Talk:AN/APG-68

Military history: Aviation / Technology / 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 not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

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

Solid State?

So you indicate that it's Solid State, but then go on to say the Transmitter is a TWT, which is clearly not Solid-State. So which is it?

As far as I can tell, this commenter is correct. A TWT is apparently a vacuum tube, and consequently isn't solid-state. I'll remove the offending statement. 70.251.148.89 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/APG-68v(9)?

Is it AN/APG-68v(9), or AN/APG-68(V)9? The page at Joint Electronics Type Designation System shows the V in parenthesis, and this is the only documented way I've ever seen this, but I may be naive to the vagaries of the system. 70.251.148.89 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AN/APG-68. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalSecurity external link

@BeeboMan, I noticed you removed the external link to GlobalSecurity. Although WP:GLOBALSECURITY lists it as not a reliable source, there is no restriction on adding it to the External Links (where it is not referenced by the article). Do you have reservations about putting it back? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 21:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, I just felt as since WP:RS/PS lists WP:GLOBALSECURITY as NOT a RS, it likely shouldn't be in external links to perhaps avoid "misleading" people. Although I now am looking at WP:EL and it does state that some acceptable external links include "...other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." BeeboMan (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeeboMan, yep. There is a difference between not a reliable source and black listed links. GlobalSecurity is not blacklisted (yet). — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]