Talk:Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Merging FCS vehicles

Copied from Talk:XM1202 Mounted Combat System

I suggest keeping this article and maybe Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon as is. Merge the others:

to Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles (with links to MCS and NLOS-C) since the vehicles all related since from sharing a common chassis. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, later we can merge this and NLOS-C to it as they will gradually become less noteable. Username 1 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles be called to prevent people from getting carpal tunnel from typing the name? FCS Manned Ground Vehicles, Future Combat Systems MGVs, or even FCS MGVs would work. Username 1 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion above is to only merge the ones in the list, and leave Mounted Combat System and NLOS-C as is for the time being. They may get re-used/re-cycled in a similar design on the new program. With a redirect for "Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles", name length is not as important. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so much criticism as an observation: The previous merge was simply a text dump of all the articles - There was no Lead sectgion, and no attempt to edit and shorten the merged material,and to integrate the info into one article. That somewhat defeats the purpose of the merge, qand is really no better than having six articles that all say the same as the merged article. The merged article should be somewhat shorter, and probably just give an overview of each vehicle. Also, we generally only use one infobox per article, although I don't think this is a hard and fast rule. I have no oppotion to the proposals above regarding what article to merge or keep separate. - BillCJ (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I'm seeing is with these articles is the https://www.fcs.army.mil/ site and subpages ([1], [2], [3], etc) have been taken down and archive.org does not seem to handle secure https:// sites. I've found an overview presentation and some other non-Army articles that can be used however. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

There needs to be a template for {{Canceled weapon}} template like the {{{Future weapon}}} template but i don't know how to create a template. username 1 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should be made clear in the text. There is probably a category for it. The reasons for deleting the Future templates may catch a "Canceled something" template also. Or may not... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past, Present, Future Tense

The article uses a confusing mix of past, present, and future tenses. Example:

Example: "The MCS was intended to deliver precision fire at a rapid rate, in order to destroy multiple targets at standoff ranges quickly, and will complement the other systems in the unit of action. It will be capable of providing direct support ..."

I'll leave this to someone who is familiar with the issues.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I think it's time we merged the howitzer to this article. At some point I'll prod the Germans and Spaniards into integrating the specific vehicles into a parent article. username 1 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merge tag needs to include the XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon link. Template has been fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging that seems alright to me. Has there been anything mentioned with the BCT GCV about a similar NLOS cannon vehicle version? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nothing yet and i don't think the NLOSC was ever officially canceled. Read an article that said it wasn't but I'll have to dig it up.username 1 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]