Talk:ATACMS

Cost per missile?

Trying to untangle the Taiwan contract. Hcobb (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

CEP?

Does anyone know the CEP of the MGM-140 "ATACMS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.80.208 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

designation?

"As a result, in the next year the branch ended its participation in the non-cruise missile portion of the program, hence the modern designation." I dont understand this at all. what designation is modern, and why is it "hence modern" when the reason given is that USAF is not on board anymore? are USAF projects not modern? Could someone maybe clarify? 84.215.194.30 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I did some reading. It means changing the name from JTACMS (J=Joint) to ATACMS (A=Army). I am updating the article Cmdrraimus (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove obviously photoshopped image

The diameter of the launched ATACMS is much larger than the launch tubes on the vehicle. The vehicle has a pod with six launch tubes, each filled with a smaller GMLRS. The ATACMS uses a pod with a single missile.

The 6 x GMLRS pod and the 1 x ATACMS pod can be used interchangeably on the same vehicle, though. Keimzelle (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not a photoshop. The M270 seen in the picture is using two different pods on the same launcher. The right pod (left in our view) is either a 6 tube GMLRS (or MLRS from the picture date of 2006) rocket pod whereas the left pod (right one from our view) is an ATACMS pod. Another example of a dual pod GMLRS/ATACMS arrangement example can be seen at another US army link here. Just because one of the pods are MLRS/GMLRS doesn't mean the other pod automatically isn't an ATACMS pod. The ATACMS pods are known to use a fake cap to make them appear to be MLRS/GMLRS pods for deception purposes. One can tell them apart as the individual caps appear more shallow. Another example can be seen from the exercises in Korea where those appear to be using two ATACMS pods per M270. 2603:8000:4507:8D85:FC:7246:5BC7:DF21 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I didn't know about the GMLRS/ATACMS combo on the same vehicle.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I was about to raise the same issue, but that's a fascinating answer. The picture in the first link, this one, is clearer than the main image, and clearly shows that the cap is just for show - is it in the public domain? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe all Department of Defense images are public domain unless otherwise specified, of which the Army falls under. So using that image in the article wouldn't be an issue as far as I know. 2603:8000:4507:8D85:11D6:849B:F317:A54B (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite and rename the "Future" section, partially talking about things that already happened in the past

Preferably move content to History and Variants sections. 5.173.48.191 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Rangeinformation incorrect

Yesterday I was part of an Interview with Alexander Müller the Defencecouncil of the german Free Democratic Party (FDP). He is part of the German Military IT Center and revealed to us, that the range of the ATACMS is not 300km. He responded to a previous question mentioning the 300 km range of the missile with "[...] But the range is not 300km. I cannot tell you the exact number, since that is classified military information, but it is around half of it." (Free translation). There are no recordings nor protocols of that interview but the room was filled with around 50 people. EditorF1 (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ten year test

The Ukraine section is gathering blow by blow minutia. I advise editors to ask themselves this per WP:10YT "In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant?" (Hohum ^@) 21:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree totally - it will not make sense in just a few years - BeingObjective (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is about ATACMS nothing more

I think when adding a lot of secondary information - consideration that this article is about a missile and its capabilities is important. Examples of its usage in a conflict are of interest - but can quickly become very NPOV with hints of PUFFERY and an agenda. I comprehend the motivation - and trying to comply with the 'original tag' - which I think I removed - is the primary goal -- citing detailed Ukrainian successes with the technology seem to be very NOT NPOV and not encyclopedic. BeingObjective (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the current version - it is fairly balanced and should not age quickly BeingObjective (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

We need a separate article for Ukraine

The Ukraine section is getting excessive again. We had this problem once before where people kept adding garbage to Ukraine section and it got too big. This article is not for specific news and uses inside Ukraine.

I think Ukraine's use of ATACMS has generated unprecedented interest in this weapon and needs its own article. There is enough information to merit such an article. Ms372 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

300 or so words is hardly excessive. I doubt it warrants its own article, but we do need to trim out anything that isn't directly about the weapon. (Hohum ^@) 19:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive according to whom/what? It looks fine to me both now, and in the diff you said was "too big" earlier. This doesn't even scratch the top 10 for ordnance articles with the most detail on usage. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove well-sourced content, from the Ukraine section without discussion, Ms372. There's no consensus here agreeing with your take that it's too large; nor would that be a reason to be remove relevant, well-sourced content. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there's already a consensus about it have place. Question is not the number of sources, but "we do need to trim out anything that isn't directly about the weapon" as said above by User:Hohum, according to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. 46.211.111.10 (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

edit-warring on this article

Please *discuss* and gain consensus for your proposed changes here first. In particular, you have not addressed my points raised in the edit summary on the article that your changes to the lede do not comply with our manual of style; specifically MOS:EXPABBR which states Similarly, when showing the source of an acronym, initialism, or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters in the expansion that make up the acronym is unnecessary and potentially distracting and provides the following example of incorrect capitalization that is precisely what you're seeking to include Incorrect: FOREX (FOReign EXchange). Additionally, you have not addressed the concerns that by adding no less than 12 unnecessary citations to a wide list of unnecessary variant models in the *heading* of the infobox, you've now stretched it out by four lines -- which makes it look ugly, and makes it difficult to read on mobile devices. Furthermore, you should be aware that you are edit-warring in an area of the project covered by two separate arbitration committee sanctions under the contentious topics procedure -- infoboxes, and manual of style/capitalization. Administrators may apply additional scrutiny and sanctions to prevent further disruption in these areas, as authorized by the committee. Again, it is incumbent on you, the editor seeking to insert the material that is in contention, to gain consensus through discussion and collaboration, which you have so far failed to do.

Pinging: @Coltsfan:, @83.142.111.35:. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

here 83.142.111.35 (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

good, now let me decribe my pov. need some time (10 mins will be ok) to write. 83.142.111.35 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are in violation of the WP:3RR -- you need to self-revert first or it's possible you'll be blocked before you're able to do so (as you've already been reported for edit warring). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think not me who have to do it, as exactly opponent was first in edit warring returning obviously out of consensus content, even despite it technically not viewed as such one automatically. Also how can you judge me (be neutral) or anyone editing that artcle if you are one who actively editing it also? 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

1. according to request article was renamed (which is already some kind of consensus) and now it's not only abour MGM-140, but a whole spectre of subject's series, what is shortly described at the lead section. therefore returning the name of the subject at as one as deletion of short list of varieties from the lead section, what Coltsfan not even thinking about article name and therefore it's subject change did by first revert of my edit (that way starting editwarring) is wrong as such an lead section does not describe the article subject completely.
2. later he told information divided to "description section is just a duplicate of information at the further article text, that was lie as there's no another text at the article where such dimensional sizes was decribed. and it obviously a bad idea to put the dimensional sizes of MGM-140 missile only to the lead section of ATACMS about article, when there's another sizes exists at another variations of ATACAMS series missiles (i.e. SLATACAMS, which is quite longer), so dividing it from lead to "description" section, that can later be expanded or deleted, was quite right for exactly clear understanding what ATACMS is from lead section without any 'old fashioned' (and in fact not sourced) misleading, Coltsfan constantly returned.
3. there was approved request for creating a redirects (which is also a some kind of consensus), where was clearly described possible synonyns etc. for the subject, so adding it as alternatives to the infobox was clearly according to consensus. but Coltsfan just deleted it not even asking.
4. when he told it's not according to WP:V i added the correspondiing WP:SOURCES fo his doubts to dissappear, i bet already you 'did not like' and... just reverted it making same mistake as Coltsfan did not even taking in view IDID It on request of Coltspan, that waySEarchingfor consensus.
5. What is wrong with short text description of the image instead oflong, low-informativeone? Why you both reverted it? Is the article your own property?

Soo.. What consensus have I search with you both about the article, if you both ignore the two previously made consensuses and just return disinformation to it? 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

IP, you are edit-warring on this article, and you've violated the 3RR. Full stop. Whether you think you don't have to engage in good-faith discussion or not, you are required to do so and up until now you have completely and utterly failed to even try. Frankly, you're not off to a great start here, either. Stop what you're doing immediately, and go read WP:EW, and I mean really read it from start to finish. In particular I want you to read the first paragraph. I'll requote it here. It says An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. That is precisely what you're doing right now. The actions of other editors do not justify your participation in an edit war, period, and neither does your mistaken belief that you're right. Furthermore, those actions aren't wrong either. What you're referring to as "my opponent was first in edit warring" was in fact an example of Coltsfan utilizing the WP:BRD process -- you made a change, he reverted it, and then you're supposed to discuss. Instead, you reverted back, which initiated the edit war. So, not only is their no justification, but your justification would have been faulty anyway.

Moving to the substance: Your changes do not comport with the manual of style nor our common practice when editing infoboxes, and as I warned you in the edit summaries, there are arbitration committee rulings specifically against users edit warring over this. Again, our manual of style is very explicit that it is incorrect to emphasize portions of an acronym with capital letters, as you did with "Army TACtical Missile System". When I pointed this out to you in the edit summaries, you simply reverted the change back in, and are now casting aspersions about "owning" an article despite having never once sought to achieve consensus for your changes through discussion here. In fact, at no point did you attempt to work with any other editor and achieve consensus, until you were dragged here in the process of being reported for edit warring. So do not accuse us of ignoring consensus -- that's your own projection talking. Similarly, you have failed to provide an adequate reason why we should abandon the common template for infoboxes and common practice of keeping headings there as brief as possible, instead choosing to include an absolutely excessive number of variants and 12(!) citations, none of which were necessary or even asked for in the first place. The result is that your changes stretch a single word -- ATACMS -- into taking up nearly 1/4 the screen real estate on an iPhone 14 Pro, by stretching the text over multiple lines. That is not the purpose of an infobox, and you have neither sought nor gained consensus for those changes. You're welcome to discuss them here, but I can tell you right now that with two editors saying "no, this is unhelpful" and zero editors supporting you, you do not have it and are unlikely to achieve it any time soon; certainly not with the misunderstandings of policy you've been making thus far. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if I will agree editwarring is a repeated reverting of someone's edit, why do you still insist I'm the only who violated an WP:EW?. Why do you ignore the fact my opponent openly (as you can read it below) don't even want to talk (read - search consensus) by telling you the phrase: "so if you feel like talking to him/her or improve that mess, be my guest"?

Do we here to discuss and search for consensus or for you to punish me with no reason? please be fair. it's important. 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never made any such insistence, but you are the only person here who has violated WP:3RR, and Coltsfan's edits were within policy and made in good faith. I can't speak for why they aren't interested in communicating with you but based on your behavior here thus far I can imagine several valid reasons why one would hold that opinion. Regardless, the onus on seeking consensus here is on the person seeking to insert the relevant information -- you; not on Coltsfan who tried to engage with you and received no response until *after* you were reported for edit warring. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

no, both i'm not and i'm notfirst who did it. please count: 1 2 3 4 5 6 according to your similar activity (no useful edit activity, just not ever discussed reverts with similar commemnts and not wanting to search the consensus) I see you all 3 as the same person who just cloned yourself. 83.142.111.46 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

..and made all reverts first with just hard accusations and no any propositions to fid consensus. 83.142.111.46 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your six diffs above are from three different people, all of whom are attempting to enforce policy to get you to stop edit warring, two of whom are administrators, and one of whom literally just blocked you, for which you are evading your block. You need to stop this, immediately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester:. I don't think any discussion will go anywhere, not while WP:Status quo is not respected. The person continue to change IPs and make changes, regardless of any point that can and is made. You can only achieve something through conversation and get consensus if one is ready to talk and, well, compromise. I tried to revert twice, justifying my reverts. Tried to even save parts of his edit.The infobox is all convoluted, filled with unnecessary information, names (imagine if every article of a weapon has all it's names of all it's variants). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, he removed information from the intro to make a new section. The intro has information that was already contextualized in the article. So now, we have multiple information repeated across the article. And there is the issue of repeated sources, sections added by the IP that are poorly written and disorganized, and not formatting of the "sources" (most of them just bring the name of the weapon, btw). It's all a mess. WP:3RR was already disrespected (not by me, i reverted once and then edit his edit then). I have no intention to engage in EW (i stopped reverting and i won't edit the article while that mess is still there, especially cuz he will only just keep reverting), so if you feel like talking to him/her or improve that mess, be my guest. Coltsfan (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think he's not one who have to talk, but you are as the one who started edit warring. What exactly you still don't like and why in view of information Iprovided above? Do you still need approving sources at the ibfobox, because Swatjester obviously don't like it there as it breaks his infobox view? 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect IP. As you've repeatedly been told, you are the one attempting to insert the changes. Coltsfan reverted them. That is allowed, under the WP:BRD process. You then reverted his revert without discussion -- THAT is the start of the edit war. Again, I will insist that you self-revert, as you are currently in violation of the 3-revert rule.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

you are wrong. What you do now is WP:Advocacy. If you will ignore my tries to search a cobsensus with you exactly I will ignore your words too. let Coltsfan answer here, not you. be NEUTRAL if you decided to be the judge. 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop citing policies that are inapplicable and that you clearly do not understand. You're welcome to "ignore my words" at your own peril -- but you do not get to dictate to me, nor any other administrator, who gets to be involved with this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Eh? Y are literally talking instead of other person that way not giving a chance to find consensus. It's clearly covered by advocacy policy and not welcome, if you didn't know :)

I will do whatever I want - as you r doing now. 83.142.111.90 (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

if you did not read "BRD is optional, but complying with Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Wikipedia:Edit war is mandatory.", so while you ignore edit warring activity Coltsfan started Iwill ignore you as neutral discussion side. 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- read your own words. Complying with the editing policy is mandatory. You are the only person in this discussion who is failing to do so. Coltsfan did not start the "edit warring activity" as I've repeatedly informed you. Your refusal to listen, accept responsibility, and discuss in good faith has long since become tendentious. You need to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Ignore my words at your own peril -- you're rapidly approaching WP:NOTHERE territory. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, read your own words. and don't forget to read WP:NOTADVOCACY also :))) How did you become sysop having such a vision? :))) What a mess... 83.142.111.90 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please answer here about your worries about the article content to find the common (consensus) solution? 83.142.111.35 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And now the IP (or rather, their newest IP incarnation) is edit warring with the administrator who p-blocked them at WP:ANEW, well past their fourth revert. There's no point in further discussion -- this merits a long-term block of the IP and at least semi-protection for the page to prevent further disruption. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

you never tried. you just accused. as one as coltsfan. 83.142.111.46 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

as one as doing now :) you have a 'great' consensus proposition, you know! 83.142.111.46 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the IP seems to be dynamic, they're siteblocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. The article is semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

where did you see the personal attacks??? yep, block the whole internet with no reason :) 83.142.111.90 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: They didn't seem to get the message. Suspect this is going to require either a rangeblock, or semi-protecting this talk page for the duration. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/83.142.111.0/24. Let me know what else pops up. To the IP: I don't know who is right or wrong here, but collaboration is required and your procedures are approaching trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)