Talk:Tsar Tank

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: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

[edit] Copyrighted?

Great. I just got finished cleaning up a good part of this page, and I've just noticed that the version that I started with was nearly identical to the one at [1]. When I find a page that hasn't been at all Wikified (as this one was), I usually Google for a line or two out of the text to make sure that it isn't just copied-and-pasted from somewhere; but, this site didn't come up. Once I started digging around for more information, I ran across it.

Can anyone shed any light on this? I'd hate to see this page get dumped because it's based, in large part, on copyrighted text.

Thanks --Milkmandan 14:22, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Looking further, I'm guessing that that page was based, in large part, off this one: [2]. Still, this doesn't help clean up the matter. --Milkmandan 14:25, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this is going nowhere. Additionally, it looks like whoever added this page has since deleted my question from their talk page. --Milkmandan 01:22, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

I would just like to appologise, to everyone here. I'm very new to wikipedia, and realized I don't know how to use it, as well as I had hoped. I'm also sorry for the slow responses. I didn't mean to delete those messages. I'm not that great at figuring out how they worked. Anyway, I've realized that I'm way over my head, so I'm no longer going to be wiki-ing. I appologise to everyone whom I have caused any stress or problems. Atomic645

My dear Mikkalai, do you not agree with me on these facts:

Thank you for talking here. You introduced changes without explanations. I had some reasons to write what I wrote. I

1. The Netopyr is not the rather diminutive Pipistrellus but Europe's largest bat, the noctule Nyctalus lasiopterus. Or perhaps some new taxonomic analysis shows it's P. lasiopterus?

I am not an expert in bats, but several articles and dictionaries I checked translate netopyr as pipistrellus. I found this a bit strange, too. If you have better knowledge, please correct. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked a bit more and Nyctalus seem correspond to "вечерница", which makes a linguistic sense. But again, I'm no expert in bats. Mikkalai 08:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2. The measure of 12 metres does not refer to the height of the vehicle - obviously, as the wheels form the highest point and they have a diameter (not radius!) of just nine. Rather it is the width of the hull, itself five metres above ground-level. It was this "wingspan" that gave it the name Netopyr.

Please look at the references given in the articles. They have pictures and detailed size data. If you disagree with them, please provide your reference. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I doublechecked with Russian sources. It seems that the references quoted in the article have width and height interchanged. Thanks for pointing that out. I shoud have been forewarned: they had the name garbled. Mikkalai 08:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. Manoeuvrability is spelled manoeuvrability?

Sorry. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a rather puzzled MWAK--84.27.81.59 07:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was too. Next time, when making noticeable changes of facts please explain them, with references. Also, I see you (or, rather, your IP :-) are editing quite a lot. Please get yourself a name. It takes only two minutes to register, but gives a number of conveniences. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm just a lazy fellow, I fear...;o)

Don't you know that lazy fellows are the driving force of progress that delivers all these conveniences?  :-) So son't hesitate to use them. Mikkalai 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now on the subject of bats. I'm not an expert on them either, so today I contacted an acquaintance of mine who is. He smugly informed me you were absolutely right and I was completely wrong. Netopyr is indeed the Russian name of the genus Pipistrellus. But he also gave a possible explanation for the incongruity of choosing the name of a small bat for such a large vehicle. It seems that, apart from the present technical sense of the word, in (older) colloquial Russian netopyr simply meant "big bat" (smaller species then being referred to as kozyan) and related words are used in many Slavic languages for just "bat". Of course solving the problem this way creates a new one: why should Russian biologists use the name big bat for a smaller genus?

MWAK--84.27.81.59 08:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Size has nothing to do with the nickname. It is shape. The small model was convenient to carry grabbed by the rear wheel. The hanging model looked just like a bat asleep. "Where are you carrying this bat?" Mikkalai 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see :o) But then netopyr was at the time (or is still?) a general word for bat?

MWAK--84.27.81.59 06:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The usage varied in time, together with general changes in taxonomy. According to Vladimir Dahl's vocabulary, it was a general term in Central Russia, and Dahl gives the modern widespread general Russian term "letuchaya mysh" ("flying mouse") as Southern. He gives a number of other bat's names as connotational with netopyr, which now are classified as separate genera. Brockhaus and Efron write that it is a family. Great Soviet Encyclopedia says it is a genus. The latin term changed over time as well. Mikkalai 17:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That makes things much clearer to me. I thank you for your effort. The Dutch article I'll change accordingly. And I've decided to be a little less lazy:

--MWAK 09:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It would be crazy to see this roam the battlefields

No doubt it would have been destroyed very quickly but it would have made some awesome footage for the hsitory channel!

-G

[edit] Hailfire Droid

This looks a lot like the hailfire droid from Star Wars EP2.