Template talk:Post–Cold War tanks

message: Ok... since the last major edits, there have been some updates- The new Japanese tank and Tank Ex. Im not aware of any others. Do we or do we not include them? Please discuss here. Thanks. T/@Sniperz11editssign 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we would include future tanks only after their completion. test projects are not included for older tanks, and we should follow the same procedure with newer tanks. until these tanks are accepted into service, or at least proposed to sale, they are no more than incomplete projects. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tanks inclusion. 

message: Micheal, I had earlier warned you from naming the tank as Al-Khalid. I had repeatedly told you that it's the name of the tank MBT 2000 (Variant of Type 90) in Pakistani service. A new version of the MBT 2000 has appeared. That's the Chinese has introduced a new version. So it's time to revert back and correct all the mistakes.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pakistani Al-Khalid also includes Ukrainian components and a very modern FCS.  It's not the same tank as a baseline T-90, even if based on it. JonCatalán (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Khalid back to the Original name Type 90.  

message: Who is removing the Type 10? The prototype is currently undergoing trials, and should remain on the list. Otherwise, having the K2 up in the list would make absolutely no sense. enomosiki (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 10 

message: OK, I'm resurrecting the inclusion debate here, in light of recent changes. Which tanks should we add or remove?? If you think any tank should be added, please list them below. If any need to be deleted, again, please discuss... Sniperz11@C S 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion debate 

message: What about this? AMX 10 RC is capable of penetrating a NATO triple heavy tank target at a range of 2000 meters. Flayer (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't used in the same role as a M1 Abrams or Merkava either.  There's a long list of them.  For example, Spain uses the B1 Centauro as an anti-tank vehicle.  Yes, the TAM can also be used to knock-out other tanks, but this isn't its sole purpose.  The TAM is a multipurpose tank, like the other tanks already listed in the template.  It serves the same roles as those tanks in the Argentine Army, not just one (it's not limited).  Yes, the TAM has shown weaknesses and its no longer ideal and may not be as technologically advanced as other tanks that fulfill the same role (lack of composite armor mixed with low armor protection (largely due to the weight requirement, but the Leopard 1 has less protection, as does the AMX-30, and they are both main battle tanks - although, of the Cold War), but it's still a modern tank.  It's just built to the unique requirements of Argentina, not to the requirements of a European war. JonCatalán (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMX 10 RC 

message: The last sample looks pretty good to me.  How about this simpler heading style, which is used in some campaignboxes?  I've also reworded the headings slightly. —Michael Z. 2008-10-14 15:44 z
:The very last template looks fine to me! Now we have to decide about "not in service yet" category. Flayer (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheading style 

message: According to Wikipedia article Cold War, the Cold War period is from March 12, 1947 to December 26, 1991. Some main battle tank articles use the "Cold War tanks" and "Post–Cold War tanks" templates simultaneously. To avoid further confusion, the "Cold War tanks" and "Post–Cold War tanks" templates must be modified. I'm a little surprised that none of the people involved in editing this template felt strange about this. Gasiseda (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Cold War tank"s and "Post–Cold War tanks" templates need to be modified