Talk:Gun truck: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:22, 16 July 2007

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Merge from Technical (fighting vehicle)

This article and Technical (fighting vehicle) are essentially about the same topic. The only reason that one has a separate existence is because the term "technical" became fashionable and was associated with warfare in developing countries. The distinction is fake, and could be considered discriminatory (why not just name the other article "Gun truck manned by brown people"?). The two should be merged under this title. —Michael Z. 2007-06-25 23:52 Z

I don't think so. A technical is a subject much broader than gun truck. Maybe the gun truck will merge in Technical article. Ak70g2

BTW Gun Trucks have also been used in the 2nd World War (e.g. the italian AS 42 or the british 2pdr Portee). I see a distinction between these vehicles and the "technicals", the latter beeing a more improvised combination of vehicles and guns. I opt for keeping two articles (though they should be connected by a "see also"). --Dabringer 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. basically distinct stuff. SYSS Mouse 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article (Technical (fighting vehicle)) is very distinct, and the information about the use and history of both the term and the type of vehicle is sufficiently unique it should be independent. Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described. Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary. Sylvank 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:43, 15 July 2007 edit SYSS Mouse (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 6,153 edits →Merge from [[Technical (fighting vehicle)]] ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:22, 16 July 2007 edit undo Sylvank (talk \| contribs) 95 edits →Merge from [[Technical (fighting vehicle)]] Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:No. basically distinct stuff. [[User:SYSS Mouse\|SYSS Mouse]] 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)		:No. basically distinct stuff. [[User:SYSS Mouse\|SYSS Mouse]] 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

			I think this article ([[Technical (fighting vehicle)]]) is very distinct, and the information about the use and history of both the term and the type of vehicle is sufficiently unique it should be independent. Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described. Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary. [[User:Sylvank\|Sylvank]] 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)