Talk:T-34/Archive 4

message: The 23rd October T-34 incident in Budapest has already gained legendary fame in Hungary, like the partiotic highwaymen of the mid-19th century. Webforums are full of topics like "uncle tank is our hero" or "uncle tank rulez".
One local news portal even made a fun flash game about it, see (click "Indi'ta's" in the lower right corner to start and you hit tables and cars while avoiding police tear gas and water cannons):
http://index.hu/img/assets/politika/belfold/turul/t34.swf
195.70.32.136 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest T-34 in Budapest, Hungary 

message: Hi guys, and congrats on getting this to FA status! Notwithstanding the fact that there are only 24 hours in the day, could I ask some of the contributors to this article to help in improving the tank article as well? I had been chipping away at its problems (mainly lack of inline citations) but wasn't fast enough to avert the loss of FA status. So help would be appreciated. Cheers, 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank

message: Good article, but I was distracted by the "variants" section, which breaks the flow of the story with long lists and a table. Could we get those moved into a separate section at the end of the article? Zocky | picture popups 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow 

message: there's a link about "evacuation of tank factories" that leads to a redirect which doesn't contain any information about the relevant evacuation.  I'm just reading this article as it was featured, and don't have extra time to track down the correct page, but someone should probably update the link.  --18.85.46.22 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  evacuation of soviet industry to ural? 

message: This is ridiculous. No inline citation, especially the "Importance" section looks like complete original research to me. Was FA done by sockpuppetting or internal bias within a WikiProject? (Wikimachine 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has dozens and dozens of harvard-style inline citations. Raul654 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not that original :o).--MWAK 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do have to agree that the FAC appears to have been most cursory and there are dozens if not hundreds of uncited facts. I have noticed that the standards expected of an article for FA status appear to vary wildly from one to the next, and as a esult its output is most uneven. I shall be raising my concerns at the FAC page - PocklingtonDan 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA standards do not require a specific citation for every fact (nor does any Wikipedia policy require such). Christopher Parham (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, thank god we make sure an article's punctuation is correct but not that its facts are correct - PocklingtonDan 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually the article was darned good until it made it to the front page. DMorpheus 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, it's a great article; although it may be lacking somewhat in citations, putting a citation after every sentence is downright disruptive (this is the first featured article I've actually edited before it was an FA...and they even kept my sentence in the opening paragraph!) and besides, it's been a while since a military FA.  Besides citation, I see no reasonable grounds for objection. Antimatter---talk--- 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I just went through the whole thing. The number of fact tags is silly. I could reference most of them off the top of my head but doing so will make the article unreadable. DMorpheus 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the person putting all those cite tags on even bothered to check if one citation covered several previous sentences - looks like pointy tagging.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether it be policy or consensus, the recent trend among FAs is that most factual statements are referenced. Nonetheless, I'm deleting the "importance" section under WP:OR unless refs are provided. (Wikimachine 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to FA 

message: This claim is of course quite incorrect, see e.g. FCM 36.--MWAK 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see 7TP - substantiate that claim, please --Jinxs 08:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since production of the 7TP tank was started in 1935 it seems to hold the title of the first mass produced diesel powered tank. But we can still add information thet the T-34 was one of the first tanks powered by a diesel engine. Mieciu K 10:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After the British Matilda tank as well. GraemeLeggett 11:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's the Type 95 Ha-Go, also from 1935 :o). But the claim has been removed.--MWAK 12:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First tank to use Diesel engine

message: I was in the process of undoing vandalism when some one else did an edit. I sem to have created an edit to a different version to the one I intended. Why does it do that? I had the offending edits in the window and was reverting back to a more appropriate version minus the vandalism. Ozdaren 11:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I believe that quote is from Lenin and not Stalin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plosconti (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been credited to both, more frequently to Stalin, but I haven't yet found a really authoritative citation. DMorpheus 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quantity vs quality 

message: I might be missing something completely, but doesn't the tank shown in the main image (:Image:T-34 kal76,2mm RB.jpg) have T39 written on it...? Time3000 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tanks, even in museums, do not nomally carry their designation painted on the turret. The numbers are tactical numbers, used as radio call signs in combat. I can't quite make it out myself, but it is probably 739. Polish units did not usually use letters in their tac signs. They usually used three or four-digit numbers. DMorpheus 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: ? -- nyenyec ☎ 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOPRO. —xyzzyn 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's on the front page, why isn't it at least semi-protected? 

message: Shouldn't the citation be the usual . Let me add, sections without any citation should be deleted under WP:OR. Currently, "variants", & "other T-34-based AFVs", "T-34-based support vehicles" have absolutely no refs. (Wikimachine 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: Tables were counted as 1.
(Wikimachine 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics on Citation

message: *Revolutionary Design: 48
*Establishing and maintaining production: 36
*Evolutionary development: 23
*Cost-effectiveness: 5
*Numbers: 11
*Model naming: 11
*Tank models: 23
*Variants: 8
*Other T-34-based AFVs: 5
*T-34-based support vehicles: 8
*Table of tank models: 1
*Combat history: 55
*After World War II: 15
*Other countries: 3
*Combat effectiveness: 49
*Tank as a symbol: 10
*Importance: 13
*Surviving vehicles: 11
::::NOTE: Tables were counted as 1.
(Wikimachine 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: # of Factual Statements

message: I don't know what or when it became ok to put so many  in articles that they are either difficult to read or impossible to read.  This is yet another one were someone's determination to footnote an article to death or demand that it be done has ruined the combat section (the F-86 Saber is likewise damaged).  How about just noting the section instead of every sentence.  If you are so frantic to contribute how about this novel idea... GET A BOOK OR TWO OUT AND CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING USEFUL and footnote it... I hear there are things called bookstores and they are loaded with decent books.  For that matter there are articles in Wiki you can use.  My point here is don't ruin an acticle by taking the cheap and lazy way out and demanding footnotes you are not willing to add to every sentence... sheesh!!! Tirronan 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree (see above). IMHO it is a thinly-disguised effort at pushing a POV. DMorpheus 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these directed at me? I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say POV but I never entered into a controversial edit. Also, that I identify problems & want them corrected is not a reason why I should correct them. The article simply should not be a FA. As for me, it's none of your business that I don't add any footnotes because I have my time concentrated in other interests right now & I admit that I'm not an expert at tanks. (Wikimachine 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a recent trend among FA has been that all factual statements are cited as to increase verifiability. Putting 1 or 2 references at end of each section is much worse in terms of verifiability because nobody knows which are sourced and which are not; therefore, vandalisms and POV edits can easily sink in & mess up the article. (Wikimachine 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't add, and I think having one once in a while is pretty nice. No, I'm not an expert in the article, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize. I saw this article on the front page & I was completely terrified by how terrible the conditions of the article was. This is more about precedence then editing the article within your area of expertise. I think that if I let one article slip in as FA like this, then there could be many more w/ simply stupid justifications. (Wikimachine 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: added a couple of repetative footnotes to shut a moron up. You don't seem sorry at all... (Wikimachine 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed over load 

message: I attempted to post the article for FAR, but found that only 15 days ago there was a FAR. I'm not sure if FAR's over yet, although a user pushed for it. I think it' still going on, but I'd like to see you guys reply on the matter first. 
The previous FAR was a joke. One user suggested FAR & all the rest opposed it. Why? Systemic bias. I'd like to invite several other WikiProjects to participate in the FAR. (Wikimachine 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous FAR