Talk:List of armoured fighting vehicles by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Russia and The Soviet Union

Why was Soviet Union/Russia split up,Russian armour stocks are mostly soviet. I am going to merge them back together for now. Dudtz 4/24/06 8:21 PM EST

Current stock may be USSR era but the situation will change. Ideally the list should be AFV by country of origin. GraemeLeggett 08:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You should spilt up Germany into East germany,and Federal Republic of Germany if you feel that way. Many Soviet designs are still being built in Russia,I don't see what is wrong with having The USSR and its successor state(Russian Federation) together. Dudtz 5/8/06 6:00 PM EST

[edit] Manufaturers or users?

There seems to be some confusion regarding the meaning of "by country": although in the introduction it is specified that the grouping is "by country of origin", there seems to be grouping by country of use as well. Possibly some corrections should be made. Skartsis 16:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither.
Since this is a list of all AFVs, we should not arbitrarily expand its stated scope.
It would make the list less usable, for example, to list the T-34 tank 40+ times under all of the countries which used it. Nor should it be listed 4 or 5 times under the countries which manufactured it. Its origin was the Soviet Union, and it should appear only there. —Michael Z. 2007-07-27 17:08 Z

[edit] Over-annotation

The intro states this is simply a list, with "the number of AFVs produced and the period of use". And remember, it is a potentially huge list of all AFVs.

Recently, there have been several additions with short descriptions, which may be helpful to identify a vehicle, and mini-articles listing characteristics and histories. This level of annotation is starting to make this list difficult to use, inconsistent, and potentially unsynchronized with the respective articles. It also hampers the functionality of the list's related changes link.

Editors should put the energy into the respective articles instead of cluttering this potentially huge list.

Let's pare this list down to what it is intended to be.

See also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and Wikipedia:Overlistification. —Michael Z. 2007-07-27 16:59 Z

[edit] Suggested merges

List of prototype armoured fighting vehicles ought to be merged into this article, to prevent duplication. All of the information can be preserved by ensuring that each entry in that list retains the word "prototype" in its description. —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 05:36 Z

Agree. Bukvoed (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

List of military armoured cars too, for the same reason. Each country should have a subheading "armoured cars". —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 05:41 Z

Agree. Bukvoed (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both proposals, providing that the format of this list is enhanced to include relevant information (eg: prototype or production). My feeling is that a table format would be much useful than a plain list as it is now, as an example the format used in List of artillery could be used. Please note that List of artillery by country has the same format as this one, so maybe for consistency it's decided to keep the current format (and create a unified "List of armoured fighting vehicles" in table format, perhaps?). Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the former lists artillery by class and calibre, and includes country of origin. That format would be great here, because this is supposed to be a list by origin, and it would discourage dumping countries' entire inventories here.
The latter artillery list is an inventory for each country, so individual models may appear numerous times. An AFV list like this would be too huge, and too incomplete. I think this information belongs in articles about individual armies, or as stand-alone lists by country. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 20:21 z


List of Estonian armoured fighting vehicles really should be merged, too. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 20:09 z

[edit] Table format

How would we adopt the table format from List of artillery for this list? This may be a good opportunity to reduce redundancy by merging some of the many lists, and eliminating overlap of self-propelled artillery. This would differ from what we have now, and no longer be "by country", so maybe we should start a new stand-alone list.

The artillery list is subdivided into tables by class. Each table is sorted by calibre, and includes name, country of origin, and period (should be year of introduction). It's a bit garish, but the flags might actually be useful in the mixed lists.

AFVs could be similarly divided into tables by class. I see the following subheadings already in use here:

  • Airborne fighting vehicles
  • Amphibious vehicles
  • Armoured cars
  • Armoured personnel carriers
    • Carriers
    • Infantry fighting vehicles
  • ARVs
  • Combat engineering vehicles
  • Tanks
    • Tankettes
    • Light tanks
    • Medium tanks
    • Main battle tanks
    • Assault tanks
  • Reconnaissance
  • Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons
  • Self-propelled guns

How would we sort each table? In many cases it may make sense to go by weight, which may help obviate arguments about what constitutes a light or medium tank. Alternatively, they could be listed by year of introduction. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 20:51 z