Talk:Sprint (missile)

Old discussion

Suggest removing individual links to picture and video in external links with http://www.srmsc.org/mis2000.html since the page contains these and more VoidLurker 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, however I simply added the above link vs replacing the others. This way readers interested in a quick, specific image/video can go directly to it, or those wanting to peruse the entire list can do so. Joema 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture of two Sprint missiles being launched also appears on the Spartan page. I won't edit it as I don't know which (if either) is correct. 81.187.201.254 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, image on Spartan page was a dual-Sprint launch. It was erroneously labeled as a Spartan launch. I removed it.Joema 11:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

This article needs a newer infobox. The new standard is {{Infobox Weapon}} -MBK₀₀₄ 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Four years and a month later, but it's done! - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Survivors

Why was this removed exactly?

"* A Sprint missile is on display at the Air Defense Artillery Museum in Fort Bliss, Texas."

92.251.137.119 (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced, and there's no article on the museum. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't look into it did you? It was the good faith edit made by someone who, as is generally the case, knew what they are talking about. So please don't remove anything unless you know it is false. A simple tag would have sufficed friend.

If you had looked into into this museum, you'd find that there is a related page for it -Air Defense Artillery Branch (United States) so we could use that in part, with that article even containing a link to the museum.

Now onto the question of - Does the ADA museum actually have a Sprint missile? Sure enough it has a Sprint & a Spartan. Corroborated here

-> http://srmsc.org/mis2050.html

& here ->"...Sprint, Nike Hercules, Spartan, and Hawk" http://www.city-data.com/articles/US-Army-Air-Defense-Artillery-Museum-El.html

178.167.206.24 (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's up to the contributor to add sources when they add such items, and that particular contributor was banned for adding unverifiable information, among other infractions, and often just made stuff up. I judged that it was better to remove the item than to tag it, as tags often go for years without verification on obscure articles, and that's what I did. I stand by that. If you don't like unsourced items being removed, than cite them to reliable sources first. - BilCat (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but that that particular contributor - User:Ken keisel knew what they were talking about and I can't find any info on why they were "banned" on their page, but for arguments sake I'll take your word for it, despite your apparent history with this contributor you really should remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day, so I ask you to resist going to the delete button before at least checking out if the claim is at least plausible first. Both tasks, deleting and checking, take about the same amount of time so there really is no excuse for it.

I do understand your antipathy towards the tags option, however it has its uses and exists for a reason, other people who went to the ADA museums and then visited this article would have noticed the need for a reference if somebody tagged it as such, and then probably would have supplied a reference, long before an Irishman who never visited the US (me) came along and fact checked the thing.

As now you have me wondering what other edits of theirs have been removed, despite there accuracy.

Good job with the infobox though man!

178.167.206.24 (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said I don't tag, just that I didn't in this case. In fact I do tag quite regularly, but I also delete, depending on the circumstances. I gave up cleaning up Ken Keisel's messes a long time ago. And technically, he was indefinitely blocked, not banned, so that's my mistake. You can find the block notice at User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 5. Thanks on the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Units

Since this article is about an American missile, standard units should be used instead of only metric. Its one thing if you use both but only using metric is wrong.97.127.135.70 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly? Is it worth the effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.244.252 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sprint (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217012808/http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/Historical/Book/Chap2.pdf to http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/Historical/Book/Chap2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020806073439/http://astronautix.com/articles/comlants.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/articles/comlants.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)