This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This edit request to Tank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In terms of firepower, the focus of 2010s-era R&D is on increased detection capability such as thermal imagers
The 2010s are done. Please change "is" to "was". Thank you. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
how to edit help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgisby (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Please can one be chosen? Red Jay (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Literally the very first edit on this page (which certainly wasn't a stub) is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&oldid=287081
"armor" is used consistently except when linking to another article, as per general practice back then. This article is American English. Red Slash 00:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This was discussed way back. in a 2013 discussion you participated in. Local Consensus was stick with BE, can you show consensus has changed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This all seems rather pointlessly disruptive. I'm not going to add to it but it's not really enhancing the article. Although it'd be nice if Wikipedia actually properly sorted out this matter once and for all because it's causing endless problems. --Vometia (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Tank/Archive_7#Article_actually_is_in_American_English_(or_should_be) - a change to American English was rejected then. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Another year. Could editors please note that policy is quite clear on the matter - when an article is established in a language setting, that cannot be changed without wide consensus and very good reason. Could editors please respect the earlier consensus. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This important article remains very poorly cited, with some sections and many whole paragraphs not sourced at all. The encyclopedia has moved in the past fifteen years from being edited more or less without attention to sourcing, to a more thorough and careful approach which demands reliable and accurate sources for every subject. Most MilHist articles are indeed extremely attentive to their use of citations. It is time that this article caught up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)