Talk:M39 cannon

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

M39 cannon → Pontiac M39 cannon – *

• this article, as it is about the Pontiac M39 cannon, is better suited with in Pontiac M39 cannon instead of the current name. This is due to the standard way of referring to weapons as maker-model, such as Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, and to keep this article in line with the standard way of referring to other weapon systems, such as McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle instead of F-15 Eagle. As the article itself refers to this gun as Pontiac M39 cannon then this move actually represents a minor edit intended to keep this article coherent with itself. -- Mecanismo | Talk 18:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Problem is, this cannon was manufactured at Springfield Armory (like all other US Army run facilities such as Anniston Army Depot & Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant), and the contractors doing this job is not limited to Pontiac, there's also Ford Aerospace and General Electric. BTW, you're speaking to a retired crew chief here, never in my entire career did anyone call it Pontiac, Ford Aerospace or General Electric M39 cannon, it was just M39 CANNON, plain and simple. If you disagree with me, kindly wait a bit for the other regular editors to show up here and tell you off. I'm done talking to you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, please don't edit my post. It's rude and disrespectful. Regarding the article move, the article explicitly refers to the weapon's name as Pontiac M39 cannon. As in wikipedia the name of the article tends to reflect the subject's name then as apparently there is no objection to it's name then I don't see why there should be any objection to any edit which reflects that. If you disagree with any reference to the Pontiac M39 cannon name then before objecting to it you should be able to demonstrate that that is not in fact the weapon's name. And by the way, if you don't like discussing changes and you prefer to strong-arm your way out of a disagreement then I suggest you reconsider your participation in a site which is based on discussing changes. -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding the "I never heard it being called Pontiac M39 cannon" argument, no one calls the F15 the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, nor does anyone call the F16 the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Yet, that doesn't stop them from being the plane's true names and that doesn't stop wikipedia from providing articles on those planes under those names. Or should it? -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speak for yourself, mate. You did this whole page move thing without getting any prior consensus and you were reverted twice by us, yet you still have the audacity to talk about me reconsidering my participation? Well, please tell everyone here that you did not came by my user page to accuse me of accusing you of vandalism. FWIW, I gave you a chance by not taking it to ANI, seeing that you have already started a discussion here. in the first place, all this hoohaa wouldn't have happened, had it not been your brashness and severe lack of civility when communicating with others. As noted on your talk page, this is not you first time you've been warned so you'd better watch your words here. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see how your rudeness is warranted. If you are taking something so irrelevant as a page move as something so profoundly personal that inherits this level of animosity then I must suggest that you take a breather before posting. Regarding the page move, Wikipedia:Be bold. If you take the time to check the logs while you revert edits then you would have noticed that on the 2nd move that you reverted I also added to the talk page a discussion on this move attempt, with hopes to reach a consensus. The reason why I moved the article to Pontiac M39 cannon was because the reasons put forth to revert it the 1st time were debatable, which is registered in talk:Pontiac M39 cannon. Regarding your accusation of vandalism, if you take the time to read what you wrote on my talk page you will realize that you described my action as "move a page maliciously". So, again, try to keep your temper and try not to be rude to other fellow wikipedians -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Move M197 Gatling gun, M61 Vulcan, M167 VADS, M197 Gatling gun, M134 Minigun, GAU-8 Avenger, GAU-12 Equalizer. Need I say more, comparing apples and oranges isn't helpful IMHO. If I may also comment the combative nature of your post isn't helpful. If you really think somone has to paraphrase "strong-armed their way out of a disagreement" WP:ANI is the place to complain but may I suggest you read WP:PETARD first. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mec, you need to read WP:COMMONNAME. The "official name" is trumped by the "common name"; that's our policy here. Thus, "Bill Clinton" not "William Jefferson Clinton", etc. Your argument is stronger as an argument that the F-15 and F-16 articles are under the wrong names. Dave, on the other hand, should calm down a little (as he admits on my talk page). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• You have a point, and I don't disagree with that. Yet, this very article refers to the weapon as "The Pontiac M39". So, either the article itself is wrong in referring to the weapon as Pontiac M39 cannon instead of simply M39 cannon, or, as in the case of Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, Colt Mk 12 cannon and others, it is reasonable and desirable to rename this article to reflect the gun's name. -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not sure which form of the name is actually more common. But similar cannon articles only use the military designation and name without manufacturer/other name in front. I was going to list the M61, M197, M230, and others as examples, but Wee Curry Monster already did so. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I do see Mec's point, but in this instance, I have to disagree. His "named" examples are better known by the brand name, as is the Bofors, & for a reason. I'd tend to name the page Pontiac M39, myself, but I expect to be in the minority, as usual. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  

• Comment - Someone asked me to look into this subject. The "M39" cannon was originally called the "Pontiac M39". But over time it was just called the "M39". While I have found not absolute proof that Philco-Ford or Ford Aerospace produced the M39, Ford Aerospace developed an improved version of the M39 with a much higher firing rate for the defunct F-20 called "Tigerclaws". And while I would have to go through hundreds of folders to find the info sent me by Ford Aerospace, it did show one of its products as the "M39". And it seem that DoD assigned single barrel (or twin single barrel cannons (ie you should see the 30m cannon they designed for the program won by the A-10) to Ford-Aerospace and the rotary cannons like the M61 to GE. Btw, the information on the "Tigerclaws" is in the book "Rapid Fire" page 78 by Anthony G. William printed by Airlife Publishing Ltd in 2000 ISBN 1-84037-122-6. And an article in "Flying Review International" August 1964 titled "Northrop F-5 - A Different Kind of Fighter" states that M39 (in 1964) has a design life of 10,000 rounds, but that the barrel had a life of only 1,500 rounds, and then have to be replaced. Hope this information if of some help. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

manufacturers

Noticed this re: the M39 on a USAF web page: "Various manufacturers produced over 35,500 copies of the cannon for use on versions of the F-100, F-101, and other American fighter aircraft." Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M39 cannon. 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/20110604020252/http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5700 to http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5700

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) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)