Talk:Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles

message: I've added the AFV template as in the stryker article. Anyone have a picture? 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle

message: I am not sure how this works, my apologies if I mess it up. But the picture for the Coyote looks alot like a LAV 3 to me, however I don't have the time to really look into it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.221.227 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LAV-III

message: No combat experience at all would like to see how this tank can survive in combat if anyone can figure that out and add it this article that would be amasing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.83.195 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002044142/http://www.dnd.ca/menu/coyote/ to http://www.dnd.ca/menu/coyote/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429185239/http://www.gdcanada.com/content/detail.cfm?acronym=vetronics to http://www.gdcanada.com/content/detail.cfm?acronym=vetronics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111092308/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/CanadaMilitaryPosture.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/CanadaMilitaryPosture.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As both the Bison armoured personnel carrier and the Coyote are based on a common chassis design and share many common systems, I believe it makes sense to merge the two into one article.  Burnsnet27 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree. They are variants of the same vehicle, in the same way as the LAV VI 25mm and the ACSV. trackratte (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  there seems to be agreement to merge among those with subject expertise, but it's not clear what the joint title would be, how precisely readers are served by a joint page, and whether ASLAV should be included in the merge (that's quite a big page). Any thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're all part of the LAV Family of Vehicles, from LAV 1 (like Cougar, Grizzly, Bison, etc) to the latest LAV VII. trackratte (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose merging ASLAV, LAV-25 and/or LAV III with any of these at this stage, but here I think merge Bison into Coyote, the latter supports the former. Cavalryman (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Bison APC 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles  Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle →  – The merge discussed in the above section was probably a good idea, but the Bison is probably the main topic. The Bison was designed before the Coyote. It makes more sense chronologically to talk about the Bison first. My Jane's combat vehicle reference guide has a whole entry for the Bison with the Coyote only listed as a variant. I think a combination Bison/Coyote title is in order so that the reader isn't confused. Schierbecker (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the latter suggestion. Schierbecker (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find the latter one more natural. Regarding WP:SINGULAR, perhaps it could fall under the exception for "the names of classes of objects". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

text: *It wouldn't be completely unprecedented to use a slash. There is T-54/T-55, which is arguably the common name. Schierbecker (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 February 2022