Talk:Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that development of the Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament (pictured) was financially backed by the Department of Science and Technology and the Philippine Army?

• Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20260101160647/https://stii.dost.gov.ph/images/jdownloads/pdf_files/sntposts/4Q-2022_STPost_--onlineV2.pdf --> Page 41.

• • ALT1: ... that five companies expressed willingness to manufacture the Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament (pictured) for the Philippine Army after live fire drills at Camp O'Donnell? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20251212013426/https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/12/11/dost-developed-cobra-weapon-system-turned-over-to-dnd-1613
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pitono Purnomo
  • Comment: The article's got a couple of URLs that aren't archived. The RCWS is quite new(ish), so there's not a lot of info on it. Also have a suggested image, but can otherwise have another image just in case.

Created by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC).

• Not (yet) a review, but as much as I'd really like to see more Philippine representation on DYK, neither hook as currently written seems to meet DYKINT. The first doesn't seem all that surprising, that a country's army would fund the development of a military project? Multiple company biddings are the norm for military projects as well, so ALT1 as currently written is not interesting. I think there might be some potential for a different hook angle if the appropriate context is provided: after all, the Philippine military is notoriously underfunded and underdeveloped, so perhaps a hook that involves that theme in some way might work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Only (for now) reason why I advocate for ALT 0 is because it's generally unheard of with the DOST and the PA splitting the funding. Most of the defense hardware acquisitions are done through foreign contracts and the local ones from the Marcos-era SRDP relied on licensed production. Plus, there aren't a lot of local defense companies out there as far as I know that are still alive. Honestly don't have other ideas for ALTs if you're willing to shoot them down. There's BUHAWI too, but that's also another recent example. The other attempts to make local hardware after the downfall of Marcos Sr. didn't do much as private companies didn't get that support from the government, which is why I find it interesting/surprising the government "solely" stepped in. Ominae (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that ALT0's interest would really depend on knowing Philippine military or defense-related context, and regrettably that would fall under DYKINT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO, not necessary, though I get the point why you'd say that. I did a DYK nomination for the Counterintelligence Group and it went through. At this point, I'd rather wait for a second opinion. Still have no idea on what kind of DYK question if you've shot them down at least. Ominae (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Doing an alternate in case another reviewer doesn't like the first one.

• • ALT2: ... that the Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament (pictured) was tested in various field conditions prior to the live drills at Camp O'Donnell? Ominae (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that new hook has been proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I take, will review in the next 24 hours.--Launchballer 14:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ominae: Long enough, new enough. QPQ is nowhere near a full review, but seems to have run without issue I'll take it. Earwig is clean. No reason why the article would deserve a maintenance template, though I removed an inappropriate {{opinion}} tag. The problem with ALT2 is that the source attributes and the hook doesn't, and this needs rectifying. You may also wish to suggest an WP:DYKAPRIL hook involving "cobras".--Launchballer 22:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Launchballer, I can do it as another ALT if the other ALTs aren't suitable. Hope I don't go crazy. Ominae (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• • ALT3: ... that the Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament's Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was based on the success of automated gun mounts for .50 caliber machine guns developed under Project BUHAWI? Ominae (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that the Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament is financially supported by the Mechatronics and Robotics Society of the Philippines? Ominae (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Both too dull for me, sorry.--Launchballer 15:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to get another DYK line or two.

• • ALT5: ... the the Controller Operated Battle Ready Armament is viewed by the Philippine Army as a tool to support the Armed Forces of the Philippines's Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept? Ominae (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

PS - I have a note reference to explain what CADC is.

Given how this discussion has turned out, this really does seem to be one of those cases where the article is regrettably not a good fit for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: How about something more hooky, like this:

• • ALT6: ... that the Armed Forces of the Philippines has a cobra that it uses for combat?

Hope this works, don’t want to see this article not make it. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 07:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a cute hook, but I don't know if it would pass scrutiny given it might be seen as misleading or easter eggy. The only way I see ALT6 passing is if it is used as an April Fools' hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Well Launchballer suggested getting an ALT as an April's Fool DYK as a way to resolve this. I'm down with it since the other DYKs I proposed are shot down and I'm getting tired of it. Ominae (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed for ALT6 (I would review if I could but I offered the hook so cannot do it). Let's shoot to have this on April Fool's Day. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

In the interest of this moving forward, since there are no other options and the only option would only work for April Fools', I am approving ALT6 only. Whether or not it actually runs on April Fools', and what happens if it doesn't run on that day (we already have multiple DYKAPRIL hooks and I'm not sure if we can run them all), let's cross that bridge when we get there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: - Thanks for helping push this forward. I'm not experienced in DYK politics, but if my ignorant opinion even matters, I do think hooks like these are okay on regular days too (but this should be an exception when all other options were denied and we should exercise caution). We tried a lot of options on this one and also want to be mindful of nominator burnout. Let me know if this gets flagged later and I'll share my opinion there. PS - I fixed the hyperlink of the hook a bit. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess one can hope it can make a run. Not sure if those that can't make it for April Fool's just gets put on the side for next year. Ominae (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've moved this to Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)