Template talk:WWIIGermanAFVs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive: Template talk:WWIIGermanAFVs/Foreign vehicle debate

Contents 1 Experimental vehicles 2 Proposal 3 Conflation of models 4 Splitting the template 5 Line breaks 6 Template color 7 Panzer IX is Fake

[edit] Experimental vehicles

I think vehicles that were never actually built but designed is fine so long as they are under the Experimental heading. Oberiko 10:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I would suggest that, in light of the recent debate, any major change to this template by anyone be approved here first before being made. Oberiko 00:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The archived discussion didn't actually explain what the consensus opinion was on the template, would you mind stating what it is here for the record GraemeLeggett 10:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, it's on my user page. I'll transfer it over. Oberiko 10:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

just a summary will do fineGraemeLeggett 11:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basically we've agreed to keep the template as it is, no foreign/captured tanks with the exception of the Panzer 35(t) / 38(t) which is something of an exception. Oberiko 13:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflation of models

Does anyone have an opinion on the Armoured cars, being merged. To my mind the 221,222,223 articles are crying out for combination, but the template doesn't necessarily need altering since the space is there. GraemeLeggett 14:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think all the armored cars can go in one article and all the half-tracks can go in another. At least until we expand them beyond the few sentences they each are now. Oberiko

There need to be at the very least good articles for the sdfk 250 and 251 half tracks; the various four wheeled armoured cars and six wheeled armoured cars can be combined; certainly the 221/222/223 don't necessarily need separate articles. --Martin Wisse 07:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just as well, I've already rearanged the 220 series.GraemeLeggett 08:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could I suggest we use the names Schwerer Panzerspahwagen for the six/eight wheeled variants and Leichter Panzerspahwagen for the four wheeled variants instead of the SdFkz numbers? Oberiko 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately those are both very long names and to mind mind just translate as heavy and light armoured car. What's the origin of the SdFkz "acronym"?

SdKfz stands for Sonder Kraftfahrzeug, meaning something like "special motor vehicle". Every AFV in Germany had a SdKfz number, including capturing captured models. Think of it as a serial number of sorts.

The primary reasons why I suggest using those two is that they are part of the official designation for the vehicles and would give us a very conveniant, logical seperator between the armored car models. Oberiko 15:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for Info: Sd.Kfz. means Sonderkraftfahrzeug - one word but two parts if using the short form. An example collection of Sd.Kfz. Numbers is here: [1]. You may have noticed I changed the template a little because all models listed are/have been Flakpanzer IV versions. The Grille AA was a prototype and I changed it to Flakpanzer 38(t) because this tank saw service. -- Denniss 15:23, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I follow now, in that case, doing a rename on SdfkZ 221, will suffice and then the variant numbers will all automatically redirect to it. I'll give it a go now. GraemeLeggett 15:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem with the new template for armored cars:

• It removed the other armored cars, there were more then just two series.
• The names for those two are listed under is rarely used to delineate these types and are not even spelled right. Its

Panzerspähwagen not Panzerspahwagen. Also, the 223 and 260/1 were Panzerfunkwagen not Panzerspähwagen.

The main armored car types listed should at least include the Kfz 13/14, Sdkfz 221/22/23 260/61 Fu types, Sdkfz 231/32/63 233 (6 and 8 rad) and Sdkfz 234 types, and the Sdkfz 247 Personenkraftwagen. If all the main ones cannot be listed, it might better just to move the all the wheeled vehicles off to there own template. Starfury 00:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Starfury. The use of umlauts is optional on Wikipedia, as the common English name tends to lose them in translation. Basically, we're to use what's more popular and create a redirect at the alternate. We can use a, ae, and ä with equal 'correctness'. A quick google run shows that non-umlauted version is more popular.

The Panzerfunkwagens are variations of existing models with radios and a mounted frame aerial around hull, they can be mentioned as part of the parents description and do not require their own article. I'll admit though that the Kfz 13/14 (Maschinengewehrkraftwagen) and SdKfz 247 don't fit into the model. We could have a generic "other" within Armored Cars to handle these two anomalies.

My preference though would be to mention them within the light armored car article, under the heading of "related designs" Oberiko 01:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! If the logic for that spelling is because its more popular, then it does not make sense to list them that way at all, as the cars are rarely organized by using those names but usually mentioned after.

Also, writing out heavy/ light armored cars in the template is about as long as just linking Kfz 13/14, Sdkfz 221/223, 231/234, 247. The 234 series is enough different to deserve its own page eventually, as it is more the just another 231 version in many respects, but it is probably fine for now.

Going back to the light/heavy issue, I have never seen them seperated with those names, only that the term is mentioned when saying the vehicles full name. Also heavy/light is not a very good seperator of functionality, for example, both the 222 and 234/1 both had a 20mm cannon. There was not much of a real split in terms of the actual vehicles, but a gradual increase in weight and capabilities between the 4 6 and 8 wheelers with various weapon mounts. I do think you could leave it, but it would a unique way of listing them, not something I have ever seen done in my experience. Starfury 18:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it might not be an ideal split, but it is one that where a vehicle is definitely in one camp or the other. Once the vehicles are expanded further (enough for seperate articles), we can probably add more links to the template and further break it up. Oberiko 02:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allright then, what I will do is change the light and heavy names to the numbers on the template, since that is more common name for those vehicles. However, I will leave the page name where they are and I will not add the other vehicles to the template for now. Starfury 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the template

Have you ever thought of splitting the template into two parts ?

1. Tanks, Assault guns, Tank destroyers, Artillery and AA
2. all the other stuff

This template is too big to be in one part (someone in germany called a smaller version a monster).
At least the halftrack an armored cars section should be combined into one field:

Armored half-tracks | Armored Cars
SdKfz 4, 250, 251, 252, 253 | Light armored cars, Heavy armored cars

(just a small example) -- Denniss 18:20, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

You're probably right. I think we could merge Armored Cars and and Half-tracks (We'll probably have one or two merged articles for them as well) and make a seperate template for the experimental vehicles. That would take off three rows. Oberiko 19:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about like this, more compact, no?

Armored half-tracks | Armored Cars
SdKfz 4, SdkFz 250, 251, 252, 253 | 4 wheeled, 6-8 wheeled

GraemeLeggett 20:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's big, but it would look a lot less monstrous without the rainbow stripes. It makes me want to put my flaps down for final approach. When I have a chance, I'll try to make a redesign proposal (there's a first draft of the smaller Soviet AFVs table at User:Mzajac/sandbox#AFV navbox).

My attempt at putting two categories in one row:

Tank destroyers
Panzerjäger I | Marder I , II , III | Hetzer | Jagdpanzer IV | Jagdpanther | Nashorn | Jagdtiger | Elefant
Armored half-tracks	Armored cars
SdKfz 4 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253	Light armored cars | Heavy armored cars

—Michael Z. 2005-04-7 20:38 Z

I've gone and done it. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 21:50 Z

I've put a more subdued version of the German AFV navbox in my sandbox, at User:Mzajac/sandbox#AFV navbox. It's cleaner, but still pretty big. If splitting in two, try to keep the experimental tanks in the same infobox with the regular tanks, and experimental other in the infobox with the other, etc. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 23:32 Z

Another solution: tank pages get a tank-only template, which also links to a compact list of all German AFVs. All tanks remain a click away, other AFVs are two clicks. Likewise for each category, which is currently a single row in the template. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 23:38 Z

If we have the time, another solution that might work would be to have several templates; one covering the vehicle and its variants, the other for its class. For example the StuG III page could have one template covering all vehicles from the Panzer III chassis, and another for all German assault guns. This would not only be smaller per page, but probably serve as a more effective navigation tool. Oberiko 00:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the template as it is now, covering all major armoured vehicles in one place; I think the way Mzajac is thinking is the way forward: lightening the template and tightening it up. One thing I've done to make it lighter is removing the links to the various Entwicklung designs, none of which were present anyway and replaced it with a link to one page for the entire series, as these really don't need separate pages. To do so, I shortened the names for the 'Maus' and 'Ratte' tanks. --Martin Wisse 08:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your choice to shorten down the E-series, but I changed the Maus and Ratte names. The reason is that in the case of the Maus, it was a formal name just like Tiger. For the Ratte, the P-1000 designation is more common then the nickname. The same is true for E- label as opposed to writing it out. Starfury 18:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line breaks

Hi Oberiko. In my default window, I never saw any line breaks, and I don't even have a very big monitor (running at 1024 px wide). Now two of the rows are awkwardly too tall. I'll change the pipe dividers to always break after; let me know if that fixes your problem. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 23:22 Z

Done; added some strategic NBSPs to prevent most of the links from breaking in the middle. Good now? —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 23:30 Z

Yes, much better. Oberiko 23:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template color

Might I suggest a different colour for the template - on my monitor RBG 51,153,153 is a passable match for "field grey" and a browser safe colour too.GraemeLeggett 11:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For which element of the template? What colours do you suggest for the other ones (I've found American, British, French, and Soviet; is that all of them?).

I'd definitely like to reduce or eliminate the colours in the template—they serve no purpose, and just make it really busy, distracting from the text. Have you seen the ideas I've been trying out: User:Mzajac/sandbox#AFV navbox?

This one is too dark for putting behind text, and looks a bit like blue licorice to me. This colour (#9CC) might be better. —Michael Z. 2005-04-8 14:04 Z

I like the second. I disagree with Mzajac, the colours are important to break up the sections and give the eye someting to fix on when looking up and down. I see the same thing in use besides me in a Dell brochure; alternating light and dark bands GraemeLeggett 15:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the Dell brochure use five different colours of bands, with little or no significance to the colours? (In our case, it seems "dark" means heading, "reddish" means experimental. Blue, green, and brown mean ... what?) Does it use a combination of background contrast, background colour, text size, text weight, and text colour to provide information (plus a couple of white rules, and a couple dozen pipe character separators)? Here the eye has waaay too much to fix on, and doesn't stop until it's bouncing off the walls. —Michael Z. 2005-04-8 22:07 Z

(I think i got the number of indents right) I was not commenting ont he number of different colours used, just that the alternation of light and dark was important.GraemeLeggett

Fair enough. I wasn't advocating necessarily getting rid of bands of tone, but I dislike the multiple colours.

But please have another look at my proposals, which I updated yesterday. I've used alternating tone to unify the headings with their associated content rows (instead of separating them, as the current template does). —Michael Z. 2005-04-9 15:50 Z

I have no opinion on changing the headings, but I do prefer the dot seperators over the pipe. Oberiko 15:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the bottom design on Michael's proposals page and would propose adopting it. --Martin Wisse 17:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colour's a bit thin for my eyes but the only thing thsat concerns me is that "Self Propelled anti-aircraft" is just a bunch of descriptors without a noun it really needs the word "vehicle" after it. GraemeLeggett 14:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panzer IX is Fake

Jentz, Achtung! Panzer, and others say that the Panzer IX/X designs were frauds to confuse Allied intelligence agencies about German AFV plans. I've never seen any 3-views of it, or anything about them other than one hand-drawn picture of two tanks that appear to suffer from obesity. I doubt you could find any other official source to suggest a design phase, and they certainly didn't reach the prototype stage. Sacxpert 10:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)