Talk:PPG tankette
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Old talk edit
Where does the name PPG come from? Zaloga 1984 calls it Obiekt 217. —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 17:55 Z
- Many Russian sites call it PPG.--Nixer 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Infobox edit
If you dont know the characteristics, it doesent mean nobody knows.--Nixer 15:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- True. And if somebody has enough information to fill an infobox, then let's add one. Let's add information, but not add a bunch of empty spaces—it just makes the article look unfinished. The big box overshadows the actual text, which I assume is why you deleted the lead sentence I added to the article, in your rush to revert my edit. —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 18:24 Z
- It makes the article to look standard. Also there are some values in the box already. In other articles also the boxes arent filled out.--Nixer 19:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like a tub. Many stubs have empty infoboxes.--Nixer 13:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- With infobox it is easier to add information. Why did you delete infobox from ZiS-30 article instaed of adding information? I this page infobox also consists some information. Of course it is possible to describe the whole information in all the military articles without infoboxes, but this is wrong way.--Nixer 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Nixer's revert edit
Please don't batch-revert a series of changes without an explanation. I can't tell whether you disagree with everything, or you are just too lazy to make individual changes instead of reverting. Don't call my edits vandalism. You are continuing to abuse Wikipedia rules after I've warned you about your behaviour.
- You also revert without explanation, delete my edits and all my changes. WHAT ABOUT YOUR BEHAVIOR AND deletions????????????????????????????????????????????????--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If you really can't tell why I made those edits:
- Empty infoboxes don't belong in articles
- We make the article's title term bold in the lead sentence
- We don't use spans for indicating language, we have a template {{lang-ru}} which is used by convention on hundreds of pages
- We usually don't italicize Cyrillic text, because some browsers don't display it correctly
- We don't put quotation marks around foreign terms or transliterations
- "Mobile Chaingun Point" is not a good translation: the DT is not a chain gun. Machine-gun nest is both a direct translation, and a common English idiom
- Relevant terms which may be unfamiliar, like tankette and DT machine gun should be linked when there are Wikipedia articles about them
- {{mil-vehicle-stub}} is more specific than {{mil-stub}}
If you don't understand anything, I'll be glad to explain. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 03:14 Z
[re: empty infobox] It is not empty here.--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[re: span indicating language] I thied to use a template.--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
First it was mil-stub. Then you changed it to mil-vehicle-stub. I accepted. Now you're changing it back to mil-stub and arguing with it your revertions!!!!--Nixer 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Dont remove the infobox because it is a stub article and anibody will add relevant information, if not - it already contains some.--Nixer 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Empty infoboxes edit
Let's take the discussion about unfinished infoboxes to Template talk:AFV#Empty infoboxes. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 20:54 Z
Category edit
Shouldn't it be in Category:World War II tankettes rather then in Category:World War II armored cars ? And Schofield tank and NI tank somewhere in Category:World War II tanks ? Bukvoed 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Of course!--Nixer 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
File:PPG tankette.jpg Nominated for Deletion edit
An image used in this article, File:PPG tankette.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |