Talk:Self-propelled gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

[edit] Merge with Self-propelled artillery

1) The person who made this merge notice hadn't placed thread yet so im making one.

My vote is yes.

Self-propelled gun is a stub and Self-propelled artillery already have all the information listed in this article. Jak722 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2)

I'm opposed—this article covers four classes of vehicles:

1. Self-propelled artillery
2. Assault guns
3. Self-propelled antitank guns
4. Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons

There's no reason to merge this with a particular one. It should remain a stub or short article which acts as an umbrella and gateway to those four articles and their related (non-motorized) artillery articles. It should also explain the differences in their roles and military organizations, and leave the details to the individual articles. —Michael Z. 2006-07-14 04:26 Z

3)

• • • After reading the talk page on Self-propelled artillery, I'll change my vote to no merge.

Those guys have a point and they pretty much have a consensus to oppose a merge.

• Oppose - merging would tend to bloat Artillery and further expansion of the article would lead to this topic being spun off anyhow. GraemeLeggett

• Oppose for the same reason. Perhaps the Artillery article should be modified to reflect the existence of the SP artillery, something like a section with short summary and link to this article as "main article", but not the complete merge of this article into Artillery. Bukvoed 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Merging would simplify the subject. Not all artillery is self propelled. Self propelled artillery has a different use, design and history.

• Oppose- I dont think that you should merge the two because they are two different things really.

• Oppose (Herbm 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)) -- Other opposition above it correct, but the key reason is that artillery is a much larger concept (including both the units which support such artillery and the equipment itself) with self-propelled artillery being a specific type. This specific type is commonly confused with a "tank" and needs it's own specific article. This article DOES need to be merged with (the stub) Self-propelled gun, and links need to be added to hook this to Howitzer etc. (going to do some of that now.)

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Self-propelled_artillery Jak722 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was about a possible merge of Self-propelled artillery with Artillery, so it's irrelevant here. Bukvoed 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

4) I am OPPOSED.

"Gun" is not equivalent to "artillery". The page "self-propelled GUN" clearly states that it concerns itself also with self-propelled anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank weapons. These instruments are not only denominated differently, they are also used in a different tactical role and therefore should not be mixed up with the artillery concept. I also aggree with the argument that self-propelled artillery units are often confused with tanks and that consequently a separate section "self-propelled artillery" is necessary to clarify this difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.199.8.128 (talk • contribs)

5) Opposed, see Michael Z.'s comment. Bukvoed 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think most oppose the merge – in either direction – on similar grounds as discussed on Talk:Self-propelled artillery, i.e. there is some overlap between the two concepts, but they are distinct enough to both warrant separate pages. Can we remove the merge tag now? --Deon Steyn 11:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the merge tag, because almost everyone opposed the merge and the article has now been expanded (including comments on distinction to self-propelled arty) and it is looking a lot better than when it was originally tagged for a merge: [1]. --Deon Steyn 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)