Talk:M1918 Browning automatic rifle

BARs in Abyssinia

I recently came across a photograph from the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). The photo shows two deceased Ethiopian soldiers and what is clearly two early-style (1918) BARs propped up on their position.

Anyone know how BARs ended up in Ethiopia during that period (late 1930s)? The photo in question is in a book; if I could find it online I would provide a link.

How long were they in inventory?

I have a relative who went through USAF basic training in 1977 and was trained on the BAR. Seems like a long time after it would be frontline issue.

Just out of curiousity, how long were they officially in service?

i dont no the exact date it was retired but i no it was probaly retired soon after reltive used it or 80's, but i no it might be still in stocks. they still have original m16

.303 SAA Ball Variant

I seen an M1918 Bar in .303 Calibre, Was this a proposed version for the British before using the bren?User:EX STAB

Recent move

The page was moved today under the basis that it is "not usually capped in sources", but after looking through most the published sources used within the article, this seems to be untrue:

• The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, Small Arms Review, Ordnance Went Up Front, The Browning Automatic Rifle (Osprey Publishing book), all display a clear preference for rendering it with capitals
• The Machine Gun, Volume I: History, Evolution, and Development of Manual, Automatic, and Airborne Repeating Weapons only mentions it by full name twice, spelling it with caps one instance and without in the other, so it doesn't really help us here
• Small Arms of the World renders it as "Browning Automatic rifle", which is also an unhelpful middle ground as it differs to any of the other sources
• FM 23-15 is the only one I could find that did actually show a preference for rendering it without capitals, but one primary source doesn't seem to denote the "usually" that the page mover invoked.

Therefore, unless someone presents an argument to the contrary that the majority of sources do render it without capitals, I'd suggest moving the article title back. Loafiewa (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the name Browning Automatic Rifle was usually capitalized, so it seems to me that the article name should be put back the way it was. (Pinging @FlightTime:, who did the rename.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Loafiewa and Mudwater: If the consensus of this discussion is to move it back, ping me and I'll be glad to. Ping @Dicklyon: The user who posted the move request. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I had checked usage statistics before requesting the move to conform with MOS:CAPS and WP:MILCAPS. If someone would rather go through an RM discussion, let me know and I'll have it reverted back. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#BAR caps, notifying editors there of this discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: - Posting a move request after consensus is reached at WP:RM/TR is most likely going to require a proper RM discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept behind RM/TR? "To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection" i.e. uncontroversial requests.

In what possible way was this 'uncontroversial' ?

You moved this only two hours after it was listed on RM/TR. That gives no time for any objection, or even notice. Why the hurry?

We work (supposedly) by consensus here. Yet this move was never raised or discussed on the affected page. Why not?

Why did you move an article from a long-term stable title, linked from many other articles and navboxes, and yet you didn't even leave a redirect ?

How on earth are you an admin? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to be supported by sources. Dicklyon will move it anyway, because they prioritise minor aspects of WP:MOS over our key principles of WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:RMTR for it to be moved back. Will do an RM discussion after it is. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We're so grateful to you for your intervention here.

(I'd already done this.) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't look down at the end; I usually add at the top. Self-reverted that now. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops indeed.

Do you find that ignoring the RM/TR specific advice to list at the bottom and put them in first place instead is regularly effective at getting them actioned within two hours, before anyone notices they're there? You have enormous experience of RM/TR practice and you castigate those editors who are not. Please don't take us for fools. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I missed that bit. I'll be more careful in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime: please move it back. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as controversial. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 07:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

---

M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle → M1918 Browning automatic rifle – Not usually capped in sources. Normalize per MOS:CAPS and WP:MILCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Some source data
  • book n-grams show dominant lowercase for most of a century, with a recent trend to more capitalization, nowhere close to the "consistently capitalized" threshold of the MOS:CAPS guideline.
  • US Army books such as this 1938 Army manual and this 1947 Army manual and this 1950 Army index of specifications and this 1952 Army book and this 2010 DoD book use lowercase. The Army does capitalize in some contexts, but doesn't show any indication of treating it as proper name, except for the "Browning" part. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Some 21st-century books that use lowercase, to illustrate that it's still not consistently capped in RSs: The Guns of John Moses Browning, The Rifle: Combat Stories from America's Last WWII Veterans, Told Through and M1 Garand, Encyclopedia of World War II, Volume 1, Victory at Mortain: Stopping Hitler's Panzer Counteroffensive, America's Deadliest Battle: Meuse-Argonne, 1918, The Cold War U.S. Army: Building Deterrence for Limited War, FM 23-15 Browning Automatic Rifle, Caliber .30, M1918A2, The Boys of Pointe du Hoc: Ronald Reagan, D-Day, and the U.S. Army 2nd Ranger Battalion, A Thousand Falling Crows, The Big Red One: America's Legendary 1st Infantry Division from World War I to Desert Storm. There are plenty more. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Some RM precedents on MIL equipment are collected at User:Dicklyon/MIL precedents. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As per my comment in the above section, it is usually capped in sources. Further, the use of the Google N-grams shows a preference for caps since around 1997, and it makes little sense to me to base the use of caps in an article title, not on how things are, but how they once were. Loafiewa (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't let sources "vote" – the guideline is about "consistently capitalized" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So in order to determine if it's capped in sources, we pay no heed to the sources themselves, but rather look at a Google N-Grams chart, which says that from 1997-2022 (latest available date) it is capped, and then take this data to conclude that it isn't capped? A 30 year stretch isn't a fluke or anomaly. Loafiewa (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We're not ignoring; we're assessing the criterion "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". The n-gram stats are one view of sources, but other views are welcome. These stats certainly suggest that it is not consistently capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you see the word "consistently"? I noticed you have not used that word. That's not "slight majority or more" or even "usually". Did you notice the specific linked sources? (Moreover, Ngrams include title-case chapter headings as well as body text.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked the definition of consistently, and I was previously under the impression it did mean usually as distinct from invariably, but I now see that is not the case, and as such rescind my original comment. Loafiewa (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:MILCAPS and many previous very-similar recent RMs. There's a list at Talk:M6 bomb service truck#Requested move 4 August 2024. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Good reminder. I just now collected a more complete list at User:Dicklyon/MIL precedents, and will link it with the data above. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support—ample evidence provided. Tony (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:MILCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and evidence of not being consistently capped. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lugs, per Jane's. Real sources, not Google hits. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per all the guidelines Cinderella157 already linked, and the aggregate source usage data Dicklyon provides. That Andy Dingley can cherry-pick some sources that do capitalize this way was never in doubt by anyone and doesn't change the analysis in anyway, which is basically statistical (as it always is in these). And, yes, move also per WP:CONSISTENT, with the large list of essentially identical moves already performed and referenced above. The couple of frequent over-capitalizers in this subject area need to just give it a rest already, especially given WP:MILHIST's own WP:MILCAPS. This isn't even one of those tedious "my wikiproject wants to do something weird in our topic area and force all other editors to go along with it because we are magically special" stuff (i.e. the common wikiproject-fomented WP:OWN and WP:CONLEVEL policy failure, most often from the sports sector); it's just a handful of outliers who agree neither with WP has a whole nor with the overall military history project responsible for the vast majority of content at articles of this sort, and just love capitalizing stuff for no reason. WP does not, and they're going to have to learn to live with that. (Really, they already should have by now. This "fight to the death against every lower-casing" habit is bordering on disruptive. It wastes an amazing amount of editorial time, as well as being generally demoralizing and erosive of inter-editor goodwill.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:57, 3 September 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.