Talk:Experimental Mechanized Force

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Mechanized or Mechanised[edit]

I note that there has been an on and off "edit war" for the past few years over weather there should be an "z" or an "s" in the title, with the latest revision arguing that Oxford English uses "ize" over "ise".

While a google book search will find roughly 3,500 titles using "z" over "s", close to 2,000 articles use "s" over "z", which I note include several very credible sources such as David French's Raising Churchill's Army - a extremely well researched work on the development of the British Army between the wars and during the Second World War.
Does anyone have access to PRO WO 279/60, from the National Archives? This document is used by French as his source when he talks about the MEF. Searches on the National Archives website does not reveal anything on the unit, with either spelling.
Bovington Tank Museum includes three articles that include mention of the unit, all spelt using an "s", and zero articles for mention of the unit spelt with a "z".
JSTOR shows 15 hits for the title with a "z", although most cannot be accessed. It seems noteworthy to note most are American publications, although the most notable article would be one by David French that also uses a "z". The term, with an "s", only reveals two sources.
While nothing more than circumstantial evidence, https://www.gov.uk/ does ask you "Did you mean "Experimental Mechanised Force"" when attempting to search with a "z". Although, neither searches bring up anything relevant to the discussion.

It seems clear that the argument about Oxford English is irrelevant. Do we actually know what the official name of the unit was? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher spells it with a "Z" which is good enough for me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher also spells it with an "s", see all his articles on the Bovington website. Not to mention French's main work on the British Army. So if Fletcher is good enough for you, I suppose we should change the title to one with an "s" ;) (please note the joking tone there)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Fletcher also has a book titled Mechanised Force: British Tanks Between the Wars, in which the MEF is spelt with an "s".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get's worse doesn't it. I would say that a degree of sloppiness and reliance on spell-checkers might infiltrate websites, but that's by the by. I suppose the question ought to be - is this article at the wrong title? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, no. In terms of accuracy, I don't know. There seems to be a 2:1 ratio (roughly) of "z" over "s". However, it does seem to be an issue that crops up quite a bit looking at the history of the article. Just to avoid the repeat of people changing the wording in the article or to reassure any readers who ponder the question, I think it would be nice to be able to nail down the spelling.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well, I'm happy with "Z" for the name, if you are happy (enough) with "Z" too, then we can claim consensus for the moment :) And for the rest of the article we'll use modern British English practice with regards to spelling?GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until something concrete can be brought up, I think your suggestion is fair and can be something to refer editors to if and when this crops up again on the article page.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Had a dash through Harris' disappointingly boring source for citations, changed them to sfn's and removed the banner accordingly. Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme, what rules? Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As such it was the first armoured formation in the world" surely not?Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I have a collapsing OOB? Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts, second item down on right hand list (the don'ts). The section in the Manual of Style it links to says " ....boxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions... Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." Sorry, didn't spot the question earlier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger! I'm rather fond of them. Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent expansion[edit]

What is necessary to complete the article? Some citations are missing and there isn't a conclusion but what about the rest of the article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got a copy of The Tanks (vol I) by Liddell Hart so might answer my own question. Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raff[edit]

Been putting Banquo's ghost into the article, still got a bit to go. Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still plodding away, despite a dodgy knee. Found that my diggings from Harris were incomplete so Baughen is next. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the latest additions have too much or not enough detail on the period after the EMF and EF? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should keep some stuff back for writing the article Mechanization of the British Army during the interwar period ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could or park it here given that my new article rate has slowed to 1 a year. The Winton volume arrived today and its got quite a bit more detail on the exercises so when I use it any imbalance could be corrected. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks_in_the_British_Army#Between_the_wars could benefit from a sentence or two from this article to beef out coverage of the EMF and sucessors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New sources[edit]

Added some new sources to Further reading to be gleaned from later; still working on Baughen. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: I think the stuff about Liddell Hart in the analysis must have come from one of the other sources, because when I checked he wasn't anywhere near as hyperbolic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]