Talk:List of equipment of the Lithuanian Armed Forces

https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/army-news-2024/breaking-news-lithuanian-defense-minister-to-visit-germany-to-sign-leopard-2a8-tanks-acquisition-agreement

It will be signed on December 18th, 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.58.118.39 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Land rover defender.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Land rover defender.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

BTR-60 is missing 82.140.160.55 (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Information regarding NASAMS

The information provided about the NASAMS procurement seems partly incorrect or at least unsourced. I do remember there being two batteries with four launchers, but I haven't found any reference to the number of missiles provided. 400 seems incredibly high, considering the total cost of the procurement and there is no such information in the linked source. Could someone please verify this?--Estonian1885 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:M82A1 afmil.jpg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: This file was initially tagged by 木の枝 as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:M107-M82A1 Long Range Rifle (7414625614).jpg
One file has a shadow while the other one doesen't have a shadow. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• WildcatctmLT.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

On former and/or irrelevant equipment

Eurohunter: I reverted your last change on a basis that it has no encyclopedic value, as per WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies. If anything, I would trim this page further, e.g. removing items about tractors or Škodas in the Armed Forces, but that can be debated. A few extra points:

• If you can look at other similar -- and arguably better written -- pages, e.g. List of equipment of the British Army, List of equipment of the French Army or, say, List of equipment of the Republic of China Army and List of equipment of the United States Army. None of them list former equipment.
• The fact that there are articles which contain the former equipment doesn't justify it; that might merely indicate that there are many Wikipedia articles which need a clean up. For example, List of equipment of the Ukrainian Ground Forces has sections detailing recent batches of deliveries, but it doesn't mean it's a good practice: the purpose of Wikipedia is not accounting and bookkeeping, as explained in WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
• You can, however, find articles like List of British military equipment of World War II and List of equipment of the Soviet Army. There is encyclopedic value in them: British military was a major power during the World War II and listing former equipment has a historic value in this context; similarly, Soviet equipment is relevant in the context of another major historic event -- the Cold War. A dozen of Lithuanian BTRs in 1990s or 2000s are hardly of any historical significance.

--Mindaur (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Mindaur: So it is encyclopedic only when in use and when it's retired it's not encyclopedic anymore? Temporary content? Nonsense. List should consist of former, current and future equpment with references like any article contents such as many articles about tanks which has former, current and future operators sections even with maps. In this way we could remove every part of article about retired thing. It's not less valuable when retired. If it's not encyclopedic after it retired then it never shopuld be encyclopedic. Eurohunter (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, as per the WP policy, notability is somewhat based on the sources and coverage. If there would be considerable number of sources covering those BTRs (because they are "interesting" in some way), then you could argue that it is. The way it stands now is consistent with other major articles. Are you arguing that we should start adding former equipment of the British Army since the Acts of Union 1707 or earlier? Where should we draw the line with the Chinese, their People's Republic or Xia dynasty?

Perhaps more to the point: what is the purpose of this article? Because the way I see it, the purpose of "List of equipment of the <whatever military force>" is to present an overview of the core equipment of the current military force. The title is not "List of present and former equipment ..." or "The history of equipment ...". It's arguably about equipment in possession, which implies present time.

So, to answer your question: yes, ditch it once it's retired. May keep it in the wartime reserves for some time, if that's the case. However, unless there is a specific notability (based on sources and considerable coverage) about that equipment, then there is no point to maintain an ever-growing list of former junk. --Mindaur (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mindaur: There is current equpment without references and without enough notavbility - why you don't remove it too? How you got that list of equipments are for current equipment only? Lists of equipment are to present an overview of the core equipment of the military force past, current and future - same as in articles about tanks, aircrafts etc. Eurohunter (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: It's not black or white. Let's improve the article by finding good references, but do we need to list every civilian car model or tractor used within the Armed Forces? Maybe, but then some other well written articles don't list them, so it would not inconsistent to skip them too. Ultimately, we try to use common sense to make a judgement and it is sometimes healthy to have chats like we are having right now.

Nevertheless, I provided multiple arguments and pointed to Wikipedia policies as a basis. You did not refute them, nor did you provide well reasoned counter arguments. You merely stated what you think the article should contain. It's great that you have an opinion, but you should at least provide a basis of you reasoning, otherwise it is not constructive.

I'm assuming WP:GOODFAITH: I suggest to calm down and think about this. Read WP:NOTDATABASE, look how other/better articles are written, e.g. List of equipment of the British Army. Look for consistency when you compare them. After all, we are all trying to make the articles better here. --Mindaur (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mindaur: I don't see the point to search references and add content to table if today's encyclopedic content will be deleted 20 or 30 years after only because it was retired (it will lose encyclopedic status due to retirement). Why didn't you specifically refer to this? And what about aricles about tanks and aircraft which include former, current and future equipment or atleast former and current equipment? It has nothing to do with WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTDATABASE. I only added retired equpment same as there is current unreferenced equipment. You can't choose unreferenced material to be deleted. Retired and current unreferenced or referenced material has the same value so we keep referenced material and remove unreferenced material. You can remove all unreferenced equipmernt or add all unreferenced equpment. Retired unreferenced BTR-60 has the same vaule as current unreferenced Humvee. I never said anything about to include tractors or civilian cars. I know some equipment would be non-encyclopedic for sure but you need comprehensive approach. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I can just say if material is notable then it doesn't matter if t's former, current or future. Eurohunter (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: It is normal that some content gets deleted over the years and replaced by more up to date content. That is just a reality of changing world. It's nothing to be upset about if the content we write will eventually get replaced.

However, some information has historical and chronological significance and it is perfectly fine to cover that. You are more than welcome to write an article on "Military history of Lithuania" and it is exactly the article where coverage of the former equipment would have its due weight. Some equipment in itself is notable, for example Supermarine Spitfire (GA class) which is iconic/legendary aircraft. RAF still operates some for the ceremonial use and it is fair to list them. In fact, they even have a separate list: List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires. Meanwhile, those retired BTRs neither have any historic significance nor they even exist anymore, because Lithuanian forces used them as shooting targets. It's a scrap metal, it's worthless, it's long gone. Just move on. --Mindaur (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

200 Series Landcruiser Image

The image used for the 200 series landcruiser is in fact that of a Hilux, the reference for the vehicle contains the correct image of a 200 series land cruiser. Could someone fix this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.32.77 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Unless anyone objects, I intend to rename this article to the List of equipment of the Lithuanian Armed Forces (as opposed to just Land Forces). Rationale:

• The current list already mixes the equipment of different branches of the Armed Forces, so the title is de facto wrong. I don't think it is realistic to reconcile the information by determining which branches use particular equipment, as often there is no information. Sources tend to just announce the transfer to the Armed Forces, without the details about which units would use it.
• Some equipment is used by multiple branches (e.g. small infantry weapons, trucks, drones, MANPADS), but it's difficult to reconcile the quantities or which specific variants are used by each branch. Also, there is a standard issue equipment. If we were to create a separate list for each branch, then there would be unnecessary duplication.
• IMO, there is little value in trying to differentiate this information. The purpose of such lists is to provide a general overview of the capability of the Armed Forces in question. If known and necessary, details on military branch can be mentioned in the notes or footnotes.

-- Mindaur (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CAESAR NG (Mk. II) New Generation 155mm 6x6 self-propelled howitzer.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)