can be improved upon. If it does not exist, we return to the millenium in which the few held the keys to all of the knowledge. Since nothing in science can be proved correct, only proven incorrect, your preference is effectively nihilism. I have no problem with that viewpoint in principle, it's just not useful in this context. Given the success of science and engineering in general it may be societally wise to cut ourselves a little slack. All content on Wikipedia exists, will continue to be disseminated (if we continue to pay the collective costs) and it is our obligation to the future that it must be improved upon. If you cannot see the mind-altering genius in that concept (including the imperfections) then I suggest we end our conversation cordially right now.
If a viewpoint is presented that can be turned into article content, then it is constructive criticism and we welcome it. "Delete X" is a nihilist suggestion that is treated with the same weight as an anonymous post (quite frankly, none). In case that was unclear, your post regardless of how educated it was, was treated with confidencence level 0.00^2. This is not a reflection on you, simply on societal self-preservation mechanics.
That said, I have seen many articles with POV bias and wanted them to be more inclusive - but it takes real specialist knowledge to do that. If you are one of those specialists - and your comments suggest this - then please elaborate in a way that can be turned into content. This is not a 'waste of time', this is our legacy and we care about it. Doug (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose merge of some history from Tank#History to to History of the tank[edit]

Currently, we have some history details in this article that are missing from the main article. See discussion at Talk:History of the tank#Propose merge of some history from Tank#History to here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tank#Classification[edit]

This section was recently added. It's unreferenced, fairly unencyclopedic, and inaccurate when compared to the main article Tank classification. Although L/M/H tanks are noted in the main article, they are also noted as only one way of classification and mostly obsolete.

A classification section would be good to have, but I don't see anything to salvage from the current one. If no one objects, I'll scrap this and replace it with a short summary of the main article. (A short version will end up kind of saying "it's complicated", so less entertaining, but more accurate, and can then be thoughtfully expanded and improved by others.)

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Do it. I made a quick stab at cleaning it up but it was a quick patch rather than a proper fix. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've boldly replaced the section. I tried to summarize the summary from Tank classification, and it ended up close to "there were some classifications, they varied, and now we just have MBTs". I then inserted a list of notable tank classifications held loosely together with some prose.
At least I can say it now isn't blatantly at odds with the main article.
I didn't get to sources, so the rewrite is still just as bad in that respect. The problem I'm finding is that tank classifications aren't well defined by RSs, even though they make ample use of tank class terms. The main article itself is tagged as "possible OR". Given that, it may be a long uphill battle for sources. We'll see.
As always, others are free to further improve, refactor, or replace. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well done, it reads well. The only thing I'm not sure on is the Tank Destroyer being up-armoured. I see them more as highly mobile SP artillery pieces to ambush tanks on the move (think Hellcat and Achilles, both of which had relatively light armour). Lkchild (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that TDs (like most classifications) aren't that uniform. Assault-guns and SP anti-tank guns employed in the TD role were probably more effective (and cost less) that specially-designed TDs -- the ones that might have better armor. So, yeah, let's go with the more demonstrable effective TDs rather than the "full" concept. I'll remove "up-armoured". --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)