This first draft is based on discussion at the Wikiproject Military history's Weaponry task force. It is meant to supplement the main naming conventions with guidance specific to this domain only, to promote consistency, and remain brief. More background is at the original discussion. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:42 Z

To help judge the effect of this guideline, here's a list of the articles currently in category:Medium tanks, and how I would rename some to conform to the proposed policy. There are some judgment calls, so you may interpret it differently, or you might disagree with the way the guideline is written. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 04:54 Z

• 40 M Turan I
• DD tank
• M3 Lee
• M2 Medium Tank
• Panther tank
• Panzer III
• Panzer IV
• M4 Sherman variants
• M4 Sherman
• Lend-Lease Sherman tanks → Lend-Lease M4 Shermans (for consistency?)
• T-28 → T-28 tank (T-28 medium tank)
• T-34 → T-34 tank (T-34 medium tank)
• T-34 variants → T-34 tank variants
• T-44 → T-44 tank (T-44 medium tank)
• T20 Medium Tank
• TAM (tank) → TAM tank (Tanque Argentino Mediano in Spanish, but in English usually just TAM)
• Type 1 Chi-He
• Type 2 Ho-I
• Type 3 Chi-Nu
• Type 89 Chi-Ro
• Type 97 Chi-Ha
• Vickers A1E1 Independent

And category:Heavy tanks:

• Conqueror tank (Conqueror heavy tank)
• Excelsior A33 Tank → A33 Excelsior
• Iosif Stalin tank → IS tank (IS heavy tank)
• Kliment Voroshilov tank → KV tank (KV heavy tank)
• M103 heavy tank
• M6 Heavy Tank
• Neubaufahrzeug → Neubaufahrzeug tank
• Obyekt 279
• M26 Pershing
• SU-100Y Self-Propelled Gun → SU-100Y self-propelled gun
• T-10 → T-10 tank (T-10 heavy tank)
• T-35 → T-35 tank (T-35 heavy tank)
• T14 Heavy Tank
• TOG1 (tank) → TOG 1 tank
• TOG2 (tank) → TOG 2 tank
• Tiger I
• Tiger II
• Tortoise heavy assault tank → A39 Tortoise (or leave as is?)

Also have a look at others in category:Tanks by classification.

Looking at these makes me wonder whether the descriptive names shoudn't be a bit more detailed: T-50 light tank, T-28 medium tank, T-10 heavy tank, instead of just "X tank". —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 05:02 Z

That might be a better approach if the appropriate descriptors are uncontroversial. Are the various types cleanly defined? Or are we likely to see wars over whether a particluar tank is medium or heavy, for example? Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The broad categories light, medium, and heavy are pretty safe—they're already in those categories without any revert-warring that I recall.

Sometimes there have been fights over more specific categorization in the AFV navboxes (e.g. template:WWIISovietAFVs) or in articles' first lines, when a vehicle's name or basic design pattern may appear to clash with its role. For example, whether the T-50 tank's intended role was infantry tank and the T-60's reconnaissance, or alternately that all Soviet light tanks are to be grouped together. Whether the KV-2 is really an assault gun (its usual role), an "artillery tank" (the Soviet classification), or just a heavy tank (what most popular sources call it). Whether aerosan should be translated snowmobile. These issues can usually be sorted out, although sometimes it's been necessary to pummel an editor about whether a source constitutes an expert or a fanboy, or whether a poor Russian-language translation should be considered an authority on English names. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 14:53 Z

Looking at the list, it seems to me that the more obscure or unusual vehicles are the ones which may like to have more description in the article title. For example, "T-34 tank" seems fine, but "Tortoise heavy assault tank" or "DD amphibious tank" immediately demonstrates how a vehicle stands out by its fundamental nature (also T-28 Super Heavy Tank).

Conqueror tank fits in with Chieftain tank, Churchill tank etc, no need ot bring in the largely unknown FV number. GraemeLeggett 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are probably other such cases (Excelsior tank?). —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 14:53 Z