text:
User talk:David Newton/archive2

Unlawful combatant
Hello, David, Your entire addition to "unlawful combatant" was removed by a critic. I restored most of it except the arguable opinion, which you might want to rewrite.

You were right to try to achieve some balance. As it was, it was a more-or-less straight POV piece for opponents of the concept. Cecropia 01:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)|

--Dave-- I cannot find your new page on amphbious assaults. Can you give me the exact title? Paul, in Saudi

Administrator
Congratulations - you are now an administrator!. I suggest you look at Administrators' reading list to see what this entails. Secretlondon 23:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:bird
Hey, I noticed you reverted an edit to Brain made by User:bird, and thought you should know: This user apparently become extremely agitated lately and is reverting all his edits, sometimes blanking pages, and seems to indicate (on his (rapidly-changing) and my talk page, for instance) that the material he has added was delibrately false. Quite the unusual occurrence. I'm not quite sure what to think of the situation. (edited Fennec 16:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC))

 * typical of wikipedians, my statements are misrepresented. I stated that I later reconsidered the amount of research and the originality of the articles and determined that I could not in good faith publicly endorse the content as accurate. Fennec would rather discount my concerns for the benefit of the thrilling day of on-line combat a few user are enjoying at my expense. USER:bird

Ouch, the Bird affair has gone quite far away. You did well, I hoped it would not have gone so far. Pfortuny 21:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AWM Official Histories
Hi David. Yes, I know about the PDF volumes on the AWM site. I've linked to Vols. I & II on the Battle of Gallipoli page. I could go as far as linking to the individual chapters for each of the battle articles. I've got my own hardcopy of Vol VII on the Sinai & Palestine campaign which is what I've been basing my articles on. The only problem I've encountered with these PDFs is that they are black & white scans so the photographic plates don't come up looking so good. Congratulations on your adminship. Geoff 21:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the links. I was actually contemplating transcribing the Australian WW1 histories when the AWM made the PDFs available.  As far as I can make out they are still under copyright.  Late last year I had transcribed the unit history of my grandfather's unit (producing HTML and PDF versions) but a). it's never been published so is still under copyright and b). the unit is so minor and obscure (3rd Light Horse Field Ambulance) that there wouldn't be much interest in it. Geoff 00:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting my user page. You are a vandal and are committing acts of aggression toward me. USER:Bird
 * Further information on User:Bird and the Bird/Brain affair is now available at User talk:Bird/Brain and stuff. - Fennec 14:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David - can you please look at WikiProject_Aircraft/Table (again). I'm on the verge of losing my patience with the constant attempts at "table proliferation" and would appreciate the comments of third parties there (whether you agree with me or not) --Rlandmann 04:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So I'm thinking about doing some ship table updating - which of the new-format tables do you think would be a good examplar for cloning? Stan 16:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You mentioned using the new table format, but whichever ship(s) you did it for, it's sufficiently far back in your contributions list that I didn't see one. So I'm just fishing for a suggestion as to which ship article to look at. Stan 05:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm not sure if your subpage is the right place to move Bird's rants to, but it didn't seem appropriate to leave attacks on the village pump and I needed somewere to put it. Please let me know if there is a better place, or if User talk:David Newton/Bird Dispute is ok for it. Thanks. Angela. 23:06, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hey David, just a quick heads up, since youre the Admin that seems most involved in the brain dispute, I believe that User:SoCal is a Bird Sock puppet, check the subpages of brain, hes been slowly removing content from brain subpages claiming factual inaccuracy, see Neopallium,Paleopallium,Frontal lobe etc. Theon 05:26, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

KJV Copyright
David -- I left a response to your claim that the KJV copyright is bogus at the King James Version of the Bible talk page. Just thought I would want to give you a heads up. -- iHoshie 10:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft footers
Hi David - since you're the WP Aircraft table-guru, I wonder if you could take a look at F-100 Super Sabre and F-105 Thunderchief. The little edit boxes are forcing the main table to the left, causing the footer to overlap with it (in my browser anyway - Win XP/IE6/1024x768). Any idea how we can fix/prevent this? --Rlandmann 13:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * User:Gsl applied a fix to the F-100 Super Sabre and also used it on his Fairey Fulmar contributions. It unfortunately pushes the footer to the bottom even when an article has a short text and a long data table, but I think it's better than risking the previous problem. I'll update the sample footers on the WikiProject page accordingly. --Rlandmann 10:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio; apologies.
David. You are correct. I mistook the copyright notice at as applying to the entire content of the site. Clearly the US government document which it uses as a source is in the public domain, and you were perfectly OK in quoting it.

Next time, instead of rudely reverting me and shouting at me on my talk page, would be so kind as to make a statement at Possible copyright violations and my talk page, per Wikipedia policy? If you had done that, I would have glady reverted my own error. Furthermore, when quoting extensively from a source on the web, it's easy to be mistaken for a copyright violation, especially in an unclear case like this (a government document used on a private site), so it would be helpful if you could include a notice of the source; if I had seen one on the article, I would never have put the copyvio notice up. I watch Special:newpages frequently, and you might be amazed at the relatively high number of submissions we get that are blatant copyright violations. Thanks... -- Seth Ilys 22:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

HMS Glamorgan
Hi there, I notice we have both written a page on this ship within the last few weeks. My page had more info, tho yours was structured better so I merged the both of them in HMS Glamorgan, which has more links to it than with the number added. There is only one RN ship named Glamorgan so this should be OK.

I like your other articles on ships and hope they can be expanded with more info soon. Astrotrain (March 14th 21:45)

 * RE: Spartan, mmmmm, I thought I had done the page on the correct one, I must have re-directed the wrong page from the Swiftsure page is the only reason I can think of.

Mediation request
Hello David. Please see Requests for mediation. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. -- sannse (talk) 11:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for trying. I didn't think that you would come to an agreement with them, but it was good of you to try. It was a somewhat odd meditation. I ask for it, and then take no further part in it! Well, if Bird is still causing problems, then it's time to take it to arbitration. Last I checked, Bird's edits after the ban expired were reasonable; some wikifications of dates. I guess we can live in hope! David Newton 17:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it was a bit of an unusual one, and perhaps taking that approach was a mistake on my part. I hoped a kind of pre-mediation might lead to a basis for further discussion.  Mediation on Wikipedia is still very much a work in progress! -- sannse (talk) 19:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RE: Crown copyright. Having a _very_ brief look - we can't presume not for profit - we may be but our users may not be. An image with a non-commercial restriction needs flagging differently. They are not as free as others with no restrictions. Secretlondon 23:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David, welcome at the Dutch Wikipedia. But please, do not use User:David Newton as this is not a Dutch user name, but Gebruiker:David Newton. I changed the link on your user page down here, but not on your other user pages (were you did the same). User:David Newton on Dutch wikipedia is an ordinary article and is now on the list of pages to be removed. Ellywa 06:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I assumed it was just a mistake. Ellywa 06:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great work on organizing the ship classes! I notice you've moved some of the reclassified destroyers to their previous designations. It's kind of a knotty problem what to call them, but following some of the carrier names, I've generally been favoring the designation in use the longest. So for instance the Truxtun spent 7 years as a DLGN and 20 years as a CGN, so it's "more familiar" as a CGN. I suppose I should formally propose it as a rule in the Wikiproject eh? :-) Stan 13:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding USN Photos
David:

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Honestly, I didn't know what I was doing. I've corrected the beforementioned articles, and I've added additional photos correctly. I'm sorry you had to deal with that. Thanks again. Ex1le 00:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Essex/Ticonderoga class distinctions
David:

I appreciate your insight into the distinction between the "long hull" and "sort hull" class carriers. I broke up the classes into the Ticonderoga and Essex distinctly, based on the official distinctions as classified in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I was actually surprised to learn of the official distinction myself as my father actually served on the Antietam, Yorktown and Princeton in the 50s and he simply referred to them as Essex class carriers. I would however advocate that we actually make the official distinction, and add references within each classes page. I am going to add an expansion to the temporary stub of the Ticonderoga class which can cover the points you bring up and the other internal changes made which distinguish the Essex from the related Ticonderoga class. Another reason I followed this course is there were more than a few references within the already posted entries of several of the later modified Ticonderoga class ships which referred to them being Ticonderoga class already, no doubt since the bulk of those texts for the individual ships were also culled from the DANFS. Lestatdelc 01:37, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Bird / Brain
I am not sure, but it may be Bird back in business. I was not involved, so you might have a better idea. A section appears to have disappeared from Brain. Ebeisher 04:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about taking some of the best features of the standard aircraft table and using them for ships? Bobblewik 17:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi again - I'm trying to get the ball rolling on a standard data box for aero engines - if you'd like to make any suggestions, take a look here.

 * Would appreciate your input on the dispute here --Rlandmann 22:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey there. I see on the low degree of compliance page that you sent the standard letter to voyagenow.com on March 14th. Did they ever reply? I'd really like to see these people brought into line. They've taken a fair bit of the articles I've contributed to. If you have other things to do, I'll be glad to take it on. Regards. Blimpguy 21:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMS Glorious
Hi David, I merged your HMS Glorious (77) article with the original HMS Glorious seeing as people were continuing to edit it. To retain the edit history I merged everything into the latter article however the I guess "HMS Glorious" should be the redirect (or a disambig page if more than one ship) and "HMS Glorious (77)" should be the article (otherwise the MediaWiki footer doesn't work). I figure that as an admin you can delete the existing "HMS Glorious (77)" article and then move the "HMS Glorious" to it so that the edit history isn't lost. Geoff/Gsl 07:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: BAE Systems etc
Hi David - thanks for your message. I have been creating many pages which appear to already have better information elsewhere perhaps. The reason for my so doing, is to beef up the financial info on the 'pedia (an area of speciality). I have created pages for the legal financial names of these companies, which often differ slightly from the more-recognisable names. In one of your examples, you mentioned BAE Systems - the legal name of the financial company is "BAE Systems plc", and "BAE Systems" is mentioned in the annual report as being a subsidiary of this. Such as with Marks & Spencer plc and Marks and Spencer Group plc - they are 2 entirely separate entities. My plan is to add a standard header to the top of the pages I am creating which will inform people where to go for info on the particular information they require. It would however be incorrect and misleading to have a link from the FTSE 100 page to BAE SYSTEMS, as this is a different entity to the company listed at the LSE. I'm interested to hear any suggestions you may have on how I can improve my plans, I do feel that the business info we have is very negligle and would like to improve it with public domain info from annual reports such as some basic fundamentals, board structure, executives etc... Calexico (Talk) 17:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments - more work will go into the headers (which as you noticed are misleading at the moment and I won't move any info that's already on an existing page as that would be needless and unneccessary. I will, however, if you don't mind - get your opinion on the work I do...:-) Calexico (Talk) 18:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMS Finisterre
Hi. I understand your a moderator (?). Is it possible that you could delete HMS Finisterre (1944)? I created it accidentally and have now decided to change from using years for the Battles to using their pennants. Thanks in advance. I've already moved the text to HMS Finisterre (R55).

Old Empty Tables
I notice that over the last month or so you have been deleting certain versions of the standard table and reducing them to simply a picture. Why are you doing this? I feel it is not helpful at all. If you are going to alter things, then it would be better to put in the standard table, rather than just delete most of it. David Newton 10:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * When its empty and uses the old table code, it serves no purpose other then to add clutter and make the page ugly. Most of the time the stats aren't available on the page either. It is helpfull to remove them, as the correct standard table code can be added if somone wants to fill these in, even partially. Iv been doing this for more then a month, and will continue do so when I come across them. Note that I have also have updated many pages to full standard table look, and have done a 1-2 tables as well. However, totally empty non-standard tables have no place on these pages. Greyengine5 14:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

PD images
Hi David, as far as I know, all works prior to 1923 are public domain. As Weierstraß died 1897, that qualifies. The source page here doesn't give the photographer for that image, but they give it for others; so I figure they don't know the photographer. Also, as the photo was taken at least 106 years ago, and the photographer probably was older than 18 at the time, it would make him the oldest human alive. Still scared of being sued? :-) --Magnus Manske 12:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I checked our public domain article, and it has the 70-year-rule - "for works copyrighted after 1977". Is something missing in the article, then? --Magnus Manske 16:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC) (who doesn't know a lot about the legal details)

Bristol Blenheim
FYI, on the Bristol Blenheim page, the right side table headed "Bristol Blenheim" overprints the footer table headed "Royal Air Force squadrons" on browsers at screen resolutions from about 1400 pixels wide or more (I tried in Mozilla and Internet Explorer). The armaments stuff is thus obscured by the right side of the "Royal Air Force squadrons" table. I guess it could be sorted out by DIV formatting, especially by someone who understood what theyw ere doing. i.e. probably not by me. Thought you might want to know. best wishes --Tagishsimon

 * My fault. Should be fixed now.  I'm not even sure if using a table is a good idea.  Perhaps a "List of XXX squadrons" article would be better. Geoff/Gsl 00:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the table, and the solution is good, but it leaves the section title "Units Using the Blenheim" floating way above the table it refers to (in 1600 width). Is the same problem on other pages? I've not been following the aeroplane pages. --Tagishsimon

 * It works just fine at 1280*1024 with appropriately sized text. The title comes just above the table. It should therefore work well at lower resolutions. However, the problem with the title is a little awkward. I'll have a play with the article in my sandbox and see what I can do about it. David Newton 00:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The Blenheim page is the only one I've tried it on. I'm not sure if it's been adopted anywhere else.  The Blenheim squadron list was a "problem" because there was one line for each squadron, making the page rather long.  I can either do away with the section for "Units Using the Blenheim" and put a title in the table or I could put a  before the section heading to force the heading to be below the bottom of the infobox.  Perhaps I should take it up on WikiProject Aircraft. Geoff/Gsl 00:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixing the width of the squadron table seems sensible. Even without the overlap problem, I imagine a 100% width table at high resolution looks bad. If you do want to use this table approach for listing squadrons, don't feel obliged to use the design I came up with on the Blenheim page. If you do want to "workshop" a better design, I am happy to participate. Geoff/Gsl 01:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Please do not revert the changes. The bug will be fixed within the next 24 hours and hence we will revert back AGAIN. I implore you, with ALL of my being to not revert these changes.--Oldak Quill 20:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

List of United States Navy air stations
Hey David,

I changed the links from NAS * to * Naval Air Station as we already have 2 articles with that style and I feel that if you were searching that that would be the more logical search pattern. Burgundavia 07:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey David, I noticed you just reverted my change. No notes on my talk or hear or on the talk page of the article. Not cool. Let us talk and fill me in. Burgundavia 07:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I accept that. I was just a little peeved as there was no note on my talk. I will move Willow Grove to that style. Burgundavia 08:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

European elections
Perhaps it would be more efficient for just one of us to update it? Morwen - Talk 22:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * That would be quite pointless. If you want to go ahead and do everything, please feel free.    Morwen - Talk 23:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Categorising British politicians
I've made a proposal - Category talk:British politicians - would appreciate feed back. Thanks Secretlondon 06:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Morwen/pinkbits
Probably because its listing the Empire at maximum extent. I think it was just a scratchpad for the list of stuff at British Empire. Morwen - Talk 21:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need support on an undelete. Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism I would like your support to undelete this and restore as a proper standing article. Some content was moved to the Nazism article and has been made a redirect. The Nazi article is too long. *National Socialism* was not created by either Mussolini nor Hitler and the history of its development needs to have a seperate article upon it. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.WHEELER 18:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

USN ship tables
Thanks for the tip on the tables - I missed that section on the WikiProject page and used the table from Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) before Magnus converted it to wiki markup. The wiki markup is easier to look at, so I'll use it. - Jonel 22:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

- David, Regarding my use of commas in the ships pages. This is done to denote inches. So 150,6 feet is 150 feet, 6 inches. Since feet and inches are not decimal, a decimal point is inappropriate. If you have another suggestion, I'm open to changing the way I do this. Jinian

Aircraft footers again
Hi David - would appreciate your suggestions on how we can improve the look of the aircraft footers, which I think look terrible in the new skin. There's talk happening on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft at the moment. Cheers --Rlandmann 22:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Global warming
Hi David, please remember to add a template on pages you protect and list them at Protected page. There are more details in the Protection policy. Thanks. Angela. 11:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please stop leaving unresearched accusations on my talk page. It's not very nice. -- Stevietheman 13:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

St. Vincent class battleships
Howdy. While doing general janitorial work, I stumbled across a group of what look to be templates created by you in February of this year: HMS St. Vincent (1908), HMS Vanguard (1909), HMS Collingwood (1908), all linked from St. Vincent class battleship. I was wondering if you intended fleshing these out at some point or, if not, if you would agree that it would be better to remove the empty articles until someone with the requisite time and knowledge could do so? Cheers. - TB 12:06, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery
The people at NPG have expressed concern to me that various people are contacting them instead of me contacting them directly. They didn't say so directly, but I gather that they are a bit perplexed at random enquiries from unofficial people. I am not criticizing you for making the enquiry, but suggest that in the future it might be good to run it by me first? Jimbo Wales 17:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorisation of military units
Hi David, There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military on whether there should be separate categories for "military units" and "military formations". Seeing as you did much of the original work on the categories, perhaps you would care to comment. Geoff/Gsl 00:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

West Bridgford
I noticed you had edited the West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire article (albeit a very minor correction). Were you just passing by or could you contribute more significantly to it? I would appreciate any extra info. Nicholas 12:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indian Divisions and Corps
Hello

As you are the creator of "List of Indian corps in WWII" and "List of Indian divisions in WWII" I would like to discuss with you either changing the named from (to take the first in the list as an example) "Indian 4th Infantry Division" to "British Indian 4th Infantry Division" or "Indian 4th Infantry Division (British)" so that we can pre-empt the problems that existed in the Disambiguation of "Indian Army" to "Indian Army" and "British Indian Army" (See the talk page). Personally I'd go with "British Indian..." rather than "Indian...(British)", but I'm easy so long as it is consistent.

The reason for this is that some of theses Corps and Divisions have a history since 1947 and like the Indian Army, the detail both sides of 1947 are unlikely to be of interest to most users.

I am busy putting in some information about the "South-East Asian Theatre" and Indian Divisions pop up all over the place :-) Philip Baird Shearer 19:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh! The horse's mouth supports your argument. Philip Baird Shearer

 * You wrote ''However the higher units were not under War Office control, they were under the Viceroy who reported to the India Office. I know for a fact that the corps HQs in Burma and Malaya were Indian Army formations.

As it happens I've just been doing a little on Burma Burma Campaign The source was Slim's 'Defeat Into Victory' Page 10-11, plus some sources found during research done for ABDA Talk:American-British-Dutch-Australian Command. The chain of command in Burma depends on the date, from 1937 it gets complicated! Slim makes a diffrence between command and administration, I think that is important when discussing formations in Asia/India. It was quite possible for them to be administed from India but be commanded via a British command or vise-versa (somthing that Stilwell chose to confuse when it came to US formations!).

Something I am not clear on is, after Wavell became CinC India again after his time at ABDA, what and where was India Command and what was its organizational structure, do you know anything about that? Philip Baird Shearer 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mirrors and forks / Infovoyager
Hi David,

I noticed here that you have sent two warning letters to infopedia, in march and april 2004. Did you ever get a response? At present, the situation is still the same and all infovoyager sites are non-compliant. Maybe now is the time to take further steps. - Mark Dingemanse (talk)  10:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: your response on my talk page. I dislike them as much as you do. I would like to help. However, I am living in the Netherlands and I'm not a native speaker of English, so I think you could find someone better suited to do the job. Also, I saw a lot of cases like this one on the Mirrors and forks (low compliance) page. I think this whole enterprise should get some attention again. Mark Dingemanse (talk)  22:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Navyphotos images
User:Gdr has been flagging navyphotos as unacceptable as restricted to Wikipedia itself only. You have never placed the permission letter online to my knowledge, so I am unsure of the scope of it.

It occurs to me that most of these images are of expired copyright in any case, but we need this cleared up ... —Morven 21:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

British Airways ethnic liveries
It was of course 1997 when the new livery was adopted - that was an edit from my original correct version. I don't think it matters where Thatcher covered the tailfin (i.e. its removal does not detract from the article) but just for accuracy here is my source:
 * BBC News: BA to fly the flag again

BR Loco Details
Just a suggestion, but perhaps the page layout may look better if you put your info box at the bottom under the "Fleet details" subheadings? This way it avoids the huge space at the top.... I've rearrange two pages Class 31 and Class 57 and it looks a bit neater... What do you think? (Our Phellap 15:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC))

usn
David, thanks so much for the help. I am still new here and the category system in particular seems to be tripping me up almost more than anything else. I have a particular interest in US fighter squadrons so I get a kick out of the effort! Katefan0 00:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see you have done a BOATLOAD of work! I'll be sure to link directly to your category from now on.  I'd like to try to add a few more squadrons, but I'm going to be really busy this weekend.  May not be able to get to it until next week. Katefan0 00:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ship class footers
You are responsible for creating a number of ship class footers, so you might like to read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Ships. Gdr 01:10, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Article Licensing
I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the   template (or even    for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Multi-licensing), you could replace   with    -- Ram-Man 23:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boina -> Beret
Thanks for your prompt. 'Boina' is the Basque name for beret and basques first developed the beret. I have made a reference on the beret page.

FYI: Categories for deletion
Hi, since you created these categories, you may be interested to know that someone has put them up for deletion, see Categories for deletion. Thanks. IZAK 08:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoops
Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize it was an ISP. After some vandal fighting I went off to take a bath and when I came back someone had emailed me and I removed it (or something close to it), but I guess you got it first. Once again, sorry! Cheers. CryptoDerk 00:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet image
Hilarious! It suggests a whole series of icons, although I suspect the apply-ees might raise a ruckus... :-) Stan 18:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring
I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 10:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks
In following of Bobchalk, Cantus and Curps. Could you please block me too? I also violated the 3 revert rule on 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake.

And take a look at this one, it's an obvious vandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Improv%AD Please take a look at the revisions of his User- and Talk-page too.

-- 80.126.114.182

Three-revert rule
What is the proper procedure to follow when someone reverts way more than three times against five different people? If each of the five different people gives up at three reverts, then the original person can get his way by simply reverting 16 times or more. See Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake/Article_organization

No need for a detailed reply, this isn't a complaint and I'm willing to move on. I realize you need to take a balanced approach, but I'm not sure what I would have done differently. -- Curps 18:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Belorussian or Byelorussian
Please see Talk:3rd Byelorussian Front Philip Baird Shearer 16:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of Volcanoes
Hi David. The purpose why I am doing this category edits is, because there is also a category "Volcanoes by country". This category should provide the same information as the "List of volcanoes". I think it is more consitent to provide volcanoes in that category rather then in the list. If some volcano articles are added, then the editor does not have to edit the "List of volcanoes" too. I also added a category "Mountains by country", which has the subcategory "Volcanoes by country". When all volcanoes has been added to these categories the "List of volcanoes" is not needed any more. If I deleted some entries in the "List of volcanoes", then it is because I have not found any information about volcanoes inside the article. If I made a mistake, so please excuse me for that. --GarciaB 12:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institute Copyright
I am not sure but is it ok to quote the copied text as a cite from an external source and then use it. If not, I will go over the articles and rewrite them.

comment images
thanks for the comment, --Gerd Breitenbach 12:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

USS King (DDG 41) - formerly DLG 10 -
My brother served aboard the King. I was wondering if you plan adding a wikipedia article on it. I found a few links with some info that might be useful:

http://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg41.htm http://www.navysite.de/crew.php?action=ship&ship=ddg_41 http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/242.htm http://galaxy.lunarpages.com/~hullnu2/cgi-bin/destroyers1.cgi?DDG-41&41&USS&KING&&&

A couple of wikipedia articles that would need updated links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Joseph_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy

– Dennis (talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)  15:58, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Controling spam
When reverting a page or template, especially "inthenews", make sure that you put a (without the astericks) on it. If it's something that affects the main page, I personally go straight for or higher. -- user:zanimum

Please explain
Hi, Can you please explain why you complain to myself why you made the effect to complain to my school in regard to those prank emails I sent yesterday? The absurd spelling alone showed that it was a joke and if you felt otherwise you could of just of email me. It was all a bit of harmless fun & there was nothing racist about it, if I felt inyway that it was I would of not have sent it. If you feel there is a reasonable explantion then please tell me. And leave the answer on my User talk page.

AGM-86
Thanks for the advice, I've merged the articles (much of the information on AGM-86 CALCM was contained in AGM-86 anyway). I stumbled across the above link on the cruise missile page and decided its deserved an article. Of course I should have checked if there was an article under another name/designation for the missile. Mark 01:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:David Newton/archive2


text:
Pink Flag

Pink Flag is the debut album by the English rock band Wire, released in December 1977. The album was critically acclaimed on release, and has since been highly influential; today it is regarded as a landmark in the development of post-punk music.

Critical reception
Reviewing in 1978 for The Village Voice, Robert Christgau called Pink Flag a "punk suite", praised its "simultaneous rawness and detachment" and detected a rock-and-roll irony similar to, but "much grimmer and more frightening" than, the Ramones. In a 1978 Trouser Press review, Ira Robbins said that "Wire [push] minimalism to new heights" and that the band "dredges up images of...beat poetry--short fragments of impressions set to music." He further said that the 21 tracks are "not songs...There's no easy structure or meter. Each explores or describes or electrifies or challenges. There's no easy listening." Robbins concluded, "I can't say this is an enjoyable album. Maybe it's just a stupid bit of rubbish. But you won't know unless you find out."

In a retrospective review, Steve Huey of AllMusic opined that Pink Flag was "perhaps the most original debut album to come out of the first wave of British punk" and also "recognizable, yet simultaneously quite unlike anything that preceded it. Pink Flag's enduring influence pops up in hardcore, post-punk, alternative rock, and even Britpop, and it still remains a fresh, invigorating listen today: a fascinating, highly inventive rethinking of punk rock and its freedom to make up your own rules." Retrospectively, Trouser Press called the album "a brilliant 21-song suite" in which the band "manipulated classic rock song structure by condensing them into brief, intense explosions of attitude and energy, coming up with a collection of unforgettable tunes". Pitchfork writer Joe Tangari summarized the album as "a fractured snapshot of punk alternately collapsing in on itself and exploding into song-fragment shrapnel."

Legacy
Although the album has received critical acclaim, it was not a big seller. It was listed at number 412 on Rolling Stones list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time in 2012 – jumping up to number 310 in its 2020 edition – and at number 378 in NMEs list of the same name in 2013. Music journalist Stuart Maconie described it as "extraordinary" by the standards of the time at which it was produced. Pitchfork ranked Pink Flag number 22 in its list "Top 100 Albums of the 1970s". The album was included in Robert Dimery's 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.

Britpop band Elastica were influenced by Wire; they used a riff similar to that of "Three Girl Rhumba" for their song "Connection". Graham Coxon of Blur cited Pink Flag as an influence on his eighth studio album A+E.

Track listing
Credits adapted from the 2018 Special Edition.

All music written by Colin Newman, except where noted. All lyrics written by Graham Lewis, except where noted.

 *  The bonus tracks were removed from the 2006 remastered reissues, because, according to the band, they did not honour the "conceptual clarity of the original statements". The tracks were also left off both editions of Pink Flag's 2018 remaster, but can be found on the 2018 deluxe reissue of Chairs Missing.

2018 Special Edition
The first disc of the Special Edition contains the twenty-one tracks from the original album.

Personnel
Credits adapted from the liner notes of the 2018 Special Edition.

Wire
 * Bruce Gilbert – guitar, sleeve concept
 * Robert Gotobed – drums
 * Graham Lewis – bass guitar, backing vocals, sleeve concept
 * Colin Newman – vocals, guitar, backing vocals

Additional personnel and production
 * Kate Lukas – flute on "Strange"
 * Dave Oberlé – backing vocals on "Mannequin"
 * Mike Thorne – production, piano on "Reuters", backing vocals on "Reuters" and "Mr. Suit", flute arrangement on "Strange", electric piano on "Options R"
 * Paul Hardiman – engineer
 * Ken Thomas – assistant engineer
 * David Dragon – art direction
 * Annette Green – front and back cover photography
 * Richard Bray – back cover photography
 * Lynda House – back cover photography
 * Tim Chacksfield – project co-ordination (1994 reissue)
 * Phil Smee – packaging (1994 reissue)
 * Denis Blackham – remastering (2006 and 2018 reissue)
 * Jon Wozencroft – art direction (2018 reissue)
 * Jon Savage – liner notes (2018 reissue)
 * Graham Duff – liner notes (2018 reissue)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pink Flag


text:
Adrien René Franchet

Adrien René Franchet (21 April 1834 in Pezou – 15 February 1900 in Paris) was a French botanist, based at the Paris Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle.

He is noted for his extensive work describing the flora of China and Japan, based on the collections made by French Catholic missionaries in China, Armand David, Pierre Jean Marie Delavay, Paul Guillaume Farges, Jean-André Soulié, and others.

He was the taxonomic author of many plants, including a significant number of species from the genera Primula and Rhododendron. The following genera are named in his honor:
 * Franchetella, family Sapotaceae, named by Jean Baptiste Louis Pierre.
 * Franchetia, family Rubiaceae, named by Henri Ernest Baillon.
 * Sinofranchetia, family Lardizabalaceae, named by William Botting Hemsley.

Selected writings

 * Essai sur la distribution géographique des plantes phanérogames dans le département de Loir-et-Cher, 1868 - Essay on the geographical distribution of phanerogams found in the department of Loir-et-Cher.
 * "Enumeratio plantarum in Japonia : sponte crescentium hucusque rite cognitarum", 1875–1879. Together with Ludovic Savatier.
 * Plantae Delavayanae. Plantes de Chine recueillies au Yun-nan par l'abbé Delavay, 1889 - "Plantae Delavayanae" : Plants from China collected in Yunnan by Father Delavay.
 * Contributions à la flore du Congo français, Famille des graminées, 1896 - Contributions involving flora of the French Congo; Family Gramineae.

title: Adrien René Franchet


text:
Gustaaf Wappers

Egide Charles Gustave, Baron Wappers (23 August 1803 – 6 December 1874) was a Belgian painter. His work is generally considered to be Flemish and he signed his work with the Dutch form of his name, Gustaaf Wappers.

Biography

He studied at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, and during 1826 in Paris. The Romantic movement with its new ideas about art and politics was astir in France. Wappers was the first Belgian artist to take advantage of this state of affairs, and his first exhibited painting, "The Devotion of the Burgomaster of Leiden," appeared at the appropriate moment and had great success in the Brussels Salon in 1830, the year of the Belgian Revolution. While political, this remarkable work revolutionized the direction of Flemish painters.

Wappers was invited to the court at Brussels, and was favoured with commissions. In 1832 the city of Antwerp appointed him Professor of Painting.

He exhibited his masterpiece, "Episode of the Belgian Revolution of 1830" or rather "Episode of the September Days of 1830 on the Grand Place of Brussels", (Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels) at the Antwerp Salon in 1834. He was subsequently appointed painter to Leopold, King of the Belgians. At the death of Matthieu-Ignace Van Brée in 1839 he was elevated to director of the Antwerp Academy. As a teacher at the Antwerp Academy he trained a great number of pupils including Ford Madox Brown, Jozef Van Lerius, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, William Duffield, Emil Hünten, the Czech history painter Karel Javůrek, Jaroslav Čermák, Ludwig von Hagn, Josephus Laurentius Dyckmans, Eugene van Maldeghem, Ferdinand Pauwels and Jacob Jacobs.

His works are numerous. Some of them depict traditional devotional subjects ("Christ Entombed"), while others illustrate the Romantic view of history: "Charles I taking leave of his Children", "Charles IX", "Camoens", "Peter the Great at Saardam", and "Boccaccio at the Court of Joanna of Naples".

Louis Philippe gave him a commission to paint a large painting for the gallery at Versailles, "The Defence of Rhodes by the Knights of St John of Jerusalem". He finished the work in 1844, the same year that he received the title of baron from Belgian king Leopold I. After retiring as director of the Antwerp Academy, he settled in 1853 in Paris, where he died in 1873.

Honours

 * Titular painter of the King.
 * Saxe-Coburg and Gotha: Member of the Saxe-Ernestine House Order.
 * Kingdom of Portugal: Knight of the Military Order of Christ.
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium: commander of the order of Leopold (Belgium).
 * 🇫🇷 France: officer of the Legion of Honour.

title: Gustaaf Wappers


text:
Cross sea

A cross sea (also referred to as a squared sea or square waves) is a sea state of wind-generated ocean waves that form nonparallel wave systems. Cross seas have a large amount of directional spreading. This may occur when water waves from one weather system continue despite a shift in wind. Waves generated by the new wind run at an angle to the old.

Two weather systems that are far from each other may create a cross sea when the waves from the systems meet at a place far from either weather system. Until the older waves have dissipated, they can present a perilous sea hazard.

This sea state is fairly common and a large percentage of ship accidents have been found to occur in this state. Vessels fare better against large waves when sailing directly perpendicular to oncoming surf. In a cross sea scenario, that becomes impossible as sailing into one set of waves necessitates sailing parallel to the other.

A cross swell is generated when the wave systems are longer-period swells, rather than short-period wind-generated waves.

title: Cross sea


text:
Gopichand

Gopichand or Gopi Chand can refer to:

People

 * Gopi Chand Bhargava, Indian politician
 * Gopi Chand Narang (born 1931), Indian linguist and writer
 * Tripuraneni Gopichand (1910-1962), Telugu novelist, playwright and film director
 * Pullela Gopichand (born 1973), Indian badminton player
 * Gopichand (actor) (born 1979), Telugu film actor
 * Gopichand Lagadapati (born 1981), Indian film actor, writer, director and producer

Others

 * The ektara, an Indian string instrument
 * Gopichand (film), a 1958 Indian film

title: Gopichand


text:
Brisbane Valley Highway

The Brisbane Valley Highway is a state highway in Queensland, Australia. It links the Warrego Highway near Ipswich and the D'Aguilar Highway about 4 km north of Harlin. Its direction follows the approximate course of the Brisbane River. It is part of State Route A17, which is duplexed with the D'Aguilar Highway to Nanango and then becomes the Burnett Highway. State Route 85 is duplexed with the Brisbane Valley Highway from Esk to the D'Aguilar Highway.

The highway crosses the Wivenhoe Dam about 9 km north-west of Fernvale.

State-controlled road
Brisbane Valley Highway is a state-controlled, state-strategic road (number 42A).

Intersection with Warrego Highway
From 2015, the intersection with the Warrego Highway was converted into a grade-separated interchange.

Pedestrian facilities
A project to upgrade pedestrian facilities in Fernvale, at a cost of $1.566 million, was due for completion in early 2022.

Safety improvements
A project to improve safety on a section of the highway, at a cost of $14.4 million, was due for completion in mid-2022.

Pavement rehabilitation
A project to rehabilitate the road surface through Esk township, at a cost of $5.5 million, was due for completion in mid-2022.

List of towns along the Brisbane Valley Highway

 * Ipswich
 * Fernvale
 * Esk
 * Toogoolawah

Intersecting state-controlled roads
The following state-controlled roads, from south to north, intersect with the Brisbane Valley Highway:
 * Forest Hill–Fernvale Road
 * Wivenhoe–Somerset Road
 * Coominya Connection Road
 * Gatton–Esk Road
 * Esk–Hampton Road
 * Esk–Kilcoy Road

Forest Hill–Fernvale Road
Forest Hill–Fernvale Road is a state-controlled district road (number 412) rated as a local road of regional significance (LRRS). It runs from Gatton–Laidley Road in to the Brisbane Valley Highway in, a distance of 38.2 km. It intersects with Coominya Connection Road in , and the Warrego Highway in Forest Hill.

Wivenhoe–Somerset Road
Wivenhoe–Somerset Road is a state-controlled district road (number 410) rated as a local road of regional significance (LRRS). It runs from Brisbane Valley Highway in to Esk–Kilcoy Road in, a distance of 39.2 km. It intersects with Mount Glorious Road (Northbrook Parkway) in.

Coominya Connection Road
Coominya Connection Road is a state-controlled district road (number 411) rated as a local road of regional significance (LRRS). It runs from the Brisbane Valley Highway in to Forest Hill–Fernvale Road in, a distance of 12.9 km. It does not intersect with any state-controlled roads.

Gatton–Esk Road
Gatton–Esk Road is a state-controlled regional road (number 4144). It runs from the Warrego Highway in to the Brisbane Valley Highway in, a distance of 39.8 km. It does not intersect with any state-controlled roads.

title: Brisbane Valley Highway


text:
Talk:Purr

Hi, there! I can purr, too! So glad to find someone who can relate. ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.70.221 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I also purr as a cat does in my chest and very deeply. 47.202.11.132 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

untitled
Here are some links that examine purring in a variety of different animals. Could be helpful to increase the overall quality and level of detail.

-Attempted to stop the purring at a veterinary exam https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Little13/publication/259315029_Purring_in_cats_during_auscultation_How_common_is_it_and_can_we_stop_it/links/5c479c70299bf12be3dc684e/Purring-in-cats-during-auscultation-How-common-is-it-and-can-we-stop-it.pdf

-Comparing purrs of various cats http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:539090/FULLTEXT01.pdf

-Comparing purrs of cheetahs and cats http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:539494/FULLTEXT01.pdf

-Looking at the noises of insects and beetle https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/4430/1/V57N02_101.pdf

-Functions of purring https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0960982209011683?token=3B64BF7683719A51E102880D5B576A7855595264826160F7A2DDFE7B4735A777000BEC9FD1933172598901E3FAD81926

-Purring spider https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George_Uetz/publication/276537075_The_potential_for_acoustic_communication_in_the_purring_wolf_spider_Gladicosa_gulosa/links/56f800ef08ae95e8b6d35aa4.pdf

(Meg Dillon8 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Meg_Dillon8)

It is true that humans can purr as well as cats and many other animals such as. Many people have their own way of purring. One of the most famous is having your tongue pressed to the roof of your mouth and making a certain sound. This is not how you actually purr in fact it actually sounds like you are growling and snarling at the same time. I do it all the time and it always sounds like a growl slash snarl. I can purr and make actual cat sounds that no one else can make. I do not purr with my mouth open but with it closed and straight. I am able to create a low rumble with my vocal cords allowing a sound to be emitted from it. The sound is caused by the chords hitting one another within your throat. This allows a low or high-pitched rumble to reach the ears of others around you. The only problem is that it takes practice and a lot of it. I can not breathe while doing this and it minimums my ability to purr for a long time.

by (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Meg_Dillon8)

Purring at Resonate Frequency
Has anyone ever studied whether the frequency of purring happens to match the resonate frequency of the entire animal. If it did, I imagine it would shake their entire being and might feel quite pleasing. If purring frequency was correlated with animal weight, that might support this hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.217.203 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"Nyaa~nyaa" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nyaa~nyaa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential unreliable source and exceptional medical claim
The claim at the end of the article seems extremely sketchy, I will present my thoughts behind that opinion. First the reason the removal was reverted was given as "I see your point, but think this is ok - the magazine is a decent source and the evidence is the statement by the author, 'Various investigators have shown that sound frequencies in this range can improve bone density and promote healing')"

• The magazine is not an expert. They are publishing an external expert's opinion in a blog format.

• The paragraph makes it out as if there is actually evidence while nothing is presented in the article.

• The article doesn't mention any other investigators, and they are hard to find.

• The article does not cite or reference any evidence, if the article was a Wikipedia article, that would be instantly pointed out.

• I struggled to find any supporting evidence and only managed to find one 2001 journal-published article that doesn't present its evidence, just claims of what their supposed evidence shows, and only cites a single source for low-frequency bone healing.

• This is medical science related and a short article doesn't seem appropriate.

I personally think it is dangerous to take exceptional claims at face value when they are made by one person with seemingly little or inaccessible evidence to back it up. Seems unreliable. As this is medical science related, I feel better citations should be found to make it clearer how verifiable it is, otherwise it should be removed, or made more clear that the claims should be taken with care. Any thoughts? 103.108.229.55 (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the editor who reverted the removal of this with the reason you have quoted above. Again, I take the point you are making but I guess for me reporting what reliable sources say (and Scientific American is a reliable source) is key here. What about rephrasing as "In 2003, a writer in Scientific American stated that "Various investigators have shown that sound frequencies in this range can improve bone density and promote healing"." Would that make it clearer what the source of the information is, so that readers can make their own decisions? I would welcome the views of editors working in the WP:MEDRS area, though. Tacyarg (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Purr


text:
Talk:Challenger 2

Armament
The article mentions that the Challenger 2 fires; "Around 50 rounds can be carried from a selection of APFSDS, HESH or smoke." - I was under the impression that APFSDS stood for Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Discarding Sabot - with the main gun being rifled, what exactly is the point of fin stabilising your shell? I thought the whole point of rifling the barrel was to increase the accuracy especially at range? Please forgive my ignorance. 58.7.210.43 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * APFSDS is correct. Spin is actually bad for APFSDS rounds (for fairly complex reasons), which is why most other tanks use smoothbore guns. Additionally friction from the rifling reduces the muzzle velocity of the round to 1530 m/s compared with 1700 m/s for most other smoothbore 120 mm APFSDS rounds. The British continue to use rifled guns because HESH rounds won't work nearly as well without them. The rifled APFSDS rounds features some kind of anti-rifling jacket that stops the rounds spinning with the rifling in the barrel - so the rounds leave the barrel with either no spin, or a relatively low rate of spin. Google "APFSDS and Rifled" for more information. Megapixie 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to fire a HEAT round through a rifled barrel as the spinning of the round prevents the penetrative jet from forming when it impacts the target.

I don't understand where you got the figure of 1530m/s from(CR1??), because Challenger2's L30 was designed to be capable of being fired at much higher pressures than that of the old L11(CR1). Infact the performance of L30 is still secret and has never even been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.54.3 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It has a negative effect on penetration; nevertheless all postwar rifled tank guns had HEAT-rounds developed for them.--MWAK 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, they just put a slip ring around it that will "absorb" most of the spin. Same thing with APFSDS

The reason that HESH rounds need rifling is due to the fact they are centrifugally armed. soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

 * The fact that it hasn't got any fins would also be a show-stopper in a smoothbore. The smoothbores now use fin-stabilised HE-rounds, though, so the advantage of having HESH for the rifled is pretty much cancelled out.

It is worth noting that the Challenger 2 has the record distance for destroying an enemy tank in combat - over 5Kms (in the Iraq War). Acorn897 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was a Chally 1 using the old L11 gun and associated FCS. In theory C2 should be able to so better, but it doesn't hold the record.  Getztashida (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * "the British continue to use rifled guns because HESH rounds won't work nearly as well without them" - also because the British Army specifies engagement ranges around twice that of other countries, and the accuracy of a smooth-bore drops-off rapidly at those longer ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

CRARRV / CHARRV
I have edited the article to reflect the proper terminology for the Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (CRARRV). This is as the official abbreviation for the Challenger 2 is CR2. The CHARRV was the Chieftan ARRV, which still remains in use by some Specialist and Territorial Army Units, but is being gradually phased out. REME_Bod

Moved CRARRV to CR1 page and linked. 13 January 2023

Update for "Operational use"?
Hello, today I found this note in the RPG-29 article, maybe it's worth incorporating:

"In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal explosive reactive armour (ERA) of a top-of-the-line Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29 Link denoted with [2] is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml

Maybe some regular contributors to this article might update it if they find it's a noteworthy information.84.166.248.187 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Best protected" ERA-equipped NATO tank penetrated frontally by 105mm DC-HEAT with claimed penetration of only 750mm!! :-o So much for the "chobham invulnerability" myth. Latest generation western armor is soooo overrated. 195.98.64.69 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't be an idiot. Single Challenger 2 MBTs have taken dozens of hits from RPGs (including the RPG-29) in past engagements and drove off with little damage. Hell one Challenger 2 survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs. An extremely lucky shot that managed to penetrate the ERA and the hull means very little. At worst there is a minor design flaw in the hull resulting in a weak point. Another possible explanation is that there was a flaw in the hull of this specific Challenger. This is just like that time a RPG-7V hit a weak point on the side of an Abrams and penetrated the hull. Notice that since this event no more Challenger 2s have been seriously damaged by RPG-29s. Don't you try to argue that Russian tanks have no weak points because with their production quality we know that is not true. No tank design is ever perfect anyway.

 * Western armor is not "soooo overrated." Chobham and Dorchester have been proven very effective. There are many examples of the Abrams taking multiple hits from RPGs and recoilless rifles and surviving. It has survived hits from the limited amount of high quality 125mm gun ammo the Iraqis had too. Russian armor is junk besides for their heavy ERA which still can be penetrated by the latest HEAT and KE ammo. ERA does not provide protection from multiple hits anyway. --68.118.179.186 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * 1. Survivability per se (esp. after penetration) has nothing to do with armor quality/effectiveness (!). "...survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs" - so what, there are incidents where elderly T-72s also took multiple RPG hits and survived - it was achieved because of functional (unlike 1st Chechnya campaign) ERA bricks and ammunition limited to carousel only (another western myth says that autoloader is the case of "russian tank exploding on any penetration" - the cause of trouble is not autoloader, but extra ammo stocked in fighting compartment). And even don't mention to me much weaker recoilles rifles.

 * 2. I said only about latest (ie details still being unknown) armor as overrated. See, RPG-29 has only 750mm claimed penetration behind ERA, while Chally lower front hull is generally estimated (by western experts) being 860mm equivalent vs HEAT (and thats at perfect perpendicular angle of engagemet, I bet typical angles would be something like 15-40 degs, making for even stronger protection due to increase in LOS thickness). Plus lower front hull on Challenger 2 is plain simple straight plate without any weak spots, and I seriously doubt about any major flaws in such a simple object, it isn't cast steel armor after all. :-)

 * 3. Btw, side non-penetrating hits don't tell much about armor (sides are weak, and probability of penetration is very angle-dependent in this case). But successful frontal penetration definitely means much. ;-)

 * 4. Please enlighten me, what "high quality 125mm gun ammo the Iraqis had". I bet you mean just anything besides steel penetrators (and the same 1970s old stuff anyway). Modern russian tanks can withstand same iraqi rounds just as fine, but there is nothing to be proud of. And modern "high quality" russian APDSFS rounds are as good as the western ones (except for just a bit stronger US M829A3), and HEAT ammo is even better. And since one Challenger already had succesfully killed another, you can deduce the rest. ;-)

 * The C2 that was hit on the blue on blue was at a distance of around 600m, the C2 was hit on the side of the turret, no tank can withstand a hit at this range and tell the tale........
 * Gee, does it mean that ultra-elite professional western tankers cannot distinguish visually very different newest western tanks and old eastern tanks @ mere 600 meters?! 195.98.64.69 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They surely can. But fail 1 time out of 10000 ;-) B-2Admirer (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * 5. Latest ERA is in fact somewhat "reusable" and can withstand a few hits, not just one. By the way, extensive use of ceramics in western armor has its own problems - it's prone to shatter on impact (even non-penetrating one) losing integrity (even though other, non-ceramic, layers will hold it in place), and also must be replaced/repaired in the workshop (if not factory) to restore original protection level. ERA bricks are much easier to "repair". IMO modular armor (ERA in particular) is the future of AFV protection.

 * 6. There is no way to tell exactly what RPGs were fired on the tank, esp. to the crewmen in the heat of battle. And there aren't many RPG-29s in Iraq, only those smuggled across the border, unlike huge local stocks of older RPG-7s (besides British are stationed in calmest parts of the country, Abrams is not as lucky as Challenger). Attributing opponent success only to latest technology (while in the same time bashing same latest tech in case of his older tech failure) is a long tradition in the West - most laughable example which i remember was not long ago when russian sub suddenly popped up out of nowhere in the middle of NATO ASW exercise (!) asking to take care for a crewman suffering appendicitis; Western press of course reported about the undetected sub being latest and quietest Akula class, while in fact it was 1970s era Victor II, long time considered "very noisy, as all other russian junk" by the so-called experts (sorry for the offtopic). :-D 195.98.64.69 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The RPG-29 Vampire that hit the C2 bounced of the floor and hit the belly of the tank......A lucky shot

 * You would be very surprised at what a small flaw in some important metal or ceramics could do. Also note how the only part of the article that claims the frontal armor was penetrated was that little side drawing. It may have easily have been the frontal side hull that was penetrated! That news source just seems to have guessed, and you know that the British press loves to bash military equipment right? They will gladly take a minor thing such as this and make it seem huge. Again note how since that date RPG-29s have done nothing serious to other Challenger 2s. In Lebanon despite the propaganda saying that all of the tanks destroyed were Merkava 4s some of the photos acually show those Merkavas being Magach 7s. Also most of the tanks that were disabled or destroyed were hit in the side or rear.

 * ERA is not reusable, once a panel is hit that panel is gone. While the rest of the ERA is fine and the panel or panels that were hit can be replaced once a panel is detonated it is gone. Yes repeated hits from heavy KE and CE weapons can break the ceramic plates but this problem is not unique to advanced Western composite armors. If the ERA is defeated and the tanks standard armor is hit but not fully penetrated on a Russian tank that armor is also going to need to be repaired to restore the original protection level. This applies to just about any tank although the latest designs with modular armor are easier to repair. These days the Russians rely primarily on heavy ERA for their protection and we rely on advanced composite armor sometimes with additional light ERA for our protection. Both seem impressive and unless World War III begins we won't know which is better.

 * Ah the Russians can be so stubborn, they think their planes are better, they think they tanks are better, and they think their subs are better among other things. Of course we think the same things about our own equipment unless your the media looking for a good story. That ASW event may have happened but there are plenty of embarrassing Cold War stories on both sides. We made a sport of seeing how long we could follow Russian subs without them noticing. :) 68.118.179.186 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Not the least of those embarrassing Cold War stories is a German amateur pilot illegally landing amidst the "impenetrable air defences of Moscow".212.98.170.119 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No, "Cold war stories" are about provocation with spy planes disguised as korean airliners and subsequent western media hysteria after they were shot down. But when Rust landed on Red Square, there was a political decision of much softer government not to shoot at him. That bastard Gorby chose to blame his opponents in the army and fire them instead. And then, judjing by 9/11, New-York and even Washington (Penthagon is a Defence Ministry for goodness sake!!) have absolutely NIL air defence, i suppose? 195.218.210.141 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * 1. There is more info on the net besides that article. And just how many RPG-29s (not RPG-7s) are in Iraq - who knows?

 * 2a. As I wrote, latest generation ERA is reusable. It is not in general service yet, but already thoroughly tested and approved.
 * 2b. Ceramic shatters @ very first, not "repeated" strong hits. Shattering is integral part of "defeating the projectile" process. With ERA, there is a good chance that fixed (& not easy to repair) armor will suffer only light damage (or none). Even more, on some armor schemes found on russian tanks stuck penetrators can actually add to protection level!

 * 3. The problem is, western experts tend to compare the same systems existing on both planes/subs/vehicles/etc (stating that western counterparts are superior), happily omitting those systems which don't have western equivalent. In case of subs, while western sonars and computers may be superior, soviet/russian answer was lurking below kilometer in absolute silence, using trace detectors besides sonar, targeting rocket torpedoes onto unsuspecting gadgetry-filled western sub and be ready to outrun any return-fire torps. ;-) Just a simple example of my point. 195.98.64.69 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One well-known russian "answer" was to target their own unsuspecting Kursk sub with their own torpedoes, and then try to blame it on the British and then Americans so that the whole world could have a good laugh. From time to time the ruskeez still try to do that. Seems like they are born with brains which have the logic parts permanently disabled. If an enemy could sneak into their territorial waters, destroy their best sub so that it didn't even have a chance to fire back, and then escape without being detected and/or leaving any trace of it's presense THEN how long would their fleet last in the event of an all out war with NATO? Probably just enough for a russian sailor to drink his last gallon of vodka :-) So please, sheesh about your subs. We've already seen it.B-2Admirer (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, was it official or i missed something? Even then it makes more sense than ramming own Defence Ministry with a drone plane (pretending it's "being boeing") and making it (another) feeble excuse to start killing "for democracy". :D
 * And of course i'm not going to question superb capabilities of US submarine and especially ASW forces; in fact, americans themselves are soooo confident in them - to the point of scrambling just Prowlers (!) for "interception" (LOL!!) when surprised (yet again) by buzzing russian strike planes - like those Kitty Hawk dudes did! Hence i'm pretty darn sure that "mighty US carriers" will definitely last longer in real conflict than "crappy russian subs"... yeah, much longer - for a whole two seconds perhaps!! :D 195.218.210.188 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Clearly you aren't smart enought to understand what was said. There are hardly any doubts that the sub in question sank because of accident, but the fact is that some Russian journalists and even high-ranking military personel instead of just saying "shit happens" tried to put the blame on a mysterious foreing vessel which allegedly accidentaly collided with or deliberately sunk Kursk, thinking this would save the pride of Russian military, while in fact it would make them positively pathetic. As for the rest of your post, I'm sure here is a wrong place to discuss it, the right would be a good asylum. 212.98.170.119 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Like WHAT was said? "TARGETED by own torpedoes"? And "journalists" - don't make me laugh; as for "high ranking military personnel", they only said there WAS foreign vessel which interfered illegally into the course of the moves - and no more. But most possible base for more sensational rumours perhaps was strange political activity right after the incident - like closed negotiations of unknown subject and US government giving Russia a very generous "loan" after that (and much later it turned out that this loan was effectively forfeit and probably never supposed to be paid back). 195.218.210.141 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Can you trust everything on the internet? The basic design of ERA involves an explosive being detonated which is sort of a one shot deal. Unless you can stack several panels it is not really reusable. About the ceramics shattering it really depends on what is hitting the Chobham armor. A heavy KE penetrator will damage or break several ceramic tiles but you would need several hits in the same area before it becomes a real problem. Generally Chobham armor is more effective against CE weapons and when stopping those you don't have to worry about the ceramic tiles breaking. While a hit from a good sized APFSDS on Chobham armor does take plenty of time to repair new modular armor will make repairing and replacing the armor much easier in future designs and will provide other advantages. I don't know about Dorchester armor but other western armor such as that on the Leopard 2 is very effective against KE threats and can take many hits without the armor being weakened to any major extent.

 * One of the problems with relying on ERA for most of your tanks defense is that while it may normally stop a certain weapon there is a chance that it will fail and let that threat get by without much trouble. Then, if that tank's other armor is not up to the task you will lose an expensive MBT.

 * I don't feel like talking about subs right now but I think you are underestimating NATO submarine tactics. 68.118.179.186 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Someone here claimed that Challenger2 took 60 something or 30 something RPGs??? Where is evidence? One RPG-27 will not penetrate Challenger 2, that is trustworthy, but the only evidence of engagement of RPG-29 and Challenger 2 we have is the one when Challenger 2 came out penetrated. So, let's please not brag about how Dorchester and Chobhham proved itself? 1989 weapon penetrated 1993 newest british tank.

 * "Don't be an idiot. Single Challenger 2 MBTs have taken dozens of hits from RPGs (including the RPG-29) in past engagements and drove off with little damage. Hell one Challenger 2 survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs."

 * We have yet to see proof of this.

 * The reference is in the article. I suggest you read it.  And while advising people not to brag, it might be best if you withheld from bragging yourself?  Just a thought.  Geoff B 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Really When does the argueeing stop? Its like debating anything pointed out the flaws and advantages. No one is right. No one tank is THE best. Uber555 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How can EXPLOSIVE Reactive Armour (ERA) be reusable? It explodes! Acorn897 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs here, but one guy lost his leg in April 2007, it was amputated above the knee. Is this the "toes" incident which is mentioned? But I believe this should be included or the "toes" thing changed to leg. Sources:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2562528/Back-to-war-on-just-1-leg.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/my-son-is-a-casualty-of-war-326294

If this is the wrong place and I sould have opened a new topic for it, feel free to move it wherever it is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.227.216 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Challenger 2 operational history apparently not correct
One guy lost his leg in April 2007, it was amputated above the knee. Sources:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/my-son-is-a-casualty-of-war-326294 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2562528/Back-to-war-on-just-1-leg.html

Another one lost his toes in August 2006:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

The german wikipedia mentions both events, I guess the english should, too. I guess the toes incident mentioned for April 2007 is a mixup of those two events.

Poster of the above comment is entirely right, the mixup of injuries from the 2006 and 2007 incidents was introduced in an edit on 7 April, 2012 and the discrepancy with other languages was annoying. I've taken upon myself to get it fixed. It's better now I hope. Trapiella (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Maximum range?
What is the max range of the Main L30 gun?

It depends. The maximum effective range of the L30 depends on the targeting system (ie it has to be good enough to get the round on-target with a sufficient probability of a 'kill') and also on the type of ammunition used. As the main tank gun of the Challenger 2 and using a HESH (high explosive squach head) round, Janes' Fighting Vehicles puts the range at @8,000 metres. However modern tactics tend to assume a battlefield range of between 1,500 to 4,000 metres. Anything below 1,000 metres and even the old 100mm gun on a T55 would stand a fair-to-middling chance of penetrating a modern western MBT; at such ranges the standard procedure within the (British) Army is to open the range in favour of the L30, if necessary by giving up ground. Very rarely on the modern battlefield would a battlefield weapon such as a main tank gun or an air delivered anti-tank missile be used to its maximum range, for the simple reason that such weapons' ability to kill far exceeds the ranges at which a target can be properly identified.

Andy Loates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:63:140:59BA:4592:AD5F:7BE0 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The effective range of a gun depends on the armour thickness to be penetrated so maximum range is pretty much a pointless figure but for some indication of how powerful a tank gun can be the 120 mm L11 used on the Chieftain when firing APDS had a Range Danger Area in front of the gun extending out to 19 miles (30.5 km).

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)== Possible confusion with wording ==

"The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions"… this made me think there was physical harm to the driver's body/face before finishing the sentence, because I don't know anything about tanks or tank terminology. Is it possible to reword without making it awkward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Successor ?
Some time back there was discussion about the successor being a smaller, lighter "tankette" version more suited to air transport. Recently nothing. The article currently states no successor is intended due to lack of perceived threat. I feel this article should discuss the issue in some depth. Britain will continue to be engaged in power projection as part of its international commitments. Only the tank can survive and advance in the open under heavy fire, and this is likely to remain the case for some time. So how does Britain intend to project force on the open battlefield when the Challenger 2s wear out ? Rcbutcher (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Forces TV clip on Challenger 2 Mk 2 "Black Night" here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 * The Challenger 2 programme is being extended to 2035. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214142612/http://www.janes.com:80/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

CRARRV
What idiot could not understand the part where it says "based on the Challenger 1 hull"? 217.248.6.37 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Moved CRARRV to CR1 page and linked. 13 January 2023 Atomix330 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403214407/http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17646831/body_mm08116_Enforcer_II_RWS_LQ_.pdf to http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17646831/body_mm08116_Enforcer_II_RWS_LQ_.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0%2C%2C931139%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608011154/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119164824/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf to http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf
 * Added tag to http://mc.nstl.gov.cn/pages/2009/86/01/%282%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Challenger 2 doctrine
I've been trying to find information on challenger 2 doctrine, I know the doctrine for the challenger 2 is classified but there was a post of someone saying and talking about BAOR doctrine back in the late 80s and late 90s, I mainly want to know how the challenger 2 engages a enemy tank,I heard about how the challenger 2 was supposed to counter the soviet threat and would primarily hull down and engage one at a time. Hopefully someone can give me a link or info on this topic,thanks Irishbeast241 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Classified specs leak
Apparently, the AESP documentation for the Challenger 2 was leaked online recently. Is this sort of incident notable enough to be included, considering how long the vehicle's specs have been closely-guarded secrets? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 * not at the moment. the extent and significance of the "leak" is yet to be known and currently seems non-notable. give it a bit and see what happens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Please leave the citations alone! 91.98.179.128 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 * this is basically just a paragraph of two sentences. one cite alone would cover it. more cites do not make the text any more referenced - they are all working from same material GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the excerpts of themselves (as opposed to within a news article discussing them) would also fall under the proscription against linking to copyright violations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine
14 vehicles have been promised to Ukraine. They have not yet been handed over or deployed at time of writing. Until then, it is inappropriate to confirm that they have been used in the current war or are being used by the AFU. Atomix330 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Resolved now tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. Atomix330 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Deployed at least for the present. In the video, it's on fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3MRfjUmTQ Halfcookie (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Imperial hull, metric turret
There's a comment in the Telegraph in relation to shipping some to Ukraine that maintenance is complicated by the way that - because of its origins in the Challenger 1 design? - the hull needs a toolkit with imperial (inches) sizes, but the turret needs a toolkit with metric sizes. Any better sources for that? Lovingboth (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 * The Telegraph (unpaywalled version)should be good enough per WP:RSP. Of course it would be better to have another source confirm. Schierbecker (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Engine
The Challenger 2 has always had the Rolls Royce CV 12 engine and not Perkins. I used to do second line repair on the Power Packs. 2003:CB:9F4A:2900:5489:EC37:C8A5:FF75 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Claim of 70 RPG Hits?
The 'Operational history' section describes an incident during the 2003 Iraq invasion where a Challenger 2 tank was subject to 70 HITS by RPG type weapons. It uses a BBC (UK government sponsored media) which quotes a Mr. Tusa, who is a editor at Defence Analysis, who provides no evidence or verification of this event, and appears to be regurgitating some information that he obtained second hand. This is often how erroneous folklore is born.

It's hard to imagine a human CONVEYOR BELT of 70 Iraqi RPG gunners (assuming there weren't more, since 70 hits on the vehicle is the claim, and not 70 gunners, which would imply the Iraqis had a 100% accuracy rate, or there were substantially more RPG gunners, some of whom did not score hits), lining up and taking shots at the vehicle from a single aspect (again, we are not told anything about the extent of the damage or placement of hits). It's also hard to even imagine the 70 Iraqi RPG gunners hitting the same spot, over and over again, without any results, as the article implies. Any proficient gunner would soon realize that hitting other aspects of the vehicle, such as the flanks or rear, which are easily penetrated by even older generations of RPG-7 warheads was futile, and seek a better shot.

In short, the entire claim strains credulity, does not hold up to even basic scrutiny and the realities of combat. Since this is merely a second-hand claim by a third party private industry analyst, and the MoD has never revealed the affected vehicle nor displayed any information about the damage sustained, I think we are safe to disqualify this claim as simply "made up" or badly distorted hearsay that was played up by UK national media to helo foment the myth of their property's battlefield durability. As such I recommend removal of this claim, or insertion of a statement that challenges this narrative. Podlesok86 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a section in the operational history that i find questionable
> In September 2023, Ukrainian Air Assault Forces Command published a video interview with a Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew member who stated that the tank was a "sniper rifle among tanks" due to its accuracy. The anonymous crew member also praised the tank's protection which was more favourable than that of the T-62, T-72, and T-80 tanks which he had previously crewed.

I think this statement should be removed, the source is a propaganda video so it should be scrutinized and there is a lot to scrutiny here

First of all what does it mean by "T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks which he had previously crewed", as far as i know Ukraine does not use any T-62s besides a few T-62M tanks in use by territorial defense units, and what T-72 and T-80 tanks is he specifically talking about? A T-72AV and T-72AMT zr 2022 are going to be a comically huge difference

Also the " sniper rifle among tanks" statement is just blatantly stupid, this implies that the challenger 2 is one of the most accurate tanks in the world, but, correct me if i am wrong, as far as i know it's FCS is not that impressive, the tank hasn't received major FCS changes since the 90s, i would be very highly surprised if it is more accurate than the T-72B3 or T-64BV zr 2017

Also the statement on the challenger 2 having good armor is also pretty questionable to me, i know that it's a heavily armored tank but it hasn't received major armor upgrades since the Gulf war not counting ERA, right? I doubt it has impressive armor by 2023 standards, i would rather be inside an M1A2 SEP 3 or Leopard 2A6 D1d2d3d29 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 * So you reject a source for your own anecdote or opinion? Its fine so long as the paragraph clearly indicates the source. Atomix330 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, this is not my opinion, i think it's an objective fact that the challenger 2 does not have an impressive FCS and this article doesn't contradict that, so a statement that implies the opposite is clearly sus and should be either removed or changed so that it's not so prominent D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Loss in Ukraine
I find the recent changes highly dubious. The first video of the loss that appeared in September 2023 showed the tank disabled and smoking, but the turret was still in place and nobody spoke of "Kornet" back then, even the Forbes article at https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/05/ukraine-has-lost-its-first-challenger-2-tank/ stated "Challenger 2’s turret still is attached to its hull, mostly" (in contrast to the Soviet tanks). Now, months later, we're shown another video of the same tank, now completely wrecked and suddenly everybody "knows" it was a "Kornet" ATGM, apparently repeating one unreliable source. Looks like a PsyOps action to me. More likely, the long-ago disabled and abandoned tank was repeatedly hit with something that eventually dislodged the turret and someone conjured up a story of success for "Kornet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:A521:8801:B06D:5ADF:F2DA:2C6A (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I am inclined to agree. Furthermore, we know that the crew of the tank survived - something which would be very unlikely in the scenario that the recent changes describe. The far more likely outcome is that it was immobilised by a hit to the tracks, abandoned by the crew, and then destroyed by artillery. Hell, the crew may even have done it themselves to avoid it falling into Russian hands. 2A00:23C6:549D:B101:4D55:D294:E6BF:B683 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the crew did it themselves to avoid it being captured then they are a very incompetent crew given that the tank was fairly far from Russian lines and in no danger of being captured, the fact that you even suggested this as a possibility at all makes me doubt everything you said
 * And a tank crew could survive an ammunition cook-off D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That paragraph should be removed but for fairly different reasons, as far as i know there is no evidence that a kornet was responsible for it's destruction and in general i don't think enough is known about that event to make such detailed step by step descriptions of events D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From the Forbes article speculating about Kornets and armor: It seems the Challenger 2 struck a mine while shifting positions from outside Robotyne to outside Verbove.... Immobilized by the mine strike, the Challenger 2 was an easy target....The Russians hit it twice in exactly the right spots: first striking the tracks with a mine and immobilizing the vehicle, then striking the turret top where the protection is minimal.
 * Clearly, the article is all speculation and guesswork, but while still somehow acceptable as a reliable source, there is no mention of the tank being disabled by a mine first, nowhere in the article.
 * If guesswork is acceptable, at least copy all of it.
 * Otherwise, this entire entry is nothing more than Russian propaganda about wonders of Kornets and woes of Challengers.109.175.106.75 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh and, one more thing... David Axe, a journalist, author and filmmaker based in Columbia, South Carolina - clearly has no experience to be a military analyst.
 * This is his understanding of Kornet 9M133: "The four-foot Kornet packs a 10-pound tandem warhead. Basically, the first warhead punches a hole in a vehicle’s outer armor. The second warhead explodes inside the vehicle."
 * He literally assumes that both stages of a tandem charge are at least equal, both being capable of penetrating tank armor. Meaning that his "expertise" is lesser that that of someone looking up "tandem charge" on wikipedia.
 * Besides that, concerning Kornets - he is completely, utterly, WRONG. First stage is tiny. Designed to penetrate ERA. Further, secondary charge on Kornets has to go through its own propellant - which is placed in front of the explosive - DEFLECTING THE PLASMA CHARGE. Kornets essentially carry their own anti-Kornet charge.
 * https://en.missilery.info/missile/cornet/shema
 * It is a poor design. They had to separate the guidance in the front from the laser beam sensor in the back, for it to be laser guided. Leaving the middle for the fuel and explosives - one of which gets spent during the flight, making the rocket light on that end. Thus, they had to put the fuel in the middle of the rocket, to keep it balanced - but blocking the main charge.
 * Entire Forbes article section should be scrapped, or anything by David Axe. He is not a reliable source.
 * He's just some guy incapable of even googling the things he writes about. 109.175.106.75 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sniper among tanks"
I find the claim that the challegner 2 is apparently "a sniper among tanks" fairly dubious, hasn't the tank not received major FCS modernizations since the early 2000s? Not to mention the fact that as far as i know the reputation of it's FCS is fairly poor when compared to contemporaries like abrams, leopard 2 and leclerc.

Also the statement about it having superior armor to the T-64/T-72/T-80 is vague to the point of uselessness, there are more T-64/T-72/T-80 versions than people in some villages and their armor can vary wildly, i somewhat doubt a T-64BM bulat, T-80BVM or T-72B3 can be lumped into the same category as a T-72A, T-80B or T-64B armor wise, in fact i would be highly surprised if the armor of the T-64BM or T-72B3 is universally worse than a challenger 2, making such generalized statements about the T-series is fairly unacademic. D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Bosnian war
how did the tank manage to be used in the bosnian war if it services started in 1998 and the bosnian war ended in 1995? Waterlover3 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those were Challenger 1. Look at the position of the TOG sight, above the barrel on the 2 and on the side of the turret for the 1. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference to Reddit
Reference 61 of the article links to a reddit posts. Other references are linked, is it better to delete? I'm assuming reddit post aren't considered good reference. Flatlandia (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? Because you question the reliability? Or you don't link the paywall-like need to install some Reddit app to get to it? Or because of some copyright claim?
 * References are not required to meet WP:RS (And don't believe those who tell you they must). We encourage this and we might require it in order to meet WP:V. But it's not a simple absolute.
 * The material here is a photo of a significant event. It's not some Redditor's opinion piece. So there is little reason to question its veracity, and it does have value to the article. I would keep it in. But now that we've mentioned it, someone will probably swoop in from above and delete it, claiming that Reddit doesn't meet RS (which is an irrelevance, not a requirement) and threaten blocks to all and sundry who might restore it.  On WP, be careful who you might summon. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick respond. I'm not here for starting heated discussions, but my idea was this: because the reference in question as only purpose of showing a photograph, why not using a more reliably source for the photograph? I believe that reddit is not a very reliable source for every user can freely affirme anything. I'm not here to starts heated discussion, only finding better references, which, I think, will only help the site. I'm sorry for my broken English. I will work to find a better reference. Flatlandia (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Summoning complete!". While WP:RS is "only" a guideline, it should generally be followed, although exceptions are allowed - in this case, the image in question is probably useful. A bigger issue is WP:OR - is that definitely the actual tank involved in the event, or are we relying on OR from Reddit posters or the imgur uploader? Again, there can also be exceptions to policies, but it's a higher bar than a guideline.
 * FYI, a direct link to the image is https://imgur.com/challenger-2-of-queens-royal-lancers-destroyed-by-friendly-fire-from-another-challenger-basra-2003-1280x848-5dBR4h4 also, Reddit can often be more readily accessed by swapping www to old - https://old.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/comments/3dgqoj/challenger_2_of_the_queens_royal_lancers/ (Hohum @ ) 17:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Challenger 2