Talk:Mowag Piranha IV

Piranha IV and V are not different enough to be their own

V is a minor upgrade to IV to meet the UKs MoDs FRES requirements and happend to see more comercial success than then the IV. The IV is a model only used by Switzerland

Even GDELS(the manufacture) dosent treat them as seperate vehicles just refeering to them as the PIRANHA https://www.gdels.com/en/products/wheeled-vehicles/piranha

So i suggest a merged page called GDELS Mowag Piranha similar to Mowag Piranha where generation 1-3 are held in the same page NobuttoO (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

So you can continue with making fake information the reality?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Those are different vehicles, different dimensions, different weight categories, different protection.

No, not the same vehicles, keep those separate.

You're inventing fake information about the origin of Mowag products, and you're creating variants that do not exist. (Piranha V AAC), and that's why you want to merge them, so there is no way to see the difference.

It's supposed to be factual. None of what you're inventing now is factual. And your "operators" list make the pages unreadable. Stop changing everything to what YOU think is the way to go.

No one ever used "contract location" as "origin". No one, but you. And when you're shown that the contract is in Switzerland, for whatever reason, you chose Spain.

STOP MESSING UP WIKIPEDIA. Fabrice Ram (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Its the same vehicle acording to GDELS product page. (https://www.gdels.com/en/products) The V is a minor upgrade to the IV that superscedes it and is their primary producut

They are not different enough to be seperate articles just like the I, II and III arent seperate

Piranha V AAC is litterally a possible configuration of the Piranha V on GDELS Piranha page

You got to the link above which is GDELS Products → click PIRANHA because they dont distinguish between the two → click modularity where you will see the 6x6, 8x8 and 10x10 as configurations for the SAME vehicle

And if you instead scroll to PIRANHA ACC and click that it open the page to the PIRANHA V

This is because the V is an update for the IV for the FRES program that superscedes it. Only reason the Swiss selected the IV HMC specifically is because the fleet of Piranha they have already is IV

I at no point stated that they are the same I stated that one is a minor upgrade to the other to such and extend that GDELS dosent consider them seperate vehicles in terms of sale and thus dont warent their own pages and should be merged as is precedent by:

Sisu XA-180, XA-185, XA-186 ,XA-188 and Patria XA-202/203 all being in the same page with only Patria XA-300 being big enough of a change to warrent its own page

Same goes for the PIRANHA where I, II and III are all concentrated on one page

Wikipedia is not about making a new page for every minor change a vehicle may receive

As for making things up everything ive ever added i have also provided a source for and is present with-in the source like the HMC and ACC being GDELS litteral product page for the PIRANHA V

You should also keep you hostile attitude in check you are not an arbiter of what is right or wrong and you have been warned before. NobuttoO (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that other pages are not good doesn't justify the merger.

The LAV family is entirely separate... No reason to change it.

And they are VERY different. Piranha IV is smaller, lighter, less powerful engine, there is no reason to change what it is.

For my attitude? What about yours and the lack of consistency, and changing the meaning of "origin"? Fabrice Ram (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Inferior articles? Here you go again with a subjective opinion. Fact is there is precedence for merging vehicles that arent different enough LAV I, II and III that you yourself mention is also merged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_LAV

And have later recived their own articles as more information is readily available to destinguish their development. Their simply isnt enough info on the Piranha IV and V currently to warrent their own page

Im quite consistent and have said the same thing NobuttoO (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

WHY are you inventing AGAIN alternative realities.

On Piranha V "there is too much characters", so let's put an unreadable table.

In Piranha IV? Not enough info? The standard for wiki articles is not whether there is enough info. There is enough info because those are the facts of the Piranha IV and Piranha V...

Now, your LAV... Haven't you seen the pages?

• General Motors LAV, it mentions ALL the variants of the LAV as a summary page. And then?
  THERE ARE OTHER PAGES:
  • AVGP which was renamed later on LAV I
  • LAV II which itself has even more subpages with even less variants than the Piranha IV:
    • LAV-25
    • Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles
    • ASLAV
  • LAV III
    • Stryker, following the Interim Armored Vehicle tender process. And the sub-variants of the Sryker?
      • M1126 infantry carrier vehicle
      • M1296 Dragoon
      • Variants of the Stryker
  • LAV 6

Fabrice Ram (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

So yes, the Piranha IV and Piranha V are DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, the Piranha IV is shorter, thinner, lower, it is not as heavy.

The number of clients is irrelevant. So irrelevant that there are pages of armoured vehicles that were never sold, such as?

• Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle

Fabrice Ram (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The point is to make pages that are actually worth something instead of 8 million different Start-Classes you just to blinded by "new page" mania to see that there is a reason when i made the Specter page i didtn make a seperate page for each fucking site because there simply isnt enough relevant info for them to be seperate NobuttoO (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"Even GDELS(the manufacture) dosent treat them as seperate vehicles just refeering to them as the PIRANHA https://www.gdels.com/en/products/wheeled-vehicles/piranha"

GDELS also doesn't have a page for the Piranha III, yet it is still being sold and marketed. The same applies to the ASCOD, Eagle and Pandur families - GDELS has just on page for each: this shouldn't dictate that all relevant Wikipedia articles should be merged. --EndlessUnknown (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a complete lie.

A defence company website is not putting every detail publicly, and it's not relevant to whether it should be merged.

Do we agree that we can terminate this useless discussion? Fabrice Ram (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see more input from people other than NobuttoO and Fabrice Ram before deciding whether there's consensus to merge. Also remember that aggressive argumentation and back-and-forth comments weaken one's own position. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no reason to merge anything.

Those are two separate vehicles, it makes sense to keep them separate. There is no source but "on GDELS's page, both are not separate anymore". Fabrice Ram (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)