Talk:Crusader tank

Move/Rename

Why? GraemeLeggett 16:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crusader tank is more common and it will put it in line with the other vehicles (Cromwell tank, Churchill tank, Valentine tank... etc.) Oberiko 21:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice article, good info and nice photos. Miguel

Armour Details

The quoted armour thickness for the MkI and later versions are, I believe, wrong. Both the Crusader and Covenanter were specified to a '30mm armour standard' - a curiously british phrase which specified that the thickness of the armour should be equivelant to a vertical plate 30mm thick. Naturally, an angled plate could be thinner for the same protection and both designs took advantage of the fact. However, both the Covenanter and the MkI Crusader were actually built to a 40mm armour standard and as the front plate of the Crusader I's turret was at a small angle from the vertical it was, roughly 39mm thick whih is quite a bit thicker than the 26mm quoted in the article. The MkIII Crusader had a turret built to a 50mm armour standard and as it's front plate was vertical it was of the full 50mm thickness. "British and American Tanks of World War TWO" (ISBN 1-84509-009-8) Chamberlain and Ellis gives maximum armour thickness for the MkI, MkII and MkIII Crusaders as 40mm, 49mm and 51mm respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.184.67 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Argentinian SPG on Crusader chassis

Added pic illustrating it, provided rationale in pic's page (in this WP, don't know how to use "Commons"), and added written source for this SPG. Once I can get "physical" access to the mentioned source will try to expand a bit.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Users of this AFV?

Other than UK and Argentina (the local SPG version), which other countries have used this tank, and when? Shouldn't there be a section explaining this?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor Issue, please help

I don't know enough wiki syntax, correct links and names to files and such; but I'm 100% sure that Wikipedia's style says that the Canadian flag in operators should be the old Red Ensign used before 1967. Can someone fix it? 96.54.76.154 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crusader tank. 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/20080331201042/http://www.wwiiequipment.com/crusader.aspx to http://www.wwiiequipment.com/crusader.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture edits

I get why the work (August 2017) has been done to align the photo's with the correct section, and a lot of work has clearly gone into it. Unfortunately it's added a lot of white space, which (on the mobile platform at least) doesn't look great. In some cases it takes a lot of scrolling. I don't want to arbitrarily undo this without chatting it through here though, so can we discuss whether the captions alone are adequate to ID the photo's, or whether they also need to be aligned with the section that mentions them. Lkchild (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep the positioning. It looks fine for me on the mobile site, from a PC, a phone and a tablet. Whitespace isn't toxic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Requirement for Infobox Image update

Preference for up-to-date images when possible for infobox - See examples provided in T-34 and M4 Sherman page preference for up-to-date photography rather than archival in each page's respective infoboxes. Similar archival images of vehicle in desert are already present in main article therefore rendering it redundant. Up-to-date photographic image proposal for Main infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_tank&oldid=797804512#/media/File:Crusader_Tank_Mark_3.jpg

Previous image reverts lack any physical justification for reversion - requires elaboration.

-User:NotLessOrEqual

The desert image is appropriate because a) it shows the tank in its historical setting, b) the presence of the soldiers gives a sense of scale c) the image "faces" into the article. As to a requirement for an "up to date" image, where is that laid out in policy or guidelines? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, that was an overstatement, I made a mistake earlier of using archival image on another page and it got reverted by another guy says that Wikipedia would prefer real-life up-to-date imagery since they are available, with archival imagery to be kept in the main space article instead. I never said there was a written requirement for the image to use up-to-date photography when possible, only 'preference' (read the above talk message again)

I still require a reason from you as to why pages such as T-34, M4 Sherman T-55 or T-62 etc. are fine with using better quality real-life up-to-date photographic imagery for the infobox article but somehow this one uses more inferior quality archival imagery (which already contains similar ones in the main space) is considered better and reverted. '

I can understand your point that the original Archival imagery from Imperial War Museum of the tank with people in the desert are appropriate, but as stated earlier, there is already present an image extremely similar which exists in the mainspace article which more or less does the same job (of depicting , I am meaning this image of two Crusader Mk I with operators visible: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IWM-E-6724-Crusader-19411126.jpg as well as another image of the tank engineers cleaning the barrel of the tank (which also has the same purpose) i.e the reasons presented by you to keep lower-quality archival imagery for the infobox instead of the standardized real-life up-to-date photography as present in nearly every other article to deal with firearms, aircraft, ships and tanks if such sources are available is therefore redundant. Take a look at T-34 or M4 Sherman pages again and you can see some old archival imagery with visible crew members in the combat environment in the mainspace articles similar to the 'Crusader in the desert' you reverted back to. In this case, are you going to also change the swap the info-box image of those two sample pages with the original archival ones for the reasons you stated above?

If the original archival imagery in the infobox is of sufficient quality or contains due weight which weighs more than that of existing archival photographs present in the mainspace articles, I suggest swapping one of them with the original infobox image I attempted to replace (eg. replace the image of two Mk 1 Crusaders with the one in the Infobox and have the image of the Infobox replaced with the real-life 'up-to-date' image instead).

The photograph I intend to replace for the infobox is a model of the Mark III Crusader on display at the Australian Imperial War Museum with the background cropped away. This is so far the only freely licensed one I can provide to Wikipedia which is up-to-date higher quality and in colour to standardize image selection for infobox similarly seen in M4 Sherman or T-34 pages.

-User:NotLessOrEqual —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

in quick response rather than a complete one, why remove the background? It renders the tank more abstract through absence of other cues (compare with TOG II or Tiger 131) and makes it look like its been put together in 3D drawing program. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I much prefer the desert photo. It's better quality than whatever this replacement thing is. There is no requirement for a "modern" image (and such would usually be basically wrong anyway) but there is a certain encouragement to quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The desert photo is better in my opinion too. It seems like a reasonably modern good quality scan. The age and the setting both relate to the primary focus of the article : not just the tank, but also it's history, engineering etc. which all relate heavily to desert use. Lkchild (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree to keep the desert photo. The "replacement" to me just seems to be off like it was some kind of 3D render while the desert photo shows an actual tank. I prefer the desert photo as stated and see no need to replace it as it is also a pretty good scan of a photograph. Dictonary1 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The desert image is also my preference, for the various reasons already stated. (Hohum ^@) 00:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to GraemeLeggett Background cropping is commonly done to return emphasis onto the article subject in question in regards to industrial design articles (eg. vehicles) although not used for architectural designs (eg. Wikipedia article in regards to the Eiffel Tower]]. This especially so when there are other objects visible in the image which may either detract or cause confusion to viewers as to what is suppose to be portrayed.

In response to everyone else, I understand the original desert image is good, but the issue is that there already exists multiple archival photos similar to what is already present infobox and making it saturated and redundant as they all more or less fulfill the same role. Another issue is lack of colour to more accurately depict what the vehicle really looks like. I am not sayign we should outright remove archival images, but I suggest for the sake of already what is standardized in Wikipedia, archival imagery are to strictly kept in main-space article sections, whilst up-to-date photography of the article subject are to be used if such sources are available to replace it. There is no written requirement that the info-box image MUST be up-to-date photography of the subject, but if you take your time to look at all the rest of the other articles in regards to armored vehicles, none of them use archival imagery for the info-box unless archival imagery are the only surviving sources in existence to depict the subject. The only up-to-date photograph present in representative of this tank is the one from Bovington tank museum in 'surviving vehicles' section however, it has multiple issues which may detract it from being the Infobox image of choice due to lack of contrast and other objects, dark environment such as signs in the way as well as only displaying a majority of the front silhouette of the vehicle rather than the whole of it.

All in all, the archival image currently present in the infobox should be relegated into the mainspace article either in the 'variants' subsection (the 'variants' sub section is lacking an image of a Mk II Crusader anyway) or relegated to the 'service history' subsection where it is more appropriate, as do almost every single other article in regards to aircraft or armored vehicles present in Wikipedia whilst the infobox image is to be replaced with an up-to-date photography (can be any, so long as its an accurate presentation and easy to distinguish and is freely-licensed).

-User:NotLessOrEqual —Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Retain the original image. The intended replacement is of clearly poorer quality and adds nothing to the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Bro what happened to the page

. 129.126.35.155 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)