Talk:Countermeasure

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

C

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

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 science, technology, and theory task force

Eh? On the poison gas page, IG Farben is described as providing chemical weapons in the first world war. Here it says it was a reaction to Germany's defeat in the first one. We should probably add chronology to this page.

Very technical

this edit turned it from a general reference article into a very technical and kind of esoteric one. It needs a copyedit for readability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very technical indeed. Sounds like it was written by somebody who is well versed in the subject matter, but tried too hard to sound smart and not enough to sound clear.

Also, the cited figures for the infrared spectrum conflict. Is there a consensus in terms of military application? Thrashbarg 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge request was page merged to Active Protection System by User name one. Non-admin closure. username 1 (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any argument that there needs to be a merge, however, which one should stay and which one should go?username 1 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. Content on this article should be merged to Active Protection System and this article should act as the parent article for armor, Active Protection System, and camouflage. username 1 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think the page should be left up for so long as the merge has not actually been completed. If the contents have not been moved elsewhere then it is wrong to delete them, until that is done. --Hibernian (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be merged

This page can't be merged owing to the belated expansion of the definition of countermeasures. The previous introduction omitted a very significant meaning and use of the term, focusing on the very narrow definition restricted to recently introduced field of military electronics. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's a problem. One term is wider than the other, right? Yet, the articles have nearly identical contents. So, the wider one can survive and include the narrower, right? Jim.henderson (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, its not a problem now, but was.

Firstly the countermeasures can refer to more than the electronic spectrum, i.e. armour on a tank is the original countermeasure to anything being fired at the crew. A sea mine is a countermeasure to enemy shipping convoys. Etc.

However, the Active protection system article didn't explain what 'active' referred to, and there is already an Electronic countermeasures article that the Active protection system should be linked to. I linked the Sensor node article section that explains the difference between the three types of sensors, and also to the Electronic countermeasures as the 'mother' article.

Its the English language problem of too many concepts and not enough words, as in for example the Firestop passive fire protection system.

There is no Passive protection system though, which are also used on vehicles, as here for exampleKoakhtzvigad (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late; been busy with photos of a blizzard, etc. Yes, any language has words with multiple meanings, such as Spanish "Llave" or German "Schuss". Most such obstacles can be worked around with a modest level of thought. In our case yes, archers on chariots are a countermeasure against a host of swordsmen, and a ditch is a counter against the chariots, and a portable bridge counters the ditch etc. So, instead of a merger, this article can be the general one with very brief mentions of ECM, shaped charge, explosive armor.... I mean, armour, camouflage, radio silence, degaussing the hull, and links to the various articles for specific counters against whatever the enemy are using. That would mean deleting most the contents of the present article, since it now has little except a duplicate of the active protection system article. In accordance with WP:SUMMARY there's no need to duplicate large dollops of text. For countertopics not covered by their own articles, instead of creating those articles we can expand this article do the job. Better proposal? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Probably there needs to be several military-related countermeasures artilces, such as Countermeasures (mobility), the electronic one already exists, Countermesures (Chemical) would include both military and industrial hazard concepts, etc.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is going to be your course of action?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Hope you got a photogenic blizzard :)

It's a bit complex, as usual when a bunch of related articles are a mess due to narrow minded editors not comparing articles for their potential for useful links. Take down the merge flag; check the duplicated sections for ones where this version is better than the APS version, move those sections to that article, and delete 90% or more of this article, replacing with links to existing ones. Check for other WP:FORKs. I do not intend to enter new information, being too lazy to seek proper sourcing for my own entries. As with many topics, what's wrong in this area is not much a matter of absence of good text. It's more a matter of bad text, and especially of poor distribution of text and links among the appropriate articles. At least, that's the part that my limited topical knowledge can handle, slowly. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easier than expecteed, since the forked sections were precisely identical and the search for other forks came up empty. I also added a picture and bulleted a few "passives" assuming someone will want to add many more such as gas mask, torpedo net and the like. I deleted something I just plain didn't understand and hope someone with better background can restore it as workable prose. Some weak material may remain, and the "active" paragraph still doesn't run smoothly but I'll let it lie a day or two, keeping busy with post blizzard photo processing and other Wikimatters while hoping someone with greater topical knowledge finds ways to improve this article. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

The interwikis don't work here, in the English Wikipedia article. Just check, for example, the French article: all other wikis in other languages are in the list (Català, Deutsch, English, Español, فارسی, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Русский and Svenska). Why the languages list is here, in the English article, sooooooo empty? What's the problem? Kintaro (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]