Talk:List of equipment of the Cypriot National Guard

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hermes-multirole-high-performance-tactical-uas/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

M16 removed again

Original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Any interpretation of a video claiming a particular gun is an M16 is original research by definition, since it's analysis of the video. FDW777 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether its "original research" or not that video clearly shows the M16s so I don't get why you're treating it as if they don't exist. Nothing magically changes simply because it may be implied or not. Besides that doesn't explain why you got rid of the exocet missiles as well? What you're doing here is simply trolling and misinforming for no good reason.

It's your own analysis that the guns are M16s, thus prohibited by policy. FDW777 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced material removed

See WP:BURDEN. Anyone wishing to restore any of it is obliged to provide references. FDW777 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I referenced and you still removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Nationalist (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You provided your own analysis of a video, not permitted per no original research. FDW777 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing to analyse it was an M16 in the video and if you think any different you are either playing purposely difficult or im sorry to say, youre just a bit slow. Furthermore how is this original research (Talking about the exocets now)? Just seems to me youre a troll nothing more.

https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/02/08/cyprus-signs-e240-mln-french-missiles-contract/

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26314/MBDA_Sells_Mistral__Exocet_Missiles_to_Cyprus__French_Media#.X4n7OdBKiUk

https://www.financialmirror.com/2020/02/07/cyprus-signs-e240-mln-french-missiles-contract/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Nationalist (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If there was nothing to analyse, you should be able to provide me with a timestamp from the video where the gun's manufacturer and model is clearly visible. FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle variants might be of interest. FDW777 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Im not here to satisfy you or your wants, you quite clearly know its an M16 and since you're gonna try to act smart about it hows about you do this, prove its any other weapon. If you cant provide valid evidence that its another weapon then I was clearly right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Nationalist (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock blocked. Should any editor wish to attempt to restore any of the information with references, the version before removal is here. FDW777 (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Not that socks have a right to edit anyway, but "Yamaha Chappy" on Youtube is not a reliable reference since it's user-submitted content. FDW777 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Problems with previous content

Even ignoring that it can't be restored without references, I will detail some obvious problems with just one entry. At Navy vessels there is a craft listed, "FPB 26M", made in Finland, 25 metres long. There is no apparent trace outside of Wikipedia (at least among reliable references) of a "FPB 26M". I'm guessing (and obviously my guesses have no place in a Wikipedia article), it's one of these. Obviously the 26M in the name and the part that says Length (Hull): 26 m would suggest our claimed length of 25 metres was wrong, although I'm sure anyone wondering why it was called "26M" might have guessed that anyway. BRAGER solutions are not based in Finland, but in Germany, so it's unclear as to whether they would have been the correct supplier anyway. There is no reason why unreferenced information like this should be left in the article when there is no guarantee any of it is accurate. FDW777 (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have again removed the unreferenced content. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So I'm literally just going to assume that you're here to troll, not only is there a FPB 26M, there is also a FPB 30M so I'm literally just going to assume you're a troll now. In the event that you just struggle a bit online Ill help you out. So you say that it was unreferenced and all, so Naval analysis is one of the most trustworthy websites when it gets to Navys and are very reputable in their field. So, please scroll down to a place in that website where it gives a table of ships that we possess, you will see that it says Finland FPB 26M Ammochostos (Literally a place in Cyprus) and then has the registration P05. Now please, if you will scroll up a little bit and you should see both a photo of the ship clearly showing P05 and it saying "Armed patrol boat P05 Ammochostos" so can you now please tell me if you are still adamant to that you're somehow right, can you please explain how you still think you are correct when there is both descriptive proof and a clear photo of the ship (I say ship, call it a boat if you want)? Thank you.

Naval analysis is one of the most trustworthy websites when it gets to Navys and are very reputable in their field is simply ignorant of facts and Wikipedia policy. If you scroll down the bottom of this article you will see that footnote #1 cites a Wikipedia article, Cyprus Navy#Current inventory of vessels to be exact. Similarly footnote #2 cites Cyprus Port and Marine Police. So as they cite Wikipedia, they aren't trustworthy at all. Clicking on the author link of D-Mitch takes you to a blogger page confirming Naval Analyses is hosted there. It's a self-published blog with a domain name, anyone can create a blog and buy a fancy sounding domain name which is why WP:BLOGS says they aren't reliable. Now do any non-sock/meatpuppets have any proper references? FDW777 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So nobody has any suggestions about things to be added to the article with references? FDW777 (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Added some back, that @ViktorHetman: did provide references for (but which I didn't originally remove). Of course these could have been added back weeks ago, but if you choose not to communicate with other editors that's your problem. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Tavor Χ95, this reference does not confirm its currently in use, or even delivered. Future plans are not set in stone, references confirming current use are needed. Also this is a blog on Wordpress or a similar platform and not a reliable reference, see WP:BLOGS. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop editing it and vandalizing the page. The sources are all provided and if you keep doing this you will be blocked from editing. The Tavor X95 is already proven to be in the Cypriot national guard, there is picture evidence and multiple sources. Every single thing you deleted had a source provided so please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Greekos (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:V is not up for negotiation. Provide proper references and I'll be happy to add the information for you. By proper, I mean not blogs. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Also there are the items removed.

• Heckler & Koch G3 has no reference
• IWI Tavor X95 has no reference confirming it's in use
• FN SCAR was referenced by a blog
• Pilatus PC-9 has no reference
• Sa'ar 62 class offshore patrol vessel, FPB 30M and FPB 26M were referenced by a blog

No item with a proper reference was removed. I'll be happy to add any of those back if proper references can be provided. FDW777 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot use a reference that says something might happen in the future as evidence it has actually happened. This is not difficult to understand, it's very simple. You need a reference that says they are actually in use. FDW777 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that the text still in the article reading To be replaced by the Tavor X95 adequately covers the situation. FDW777 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If you bothered to discuss your proposed addition before making it you would have been informed that a random image of unclear provenance that doesn't verifiably show a member of the Cyprus military nor verifiably show them with a IWI Tavor X95 is not an acceptable reference. FDW777 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

Just undo the 8k removed information because it seems the information was indeed correct but was blocked by a sock of some form otherwise it leaves most of this nations military equipment out. 83.219.49.114 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The version you refer to contains unreferenced additions by the sock, for example in the Armored vehicles section, but not limited to that section. FDW777 (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

---

List of equipment of Cyprus → List of equipment of the Cypriot National Guard – Name most frequently used for pages of this type. Eurohunter (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I'm sure there is other equipment in Cyprus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yeah the original title is very misleading and weird. 213.7.51.174 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"List of equipment of Cyprus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of equipment of Cyprus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#List of equipment of Cyprus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Main tank

Cyprus also have t-80 as main tank 2A02:587:5D28:3200:71EE:89A8:1581:CCD5 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

MK-19

@Stelios P.cy: As stated in the main page, it is OR which is not allowed, thats a youtube video that doesnt say nor imply its the MK-19, you yourself came to that conclusion and secondly, that video is from 2017, the US arms embargo for lethal weapons was only ended in late 2022 so it doesnt even make chronological sense, in fact, the video you refer would be even before the partial lifting of the embargo in 2020 so unless you can find something which definitively states that the Cypriot National Guard posessed the MK-19 prior to 2022, your change cant stand. SirBlueWhite (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Duplicate aircraft inventory table

Stelios P.cy I just noticed that aircraft inventory table of Air Force section on this page is duplication of Cyprus Air Command#Equipment. The issue of duplication is if you want to update the content then you will need to update both pages (there is possibility that we update them differently and create may end up create different table of the exactly same subject) as per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I propose to remove aircraft inventory table on this page or on Cyprus Air Command#Equipment. If we refer to other Air Force articles, 128 of 147 Air Force articles has aircraft inventory table into Air Force article. This indicates that the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table to readers is within the Air Force article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern but this page contains the equipment of the entirety of the Cyprus National Guard, including the Air Command. Since the page on the Cyprus Air Command is not checked and updated as often, it is better if we include all the equipment of the Cyprus N.G. on the same page (including land, naval and air forces). The equipment listed on the Cy Air Command page is partially outdated and does not include any photos nor additional information (notes) as in the List of equipment of the Cypriot National Guard. Otherwise, following the same logic, a different article on the equipment of the land and naval forces should be created as well. Stelios P.cy (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Cyprus Air Command#Equipment is more up-to-date than this page, as it uses references from 2023, compared to this page which primarily uses references from 2022 or older. The photo/image was intentionally not included into the table per consensus, and "Notes" can be included in Cyprus Air Command#Equipment, however please note per WP:WHENTABLE suggest to Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries Ckfasdf (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Ckfasdf its already in another article, either remove it from there or remove it from here. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As I highlighted before, the table on the Cyprus Air Command is NOT up to date, many contents are missing (see BUK, Mistral, Strela, Ranzhir, GDF 005, Zastava, Aerostar, IAI Searcher...). Therefore we can not remove the table on the List of equipment of the Cypriot National Guard and redirect it an outdated one. If you like you can fix the table of equipment on the Cyprus Air Command, add images, citations etc. And afterwards, if all issues are addressed, we may consider redirecting to the Cyprus Air Command article. Stelios P.cy (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldnt you literally fix that and then its fixed either way. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note that images have been intentionally removed based on consensus. One reason for excluding images is that most of the images found in the equipment table do not actually belong to that military; in this case, some images do not belong to the Cypriot National Guard. Additionally, you included blogspot as a citation, which is not acceptable according to WP:BLOGS. For some missing content, such as the IAI Searcher, this UAV was purchased in the early 2000s. It is unlikely to still be in operational status. Moreover, existing sources on the internet, such as Aeroflight, may not be considered reliable according to WP:RS. Therefore, I see no issue with the removal of such content. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)