Talk:All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment

ALICE clips

Needs to expand on the role of the loose metal clips, and why making them loose seemed like a good idea at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Common term is E -Tool

Entrenching tool, not Intrenching tool 216.160.223.19 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Intrenching? Entrenching?

I feel the need to point out that it would appear that intrenching is the word of choice. However, I believe that entrenching would be the better word, as according to some online articles, intrenching is an older more outdated term. Therefore, I say that we should change intrenching to entrenching due to its current relevance. 67.135.4.210 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like entrenching became the favored style about 100 years ago. I'm fine if it changes, but don't see it as important. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

But an awful lot of 21st century military sources still use intrenching tool. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Move to Sentence Case

@Dicklyon has moved the page from "All-Purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment" (proper noun case) to "All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment" (sentence case). I think this move was done in error. "All-Purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment" appears to be a proper noun. Reference 1 also capitalizes each word, and references 3 and 4 (while they use all caps when naming ALICE) capitalize each component, implying that it's all a collection of proper names. Dicklyon, am I missing something? I'm a relatively new editor, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a part of the MOS I missed or something. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalizing words in phrases to define an initialism is a common style, not implying anything about proper name status. It is not WP's style to use caps for that. Capitalization in sources is very mixed, so per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we default to lowercase, avoiding unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CAPSACRS is pretty clear that we do not distinguish acronyms from initialisms and that both should be capitalized. On Wikipedia, most acronyms are written in all capital letters (such as NATO, BBC, and JPEG). Wikipedia does not follow the practice of distinguishing between acronyms and initialisms. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I didn't mean to distinguish initialisms from acronyms. Those terms are interchangeable in the context I was using. We do them in all-caps generally (with excepts such as laser, radar). But we do not capitalize the words used in defining the acronyms, unless they are proper names (which they are in the cases of NATO, JPEG, and BBC, but not ALICE, MOLLE, ILCE, etc.) Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assertions that they are not proper names in the case of ALICE, MOLLE, and ILBE, do not appear to be well-founded. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

I'm not sure what you think a proper name is. Those are from descriptive phrases, not different in kind from "heavy tank" and "armored car". Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

And I'm not sure you *understand* what a proper name is. No, they most certainly are not "descriptive phrases", or you'd have been able to provide examples of them used in such a manner when you've been repeatedly asked to in this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that reference 2 (US Army Field Manual 21-15) has it all lowercase, even when defining the initialism (ALICE). And reference 1 points out that it's a "designation" (not a name). It was military style to capitalize their designations (usually).

For more background, see the last few years of capitalization discussions summarized and linked at WT:MOSCAPS#Concluded, which includes these discussions of downcasing military equipment terms:

• Talk:T1 Light Tank#Requested move 19 February 2024 (9 articles) – Lowercase "Light"/"Medium"/"Heavy"/"Super" and "Tank"? Result: Lowercase
• Talk:Heavy Tank M6#Requested move 21 February 2024 (7 articles) – More Tanks (or tanks): Result: Lowercase
• Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024 (4 articles) – More Tanks (or tanks), plus an Armored Car: Result: Lowercase
• Talk:Ford 3-Ton M1918#Requested move 22 February 2024 (1 article) – A 3-Ton (or 3-ton) tank: Result: Lowercase
• Talk:M1 Armored Car#Requested move 25 February 2024 (3 articles) – Two Armored Cars and a Combat Car: Result: Lowercase

Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response! I appreciate you taking the time to point me in the right direction. You've convinced me; pointing to Reference 2 was particularly useful to demonstrate that at least one US Government publication doesn't use Title Case, which makes the interpretation of References 1 and 3 as stylistic, not prescriptive. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss! EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It feels very odd to me seeing it in lowercase, as my experience with them from the military (back in the late 90's/early 2000's when we still were issued ALICE clip rucksacks and LBEs) was that they were always capitalized; but it's correct that the military is rather inconsistent about it's actual stylization in documentation, and we can't cite to an unspoken practice nor personal experience. Notably though, the ALICE manual uses the term in all caps: [1] (I think this is the same document, or possibly a revision, as reference 3); and also included in the linked list of capitalization discussions summarized above was this: Talk:Ballistic Missile Early Warning System#Article title – Use sentence case? Result: Title case, since it's the name of a specific system which seems applicable here, as we're referring to a system, not an individual vehicle (like the other examples). I'm also not sure that the fact it's inconsistently used -- in lowercase on an FM that's about general wear of equipment (not specifically ALICE gear) and presented in a graphically stylized manner vs. uppercase on the actual manual for the specific system as prepared by Natick -- implies that the interpretation is stylistic vs prescriptive. It could just as easily be an error, or an intentional choice to deviate from the standard on a single document due to it's format (see, e.g. the A-10 pilot's coloring book. I'd also add that fully capitalized is consistent with how we're currently utilizing MOLLE (within the article), Pouch Attachment Ladder System (as a title), Improved Load Bearing Equipment, Modular Tactical Vest and most other similar terms for comparable attachment systems, load bearing gear, and other equipment carriage systems. See, e.g. Family of Improved Load Bearing Equipment, Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops, Combat Integrated Releasable Armor System, Full Spectrum Battle Equipment Amphibious Assault Vest, etc. As such, I'd prefer to see it capitalized, as I don't see why it's not a proper name (and thus capitalized per MOS), though I can live with it the other way.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there are still a ton of military designations being treated by Wikipedia as if they are proper names. But discussions usually move them toward lowercase, since being consistent with guidelines is the only way to move toward consistency in general. The BMEWS was a specific product, while ALICE is really a design specification, to be made by anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's more that "there is a general consensus towards treating military designations as proper names" by historical example, and *some* specific discussions have moved towards lowercase (particularly around vehicles) while most others have not. And I don't think that it makes much of a difference that ALICE is a design specification made by multiple manufacturers. So is, for instance, Battle Dress Uniform -- BDUs are a system specification, but they're individually supplied by Propper, Tru-spec, etc. So are the USMC Flame Resistant Organizational Gear, so is the Army Combat Shirt (made by Crye, Propper, Patagonia, etc.) All of which are closer conceptually to ALICE (being individual soldier issued clothing and equipment) than the examples involving armored vehicles. The guidelines are that we capitalize proper names; I'm not really getting the argument as to how this isn't a proper name. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of those are quite commonly lowercase in sources, e.g. battle dress uniform. Just because they make an acronym of it doesn't make it a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and it makes sense as those sources would be including scenarios where they're referring to the general concept of a battle dress uniform, as in the concept of "battle dress"; as opposed to the specific 1980's era Battle Dress Uniform (and the same concept for, e.g. the general concept of a "combat shirt" vs. the Army Combat Shirt, FWIW). But that's not an issue that ALICE has; this article isn't about the generic concept of "all purpose, lightweight, individual carrying equipment," or it'd be Ultralight backpacking.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes a proper name versus a descriptive name is not how "specific" the reference is. This has been discussed at length and pretty well settled in capitalization discussions many years ago, in many different topic areas. Military equipment is not a special exception. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that's quite literally what the definition of a proper name is - a noun that identifies a specific thing. MOS:PROPER makes no reference whatsoever to whatever capitalization discussions you're referring to -- but it *does* link to our own definition of proper name, and does so in a way that aligns with my arguments here, not yours. I'm *still* waiting for a compelling argument as to why this isn't a proper name. I've not seen one yet from you.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And FWIW, I think the argument for decapitalizing M-1956 load-carrying equipment is significantly stronger than for ALICE.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That "Family of ..." article is a strange one, based on a single source that uses "Family of" only in the title, and in the lead sentence to define the acronym. And then the whole article is basically an over-capitalized list of things that are not proper names. Is there even a notable topic here? It seems like a good example of the kind of thing we should be fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There's probably only a single source because there's no expectation of the name "Family of Improved Load-bearing Equipment" being challenged. The article's content could use some improvement and additional sourcing, but that's not relevant to a discussion about article *titles*, which is correct in this case.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So we should also be capitalizing Patrol Pack and Repair Kit and Canteen w/ Cover and Idividual [sic] First Aid Kit as that doc does? Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That depends on the usage. When referring to the generalized concept of an IFAK, then no; when referring to a specific type of IFAK, then yes (which is, in fact, how IFAK's are typically referred to in the military). But I'd appreciate it if we can stick to the topic of this particular discussion though, which is ALICE, and not go too far down the rabbit-hole of analyzing other pages whose only relevance to *this* discussion is a comparison. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So, given that it's been several days of asking for a compelling argument why this page was not an example of a proper name, and having yet to see one made; I will be reverting this move shortly. There's no consensus for it, there's no clear policy justification for it, the sources don't appear to support it, common usage doesn't support it; and the fact that Dicklyon used the links provided in this discussion to make even more undiscussed controversial article moves, I find disturbing; I will be reverting those as well, if they're not self-reverted soon. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought I had the compelling guidelines, policies, and observations above. Do you want to see a longer list of sources that don't capitalize? And if we're going to discuss, why not discuss more generally with some of those others you brought up? Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it in the broader context of making a large set of related, categorical moves, that would be ideal, but then that needs to be discussed on a more appropriate page than this for the appropriate visibility -- presumably that would be some sort of WP:MILHIST page or by inclusion at WP:RM. With regard to a longer list of sources that don't capitalize: would you like an even longer list of those that do? The MOS is clear that if there's uncertainty about what the generally accepted standard is, that you need to seek talk page consensus first; not make the move as a fait accompli. The Army Nomenclature System is quite clear on this too; per MIL-STD-1464A (and other applicable MIL-STDs for other types of equipment), these items have formal names as defined in their complete nomenclature. Your "compelling guidelines, policies, and observations" above, are not compelling: you've pointed without specificity to the general pages of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS (the latter of which doesn't appear to have any statements of direct applicability to this dispute), while wholly ignoring the text of MOS:MILTERMS that's directly applicable on this point; so no, I don't find that compelling. And I find it even less compelling that when I provide examples of how our other articles already conform to a general practice, your response was to make undiscussed moves on those articles as well to undermine the point -- that just screams bad-faith to me. I've yet to see a single compelling argument as to why "All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment" is not a proper name for the ALICE system. I would like you to give me even one single example of that phrase being used generically to refer to something other than the specific ALICE attachment system. Please *demonstrate* why you insist it's not a proper name. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The most specific guidance is at WP:MILMOS#Capitalization, which says "When using a numerical model designation, the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M109 howitzer") unless it is a proper noun." But the basic criteria in the lead paragraphs of MOS:CAPS ("only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia") and WP:NCCAPS ("leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence") should be enough. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a numerical model designation; the title phrase is a proper name. That's what I keep telling you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

Oh, right, not numerical in this case; I was thinking of Andy's complaint on my talk page that you jumped in to. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I see a reference to the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System discussion above. There's a difference that I think hasn't been pointed out here yet. There was only one Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. It wasn't a family of things. That article is about only one named thing. It wasn't about all ballistic missile early warning systems. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The sources as described here have demonstrated that these terms are neither consistently capitalized within sources nor capitalized in a substantial majority of independent sources. As such, the current article titles go against MOS:CAPS and MOS:MILTERMS. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 07:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment → All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment
• Improved Load-bearing Equipment → Improved load-bearing equipment
• Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System → Interceptor multi-threat body armor system

– These military equipment designators are often capped in official lists, but also often lowercase in sentences in both official and "independent" publications, so per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS we should default to lowercase, in titles and in article text (except Interceptor should be capped even mid-sentence, as that's the proper name of the armor system, not a descriptive term). I had moved them already, thinking they'd be uncontroversial in light of a bunch of previous military equipment designation RMs, but these were objected to and reverted, so let's discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note it looks like I made a mistake when reverting the Improved Load-Bearing Equipment move back, and reverted it to the wrong spelling; the B had been capitalized in "bearing" previously. I can fix it if people prefer, but will otherwise just wait on the outcome of this discussion.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose all three moving (as the person who objected). In all three article's cases, the entire phrase constitutes an acronym that is also the equipment or system's proper name (which, per MOS:MILTERMS The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. There is no "generic" usage of the term "All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment" -- it is always used in reference to a specifically named and defined system; as one would expect from a proper name. Propper, one of the leading manufacturers of MOLLE and ALICE equipment, and uses the term in capitals -- same with ILBE (which they are one of the manufacturers as well). Same with Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). In each one of these cases, the phrase is only ever used in the format of a proper name; and the common accepted usage of all of these terms within the military (as well as for basically every other similar load-carrying system) is for each word to be capitalized. Interceptor Body Armor is capitalized in patent applications. It is capitalized in military testing assessments (with the caveat that while each word is independently capitalized, they also use the trademark name in which the entire word of INTERCEPTOR is capitalized.) It is fully capitalized by military academic sources and masters theses. Frankly I find this whole discussion bizarre; as someone who wore an IBA with ALICE attachments for work every day for several years, this feels like a very pointy move and I do not understand how this move *away* from the commonly accepted military usage improves Wikipedia.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm usually on the lower-case side of these discussions, but for these three, the words are not simply descriptive. They are the proper names of systems or programs. The article Everyday carry uses lower case because these are things carried every day; that is a descriptive term. But an ALICE pack is a specific system that works together. There could be many systems which might be called "all-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment", but there is one system called the "All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment". The others seem to be the same. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  @SchreiberBike: Note however, that the lowercase is common when the "ALICE" acronym is not being defined by the caps. I don't see any of these using this phrase for anything other than the subject ALICE system; and many of these are official Army or government documents. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support all three. SchreiberBike: "They are the proper names of systems or programs." Oh, like Telephone? Tony (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Tony1: "Oh, like Telephone?" No, like Voice over Internet Protocol or Advanced Audio Coding. ALICE gear is a system of holes, hooks, containers and straps that work together. There is a standard for the size of the holes and hooks and the distance between them. That's what makes ALICE gear work. I used a lot of army surplus gear back in the day and the real stuff worked together and fit together. Compare first aid kit. When I put together a first aid kit there is no standard for how it should fit or work together and I can call anything I make a first aid kit, but I couldn't call a way of carrying things an ALICE kit unless it worked together and met the standard. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  The article Improved Load-bearing Equipment says it was a program, but I can't find any support for that. I wouldn't object to capping "Improved Load-bearing Equipment Program" if that's the name of a program, but not for the "improved load-bearing equipment" itself. Also I notice that article's ref 5 in support of the "Family of Improved ..." (FILBE), archived here, just mentions "the DRAFT Purchase Description Family of Load Bearing Equipment dated 8 April 2011", which doesn't even have the word "Improved" and is a doc title, not relevant to the equipment itself. Ref 6 also doesn't mention "Family". Ref 7 says "Interestingly, the Purchase Description also speaks of a 'Family of Load Bearing Equipment (FILBE)' that will be available in the following patterns and colors" (no "Improved"). I think Wikipedians past have had a habit of making acronyms into proper names when that's not what they were. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  ILBE and FILBE are two completely different programs. ILBE was the program for the USMC's standard issue rucksacks/backpacks; FILBE was a subsequent program created later to address the ILBE's lack of compatibility with body armor, and it contains a much wider number of pouches and equipment within it. Other than both being backpacks, and FILBE replacing ILBE, they have no relationship with each other. I'm not sure why you're suggesting that the word "Improved" can't be found in FILBE: it's clearly described as such in the system specification. I'm also not sure why you'd think that a program needs to have the word "program" in the name for it to be as such. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I know it's a bit off-topic here, but Family of Improved Load Bearing Equipment is another example of Wikipedians making a proper name from a string used to define an acronym. The docs I linked show that in many cases the FILBE system is described not in terms of that long name, but using many of the same descriptive words in different combinations. Because the name is FILBE, while family of improved load-bearing equipment, which name is based on, is a description. Similarly for ALICE and MOLLE, hence the relevance. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's really not. I've literally linked you above the system specification in which it explicitly does describe the system in terms of that long name. "Family of load-bearing equipment" is never used *except* in relation to the FILBE system. Please stop blaming Wikipedians that came before you for what largely appears to be your own unfamiliarity with the subject matter. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  So if I put explicit links to that article's refs 5, 6, and 7 that use different words for FILBE, that would make my point better? I did put an explicit link to the one that needed to be sought out in archives. See Improved Load-bearing Equipment#Future for the others. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not following, FILBE only has one reference. Unless you mean the ILBE article? Ref 5 is a dead link, Ref 6 does not refer to FILBE by name at all -- it's the pre-solicitation offer for what would *eventually* become FILBE, but all usage within the ref is relating to ILBE; while Ref 7 uses the correct spelling and capitalization of FILBE. So I'm not sure what you're arguing here, other than pointing out that a summarization of a pre-solicitation order apparently left out a word from the acronym by accident. They remembered to include "Improved" in subsequent articles; so it's quite obviously an editing mistake from Soldier Systems. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, as I said up-thread, the references on Improved Load-bearing Equipment that talk about FILBE are what I'm referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds like good reasoning to me. Tony (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all three This isn't about accuracy, it's just one editor with a long history of a personal campaign against any capitalisation, no matter how much reality and sourcing supports it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please comment on proposals and the sourcing or policy/guideline facts they involve, instead of engaging in ad hominem comments about contributors. You know better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• And you've been here long enough to know that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

This is far from a one-off. This is yet another of Dicklyon's long running campaign to remove any capitalisation, no matter how little they might know about Flemish Baroque painting and how wrong this is. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed the comment at Talk:Artms#Requested move 25 July 2024 two days ago. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Long off-topic discussion of "Gun Motor Carriage" and historical beefs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must have missed it behind all these (just a selection from across a few hours): List of Dicklyon's move history The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 05:13, 29 July 2024 diff hist +103 N XM800 Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle Dicklyon moved page XM800 Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle to XM800 armored reconnaissance scout vehicle: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 05:01, 29 July 2024 diff hist +82 N M8 Armored Gun System Dicklyon moved page M8 Armored Gun System to M8 armored gun system over redirect: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 04:45, 29 July 2024 diff hist +101 N Textron Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle Dicklyon moved page Textron Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle to Textron tactical armoured patrol vehicle: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 04:40, 29 July 2024 diff hist +91 N M1117 Armored Security Vehicle Dicklyon moved page M1117 Armored Security Vehicle to M1117 armored security vehicle: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) current thank Tag: New redirect 03:41, 29 July 2024 diff hist +83 N T48 Gun Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page T48 Gun Motor Carriage to T48 gun motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 03:23, 29 July 2024 diff hist +87 N Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 Dicklyon moved page Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 to Howitzer motor carriage M8: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 03:22, 29 July 2024 diff hist +88 N T18 Howitzer Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page T18 Howitzer Motor Carriage to T18 howitzer motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 03:21, 29 July 2024 diff hist +92 N M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage to M13 multiple gun motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 03:21, 29 July 2024 diff hist +92 N M16 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page M16 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage to M16 multiple gun motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 03:19, 29 July 2024 diff hist +92 N M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage to M19 multiple gun motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 21:56, 28 July 2024 diff hist +97 N Mk 61 105 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer Dicklyon moved page Mk 61 105 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer to Mk 61 105 mm self-propelled howitzer: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 21:53, 28 July 2024 diff hist +88 N T92 Howitzer Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page T92 Howitzer Motor Carriage to T92 howitzer motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 20:27, 28 July 2024 diff hist +88 N T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage to T30 howitzer motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect 20:23, 28 July 2024 diff hist +88 N T19 Howitzer Motor Carriage Dicklyon moved page T19 Howitzer Motor Carriage to T19 howitzer motor carriage: Change to sentence case (MOS:AT) thank Tag: New redirect This is the problem here. We're in the middle of a contentious discussion on naming of these. Dicklyon's response is to ignore any attempt at WP:CONSENSUS and instead entrench their personal opinion by sheer bulk of page moves, faster than the community can respond. That's bordering on NOTHERE behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Andy Dingley, if you believe there are behavioral issues, I believe WP:AN or WP:ANI are the best fora. My impression is that Dicklyon is indeed building consensus here, and your statements about their motives are out of place and may become disruptive to this discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, Dicklyon's suggestions have been tested repeatedly in many RMs, and have generally prevailed with a consensus when discussed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Which of that long list above went anywhere near a RM? He's not using RM, he's not using any sort of CONSENSUS process, he's not using any sourcing, he's just doing bulk moves. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Re: "He's not using RM". Please note that our conversation here is an RM, so he's using RMs. There have been a lot of RMs. Let's please get back to the discussion of this RM and its merits rather than continuing the side conversation about an editor's alleged patterns of behavior, for which this is not the right forum. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) A RM on one article title doesn't magically carry itself over to other articles! At no point has DickLyon raised any RM discussion over any of the Gun Motor Carriage articles, yet they went ahead and bulk-moved them despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC) You're off topic. I'm tempted to point you to a list of RMs related to your comments, but that would be continuing the off-topic side conversation. We're not here to discuss gun motor carriages. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Make your mind up. Has DickLyon raised an RM on the GMC articles or not? Is this discussion a RM on the GMC articles or not? Because you can't have it both ways that he has, and this is it, and yet that's also 'off topic' here. This is a broader issue than ALICE, and indeed GMC. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC) I believe my mind is pretty clear. This is not an RM about gun motor carriage articles or Flemish Baroque painting. I believe the only time I mentioned gun motor carriage articles was when I said they were off-topic. This is an RM about All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment, Improved Load-bearing Equipment, and Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System. As far as I can tell, the only reason you have given for opposing the lowercasing of those three articles is that you don't like another editor's behavior. Did I miss something? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC) You claimed, Dicklyon's suggestions have been tested repeatedly in many RMs, and have generally prevailed with a consensus when discussed. as if that somehow justifies the move here, and the GMC moves. Yet it's not true. Flemish Baroque painting was rapidly, and correctly, reverted. The GMC articles have never seen an RM. He is using massed moves as a WP:BLUDGEON to move as many things as possible, as quickly as possible, in the hope that some of them stick. Helped because other editors just can't keep up. That is a pattern of behaviour demonstrated over years now. I don't have a strong opinion on ALICE because I don't know enough about the topic (although ALICE does seem correct on the evidence so far). But for the GMCs, and some of the others, I do happen to have sourcing for them and it supports the capitalised version. On the other hand, Dicklyon's refusal to be swayed by any sourcing, which he has demonstrated over years now, means that I have very little respect for the robustness of his opinions here. We're required by WP:V to follow the sourcing: Dicklyon clearly feels no such constraint. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Instead of speculating on what I feel, why not look at what I wrote, such as links to individual sources, statistics from books, quotes from policies and guidelines, etc.? And when you "do happen to have sourcing" that's relevant, why not say so? Link if you can, or quote what they say, if you think they help your case. That would be more effective than bad-mouthing me, perhaps. That applies both here and at my user talk page where you dropped some nastigrams but no actual information. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Why did you bulk move all the GMC articles without any attempt at a RM beforehand? You know this is a contentious issue, and you kept doing it even though this RM here has already opened? How can I present a case when you just do bulk moves anway, without even bothering with a RM? Then you justify yourself by claiming it's "in agreement with the community consensus". But any attempt to discuss it here and BarrelProof says that it's "off topic" and EducatedRedneck posts it at ANI claiming that such discussion is "disruptive". You can't have it both ways, claiming that there's a discussion, yet no discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC) @Andy Dingley: You may not have noticed the word "generally" in what I said, which was actually within the phrase you quoted. That's roughly a synonym for "typically" or "usually"; it doesn't mean "with no exceptions". There have been quite a few such RMs, and usually the consensus has been in agreement with Dicklyon's suggestions (my estimate would be roughly 85% of the time). Perhaps it would have been more clear to you what I was saying if I used one of those other words instead. Gun motor carriage articles and Flemish Baroque painting are off-topic; they are not part of this RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Besides, Andy, you started the M40 Gun Motor Carriage discussion on my talk page, but didn't say anything constructive there. Then you came here to also not say anything constructive. Stop bashing me and engage in the questions. Also, note that I have mentioned WP:MILCAPS (which I just made this new shortcut for; I hope it works). It says, "When using a numerical model designation, the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M109 howitzer") unless it is a proper noun." I'm pretty sure "Gun Motor Carriage" is not a proper noun, and I don't recall anyone making a claim that it is; maybe you did somewhere? Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC) I'm finding Andy Dingley's contributions to be combative and over-personalised, as usual. Please desist. Tony (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC) OK, let's try this again. There is no such thing as a "gun motor carriage". It's an adjectival, descriptive phrase that no-one uses. But "Gun Motor Carriage" is the US Army's chosen term for self-propelled artillery (at varying times). It should be capitalised. It should always be capitalised. It has no meaning, no robust sourcing otherwise when not capitalised. No other (AFAIK) armies have used this term, other than by inheritance, and it has no meaning in the non proper name form anywhere else. GMC is easily sourced: it's used throughout Chamberlain & Ellis, which is WP's generally agreed standard listing textbook of US AFVs of WWII. It's used by Ogorkiewicz and you might note that he carefully capitalises APC in the US sense but not for other nations, likewise Infantry Tank when applied only to the early WWII British doctrine. It's used in Jane's recognition handbooks. But because Google can trawl up some occurrences of it uncapitalised, you want to discard all these and go with that. And again, this is different to the previous situation with Motor Torpedo Boats (see the long thread at Talk:Motor Gun Boat). In that case there are clearly motor torpedo boats (which are fast boats with motors and launching torpedos) and the narrow and specific Royal Navy use of the term to refer (and only refer) to their particular classes, with Motor Torpedo Boat as the designator for that group. In that case the uncapitalised term does exist, is valid, and is indeed a widely used international term. But the article was just about the RN types. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC) So how do you explain these many books with "a gun motor carriage"? Or this Army manual with "gun, howitzer, and mortar motor carriages"? Sure, it's stilted military terminology, but it's not always capped and it's not proper names. And as for Motor Torpedo Boat before I touched it, in early 2020, it spoke of British, French, German, Russian, and Canadian MTBs in the lead, and also Italian in the text; still does. It was not really about the Royal Navy, though it emphasized that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Do you really not understand the difference between 'motor torpedo boat' (a common descriptive phrase, widely used, and a superset of 'Motor Torpedo Boat', an RN-speciic designator) and 'gun motor carriage' (an obscure invented nominal from the US Army as 'Gun Motor Carriage', then mashed by styling during quotation to 'gun motor carriage' but still only ever referring to those specific Gun Motor Carriages as designated by the US Army) ? OK, my wording above was unclear, the uncapitalised form is used literally as syntax in many places, and Google easily finds them. But as semantics this still only ever refer to the Gun Motor Carriage as designated by the US Army. There are many motor torpedo boats that are not Motor Torpedo Boats. There are no gun motor carriages that are not Gun Motor Carriages. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Apart from continuing to be way off-topic, this attempt to rationalise Gun Motor Carraige is just poppycock. The military designation (more fully) is 155-mm Gun Motor Carraige (per here). This is just a description of the equipment written in army back-speak, capitalised because the army wants to wear out the upper and lower case on typewriters evenly. In army back-speak, the root noun or most important part is put first, followed by descriptive words or phrases in decreasing order of importance. This is just a gun mounted on a motor[ised] carriage, as opposed to a gun carriage which is not, as a matter of course, motorised. The article title is a slightly bastardised version of the designation which places the model (M40) first. Compare this with Can, Water, Plastic 5 Gal here, which is just a water jerry can. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC) OK, so that's a fair point. To summarise: The Army's favoured and correct term is GMC, capitalised. The sources support that. But they're Wrong, so we should choose to strip that capitalisation. I don't agree this, but it's a logically coherent argument. But saying that WP:MOS overrides WP:V and WP:RS? Isn't that then shifting us into WP:OR? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Re the Army being "Wrong", please see my comment above from a few days ago. Dicklyon (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC) This is the same point as your ability to find 'gun motor carriage' through Google. We look for WP:RS. We know that there are many other sources, and that they're not all consistent. In this instance, the capitalised version gets 'eroded', whether by local style guides or be carelessness, in many instances that are circulating. Yet it's still clear that the original, canon, form of this was capitalised as GMC. If we care about accuracy (do we?), then we should follow that. Not the variations. You are also making it very hard to believe AGF when you're continuing to move these GMC articles and the links to them, at the very time this discussion is ongoing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC) The lowercase gun motor carriage was dominant during and after WWII, not an erosion of uppercase usage. And where is this discussion you're referring to? The one you started at User talk:Dicklyon#M40 Gun Motor Carriage has no useful input from you; nor does this tangent, which needs to be hatted. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC) And as BarrelProof keeps saying, this is not the place to discuss those current and old beefs. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, please. This RM discussion is not about gun motor carriages or motor torpedo boats. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Then as you're both refusing to discuss these moves about the US Army's fondness for capitalisation and whether we should reflect that for terms that they invent, in a thread all about the US Army's fondness for capitalisation and whether to reflect it, then clearly the undiscussed GMC moves should be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Discussing the Army's fondness for capitalization is great as long as there is some clear discussion of a relationship between that and the titles involved in this RM. Most of this gun motor carriage discussion shows no such connection and just seems to be about personal behavior. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is so confusing SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Swatjester. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose ALICE per SwatJester. I can see Dicklyon's argument that it may not be a proper noun, so it's good that there's a discussion. Of the sources I looked at on this article, two capitalize, one does not. Since we go by what reliable sources say, I'm inclined to capitalize based on what the preponderance of sources do. I have been convinced by Dicklyon below to Support the ALICE move. To assert it's a proper noun, at least one military source must have been in error (as it uses lowercase). To assert it is a common noun, the sources that capitalize may be doing initialisms, and does not require any source to have made an error. Furthermore, Dicklyon presented examples of ALICE being rendered all in lowercase. Neutral on others at this time as I have not reviewed their sources. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  With regard to ALICE (that goes to a disambiguation page, but it has a pertinent entry), there are quite a bit more sources than three with regard to the military equipment [2]. They lean pretty strongly toward capitalization, but the capitalization isn't "consistent" across the source material. Is it close enough to consistent? MOS:CAPS doesn't have a hard cut-off like "90%" or whatever, and there's room for editorial judgement. I would surmise that this is more often capitalized than not for two reasons: "All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment" is a specification name (i.e., the title or partial title of a publication of sorts); and, there's a general habit (a house style that is not WP house style) among writers on military and government subjects to capitalize anything that has to do with the military or government. The first of those is a reasonable argument for capitalization here, but the second is not, and is just another example of the specialized-style fallacy as well as contrary to MOS:SIGCAPS. For my part, I would need to look into this more (including the other two phrases) to be sure where to go on this one, and it might really need to be split since the three subjects may not be interchangeable for this sort of analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: ILBE shows a similar pattern, surely for the same two reasons [3]. However, our article title on it is wrong; if we were to stick with capitals, it should be Improved Load-Bearing Equipment or Improved Load Bearing Equipment (the former would better comply with MOS:HYPHEN, though the latter has more source usage, but it is not consistent source usage); I can't find a single example of "Improved Load-bearing Equipment" (lower-case b in an otherwise-capitalized phrase) in the sources. Moreoever, the spec seems to have been renamed to Family of Improved Load-Bearing Equipment or Family of Improved Load Bearing Equipment (FILBE). The fact that most of these and their lowercase equivalents are red-links means various editors who care more about this sort of subject than average have been asleep at the switch. :-) Family of Improved Load Bearing Equipment does resolve to an article, of sorts, but it's a bare list of items with almost no context; FILBE redirects there. Obviously that article and what is presently at Improved Load-bearing Equipment should merge.

  Next, IMTBAS (which obviously should not be a red link) has much less source coverage, and results are a bit more mixed [4]. The alternative spellings Interceptor Multi-threat Body Armor System, Interceptor MultiThreat Body Armor System, Interceptor Multithreat Body Armor System, and Interceptor Multi Threat Body Armor System (and lower-case versions) should also redirect, but are redlinks. Further, it's sometimes shortened to Interceptor Body Armor or interceptor body armor (IBA) or Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor, etc. spellings, (IMTBA). IMBAS and IMBA are both also plausible acronyms (for those who interpret "multi-threat" as a single word), though I'm not sure if they're source-attested usages. As with the above, almost all of this is red-linked (though the IBA disambiguation page has an appropriate entry). We also need redirects from "Armour" and "armour" spellings for non-American readers.

  It's weird to me that this discussion has not mentioned MOLLE: Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment AKA Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment, modular lightweight load-carrying equipment, Modular Lightweight Load Carrying Equipment, modular lightweight load carrying equipment, Modular Light-weight Load-carrying Equipment, Modular Light-Weight Load-Carrying Equipment, modular light-weight load-carrying equipment, Modular Light Weight Load Carrying Equipment, modular light weight load carrying equipment, Modular Lightweight Loadcarrying Equipment, modular lightweight loadcarrying equipment. None of those should be red links, since we cannot depend on any reader to know either what the exact official rendering is or what WP's most likely default spelling would be based on MOS:CAPS and MOS:HYPHEN (which most editors don't memorize, much less readers memorizing them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC); edited 08:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't MOS:HYPHENCAPS support "... L(l)oad-bearing ..." and "All-purpose ..."? (although MOS:TITLECAPS says "this rule is often ignored in titles of works") —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  and "M(m)ulti-threat". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not really; that's an over-extension of the meaning and intent of that guideline item. The examples there are clear to not do things like "Ghandi-Like" when "Ghandi-like" is intended, because "-like" is not a proper name or part of a proper name. But if "Foobarian All-Purpose Futzing System" is taken as a proper name (i.e. as something to give in title case) then the "Purpose" in that would be capitalized if (as is often the case in looser writing styles) the hyphen is eschewed: "Foobarian All Purpose Futzing System". Meanwhile, if you have a sentence like "Jones was called Ghandi-like by his supporters", that does not become "Jones was called Ghandi Like by his supporters", even in a sloppy writing style that doesn't hyphenate compound adjectives. I.e., the intent of that MoS item is not "never capitalize after a hyphen", it's "do not force capitalization after a hyphen for no sensible reason" (the most common being an incorrect belief that any fragment connected to a proper name becomes part of the proper name: Ghandi-like > *Ghandi-Like, or pre-Bladerunner > *Pre-Bladerunner). That particular MoS material could probably be worded more clearly.

  Other kinds of more theoretical or nit-picky arguments can be brought into it, and I've gotten into some a few times with regard to capitalization after a hyphen in title-case work titles. One would be to not capitalize if what follows the hyphen would not be a stand-alone word (as in "Kafka-eque"), or would coincidentally be one but an unintended homonym or mistakable for one (e.g. "Like" after "Ghandi" could have multiple interpretations and isn't reasonable writing so use "Ghandi-like" not "Ghandi-Like" in title case), or would be a stand-alone word but one that would not be capitalized (like "to" or "with" or "but"); and to not capitalize if the hyphenation is of a permanent compound (as in "De-escalation") not a temporary compounding imposed by usage as a modifier, where many off-site publishers consider the hyphen optional (as in "The Well-Known Gentleman"; you can tell that's temporary because the same idea can be expressed non-adjectivally with "The Gentleman Who Was Well Known"). My personal habit is to avoid capitalizing after a hyphen in work titles any time it's reasonable to avoid it, but there's no actual WP rule requiring this, and if someone reverted me on it I would not counter-revert or otherwise fight about it.

  I don't think any of those side arguments (and there are probably more of them), matter in a case like this, since they don't resolve to actual rules here and other editors would be apt to debate about them at length. What matters more is that the "All-purpose" and "Multi-threat" half-capitalized style is, for these particular subjects, entirely or almost entirely unattested in actual source material, and we should not try to pursue a particular questionable interpretation of an MoS line item to a result that does not agree with reality even slightly. That is, never push any gudeline to the point of folly. "Common-sense exceptions may apply" is a matter of policy with regard to guidelines (at WP:P&G). It could also matter whether the post-hyphen element shows up in the acronym as an "important part" of the full term. Anyway, all of the foregoing presupposes we stick with capitalizing these, and I'm not convinced that we should, at least not for all of them; see below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  The "All-purpose" one is actually common in sources, as the "p" does not contribute to the acronym ALICE. That's further evidence that the purpose of the capping is to define the acronym. The mixed-case "Multi-threat" one is rare, being uninvolved in the "IBA" acronym. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  My interpretation of the MOS:HYPHENCAPS instruction is [has been] that the thing after the hyphen shouldn't be capped unless it would be capped on its own. So a "Chicago" or "Chevrolet" or "Ghandi" would be capped, but "like", "purpose", "bearing" or "threat" would not. But I agree that if the thing after the hyphen contributes to an acronym and everything else in the acronym is capped, then it might be aggravating to lowercase it. This seems to fall under the spirit of the "often ignored" exception in MOS:TITLECAPS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Small adjustment of verb tense included above with strikethrough and brackets to show the change. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I can go along with both your "does versus doesn't contribute to the acronym" argument. I mean that in the sense "If we keep these capitalized, then capitalize to agree with the acronym to the extent possible". I don't mean "These should be capitalized as English phrases because the acronym is in all-caps" (that would be contrary to MOS:EXPABBR). They should only be capitalized if nearly never found lower-case in independent sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's buried at the top of this discussion, but as I indicated, I mistakenly moved the article to the wrong title (with the lower-case "b" in "bearing" instead of uppercase) when reverting the first move. Having said that, ILBE and FILBE are two separate things, not a renaming. The FILBE pack was a separate procurement that replaced the ILBE pack due to the former's lack of compatibility with the USMC's newly adopted tactical vests; additionally the FILBE system includes a number of pouches and equipment that were not part of the original ILBE system. Agree with you that Family of Improved Load Bearing Equipment needs improvement, but disagree that it should be merged into Improved Load-bearing Equipment. Also agree with the general point that there's a lot more redirects that need to be made to support these; I'll volunteer to do so, but I'd prefer to wait until this discussion is completed though so I only have to do it once based on the outcome, and not update them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'll defer to your judgment on the merger idea; the relationship between ILBE and FILBE wasn't something I looked into very deeply. However, whether to regard (encyclopedically) either of them as "systems" or "specs" versus labels for gear that uses a certain type of equipment-connection method (whether that gear is actual milspec items or private sector ones) is an open and important question. I don't think the "system/spec" viewpoint is sustainable or even reasonable for ALICE and MOLLE, because they today have broader private-sector than military use (even counting all historical military use). The others I have not looked into enough to be sure about. That is, with regard to ALICE and MOLLE in particular, the encyclopedic topic is a general class of gear/stuff characterized by an interconnection method, while the original military specs (or official GI-gear systems compliant with those specs) from which the broader applications have developed are a subtopic. But for one or both of the others, it's possible that there's not significant non-milspec use and thus the milspecs are in fact the encyclopedic topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  MOLLE had been mentioned a few times, but since the article is at MOLLE it doesn't need a move. A better example of a related descriptive title is Pouch Attachment Ladder System. Yes, it's a standardized system. No, it's not a proper name, just because of the PALS acronym. As for the red links, that's typical in thinly edited topic areas, and not a big problem. Those terms will still mostly work in the search box, in case readers type in such variations. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pouch Attachment Ladder System absolutely is a proper name for the exact same reasons that all the other examples above. It is a specific reference to a specifically defined system, not a generic reference to "pouch attachment ladder systems" in general. You seem to be operating under the misconception that the opposite of a proper name is a descriptive name, which is not at all the case. Repeating the same unfounded assertion over and over again will not make it correct. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to be the meat of the argument anyway. If anyone's made a "capitalize it because the letters in the acronym are capitals" that would be silly and wrong, per MOS:EXPABBR. But it doesn't seem to be the central argument here. This reminds me of several previous RMs involving NASA, that did not turn out upper-case, and some other military-related ones that also did not turn out upper-case, yet there have been some conceptually similar ones (in military and other topics) that have gone upper-case. Edge cases are always difficult or at least debated, and the results are not always consistent (because WP is run by humans, who change over time, and is not some monolithic AI or something).

  One thing I've noticed is that the closer the term is to a name for a specific, unitary item, the more likely we are to capitalize it, and the more it leans toward being a designation of a general class of things, the more likely we are to lower-case it. This is kind of right in the middle, or both at once, depending on how you want to look at it. Any of these (ALICE, etc.) can be said to be names of singular things (equipment systems or specifications of equipment systems), but can also be said to be class-designators of an array of disparate things (all the ALICE or whatever gear items that qualify as part of the system or compliant with the spec). It possibly matters that many, many things are made and sold as ALICE or MOLLE or whatever gear but which are not official miltary-spec gear at all, but entirely private-sector products; these terms have become genericized labels for equipment-attachment designs. This is less true of [F]ILBE, and possibly not applicable to IMTBAS/IBA (but for all I know there may actually be extra-miltary IMTBAS/IBA products, e.g. for civilian police or private-sector security use, that are not part of the milspec systems at all, but simply within the class of compatible and so-named gear). Anyway, this is overall very similar, in general concept, to the differences between the name of a specific vehicle or model/line of vehicles versus a class of vehicle of a general type or class of models of vehicles, except that here the dividing line is much blurrier. That so far makes this a case of considerable doubt, and in such cases our default is to lower-case. WP only capitalizes when it's conclusively demonstrated that we should.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Your point is well-taken that it may be capitalized due to (as Dicklyon mentioned in the "Move to Sentence Case" discussion above) a style of some writers to capitalize an initialism. My thinking is that this is a plausible reason why ALICE may not be a proper noun. It has not, I feel, been demonstrated either way. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not a proper name because it's an acronym. It's a proper name because it's treated as a proper name in WP:RS. The acronym comes afterwards. You going to rename PASGT next? Seems like you just want to rename everything because you disagree with how the Army does it. Well tell them they're wrong. But for now, we follow what the Army and the WP:RS say. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:C816:B664:1C36:BB8E (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have no beef with how the Army does it. My only concern is how Wikipedia does it. For this, we look to sources, especially "independent" ones, which means non-Army sources. But as I've shown, even Army-related orgs don't cap these things consistently – e.g. this Association of the U.S. Army pub with "personnel armor system for ground troops (PASGT)". And this United States Army Combat Forces Journal, with "PASGT (personnel armor system for ground troops)". Also this Infantry magazine with "PASGT (personnel armor system for ground troops)". Then there are books like this one and magazines such as this one. And note that of the many sources capping it, it's almost always in the context of defining the acronym, as "Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT)". Can you find any that are not? You are right, I would advocate for lowercase on that one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking only to ALICE, it seems Reference #18 is the only non-US Govt source we have. Its title is "The Alice Pack is still around... as it should be". While I'd like to stand this up to say, "Proper noun!" I suspect this is more an error. (The article body uses exclusively all caps, and I can't think of a reason the remainder of ALICE would not be capitalized, proper noun or no.) However, that does mean that for ALICE, there don't seem to be any non-US government sources for it that I can access. (I do not have a copy of the Rottman book in reference 17.) I don't suppose you have a copy?

  I'll also push back slightly on the "independent sources" part. WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't quite apply, but seems to suggest that, the Army being the originators of this piece of equipment, they are the ones to name it, and thus their statements (if they were consistent *sigh*) would be conclusive on what/if the equipment is named. But, as you pointed out, even the US Army is inconsistent. So I agree we're in an area of uncertainty. I looked at MOS:CAPS, specifically MOS:MILTERMS, and I couldn't find where it suggested lowercase be preferred when there's ambiguity. I suspect I'm looking in the wrong area. Do you happen to have that reference on hand? If that's a set policy, I think I'll have to change my !vote to support, as the inconsistency in capitalization has been well-demonstrated. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  First, it's inherent in the lead of MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. ... only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Second, MOS:MILTERMS echos that in "as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I was worried about. The next phrase in MILTERMS is Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.. I'm worried this will come down to a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT arguments if there's no clear policy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, not just guideline pages, but also policy pages, seem clear. WP:NCCAPS says "leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence." But yes, uncertainty, or objections, must lead to discussion to establish consensus, and consensus should be determined based on arguments made in relation to policies, guidelines, and sources. It doesn't always go the way it seems it should, from different points of view. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  What you just quoted is entirely consistent with MILTERMS. A proper name would always occur capitalized, unless there was an error. Perhaps that's what I've been missing about where you're coming from.

  Let me reflect what I'm hearing back to you, and you can tell me if I understand.

  1. Proper names should be capitalized, otherwise lower case should be used. (per MOS:CAPS and MOS:MILTERMS. I believe we all agree on this.)
  2. US Army sources are inconsistent about capitalizing these terms. Two of the ALICE sources capitalize. One does not. (I also think we all accept this.)
  3. Capitalization can sometimes occur when defining acronyms outside of Wikipedia. (See MOS:EXPABBR)
  4. The inconsistency (point 2), combined with the logical explanation for capitalization (see point 3) leads you to believe ALICE is not a proper name, and thus should not be capitalized.

  That is, a plausible explanation is that ALICE is not a proper name, and the capitalized versions were done according to Point 3. This can be done only be reading the sources as they were written. To argue it is a proper name is to allege that at least one of the references was written in error, and claiming that gets a little like WP:CHERRY.

  Am I understanding you right? If so, that's entirely self-consistent, and I wouldn't be disappointed by any close based on that reasoning. If I've misunderstood, my apologies, and would you be willing to help me better understand?

  Side note: I was looking at SMC's list of mispellings. Would it be out of line if I started creating those as redirects? (Probably after this RfM has closed, so I don't have to fix them after!) EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  More or less agree with all that, but I think it's simpler. To look at sources and see if it's "[almost] always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" we need to at sources that use it in a sentence, in a normal way. Contexts where it's capped to define the acronym just don't give us any information as to whether that source would treat it as a proper name or not. So we look for sources that don't have it next to ALICE, and we find some lowercase (e.g. [5], [6], [7]) . Or sources that use it next to "ALICE" but use lowercase anyway (e.g. [8] and [9]). Are there sources that use this term in a sentence and not for defining the acronym? If so, are they numerous compared to the ones that use lowercase? It does not appear so. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I was totally overcomplicating it! And thank you for the sources you presented; I was only going off what was in the article, but those seem (to me) to demonstrate that ALICE is used as a common noun, not a proper one. I'm going to update my vote. Thanks for a lively and enlightening discussion! EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support These are not proper nouns|names. It is often overlooked that proper nouns are arbitrary labels that are not descriptive (per Collins definition). These are inherently descriptive terms. While proper nouns have a specific referent, this is not a defining property of a proper noun since a common name|noun phrase also has a specific referent when used with the definite article (the). These articles|names refer to a family or class of equipment. Names for a class are common nouns.

Sources referring to such equipment commonly use the acronym in prose having defined the term in full and in the capitalised form. This is a common style when defining acronyms but it is not WP style (per MOS:CAPSACRS). Furthermore, we cannot use such sources to guide us.

Some styles will use caps to pick out a particular noun phrase|name for emphasis, significance, distinction or importance. Italics or quote marks may be used for the same purpose but capitalisation is the more accessible (particularly pre word processing) and more easily implemented (requiring fewer key-strokes/operations). This is not WP style (per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS) and it does not mean that such terms are proper nouns|names. Arguments of specific v generic terms to justify capitalisation (ie distinguishing something with a descriptive name as being more specific than the phrase might generally mean) inherently fall to the use of capitalisation for emphasis, significance, distinction or importance. There is no grammatical or onomastic rule or convention that a descriptive noun phrase, when referring to something specific rather than general should be capitalised and/or that it is a proper noun|name. While it is necessary to capitalise proper nouns|names, not everything that we might capitalise is a proper noun|name nor is it necessary (per MOS:CAPS) to use caps in other cases where we might use capitalisation. We come back to the fact that proper nouns|names are (by definition) not descriptive and specificity is not a defining proper nouns|names.

An argument that the subject terms are proper nouns|names is fallacious. As SMcC observes, the military uses a style which tends to use capitalisation for emphasis, significance, distinction or importance and many authors writing about the military tend to follow the same style. This falls to WP:SSF and is not our style. Furthermore, an examination of sources (Google books) indicates that such usage is not consistently followed - even by the military (eg see here and here). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with significant portions of that analysis, but the "proper nouns|names are (by definition) not descriptive" idea is a Proper name (philosophy) concept (and one debated for 200+ years even within that field) that does not have anything really to do with capitalization style (that's Proper name (linguistics). Indeed, various things that qualify as "proper names" in the rarified philosophy sense are not conventionally capitalized, such as names of specific diseases and names of animal and plant species. It's not helpful but quite a hindrance to attempt that philosophy argument in WP capitalization discussions; see WP:PNPN for details. For WP purposes, "proper name" means something treated, including by capitalzation, as a proper name in nearly all reliable sources, and no philosophic arguments are actually pertinent. Many such names are in fact descriptive. That is, being descriptive in wording is not (for style purposes) universally a "this is a common-noun phrase not a proper-noun phrase AKA proper name" diagnostic. Probably the most obvious examples are the simply descriptive names of various wars and other events that have become conventionalized into virtually-universally-capitalized proper names, even as similarly descriptive but less universally used appellations do not achieve that. Descriptive phrases are (for WP intents) more likely to be common-noun phrases than labels which are not. But even the inverse doesn't work; the names of various skateboarding tricks, pool/snooker/billiards shots, dance moves, etc., etc., are non-descriptive unique identifiers of something specific and thus proper names in [that faction of] philosophy, but are not capitalized (except sometimes in WP:SSF materials that over-capitalize every other concept within the subject to signify contextual importance/specialness). Anyway, what matters for us is consistency of source usage, and your evidence on that point is important, as are several other arguments you presented with regard to signification, and the lack of a two-way street ("capitalize proper names" does not resolve to "this is capitalized, ergo it is a proper name"; most acronyms like AIDS and BCE/BC/CE/AD are capitalized but are not proper names in our sense), and SSF concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that most people have a simplistic view of what a proper noun|name is in that, anything with a specific referent can be considered a proper noun and anything that might be capitalised is labelled as a proper noun - ie the only reason we capitalise is to denote a proper noun. Clearly, this is not the case. The concept of proper nouns exist across languages regardless of whether there is a written language or orthograpic device to denote proper nouns. Other European languages have the same rule of capitalising proper nouns but there are many things that might be capitalised in English that are never capitalised in those languages. In French, bataille de Waterloo is not capitalised and even in English, it is not consistently capitalised (see here). The point I would make is one of rebuttal: the assertions made by others herein that these phrases are a priori proper nouns is fallacious. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Tentative support at this point, because a) source usage of upper case is not as consistent for these terms as we generally expect (typically somewhere in the 90%+ range); b) our default is to go lower-case when in doubt; and c) see Cinderella157's "such [capitalized] usage is not consistently followed - even by the military" evidence above, which casts new doubt on these (or at least some of them) as proper names in original intent to begin with. But I'm not "strong support", at least not right now, because there's room for additional source research, and consideration of arguments about these being terms for broad classes of things of generally complying sort (common noun phrases), or being terms for extremely specific singular (but more abstract) things like specs/systems (potential proper-noun phrases). It's also possible that this analysis would not turn out equal for all three of these subjects (particularly the armor system, though I'm not certain of that). ALICE (like MOLLE) in particular has become a broadly genericized term for civilian equipment that uses particular attachment configurations (originally developed for military application), and these aftermarket products (in at least the tens of thousands) have no relationship to actual GI gear that is part of a defined equipment specification/system. So, I'm stronger in favor of lower-casing the expansions of ALICE and MOLLE than the other two (so far). But that additional analysis doesn't seem to be happening. The more I go over this, the more I agree with BarrelProof's summary: The caps seems to be only for significance or abbreviation definition, which is not the Wikipedia practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC); rev'd 05:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I do not see "consistent capitalization in sources" per MOS:MILTERMS and certainly not that they are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" per the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per SWATjester and others. Intothatdarkness 13:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support with comments. The military has a tendency to overcapitalize, but the sources have been shown to be mixed per above. The caps seems to be only for significance or abbreviation definition, which is not the Wikipedia practice. The usual caps discussers like Dicklyon, SMcCandlish and Cinderella157 are all in agreement. The ILBE article needs some adjusting – as Dicklyon mentioned, the opening sentence says it's the name of a program, but the rest of the article uses the term to refer to the equipment rather than the program. I think the opening sentence should be changed to say the topic is the equipment. Perhaps Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment should have been included in this RM, as it is closely related and has the same issue. I notice that the article body capitalizes "Interceptor" by itself, which seems worth some thought; can "Interceptor" be considered a descriptive term? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the list of 5 prior RMs above from Dicklyon in the #Move to Sentence Case section, I'll add these:

• Talk:M1126 infantry carrier vehicle#Requested move 18 March 2024 (10 articles moved to lowercase)
• Talk:King armored car#Requested move 7 March 2024 (moved to lowercase)

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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.