Talk:Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle)

message: Does anyone have a source for the information given in this part? I'm pretty sure protection level is much higher than 12,7 mm allround.  EggyNL (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't lots of light armoured vehicles only protect against 7.62mm ammo?  Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Is this an instance of parallel evolution?  Industrial espionage?  Why does the Boxer look so similar to a Mowag Piranha?
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see little real resemblance there. Also the French VBCI shares a similar shape but still is a different design.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.1.211 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  parallel evolution? 

message: Is this an amphibious vehicle?Agre22 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.203.45 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: An anphibious vehicle?

message: I searched the official website and brochure of ARTEC, but there is no reference about 120mm mortar module, but about these 9 kinds of module - Armoured Personnel Carrier, Armoured Engineer Group Vehicle, Ambulance, Command Post, Battle Damage Repair, Cargo, Cargo/C2, Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Driver Training Vehicle. Is there any reference about 120mm mortar module? - ImperatorMK (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  120mm mortar module 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/index.html
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: User:Wolpat please explain why this should be retained. It is someone talking about their company's product, so a primary source, how can you regard that as WP:RS that should be retained? Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; direct quotes from the manufacturer are not reliable sources, that would be like someone from Eurofighter saying the Typhoon is the greatest fighter in the world, or someone from Dassault claiming the Rafale is. If you can find a reliable third party source that states that the Boxer is ahead of its time you're welcome to insert that, but the current quote cannot be retained and your thought processes and analysis are irrelevant without reliable sources. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Mztourist I anticipated deletion would be the outcome as rules are rules, even when in some cases they can be a little bit too rigid. I will seek out supporting comment from another source. The entire area of Boxer dwarfing other comparable 8x8s also needs to be looked at again at some stage, because as I set out earlier here, it used to be, but it definitely ain't no more!Wolpat (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahead of its time 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Boxer (armoured fighting 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/20040611222805/http://www.army-technology.com:80/projects/mrav/index.html to http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-army-re-joins-boxer-programme
Quite obviously.
Sammartinlai (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK choses Boxer  

message: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-companies-get-green-light-to-press-ahead-with-new-army-vehicle-plans-defence-minister-announces
Thanks
Sammartinlai (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  it should be over 500 Boxers for the British Army 

message: As someone who's had no part in writing this article, I was surprised to see something so well written and so thoroughly cited to so many sources so heavily tagged. I've removed all but one of the tags that stated the article was poorly-cited, point of view, promotional etc etc; basically none of them seem to me to be appropriate. The article is sourced to such major authorities as Jane's Defence Weekly and ABC News; there are many citations to different government and defence sources; and inevitably there are technical details cited to the primary source, Artec-Boxer, but not to an inappropriate degree. The tone of the article is not in any way promotional; it's obviously somewhat technical and military, but that is both necessary and expected in a technical article about a military vehicle. The article is somewhat "newsy", with announcements down to the exact day. Personally if I was writing this I'd give timings to the year (or possibly month), and I'd cut down the detail a little - the sites of headquarters and manufacturing plants are probably not going to be of much interest in a few years' time. In particular the material about future and even "possible future operators" is bordering on WP:CRYSTALBALL, so I've left the excessively-detailed tag in place (though no doubt other editors may find even that tag superfluous) as a "happy medium". All the best to you guys, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Chiswick Chap, I had been TALKing with the editor that added those tags User: Epistulae ad Familiares as an 'interested party'; basically I did a lot of work on the Boxer article. And thank you so much for your kind comments on its overall quality etc. I'm not the most experienced of Wikipedia editors and did take note of comments made and you'll maybe see started to trim some of the detail. I note your comments/views also, and over the next week or so I will continue to work on the article and trim out some of the detail that has been highlighted, to hopefull further improve what I am pleased to see an experienced editor such as yourself approves of. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think on reflection I may have been overly harsh in my initial assessment of the article, and after having a proper read through and a brief discussion with , I have come to realise that the qualities of this article do indeed far outstrip its deficiencies, and I absolutely agree with removing several of the tags as unwanted. However there are definitely several paragraphs that have citation issues (though I'm sure they could be referenced somewhere), which I will move to insert more specific in-line tags rather than catch-all maintenance templates. At the same time, I'll do my best to contribute constructively to this article to help improve readability while recognising the relative limitations of my expertise. Happy editing! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I've just reverted back to :File:Oefening GTK Boxer Bcie BLJ 01.jpg. I think that this makes a good infobox photo, as it very clearly depicts the vehicle, the vehicle is shown moving from the right to the left (so 'into' the article) and the photo appears to have been taken in an operational environment so shows what this type looks like when its deployed. It's also a well executed and slightly dramatic image that will hopefully interest readers. I don't think that :File:First of the Rheinmetall 211 Boxer on order in Q3 2020.jpg is very suitable. It doesn't depict any of the three Boxers in the photo clearly, appears to depict the type in a factory or similar (note that the operators are wearing bright safety shirts rather than military uniforms) and isn't a very good photo - the out of focus grass in the bottom right corner is pretty amateur, for example. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox photo 

message: The article says there are 23 mission modules. Whilst this is plausible - I know there are new ones being developed as well as the existing 13 mission modules (see https://www.artec-boxer.com/index.php?id=9 for the 13) - I don't see where the "23" comes from and I can't find a source. has anybody got any ideas? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  23 mission modules? Are you sure? 

message: The GVW of the UK boxer is 45 tonnes, this greater than the capacity for the current UK Recovery Vehicle SV(R) which has a GVW of 28 tonnes. While a rope or bar self-to-self recovery can be carried out by another Boxer on rolling casualty with brakes and steering on hard surface it would be difficult cross country. Another disadvantage is that 2 combat Boxers would be out of the ORBAT. 
The Boxer is not designed for suspended tows because the weight-carrying axles become overloaded. Any other info? Trackorack (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery of UK Boxer