Wikipedia

Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage

Latest comment: 1 month ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 27 August 2024
Learn more about this page

Undiscussed page move

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This page move from the correct and sourced M40 Gun Motor Carriage to an invented and incorrect M40 gun motor carriage was not discussed first, is harmful to our accuracy, and should be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources that capitalize it are mostly from recent years after Wikipedia started capping it. Most older sources use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support reverting -- move was undiscussed, and does not align with MOS:MILTERMS. It's irrelevant when the term began being capitalized; the majority of sources use the uppercase format which is generally aligned with the longstanding (since at least 1981) naming scheme for U.S. military ordnance nomenclature as defined in MIL-STD-1464A.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The official maintenance manual says "The 155-mm gun motor; carriage M40 and 8-inch howitzer motor carriage 43 are identical vehicles except for ..." and such in sentences and captions. This Aberdeen book has "the gun motor carriage, M40, which ...". This index of technical manuals uses lowercase even in the doc title listing. This book always uses lowercase in sentences. This doc lists it as "M40, 155 mm. gun, motor carriage". This book has "the U.S. Army also fielded the 155mm gun motor carriage M40 as well as the 8-inch howitzer motor carriage M43." This book has a list section "Heavy field artillery motor carriages – total" with "M40 (T85), for 155mm gun" under it. This one has "M40 motor carriage 155-mm gun". And so on. Clearly descriptive of the M40's type, like the rest of the gun motor carriages, not a name.
These are clear enough proof that caps are "unnecessary", and our style is to avoid unnecessary capitalization. Just like with all the unanimous RM consensuses on the light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, armored cars, etc.
Of course, you are entitled to revert as it was not explicitly discussed; and then we can open an RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
And it is not irrelevant that the capping took off in the last 10 years, after Wikipedia treated it as a proper name even though sources didn't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage"

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments1 person in discussion

While waiting for some responses on the discussion above, and/or a replacement of the RM section below by a properly formed RM, I'll collect some notes in this section.

  • As early as 1902, the concept appears in Britain, in Proceedings – Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain).
    p. 802: "... the gun would go into action on its self-propelled gun-carriage, muzzle leading, or, as an American would say, 'business end first'"
    p. 823: "... a gun-motor would have to be a first-rate hill-climber. If to the gun-motor carriage some such arrangement was attached ..."
    I'm not sure how to interpret the hyphenation in "gun-motor" here. Probably it's meant to be a connection between "gun" and "motor carriage", which good typographers would do with an en dash if they understood that was the intent: "gun–motor carriage"; thankfully, that confusion went away. Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • By the 1920s, the concept has been developed a bit by the US and France:
    Catalogue of the Public Documents of the [the Fifty-third Congress [to the 76th Congress] and of All Departments of the Government of the United States, Volume 16] (Government Printing Office, 1920) lists "Service handbook of the 155-mm. gun motor carriage, model of 1920, Apr. 1921. ... ( War Dept. doc . 1074. )"
    Note that the hyphenation between a number and a unit abbreviation, and period after the abbreviation ("155-mm.") was once common, but is now not consistent with international standards (and WP style) about SI units and such. Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Handbook of Artillery: Including Mobile, Antiaircraft, Motor Carriage, and Trench Matériel (Government Printing Office, 1921) chapter "GUN AND HOWITZER MOTOR CARRIAGES" on the opening page, listed as "Gun and howitzer motor carriages" in the TOC.
    p. 387 mentions "105-millimeter howitzer motor carriage, model of 1920"
    and explains "The idea of mounting guns and howitzers on carriages equipped with motors for propelling the carriages originated during the war in the United States and France, and, curiously enough, was conceived independently ..."
    and "It is interesting to note that in France during the war a motor carriage mounting a 220-mm howitzer while carrying out a series of maneuvering tests was actually engaged in warfare."
    Transactions of the American Society for Steel Treating, Volume X (July–Dec 1926) says "... the 75-millimeter gun motor carriage designed to mount either a 75-millimeter gun or a 105-millimeter Howitzer."
    The hyphen between number and spelled-out unit, as a modifier compound ("75-millimeter gun") is still good style. But the capitalized Howitzer here was unusual at the time, and before and since. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • By 1935, adding in "mortar motor carriage" in the US:
    Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, Volume 14 (United States. General Accounting Office 1935) p.996: "... one mortar motor carriage for experimental purposes ..."
  • By 1939 and 1940, the M10 and M40 were mentioned:
    Nelson's Perpetual Loose-leaf Encyclopædia: An International Work of Reference, Complete in Twelve Volumes ... Volume 5 (T. Nelson and Sons Publishing Company, Incorporated; volume V stamped Nov. 14 1939) has on p. 17 "155-mm. M40 gun motor carriage;"
    War Department Technical Manual TM 9-753 3-INCH GUN MOTOR CARRIAGE M10 (1940) has on p. 374: "... the 3-inch gun M7 and mount M5, mounted on gun motor carriage M10."
  • Throughout WWII and the post-war years, lowercase was more common than uppercase for the various motor carriages per book usage stats. A recent blip up in capitalization after all the Wikipedia article titles were capitalized is also apparent there.
  • 1947 official manual for the M40 and M43:
    155-mm Gun Motor Carriage M40 and 8-inch Howitzer Motor Carriage M43, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947, p. 9 has "The 155-mm gun motor carriage M40 and 8-inch howitzer motor carriage M43 are identical vehicles except for gun tubes, ..." and many other lowercase uses in the text and figure captions; also quite a few capitalized uses of both.
  • 1951, HMCs M7 and M8 and GMCs M18 and M10 in pictures and words:
    United States Army in World War II.: Pictorial record, Volume 3, Department of the Army, 1951, p. 370 has "in the foreground is a 105-mm. howitzer motor carriage M7, while down the slope of the hill is a 76-mm. gun motor carriage M18 ( bottom )". p. 245 has "75-mm. howitzer motor carriage M8". other pages mention howitzer motor carriage M7 more times, including two with all-caps 105-MM. HOWITZER MOTOR CARRIAGE M8. and p. 235 has GUN MOTOR CARRIAG M10. No "Gun Motor Carriage" nor "Howitzer Motor Carriage" styling.
  • 1952, T-numbered HMC and GMC
    Armed Forces Talk, War Department, 1952 has: "... the T98, a self-propelled 105mm howitzer motor carriage, and the T99, a self-propelled 155mm gun motor carriage."
  • 1969
    The 1969 book title British and American Tanks of World War II: The complete illustrated history of British, American and Commonwealth tanks, gun motor carriages and special purpose vehicles, 1939–1945 (printed lowercase thus, but with all-caps main title, in the book) suggests that these are types, not names. Internally, the books is not consistent, but mostly lowercase.
  • Modern
    Our article Gun carriage#Modern gun carriages talks about how motor traction was added to gun carriages around WWI, and illustrates using the M40 gun motor carriage.
    More histories:
    The "pictorial records" assembled by the Army. Here's another volume with "gun motor carriage M15A1", "gun motor carriage M10", "gun motor carriage M12", "gun motor carriage M18", "gun motor carriage M36", "howitzer motor carriage M7", and more in ALL-CAPS, but none in Title Case.
    here's a history with several other, T49 gun motor carriage and T67 gun motor carriage.

Responses are welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 2 August 2024

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago20 comments5 people in discussion
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: Procedural close. If the proposer wants to move these articles back to "Gun Motor Carriage", then open an RM for that. Doing a "move discussion" pointing at the current targets is nonsensical and malformed and out of process. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

M40 gun motor carriage → M40_gun_motor_carriage – Move from M40 Gun Motor Carriage to M40 gun motor carriage. A batch of them, all of the basic form 'Gun Motor Carriage'. Apologies if I've missed any of them.

This is a large batch that have already been moved, without discussion. However this move has been opposed by multiple editors and is likely to be reverted. To avoid edit-warring, there should be a real move discussion for them. An attempt to discuss this at the related move discussion Talk:All-purpose_Lightweight_Individual_Carrying_Equipment#Requested_move_24_July_2024 was closed down and taken to ANI for 'disruption'.

The term 'Gun Motor Carriage' is the invention of the US Army around World War II. It did not exist beforehand, it has no independent existence. It is capitalised, as is the wont of armies everywhere. There is no such thing as a "gun motor carriage". That's an adjectival, descriptive phrase that no-one uses. But "Gun Motor Carriage" is the US Army's chosen term for self-propelled artillery (at varying times). It should be capitalised. It should always be capitalised. It has no meaning, no robust sourcing otherwise when not capitalised. No other (AFAIK) armies have used this term, other than by inheritance, and it has no meaning in the non proper name form anywhere else. GMC is easily sourced: it's used throughout Chamberlain & Ellis, Chamberlain, Peter; Ellis, Chris (1981). British And American Tanks Of World War II. ISBN 0-668-04304-0. which is WP's generally agreed standard listing textbook of US AFVs of WWII. It's used by Ogorkiewicz and you might note that he carefully capitalises APC in the US sense but not for other nations, likewise Infantry Tank when applied only to the early WWII British doctrine. It's used in Jane's recognition handbooks.

But because Google can also trawl up some occurrences of it uncapitalised, these have been discarded. The uncapitalised form is used literally as syntax in many places, and Google easily finds them. But as semantics this still only ever refer to the Gun Motor Carriage as designated by the US Army. There are no gun motor carriages that are not Gun Motor Carriages, and are more appropriately labelled in this form. That is a difference to the term Armoured Personnel Carrier and others, where there is a valid lowercase form as a generic term (even though the capitalised form also exists). The evidence [sic] supporting this page move is here, [1], a list of books that use 'Gun Motor Carriage' (no, I don't understand how that works) and a Google ngram.

What this comes down to is WP:MOS vs. WP:RS. Our style guide prefers lower case. The sources support capitalisation. If Wikipedia were to develop an armoured division, it might equip itself with gun motor carriages. But it was the US Army that did so instead, and they went with Gun Motor Carriage. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose and revert move Gun Motor Carriage is correct and appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If you look at the section #Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage" immediately above, you'll see why pretty much everything you've said in your nominating paragraphs is false. The term came from Britain and France, before and after WWI, not from the US Army around WWII. The Army used it in lowercase, typically, in sentence contexts. The generic term has a clear meaning, as seen in early sources, even if the term seems a bit awkward or stilted. The generic "gun motor carriage" is frequently paired with letter/number designators such as M40 and M10, from as early as 1939 and 1940. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Malformed request – the articles are already at the proposed new titles. One result of this is that the articles are not notified. Andy, if you want to revert recent undiscussed moves, you can ask at WP:RMTR. After that, restart this RM discussion and it will make more sense. Or I'll restart it, since I'm favor of lowercase, and it's odd for you to propose a move that you oppose. Or propose a move to upper case if you prefer. Not this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Please focus on the move request, not attacking other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No moves have been requested. The articles are already at the target names. Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, I see it listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Possibly incomplete requests, and I notice that you didn't follow the instructions at WP:RM, so none of the articles are being notified, nor the capped redirects. Better start over. Or just ask at WP:RMTR to revert to lowercase and I'll do a proper RM. This isn't going to work out for you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Revert move. These look like proper nouns. There is some evidence they were intended as proper nouns, eg "90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1" does appear to be a proper name. The present capitalization is the status quo and there is no indication it is actually "wrong". Anyway, what is next? "M4 sherman"? "mbt-80"? There seems to be an increasing amount of unnecessary indiscriminate decapitalization against long standing status quo in recent months on this project. I personally wonder if a moratorium is desirable. James500 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The present capitalization is the lowercase, and nobody is proposing to lowercase proper names such as Sherman or acronyms such as MBT. If you think it's productive to make your case in the context of this malformed RM, then some reference to guidelines and policies such WP:MILCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and WP:NCCAPS might be in order. Also see the section above where we started to discuss this. Keep in mind that "appear to be a proper name" is really not part of the criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In all fairness, those do say that proper names should be capitalized. James500 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Right, and in all the discussions we've ever had about case, I can't recall anyone disagreeing with the principle that proper names should be capitalized. So saying that's what you're for doesn't really say anything. Dicklyon (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And while we are on the subject, these names may be the wrong way round ie it possibly should be "[155-mm] Gun Motor Carriage M40" rather than "M40 Gun Motor Carriage", looking at the sources. James500 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As to whether to include the mm size, maybe the hyphen, put the M40 first or last, etc., see the section above where I quoted quite a few options from sources. There's no proper name, and the descriptive names are quite variable in order and in style. Dicklyon (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Your evidence is selective. For example, the manual does capitalize it repeatedly: [2]. Other indexes of technical manuals do capitalize it: [3] [4]. As do some US Army articles [5]. It is not apparent that the evidence proves that "Gun Motor Carriage M40" is not a proper name. It might prove that the US Army was in the habit of not always capitalizing proper names. (A proper name does not cease to be a proper name because it is not capitalized. And the Army were soldiers, not English teachers). What Ngrams actually appears to show is that capital letters were extensively used in the 1940s and, even including use of expressions like "any gun motor carriage" (ie expressions which do not refer to a particular model), were still more frequent from the 1960s to the 1990s. The period from 2000 to 2010 could be a blip caused by the internet. Anyway, if capitalization is now completely dominant (and it seems to be) does it matter who caused that domination? If the US Army almost always decapitalized the name in the 1940s, I might agree that capitalization was potentially factually inaccurate or a neologism, but that does not seem to be the case. Is there anything like MIL-STD-1464A from the 1940s that says that capitalization is "wrong"? James500 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My point is only to show that it's not meeting the MOS:CAPS criterion for a proper name: "consistently capitalized in sources". Even in particular non-independent Army sources it's not consistently capitalized. And stats show lowercase is more common. And nobody is saying that capitalization is "wrong" – it's just not WP's style to capitalize unnecessarily. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    James, if you really think the move to lowercase was not in accord with our guidelines or policies, you can simply ask at WP:RMTR to have them reverted. Then I can make a proper move request to move them to lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose and request procedural close – The pages are all already at the requested new titles, so there's nothing to support, and what looks like a multi-RM was entered as a single-page RM, so no articles got notified of the intent (which is the opposite of what is proposed). Andy or a closer can restart it as a proper multi-RM from the existing titles to the intended capitalized titles, or can revert the recent moves and I'll open an RM to lowercase (add the ones he missed if you like M37 105 mm howitzer motor carriage and M41 howitzer motor carriage). Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Malformed unclear request and procedural close, no moves needed per Dicklyon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:51, 5 August 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.

@Andy Dingley: This is back in your court. If you want the titles capitalized, you can either start a multi-RM to do that (see WP:RMPM), or just ask at WP:RMTR for my moves to be reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:M40 gun motor carriage which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even the RMCD bot is confused by the malformed request to move the page to itself. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 27 August 2024

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago101 comments16 people in discussion
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: no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus on the underlying question of whether these are common names at all, as opposed to proper names as opposers assert. BD2412 T 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

– Per WP:MILCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and MOS:CAPS, use lowercase as these "motor carriages" are generic terms, not usually capitalized in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Some data from nom:
    • #Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage", section on this talk page, lists and links some historical references where the terms are generic and where they are lowercase even when paired with the various M and T designators. I copied it into this RM in the collapsed block below, per Amakuru's request.
    • Book n-grams show dominant lowercase for * motor carriage, with an upward trend in caps only after Wikipedia capitalized them in 2006.
    • User:Dicklyon/MIL precedents lists RM discussions of the last few years as precedents for lowercase on this sort of title, mostly per WP:MILCAPS.
Copy of evidence collected during the previous malformed RM attempt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage" (previous section heading, indicating my purpose of refuting Andy's claim that the US Army made up the term and that it has no meaning other than as a proper name)

Responses are welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

These are not generic terms. Some similar terms such as 'self-propelled gun' are more difficult, as those are both title and generic terms. But GMC (and the obvious variants) has not become genericised in the same way. It's only used in sources from the US Army, who capitalise.
WP:RS (real ones, not just counting Google hits from random prose) use GMC. Chamberlain & Ellis is accepted on WP as our standard go-to for WWII American armour. They capitalise. Ogorkiewicz is probably the most authoritative writer on AFVs and he capitalises. He also carefully capitalises SPG and APC when they are being used as titles rather than in the generic sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nobody here wants to override anything from reliable sources. The guideline question is whether these terms are "consistently capitalized" in reliable sources. I've shown you before, at the section #Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage" above, that sources do not mostly capitalize. No standard go-to source on WWII American armour overrides that, and our guideline WP:MILCAPS is very clear on why these should be lowercased. And per WP:NCCAPS, we do not use title case for article titles; we use sentence case. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why do you keep presenting yourself as the great Defender of the Wiki and the only person observing policy (you're not), and then going on to misquote that same policy? That is not what WP:NCCAPS says. NCCAPS says not to do this unless the title is a proper name. That is the question here. The only question. Not whether MOS doesn't favour capitalisation, but if the title is to be treated as a proper name because there are robust RS that do so. Which there are. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Everyone can have opinions about what's a proper name, but the guidelines say how we determine that question, using sources. MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." and WP:NCCAPS says "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence." I'm far from the only one who interprets our guidelines as saying that we should not treat these phrases as proper names, just as many reliable sources don't treat them as proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
We work from WP:SECONDARY sources; Chamberlain & Ellis, Ogorkiewicz, or secondary RS of comparable standing. Not by your method of counting Google hits to WP:PRIMARY sources. It's rare to see an example where the problems with that, and the reason we have WP:SECONDARY as policy, are made quite so clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Among the books I cited are the secondary "pictorial records" assembled by the Army. Here's another volume with "gun motor carriage M15A1", "gun motor carriage M10", "gun motor carriage M12", "gun motor carriage M18", "gun motor carriage M36", "howitzer motor carriage M7", and more in ALL-CAPS, but none in Title Case. And here's a history with several other, T49 gun motor carriage and T67 gun motor carriage. I know you've argued at time we should follow the official Army docs (e.g. in this section where you claimed "It's only used in sources from the US Army, who capitalise", which is false in both parts), which is why I had been pointing those out. Make up your mind. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
We work by sources per case, not by 'precedents' and 'proof by authority' of one editor. Especially not when it's always the same editor banging the same tired drum. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most of those precedents were not proposed by me, nor by BarrelProof, and all had consensus of editors. Please stop trying to make this personal. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Lazy nomination, with no evidence provided whatsoever. You can do better than this, Dicklyon. When I looked yesterday, prior to reverting the earlier undiscussed moves, it appears many sources do indeed treat these as a proper name. And I say this as someone generally sympathetic to the notion that we over-capitalise on Wikipedia. Come back with some actual data supporting the move request, and perhaps we can reconsider.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Shall I copy the linked section of evidence into this new RM then? Nobody is denying that "many sources do indeed treat these as a proper name", but even many more do not. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sure, if there's some evidence for us to peruse then I'll be happy to reconsider!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The section I assembled above was primarily to refute Andy's previous line of argument, which he made in the malformed RM attempt above, where he said, "The term 'Gun Motor Carriage' is the invention of the US Army around World War II. It did not exist beforehand, it has no independent existence. It is capitalised, as is the wont of armies everywhere. There is no such thing as a "gun motor carriage". That's an adjectival, descriptive phrase that no-one uses. But "Gun Motor Carriage" is the US Army's chosen term for self-propelled artillery (at varying times). It should be capitalised. It should always be capitalised. It has no meaning, no robust sourcing otherwise when not capitalised. No other (AFAIK) armies have used this term, other than by inheritance, and it has no meaning in the non proper name form anywhere else." By pointing out a bunch of Army books, and the origin and early use of the term, I showed how wrong he was in every part of that rant. So now's he saying ignore the old Army books and look at secondary sources, so I added a couple of those. Again, the evidence I've collected is above at #Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage". I'll copy it into a collapsed section here, momentarily. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Amakuru: please take another look, at the "hidden archive" stripe above in this RM section. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Amakuru: when you get a chance, let us know what you think of the evidence, and of the alt proposal for M21. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Dicklyon: yes, thanks for the ping - I will circle back to this in the next couple of days... haven't quite found the time yet. Also, I'd like to apologize to you for the overly harsh tone in my comment above, calling this "lazy". There was no call for that in polite discourse and I've struck it from my comment. Cheers, and happy weekend  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Amakuru: I hope you had a happy weekend, too. Still wondering what's your take on the evidence I collected. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, I've had another look and on balance I'm a weak support. I don't think we necessarily have enough data to be 100% certain on these exact terms (most of your sources seem to use variant descriptive terms rather than the exact phrase M40 Gun Motor Carriage, which is most often capitalised when it does appear). But overall, I think there's enough variety in what sources call it that declaring a definitive proper name seems against the spirit of MOS:CAPS. M40 gun motor carriage definitely works as a descriptive phrase, even if the upper case version is sometimes seen in sources as a proper name, so we're fine on that score.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Alt to consider for M21: In the case of the M21 mortar, the far more common term in books is M21 mortar carrier. see n-grams for mortar things and books with M21 mortar things. Let's go with that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Per WP:MILCAPS, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. These are not inherently proper nouns but descriptions of the equipment written in army backward speak. Captalisation is not necessary just because the military has a propensity to wear out both upper and lower case character sets on a typewriter evenly and capitalise to introduce initialisms. This is not our style. There is evidence of mixed usage at arms length from the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "not our style". Clearly so.
So you'd agree that WP:MOS over-rides WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most sources don't capitalize these phrases. Even a lot of Army publications don't, in spite of what Cinderelli call a propensity. So, no, RSs are not being overridden, and are looked to collectively to inform our decisions about what to treat as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would say, that a review of sources does not support caps and we discount caps used to introduce an acronym, which is seen in sources. It is not our style to capitalise when introducing initialisms. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose I think the US Army uses "Gun Motor Carriage" as a proper name and "gun motor carriage" as a description. US Department of the Army TM9-1747 (typical) shows "155-mm Gun Motor Carriage M40" as a proper name on page "ii". On page "3", in context, it looks like gun/howitzer motor carriage is used as a description. A specific vehicle would have a proper name? (I doubt that gmc could be shown as COMMONNAME but that's for the searchers).
Edit add: I don't see where anybody has said that these are historic names which are no longer in use? They M109 is "Self-Propelled" TM-9-2350-311-10 Section 1-1b. Sammy D III (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've already shown in the data/evidence discussed above that that manual uses lowercase (mostly) in sentences. And many other Army publications do, too. The way they cap it in the title on page ii is irrelevant. So your "I think" reason for opposing is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe that you are changing proper names to an obsolete description that means nothing to anybody other than a WWII US Army Armored/Artillery fan, and they would know the proper name.
I believe that the huge amount of discussion over such a minor detail is a waste of the efforts by many editors who could easily be more useful elsewhere. That a single editor thinks that they are so important that they can squander resources like this for their own personal opinion on such a tiny thing borders on bad faith (and "borders" is a weasel-word). A person who I once considered the second smartest person I had met here is now so narrowly focused... Shame they can't step back a touch. Sammy D III (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm going to edit add: I think you have cherry-picked sources to invent a COMMONNAME out of a term that was a specialty term when it was actually used, fifty years ago. I do understand the lower-case reasoning of the name but think you are only adding confusion. If you can't let it go why don't you at least try using the screamingly obvious "self-propelled" that the rest of the planet uses? At least people other than geeks would get a clue about the subject. Sammy D III (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't agree more that "the huge amount of discussion over such a minor detail is a waste of the efforts by many editors" and that you're "beating a dead horse". Blame Andy Dingley for fighting a simple maintenance process per guidelines. And I didn't pick any of these names, just working on their styling. I would have no objection if milhist editors wanted to use names with "self-propelled" and such instead. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now you blame somebody else. "a simple maintenance process" is actually a disputed move. "per guidelines" is your opinion. This whole place is designed to be flexible, the only thing I have ever seen carved in stone is image copyright. All these articles are GMC and everyone else has been happy forever. "I didn't pick any of these names, just working on their styling". You are changing them from a commonly used US Army format to nonsense. GMC is an arguably accurate, commonly used, and cool name, gmc is not clear as a US Army name and is archaic as a term. "to use names with "self-propelled" and such instead". Why should they? You are stepping on their toes, not the other way around. Close? Sammy D III (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not clear what you mean by archaic. The terms are still used in 21st century books (e.g. this one). Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's going on? The first line of text, "The T83 was later designated the 155mm GMC M40 in May 1945", directly contradicts your position. Farther down "In November 1945, the T89 was standardized as the 8-inch HMC M43". Sammy D III (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That line does not negate the fact that immediately above, and on several other pages in the book, they spell out "gun motor carriage". And would they use the acronym GMC if the term it expands to was archaic? Seems unlikely. Here's a 2023 book that spells out "gun motor carriage" a lot, and seems to use a capitalization style like ours. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The first line says "GMC" in caps, as does the "HMC M43. That sort of kills your lower-case argument, and that's the basic point here, correct? I think you may have been too quick there, wrong link? I only glanced at that page, I'll check out anything you want.
I agree that gmc is found in books/sources about the US Army in WWII, but I think it is usually a "phrase"(?). The Army did use the term then, there were tons of gun/howitzers around then. I, and maybe others, think GMC is also used as a proper name. Not just either, but both, in their place. A M40 "GMC" is one of many "gmc"s. You have scrolls from the 20's showing the term being used, why wouldn't they use it as a name too?
On one of my articles you changed "ponton" (archaic Army) to "pontoon", which humans use, but then later you changed it back to "ponton". I imagine that it was used in the US Civil War. Yet you picked it up, you are reading the sources. Even going back.
I originally thought ponton was just a typo. I checked, found I was wrong, and put to back to ponton. Are you criticizing me for that? Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair question, I guess. It's a complement. Read it again. Now that I've answered your question, Do you accept that TM-9-2320-260-10, pages i, Chapter 1 "INTRODUCTION" section "1-1. a" and "Table 1-1. Vehicle Class Information" have accurate proper names? Yes or no question. Sammy D III (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, certainly not. I can accept that those are accurate official designations and are capitalized in the table. But if you look at how they use them in sentences, they use lowercase, signifying that they don't treat them as proper names. Using title case for table entries and list items, especially important and official ones, is a typical style, but WP does not do that, not even in tables, list items, headings, or titles. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you think this is a US vs. Brit English? Let me assure you that it sounds equally stupid from both directions. Andy is hardly US. That is part of the coolness, who else but the Army could think that way? Most fans (I'm not MILHIST, by the way) and all professional users recognize it. Your lower-case destroys that, you are translating military into civilian and it isn't clear either way.
I'm sure I've missed something, but the real world... Oh, and they're talking about me being rude to you here. Sammy D III (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, pretty rude, but let's get back to the point. I have no problem with the acronyms GMC and HMC, and don't see why those keep coming up. They don't imply capitalization of the expanded phrases, which are not archaic, are still in use, and have always been widely lowercase even while some styles capitalize them (not consistently in Army pubs, not consistently in historian writing, but mixed everywhere). So I'm not understanding the basis of your opposition here. Dicklyon (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't really do guns, I do trucks, but they are parallel. I'm going to use the M809 series. A Technical Manual (TM) is about the equipment, a Field Manual (FM) is how to use it. At the G/HMC time they used a simpler number system, and the manuals were aimed at a lower educational level than now, sort of 8th grade to HS. There are codes in the numbers now, too. Today an "-10" is the basic operator's manual. Welcome to my world.

A bunch of warnings and Changes crap up the top. Changes are updates, the books are loose leaf, remove page-insert page. You have to go to PDF page 13 to get to the meat.

On page i, below "OPERATOR’S MANUAL FOR 5-TON, 6X6, M809 SERIES TRUCKS (DIESEL)", the first column on the left says "Model" in bold. Look at the names below. Those are the proper name the US Army uses. Black on white. Nothing ambiguous. Proper name. Anything you do to change that proper name is OR, your interpretation of the literal source.

Chapter 1 "INTRODUCTION" section "1-1. a. This manual contains instructions for operating and servicing M809 series vehicles. These vehicles are:" Look at the names below. Those are the proper name the US Army uses. Black on white. Nothing ambiguous. Proper name. Anything you do to change that proper name is OR, your interpretation of the literal source.

Table 1-1. Vehicle Class Information. On the left side is the column "Vehicle". Look at the names below. Those are the proper name the US Army uses. Black on white. Nothing ambiguous. Proper name. Anything you do to change that proper name is OR, your interpretation of the literal source.

From 1-8. GENERAL DESCRIPTION south they go to descriptions, "M809 series trucks. Everything you say is correct from that point.

This TM is not from any of the targeted vehicles, the same time, even the same format. I do think it shows that the US Army capitalizes pretty much everything in their proper names, by their choice. Published by the GPO. Black on white. I believe that every edit you have made to sourced US Army proper names is entirely ORIGINAL RESEARCH and should be reverted as soon as possible. Sammy D III (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, gosh, that truck manual has a lot going on, just like the motor carriage manuals. On page i that you point to, they have for example "Truck, Tractor, Wrecker (tab) M819", and on page 1-1 "M819 Tractor Wrecker Truck W/W". Change 1 p 1-8 has a table with just "M819" under "Model" and "Tractor Wrecker" under "Vehicle". But when they get into text, English-language sentences, they use "The M819 tractor wrecker truck" (as you note, I'm right about that). And figure captions use "TRACTOR WRECKER TRUCK (M819)". Then looking at our title policy, at WP:NCCAPS, we have leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. So why would we pick one of the variously styles bits out of that Army manual and use it instead of what our policy suggests, the thing it would be commonly called in writing about it? And WP:MILCAPS says When using a numerical model designation, the words following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M6 bomb service truck") unless it is a proper noun (for example, M1 Abrams). Just asserting "it's a proper name" is not useful. MOS:CAPS talks about how we decide: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, ... . Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The manuals you're looking at tell you quite a bit about how the Army likes to style items in lists and tables and titles; if they tell you anything about what they consider to be proper names, they indicate no, these model designations are not proper names, because if they were they'd capitalize them when using them in sentences. Hence my wonderment on what is the basis for your opposition here. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, dick lyon, I'm having problems understanding you.
dick lyon, everything you quote about using the term is meaningless, I have agreed from the beginning that the terms are used generically. "But when they get into text, English-language sentences". dick lyon, those are your own words. You posted them. We are not talking about text, we are, and always have been, talking about proper names. You just keep adding information that is no longer relevant. This request is about proper names. Period. dick lyon, you wrote the request!!!
dick lyon, it seems to come down to you just refusing to accept the idea of proper names. You can post the same garbage, shout as often as you like, but your arguments are just the same old stuff and don't address what has been said to you. Do you accept that TM-9-2320-260-10, pages i, Chapter 1 "INTRODUCTION" section "1-1. a" and "Table 1-1. Vehicle Class Information" have accurate proper names? Yes or no question.
dick lyon, then you drag out your interpretation of some MOS detail, which apparently says that proper names can't be used. You have the power to change proper names to whatever you want.
dick lyon, since you don't address my main points, just keep repeating the same JUSTDONTLIKEIT garbage, this has become pointless. If anybody has a real question, I'm all ears, and dick lyons, I'll even read your stuff. But, dick lyon, you have lost all credibility with me and I'm tired of talking to the wall. Sammy D III (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm happy to say I know and love proper names, and always capitalize them, even mid sentence (as in "I disagree with Sammy on this"). But since there's no clear and definitive way to tell what's a proper name, or what WP should treat as a proper name, our guideline is treat as a proper name things that are "consistently capitalized" in sources, or things that would "always be capitalized, even mid sentence". I'm aware of the possibility that even if the phrase "gun motor carriage" is generic, a name like "M40 Gun Motor Carriage" could be a proper name, or could be treated as one per WP guidelines, if it was found to be consistently capitalized in sources. But it's not, as I've shown repeatedly. Those occurrences in titles and tables have no bearing on the question. If the Army writes "M40 gun motor carriage" and "gun motor carriage M40" in sentences, they are telling us they do not treat it as a proper name. Similar with lots of other (non-Army) sources. So we should use lowercase, per all of guidance, not dress it up like the proper name that it is not. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply


Back to interrupted tangential thread:

  • If you want to 'blame' me for anything (what?) then you know where ANI is. This is not a 'simple maintenance process'. It is one editor pushing yet another instalment of a very long-running campaign to prioritise WP:MOS over WP:RS. To change our descriptions and titles of real-world objects, with good real-world sourcing of the format of their name, just to comply with a minor local styleguide. No. That is not how we work.
The fact that you'd be just as happy in changing the wording of the names altogether (so long as they were lowercase) shows just how little interest you have in accuracy and sourcing, over presentation. That is no way to write an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did you miss where I said if milhist editors wanted to use names with "self-propelled" and such instead? I'm just trying to fix the over-capitalization, which I've shown is not supported by RSs, contrary to your assertions. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • not supported by RSs
Absolute rubbish. You demean yourself by resorting to such weak sophistry. You're supposed to be smarter than that. Would you publish a research paper with such weak logic in it?
It is clear that the capitalisation of the specific term GMC is used by RS, both primary RS and very sound WP:SECONDARY RS (which are the ones we're supposed to weigh most heavily). It is also clear that ghits differ in their count of these. Google is not RS. It is even clear (and this is where your legwork has indeed shown something interesting) that the 'RS' sources are far from consistent in their capitalisation. Where we should reasonably differ in editorial judgment is how we should interpret this, and what we should do next.
There is a view (which I despise, I would go that far) that we should ignore RS in favour of MOS. The RS are just wrong and it's our job to fix that. It would not be fair of me to claim that this is the view you hold. It is, in particular, the basis of WP:SECONDARY that we don't do this. It's the whole point of why we prioritise secondary sources over primary.
If we disagree over some real fundamental point, I think it would be fair for me to describe it thus: I think that RS are showing that the capitalised version was in use, that it was chosen by secondary RS to be used in the description of them (this is why secondary RS beat primary, because they're the authorities we defer to when they make deliberate choices like this). In particular Ogorkiewicz makes the point of very obviously not capitalising such terms when he uses them in the generic sense, but does capitalise the same term when it's used as an ordinal or naming term, derived from the primary sources.
If robust primary sources use other capitalisations too, then this dilutes the fact that capitalisation of the canonical name for these vehicles is supported by RS but it does not reverse it. Particularly not from the era of typewriters and minimal editing. Particularly not when the term is being used in a mish-mash of descriptive and ordinal forms. This is a little clearer for GMC than SPG because the generic use of 'gun motor carriage' is far more obscure than the ubiquitous 'self-propelled gun'.
The question remains of what is to be done here. That is not up to me, it's a question of CONSENSUS through the regular WP method. Which, given the loss of editors in recent years, has become little more than a beauty contest of editor popularity and I know that my ugly mug carries little weight within the elegant tea party circuit of ANI. But to choose MOS over RS will still be a bad decision. The only thing worse is to pretend that it's one being made on the basis of 'evidence'. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
When can you use RS PROPERNAME? Three to five SECONDARY RS, as are shown here, are not enough? Do you have three to five RS saying this isn't a PROPERNAME, or are you you using the absence of wide use to prove a negative? Sorry BLUDGEONING please don't answer. Sammy D III (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources for Gun Motor Carriage as a proper name

edit

Edit add: please do not post into this comment, post after it.

Edit add: @Dicklyon:@Denniss:@FOARP:@Andy Dingley:@Tony1:@BarrelProof:@Amakuru: @Cinderella157:@SMcCandlish:

@Dicklyon, Denniss, FOARP, Andy Dingley, Tony1, BarrelProof, Amakuru, Cinderella157, and SMcCandlish: I think I have just pinged everybody who has posted at Requested move 27 August 2024 in the order that they first posted. This is meant to be information, not discussion. Thank you. (re-formated w/help from Dicklyon) Sammy D III (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, right from the start, the words "gun motor carriage" are used both generically and as a proper name.

Doyle, David (2017). M40 Gun Motor Carriage. Schiffer Military History. pp. 35, 67, 81. ISBN 978-0764354021.

"155mm Gun Motor Carriage M40". American Fighting Vehicle Database. 21 Jan 2024. Retrieved 6 Sep 2024. Check out the references on this one.

"M12 Gun Motor Carriage". Military Factory. 2024. Retrieved 6 Sep 2024. Edit add: This one includes: "The M12 was given the formal US Army designation of "155mm Gun Motor Carriage" in keeping with US Army military nomenclature of the time".

"T12/M3 Gun Motor Carriage". Tank AFVs. 2024. Retrieved 6 Sep 2024.

"U.S. M40 155mm Gun Motor Carriage". The Historical Marker Database. 2024. Retrieved 6 Sep 2024.

There are also a million scale model and gamer sites.

Acronyms: I think the US Army uses acronyms to the extreme. Some, like radar and sonar, are pretty generic. They are lower-case because none of the words are proper names. Others are upper case because the words they come from are proper names, such as GMC for Gun Motor Carriage. If so all use of "GMC" or "HMC" are the same as the proper name "Gun Motor Carriage" or "Howitzer Motor Carriage".

This is an hour on Google, I would guess somebody with a library could do better. Sammy D III (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

+ Doyle, David (2003). standard catalog of U.S. MILITARY VEHICLES (ha?!). Krause. ISBN 978-0-87349-508-0. supports "Gun/Howitzer Motor Carriage" and/or "Self-Propelled Gun/Howitzer" (note upper case on "Self-Propelled") as a proper name for: M3, M36, M37, M40, M41, M43 M44, M52, T19, T30, T82. The M10 is a "Tank Destroyer", "tank destroyer" and "self-propelled" (the current term) are also used generically. M13-M17 "Multiple Gun Motor Carriage". M4, M21 "Mortar Carrier". Sammy D III (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dicklyon, Cinderella157, and SMcCandlish: Edit add: NO AMAZON LINK WITHOUT A PAGE NUMBER IS RS. Cinderella157 was 100% correct. I've struck a lot. I know it looks bad faith. Say whatever you want. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

+ Bradford, George (2007). American Armored Fighting Vehicles. Stackpole. Retrieved 7 Sep 2024. Check the preview.

+ Barnes, G.M. (2014). Weapons of World War II. Skyhorse. Retrieved 7 Sep 2024. check the index to Chapter VI.

+ Kinard, Jeff (2007). Artillery An Illustrated History of Its Impact. ABC-CLIO. pp. 297–298. Retrieved 7 Sep 2024. Sammy D III (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are books and web pages that treat these as proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Am I right in inferring that you think that only proper names can have all-caps acronyms? Or did I read you wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, I see you struck that. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I think I have just pinged everybody who has posted at Requested move 27 August 2024 in the order that they first posted. This is meant to be information, not discussion. I am going to leave now. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Sammy D III: Pings only work if they're posted in a paragraph with a new signature. None of those attempted pings above worked. See Template:Ping#Usage. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Why do you need your own section for this instead of placing it in the ongoing discussion? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Clarity. That RM is a sewer, partly my fault. I just want to put this up clearly. Any one who comes here can judge for themselves. Sort of an anti-tactic tactic, that's all. You, with no bias, can do whatever you want with it. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • To the first set posted: Amazon adds for books are not reliable sources and are not evidence of usage in the books. The web sites linked do not appear to be RSs nor are a million scale model and gamer sites. It is not a case that there are some sources that use the capitalised form but whether this is consistently done across sources. This then becomes essentially a statistical question to determine what proportion use the capitalised form and what proportion doesn't. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Re: 'the words "gun motor carriage" are used both generically and as a proper name' – This does not actually appear to be the case at all. Rather, the phrase is sometimes used as part of longer designations/descriptors that some would like to treat as proper names. However, the independent sources do not consistently capitalize it even inside such longer phrases. We've already been over this in detail in the RM. As with Hey_man_im_josh, I have to point out that that it is not helpful to talk-fork things like this into new threads. Just make your RM-related arguments in the RM. Altering this to a level-3 heading so the closer of the RM can tell it is part of the RM discussion, and it closes with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
the phrase is sometimes used as – which assertion makes no difference as all to the fact (demonstrated here with copious sources) that it's used as the proper name form. This is a lack of consistency (in an age when editing was too tiresome to enforce it), but it doesn't stop the proper name form existing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are many reasons why capitalisation might be used in English other than for a proper noun|name, such as for emphasis, distinction or significance (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS) or to introduce an initialism (which WP doesn't do). There is a false equivalence between capitalisation and what it a proper noun|name - not everything that might be capitalised is a proper noun|name. However, nouns|names that are truely proper nouns|names are capitalised with near universal consistency (see Andrew Smith here or Paul Jones here). Yes, there are sources that capitalise the name but the criteria to be applied is not the absolute number but the proportion and whether this is consistently done (and copious is a bit too generous in any case). This is a lack of consistency (in an age when editing was too tiresome to enforce it) ... reads like an admission that the phrase doesn't rise to the level that we should cap it per the MOS but I don't like it and/or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
First, I am posting to SMcCandlish and Cinderella157 sort of jointly, if either one objects... I'm not, and won't, addressing Dicklyon.
I think you have put the bar for proof of PROPERNAME unreasonably high. I have provided three RS (two by the same author, though)that you just dismiss out of hand. With no proof. You have only countered with theories. You seem more interested in proving what the name isn't than what it is.
Do you want to talk about "forking"? The only reason I put this separate was to stop Dicklyon from forking between these books. He has been BLUDGENING and forking this whole page, undiscussed move, bad form, and now this. I reverted him simply because I don't trust him to act in good faith. I think this works, looks good, and if anyone else made that edit I'd have liked it. I told that to josh, you have done it (even with bias) and I'm fine.
Cinderella197 said: "Amazon adds for books are not reliable sources and are not evidence of usage in the books." Edit add: YOU ARE CORRECT!!!
Do you deny that M40 Gun Motor Carriage is RS? Can you show why? Have you reviewed the book before you said that it doesn't support PROPERNAME? Do you deny that standard catalog of U.S. MILITARY VEHICLES (sic) is a RS? Why is that specific book not RS? I said it supports "Gun/Howitzer Motor Carriage"..."Mortar Carrier". Can you come up with a hard copy that shows I lied about that? Do you deny that Weapons of World War II is RS? Why? It has a preview, showing actual pages. Do you deny that Artillery An Illustrated History of Its Impact is RS? Why? It has a preview, showing actual pages. You certainly don't want to look at pages 297-298. Do you deny that American Armored Fighting Vehicles. Why? It has a preview, showing actual pages. I left this one for last because it is a scale modeler's book. So what? It doesn't matter what audience it is aimed at, only that the information is correct. RS.
I never presented any link as RS, although some may be. I used them as illustrations, I specifically said "This is an hour on Google, I would guess somebody with a library could do better". Then I found a few books on-line and posted them after that with "+" on each, meaning to note additions (instead of a bunch of "Edit add:"s.
"Re: 'the words "gun motor carriage" are used both generically and as a proper name' – This does not actually appear to be the case at all." Prove it. I have just given you five three RS (two are same author, though).
"essentially a statistical question". No, we are talking PROPERNAME, not COMMONNAME. Searching for a PROPERNAME among generic terms is unrealistic, there are just too may variables. Example: US Army manuals, which you deny as RS anyway, only use the words as a proper name once or twice, the rest of the time it will be generically or by M-numbers. And how many books are about non-US Army subjects, which may have no proper names of anything, yet still use generic the term? GMC vs. HMC? First word in a sentence? I think you are trying to prove a negative with no facts.
Dicklyon's million words about when "gun motor carriage" was used generically are nothing but a distraction. Nobody has ever denied that the term is used generically, that's just assumed (by me, at least). An article about an individual vehicle hardly needs the etymology of the word "gun". Waste of time if not a deliberate distraction.
I can only see this as a MOS movement who values their own opinions more than being accurate with RS. There seems to have been zero effort by this group to actually check accuracy, what the PROPERNAME actually is, only to deny any. Sammy D III (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Edit add: SMcCandlish posted "As with Hey man im josh, I have to point out that that it is not helpful to talk-fork things like this into new threads. Just make your RM-related arguments in the RM. Altering this to a level-3 heading so the closer of the RM can tell it is part of the RM discussion, and it closes with it.". I'm going to stand up for josh, who didn't do anything except ask one question. Edit add add whatever: You were talking about me, josh was just a marker. Sorry, struck. Sammy D III (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Edit add: These are Wikipedia production totals for the vehicles involved. They aren't RS, of course, but I'm using them for demonstration: M40 (311), M8 (1778), M2 (100) M13 (1,103), M16 (3,550), M19 (285), M21 (110), M3 (2202), M43 (24+24 conv. M40), T18 (2), T19 (324), T30 (500), T48 (962), T92 (5).
That's 14 models with a total of 11,256 units combined. "Gun Motor Carriage", "Multiple Gun Motor Carriage", "Howitzer Motor Carriage", and "Mortar Carrier". Models who's proper name isn't used all that much to start with. M numbers and probably acronyms are used more often. In front of those total generic numbers. I suggest that there so few examples that any search results are meaningless. Sammy D III (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know, I spent an hour out searching and asking around town, and didn't come up with so much as a lead on any of these. Maybe they don't exist? Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of maybe you didn't look hard enough. I found a couple:

TM9-710 BASIC HALF-TRACK VEHICLES (WHITE, AUTOCAR, AND DIAMOND T)(sic) (PDF). US War Department. 1944. page 2, 5-22 supports "81-mm Mortar Carriers M4 and M4A1", "75-mm Gun Motor Carriage M3 and M3A1", "Multiple Gun Motor Carriage M13" (also M15 and M15A1, M16), and "81-mm Mortar Carrier M21" in text, list, table, and illustration captions.

TM9-731E1 CARRIAGE, MOTOR, 105-MM HOWITZER, M7 (sic) (PDF). US War Department. 1944. Page 3 Section I 1.a.: "These instructions... It contains information on the operation and maintenance of the 105-mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7, as well as..." Page 3 Section II 3.a.: "The 105-mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 is a...". Pages 4, 5, 7, and 8 have illustrations captioned "105-mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7".

TM9-731G 3-INCH GUN MOTOR CARRIAGE M10A1(sic) (PDF). US War Department. 1943. Page 5: Section II 3 a. "General. The 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10A1 is an armored..." Pages 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 have illustrations captioned "3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10A1".

TM9-748 90-MM GUN MOTOR CARRIAGE M36B1(sic) (PDF). US War Department. 1945. Page 1 Section I 1a: "They apply only to the 90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1". Page 5 Section II 3a: "The 90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1 is an armored...". Pages 2, 3, 6, and 7 have illustrations captioned "90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1".

Well, that's what the Army thought in the 1940s. Sammy D III (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the army is not an independent reliable source. It does not go to the source-based criteria of MOS:CAPS. By the way, all-caps titles and captions are meaningless - they do not represent usage in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course the Army is primary. "You" (group) simply don't seem to address any secondary that have been shown. I'll repeat a couple. "By the way, all-caps titles and captions are meaningless-they do not represent usage in prose.". Of course "all-caps titles" are meaningless, that's why I put (sic) after all of them. Images aren't RS but their captions are (go ahead and argue, I'm not hunting old TPs) and they're all mixed case. "they do not represent usage in prose". We aren't discussing "prose", we are discussing PROPERNAME.
"You" have requested this move, "you" are supposed to show why. You have been shown the actual name (primary), what some of the few common sources sources say (secondary), and I threw a few links in for a sort of "commonname" (note lower case) feeling. You have used your opinions of WP:LINKS and fringe grammar ideas but have not shown that these are not propernames, just set an impossibly high standard of proof.
Doyle, David (2003). standard catalog of U.S. MILITARY VEHICLES (sic). Krause. ISBN 978-0-87349-508-0. Page 364: "The vehicle was designated T83 during testing and, and production by Pressed Steel Car Company in February 1945, even before the vehicle had been standardized as 155mm Gun Motor Carriage M40, which occurred in May 1945". "These vehicles were referred to as T89 Howitzer Motor Carriages until standardized as M43 in November 1945". Page 359: "In November 1943 the Army asked that Fisher convert 500 of the M10A1 then under construction into M36 Gun Motor Carriages." Page 366: "Massey-Harris produced 85 of the 155mm Howitzer Motor Carriage before the order was canceled". Pages 395: "so 104 M15A1 Multiple Gun Motor Carriages were converted to M34 40mm Gun Motor Carriages at ordnance depots in Japan... The resulting vehicle, the M34 Gun Motor Carriage, was classified as limited standard in September 1951...". This is from a paper copy.
Doyle, David (2017). M40 Gun Motor Carriage. Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0764354021. This is another Doyle book, he's "prolific". They are RS for their vehicle and I could have used some here to jack the title count but they are just piling on the good one above.
Bradford, George (2007). American Armored Fighting Vehicles. Stackpole. Retrieved 7 Sep 2024. In the "M15 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage" entry: "The T28E1...would eventually evolve into the M15 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage...led to the U.S. Army putting it into full production in early 1943, and 680 were produced under the M15 GMC designation" (they missed a "M", MGMC). This is aimed at scale modelers but the author and publisher look good to me.
Kinard, Jeff (2007). Artillery An Illustrated History of Its Impact. ABC-CLIO. pp. 297–298. Retrieved 7 Sep 2024. I wish I had taken a screenshot, I didn't realize previews changed. It was two full pages of text similar to page 258: "Although...France also plunged into modern heavy ordnance production...Adopted in 1890, the 120mm Short Gun Mle 90..." The next sentence, "The Mle 90 used...". Note that the first use a proper name, the second model number only. There is plenty of generic use, too. I'll keep trying, German TDs were down there, too.
Did you blow off a Jane's?
I like doing sources and may edit add more but only if somebody else is posting, otherwise let it close. You should answer for the audience but I think we've probably said it all to ourselves. You have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
My initial focus on early primary sources and Army sources was to refute Andy's arguments in his previous RM attempt, where he wrote this bunch of false stuff: The term 'Gun Motor Carriage' is the invention of the US Army around World War II. It did not exist beforehand, it has no independent existence. It is capitalised, as is the wont of armies everywhere. There is no such thing as a "gun motor carriage". That's an adjectival, descriptive phrase that no-one uses. But "Gun Motor Carriage" is the US Army's chosen term for self-propelled artillery (at varying times). It should be capitalised. It should always be capitalised. It has no meaning, no robust sourcing otherwise when not capitalised. No other (AFAIK) armies have used this term, other than by inheritance, and it has no meaning in the non proper name form anywhere else.
After he pivoted to wanting to see secondary sources, I added some of those to the same section (in the collapsed archive above). There's no particular point in addressing the sources you found that capitalize it, if other good sources use lowercase, which is clearly the case, both by examples and by n-gram statistics. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
And when I wrote about "an hour out searching and asking around town" that was a feeble attempt at humor, relative to there being few examples of these motor carriers out there and search results being meaningless. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 16 September 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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M40_Gun_Motor_Carriage&oldid=1247597368"