Talk:M1126 infantry carrier vehicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move[edit]

There is a proposal here to move this article to lowercase.--Pattont/c 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1126 Infantry Carrier 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1126 Infantry Carrier 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2022[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: not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Strykers with the double V-hull upgrade have a new M-number. Otherwise use some construction like "Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle." Schierbecker (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is what redirects are for. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sounds like a variant? Add a variants section for the double hull type & use a redirect. Referencer12 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
T-54/T-55 is a similar situation. The vehicle is replacing the earlier model one for one, but there are not enough changes to justify two articles. Schierbecker (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the awkward proposal is unlikely for any reader to type. The new variants are upgrades. If significant portions of the inventory are upgraded and the upgraded variant becomes the WP:COMMONNAME, then rename to that (at that time). – Reidgreg (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure why these articles even exist, some are quite poorly sourced or sourced only to the US Army (primary source) and offer little encyclopedic information beyond the parent Stryker article. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 18 March 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. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:MILMOS and WP:LOWERCASE. "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:M6 heavy tank#Requested move 21 February 2024, Talk:A7 medium tank#Requested move 22 February 2024, Talk:M1918 Ford 3-ton tank#Requested move 22 February 2024, and Talk:M1 armored car#Requested move 25 February 2024. Please note the insertion of "and" and removal of a comma in the title for the M1135 (the last one). This has a significant effect on the meaning of the vehicle description. I think the current title is basically an incorrect description. See this and this. I do see one source using the current title and another one without the "and". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and consensus in previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and to be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles and previous RMs. Even MILMOS (almost entirely authored by WP:MILHIST regulars) isn't in favor of this kind of over-capitalization. WP:SSF is at play here; we already know that various military writers like to over-capitalize this sort of stuff (basically any military-specific term of any kind) in specialist publications, but WP doesn't write like that, in this topic area or any other. In looking through sources on, e.g., Google Scholar, what I notice are: A) The fully capitalized versions are mostly found in official governmentese publications from the military itself or from the parent goverment, or in contractor and related materials that are not independent. B) The short-form names like "M1131", etc., often stand alone and are always capitalized, and so are proper names for WP purposes. C) The descriptive phrases like "[m|M]edical [e|E]vacuation [v|V]ehicle" also often stand alone and are used mostly as generic vehicle class descriptors/labels, and often not capitalized when used this way. D) However, some publications (especially the governmental ones): D1) have a habit of capitalizing every single term of this sort in every circumstance, a form of capitalization-for-signification which WP does not do; and D2) also have a habit of capitalizing them when introducing an acronym to be reused throughout the material (e.g. "a Mobile Gun System (MGS)" or "an MGS (Mobile Gun System)", and this is another bad habit that MoS countermands, at MOS:ABBREXP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that "Even MILMOS [...] isn't in favor of this kind of over-capitalization", yet MOS:MIL#Capitalization does in fact say that proper names should be capitalised, and these are proper names. Also, I swear WP:Consistent is one of the most over-applied policies! (Probably actually not, but you get the point.) RadiculousJ (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not proper names. They are vehicle type descriptions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a misreading of MOS:SIGCAPS which applies to capitalisation when writing article text, as opposed to here were we are dicussing capitalization used by entities off-wiki in naming something. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all – The military often caps their types, but not always, and other sources often don't (e.g. this big guns book). Per previous RMs on similar designations, lowercase is more compatible with WP style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These are descriptions of the vehicle or its role just like light truck. There is nothing that would make these inherently proper nouns. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1126_infantry_carrier_vehicle&oldid=1217162506"