Talk:List of military vehicles

message: C13 is a re-direct to Carbon 13. However, this doesn't appear to be the correct way this link should be dis-ambiguated. How should it?? Georgia guy 13:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: C13 link

message: In comparison to the List of active United States military land vehicles, should this list be titled List of military land vehicles? This disambiguates the type of vehicle discussed so it doesn't include air and sea vehicles. ~Kruck 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List title

message: :World War 1 1914-1918
::pre-World War II 1919-1938
:World War II 1939-1945
:Cold War 1947-1991
::Cold War/Modern 1980-1991
:Modern 1992-onwards
--Jcw69 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Period

message: In order to properly classify each new entry, please clarify the following: 
:Time period: when the vehicle was designed, or when it was mainly used? Eg: some vehicles designed during WWII are still in use.
:Country: where it was designed, or the main user of the vehicle? Eg: TAM was desigend in Germany, but the main (and only, up to what I know) user is Argentina. 
Many thanks, DPdH (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifications needed

message: After reading the first paragraph of this article, I feel that what is specifically "in-scope" and "out-of-scope" for this list is not very clear, as transportation can have a broad interpretation. Broadly speaking, the list could include (among others):
* Trucks used by military forces as part of their standard equipment, even commercial ones (eg: the Argentine Army uses the locally built Mercedes Benz 1114 model, which also has non-military uses);
* Utility vehicles: Jeeps, its derivatives, and similar vehicles (eg: Willys Jeep, M38 Keep, VW Itlis, etc.);
* Motorcycles specifically used by the military. 
Can anyone please clarify which vehicle types are in scope and which not? Many thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this list is unclear 

message: The lead of the article says that the list lists vehicles in significant use by armed forces. There are some WWII vehicles in the list which are clearly not used by any armed forces. Should these be removed? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this on the Milhist talk page and wanted to leave a couple comments. First, this list is incomplete and probably never will be totally complete based on the title. Second, I think it shoudl be split into multiple lists, IMO by type such as Armored vehicles, Assault vehicles, Transport, etc. I see a lot of other problems too but these are the most serious in my opinion.--Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Splitting would shorten the list drastically. Sorting the vehicles out would be difficult though. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree on size grounds, but would suggest keeping this page by retooling it to serve as a reference page (like a list of armored vehicles by time period or by country or by usage or something of that nature). TomStar81 (Talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the article as it stands would survive an AfD to be honest. The list is subjective (what decides "significant use" and what's a "military vehicle"?), unsourced (not a problem where a sourced article exists to link an item to, but in many cases it doesn't), and extremely difficult to maintain given its ambitious scope. I agree that smaller, more tightly defined lists would perhaps be better. EyeSerenetalk 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope