Talk:M1117 armored security vehicle

Popular culture

Does anyone think there should be an "M1117 in popular culture" section? An example would be the second-to-last scene in the movie Analyse This where the first vehicles to show up on the scene as the FBI moves in are a pair of M1117s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vor'Cha (talk • contribs) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there alot fo popular culture references? 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also see versions of M1117's in "The the Castle" and several in "Hurt Locker" Paragoalie (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Image

Can we get an actual photograph of this thing for the article? I just removed a pencil drawing. 206.17.98.11 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tmaull (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• The ASV is the only vehicle that can roll off a cargo plane, combat ready, in under 20 minutes.

Deleted this. Some combat vehicles can roll off cargo planes completely combat ready ... some even without the plane landing. Take a look at videos of the BMD series of APC's if you are unaware of this. I suspect this is an unsubstantied manufacturer claim that is used as a selling point for private security companies and maybe, in the context of arms purchaseable by private companies this is the only vehicle capable of that but militaries around the world (from the USA to Russia to Indonesia) rely on the ability to combat drop APC's.

Well, technically BMD crews are parachuted seperate of the vehicle they're dropping in with, actually. But anywho, this article does seem to have a lot of unsourced claims, such as 'one vehicle being damaged destorying half the tires and still making it back to base' or something similar, is found in the article. Some citations would be nice. 75.149.203.217 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd when I hear the claim that it is roll-on/off C-130 capable. I was an ASV commander in the invasion; I also helped write the manual for the vehicle. In order to load the ASV in a C130 a very heavy armor plate had to be removed. While it is relatively easy to make operational from a C130 I would not say that it is completely roll off ready. Also, I am new to this edit thing. I have completed missions with all four tires flat and on another mission completed the mission on three wheels (one being completely blown off). I doubt I can site myself but I hope this helps Paragoalie (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated version of BDRM?

It somewhat looks like a copy/updated version of the BDRM. It looks like they got the idea originally from the Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.231 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It does have similar appearance to the BDRM-2. A fact, made many crews nervous in the Iraq invasion. The BDRM-1 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/brdm-1.htm) which the BDRM-2 was derived, does not look anything like the ASV. The ASV is an improved Vietnam era V-100 Commando (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-100.htm). Both the V-100 and BDRM-2 were developed in the mid 60's and they are similar looking, the similarities end there.Paragoalie (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

asv in Popular Culture

This section was proposed before. I suggest we run with it. I can think of two movies that an ASV type family of vehicles appeared. The Last Castle and Hurt Locker. Can anybody else add to thios list before I put something together? Paragoalie (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/m1117/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M1117 Armored Security Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823045038/http://neworleans.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=148515&type_news=past to http://neworleans.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=148515&type_news=past
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defensedaily.com/Assets/DD_AUSA_2012_day2_lr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518113257/http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20110615/DEFSECT02/106150305/Afghanistan-Get-440-Armored-Security-Vehicles to http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20110615/DEFSECT02/106150305/Afghanistan-Get-440-Armored-Security-Vehicles
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025220031/http://maquina-de-combate.com/blog/archives/14822 to http://maquina-de-combate.com/blog/archives/14822

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 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. charlotte ^👸♥ 21:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

---

M1117 Armored Security Vehicle → M1117 armored security vehicle – Not consistently capped in sources. Typical uses of capitalization are for defining the acronym, as in Armored Security Vehicle (ASV). And per WP:MILCAPS, we use lowercase after M numbers except when it's a proper name, which armored security vehicle is not. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: These sources are examples of evidence that caps are not necessary:
  • "The M1117 armored security vehicle"
  • "the M1117 armored security vehicle"
  • "an American M1117 armored security vehicle"
  • "their M1117 armored security vehicle"
  • "The 4x4 Cadillac Gage M1117 Guardian armored security vehicle"
  • "the M1117 armored security vehicle"
  • "The M1117 Guardian armored security vehicle"
  • "armored security vehicle, the M1117 Guardian"

  And also note that it does seem to have a proper name: "M1117 Guardian". Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The US Army Sustainment Command refers to the M1117 as the "M1117 ASV", not the "M1117 Guardian". So does this Pentagon press release. Additionally, the manufacturer of the vehicle, Textron, refers to it as the ASV in its official communiques. The term "armored security vehicle" being left uncapitalized seems to be an individual editorializing choice rather than a reflection on its official title. --Katangais (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: There have been many prior cases like this. Evidence was provided illustrating use of lowercase in various sources. Article title consistency is also deisrable. Uppercase is not necessary here. Recent similar RMs resulting in titles of the form "ModelNumber descriptive phrase" with lowercasing of the descriptive part include Talk:T1 light tank (9 articles), Talk:M6 heavy tank (7 articles), Talk:A7 medium tank (4 articles), Talk:M1918 Ford 3-ton tank (1 article), Talk:M1 armored car (3 articles), Talk:M1126 infantry carrier vehicle (10 articles), Talk:M6 bomb service truck (1 article), Talk:M1918 Browning automatic rifle (1 article), Talk:M728 combat engineer vehicle (1 article), and Talk:M3 scout car (1 article). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Armored Security Vehicle" isn't a descriptor (ie like Eland armoured car), it's part of the official name of the vehicle. --Katangais (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

US Army officialness (if it can be clearly shown with consistency, which is not be the case here) is not recognized as having special status on Wikipedia. See, for example, WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:MILCAPS and MOS:CAPS. The Pentagon press release that you presented uses "M1117 armored security vehicles (ASV)", with lowercase. Being the basis of an abbreviation does not imply that something should be capitalized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This US Army evaluation describes the vehicle as the "M1117 Armored Security Vehicle". So does [nextlink/ this US Army source]. And this one. This press release also describes the M1117 ASV as shorthand for "M1117 Armored Security Vehicle". So does this source which even refers to the vehicle as "Armored Security Vehicle" in the headline. The US Army Accident Investigation Handbook describes scenarios involving the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle. So does the Procurement Office. This Maintenance Guide does the same. The US Armor Magazine for 2013 ran an article describing the recovery of a M1117 Armored Security Vehicle. The original comment proposing the move did so on the basis that eight WP:RS reliable sources used the lowercase title. Here are nine reliable sources which do not use the lowercase title. It's clear that the lowercase title isn't used consistently, so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to be a factor here. --Katangais (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia practice is to prefer lowercase unless capitalization is necessary, and thus to use lowercase unless the contrary practice is consistent. So in the absence of consistency, Wikipedia would use lowercase. Consistency is a higher threshold than a simple majority. Also, Wikipedia prefers independent reliable sources. Multiple documents from the same source or closely affiliated sources don't have the same weight as a similar quantity of different independent sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The vehicle's own manufacturer calls it the "M1117 Armored Security Vehicle" in its official product brochure. Again, "Armored Security Vehicle" is the title of the vehicle as specified by Textron and most US military sources like Universal Carrier, not a general description like "light tank" or "armored car" where lowercase would be appropriate. Humvee is a good example of an unofficial/colloquial name being used instead of the official HMMWV, but that case is pretty easily settled thanks to WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, it's not clear that the lowercase is the common name, so I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated. --Katangais (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - to conform with the MILMOS. Primergrey (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:MILCAPS. We would cap M4 Sherman tank or Guardian but not armoured security vehicle, which is a descriptive name indicating its role/function. Sources provided by the nom indicate caps are not necessary per MOS:CAPS. It is a style to cap when introducing an acronym but (per MOS:EXPABBR) this is not our style. Where sources cap when introducing the acronym (directly or in close proximity) they do not evidence caps are necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As I explained above, "Armored Security Vehicle" is not a generic descriptor indicating role/function, the manufacturer even describes it as the title of the vehicle in its product catalog. --Katangais (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to stop trying to justify capitalization by citing "official" sources like the manufacturer and the military service that ordered the vehicles. Wikipedia prefers sources that are independent. "Official" names should be considered, but they are not considered decisive on Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See my comments above concerning Humvee and WP:COMMONNAME. Even completely discounting "official" sources, there are just as many independent sources describing this with the capitalized spelling: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for instance. There is no indication that the lowercase spelling is in fact the common name. To the contrary, the capitalized spelling seems to be the common name across the board, particularly when "official" sources are added to the independent ones already out there.

Per WP:MILCAPS: "The general rule from MOS:CAPS is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in reliable sources, it should be capitalized in Wikipedia." We would default to lower case in some of the more usual circumstances, but this isn't usual circumstances. From my understanding of this, the default to lower case is a general guideline, not a blanket policy that can be applied when the common name is in capitalized form. --Katangais (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Of the seven sources given (of which two could not be previewed) all but one used the capitalised term when introducing the acronym (directly or in close proximity) so they do not evidence caps are necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 7 November 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.