Talk:Missile vehicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move (1)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Missile truckMissile vehicle – moving article to more inclusive name H Padleckas (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new name Missile vehicle is nothing more than a Redirect to Combat vehicle, which is not covering missile vehicles. The History of Missile vehicle shows only one entry. When I tried to make the Move myself, I was told automatically I could not make the move since a page with that name already exists. I believe previously such moves could be made if the target page is merely a Redirect page. If an administrator does not want to make this move, should I copy and paste to make this move myself ? H Padleckas (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Move has been successfully made. H Padleckas (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

History merge with initial creator's Draft page[edit]

I do not think that a Merge of the Histories of Missile vehicle and User:H Padleckas/Missile vehicle/Draft is necessary or even beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. I am the only contributor to the Draft page, and it just shows that I initially wrote the article over the course of 19 edits, none of which are individually important to save. H Padleckas (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the merging of Histories has been completed, and we might as well leave the situation as is. I don't think it was necessary according to "Where attribution is not needed", but no use fussing with this any more. H Padleckas (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a thing?[edit]

Is 'missile vehicle' really a thing? Is it a recognisable term in ready and common use, or accepted by specialist experts as an appropriate collective term? Is it 'real' enough to justify an article?

I ask genuinely. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D41F:F644:EA84:3318 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]