Talk:M1918 Ford 3-ton tank
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | On 22 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to M1918 Ford three-ton tank. The result of the discussion was moved to M1918 Ford 3-ton tank. |
The term tankette is an anachronism for this vehicle
editThe term tankette wasn't used before the 1920s when the Morris-Martel vehicle was trialled by the British Army. [1]Charlie Landships (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- But when looking back on it, it has similarities with a tankette. The question is - "what do sources call it" ?GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hunnicutt in his book on the US Light Tank notes that the Ford 3-ton tank was referred to as "Ford three-ton tank" or, officially, as the "Three-ton Special Tractor M1918" - no mention of "tankette". I'd be inclined to go with Hunnicutt on this one - he had access to the US Army Ordnance Dept Archives. [2] Charlie Landships (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Fletcher, David (1991). Mechanised Force. London: HMSO. p. 36. ISBN 0112904874.
- ^ Hunnicutt, R.P. (2015). Stuart - A History of the American Light Tank Vol.1 (Reprint ed.). Echo Point Books & Media. p. 9. ISBN 978-1626548626.
Requested move 22 February 2024
edit- 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 to M1918 Ford 3-ton tank. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Ford 3-Ton M1918 → M1918 Ford three-ton tank – Per MOS:SPELL09, MOS:HYPHENCAPS, WP:MILMOS and WP:LOWERCASE. WP:MILMOS#TANKS – "all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end"
. WP:MILMOS#Capitalization – "When using 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.
". Also for consistency. Please note the related RMs at Talk:T1 Light Tank#Requested move 19 February 2024, Talk:Heavy Tank M6#Requested move 21 February 2024 and Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024, and the prior comments by Charlie Landships. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom except neutral on 3-ton vs three-ton. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom except that a review of google books here suggests that 3-ton may be more recognisable than three-ton even though MOS:SPELL09 would indicate the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- George Forty refers to it as the "Ford 3-ton" as a common name but doesn't mention M1918. so I'd go with a Reliable Source for that.
- WP:SPELL09 refers to article text, not article naming so I suggest you strike that.
- You also shouldn't get hung up on consistency if an actual policy (WP:Commonname) goes against it.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. AFAIK, Commonname does not extend to style but if I'm mistaken, then 3-ton seems ok. Primergrey (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)