Talk:AMX-30E

From the introduction ...

I'm going to remove this sentence: "In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E, while in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments were discussing the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s. Ultimately, both of these possible trade deals fell through." because, the exact same information is in the Export section at the bottom of the article. Any objections? 24.143.44.195 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and did it, the information at the bottom is better anyway. Menrunningpast (talk) 02:05, 19http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AMX-30E&action=edit&section=1

Editing Talk:AMX-30E (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do object. The introduction is supposed to cover more or less everything written in the bottom. It's repeated in the bottom so it can be referenced, otherwise I would have to reference it in the lead. JonCatalán (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that since the countries didn't follow through, it would be more of an afterthought to mention who considered buying the tank, but ultimately didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of WP:LEAD. "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Whether you think that that paragraph is important enough to be referenced in the lead I guess is the argument, but since it's included and it's a stand alone section of the article I think it is. JonCatalán (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My argument, I guess, would be that conventionally with weapons articles I've read on wikipedia, there is a mention of which armed services utilize the particular weapon in the article, especially in the introduction. Also, there is usually an attempt to pin down how they acquired the weapons (if purchased from another country) generally later on in the article, but this was the first time I've seen an armed service mentioned in conjunction with a weapons system that they (the particular armed service branch) ultimately decided not to purchase. Therefore, I felt the mentioning of the relationship between the weapons system and once potential buyers in the introduction was unneeded and redundant, because of the section at the bottom, which is much more informative. Now, you might find examples proving me wrong, but I'm not pressuring you to delete it or anything, I just want you to see where I was coming from when I made the initial change. I was "trimming the fat" to have a more concise entry, so to speak. Menrunningpast (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, and to be honest I have never had a similar experience in any of the five articles I've taken through a FAC - normally, the weapon has been exported or it wasn't put into production to begin with. This is the only case in which the weapon was not exported, but many nations were interested in export (actually, the TAM is similar - it is currently an A-class article - and it mentions some export deals that didn't go through in the second paragraph in the lead). That's probably the reason why it's like that, otherwise I would have not mentioned it at all (nothing to mention) or I would have mentioned exports which actually happened; but, it isn't the case for the AMX-30E. To be fair, everything in the lead is redundant because it's mentioned again in the text (it has to be), but it is true that this seems more redundant because there is so little relevant information in the first place. I just feel that it fulfills WP:LEAD by mentioning it a little in the lead. JonCatalán (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, the article looks great. Menrunningpast (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding significance

I would just like to pose a question. Is this version of the AMX 30 significant enough to deserve a separate article? What makes it so different from French or Greek AMX 30's? Personally, I believe that it would be better if it were folded into the existing AMX 30 article. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Franco and an explanation of context

This article needs some explanation of context, or it will not make sense. The Labour Party's opposition, I would imagine, was as a result of the Franco regime - yet this is not explained once! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)