 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why does the article state that a citation is needed to the comment of "An obvious circumvention would be to aim the laser merely close to the target"? What is the policy for when a citation is or isn't necessary? I didn't write that statement, but it seems INCREDIBLY obvious and I can't see why a citation would be required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.171.250 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Laser designator into Laser guidance edit
same scope fgnievinski (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support the idea of merging, but as laser designator is entirely about military use, a merge to Precision-guided munition might be better. Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Very late to the party but oppose as I think the Laser designator article should be more geared toward the designator devices themselves (ie. "how do they lase the target") while the Laser guidance article should be more about "now that we have a target, how do we use that data?"
- I agree that merging into the precision-guided munition might be useful but ideally keeping this article separate enables it to talk about non-mil stuff like robotic vacuums. I don't have enough expertise to contribute to the article itself though.. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
special paint edit
Currently there are several sentences devoted to "special paint" in here. Does anyone have a reliable source for that? It sounds more like a speculative sci-fi kind of thing than something that's actually used. Thinking of cutting... Uhoj (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)