Talk:M1918 Ford 3-ton tank

Military history: Land vehicles / World War I

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	World War I task force

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 22 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to M1918 Ford three-ton tank. The result of the discussion was moved to M1918 Ford 3-ton tank.

The term tankette is an anachronism for this vehicle

The term tankette wasn't used before the 1920s when the Morris-Martel vehicle was trialled by the British Army. ^[1]Charlie Landships (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But when looking back on it, it has similarities with a tankette. The question is - "what do sources call it" ?GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnicutt in his book on the US Light Tank notes that the Ford 3-ton tank was referred to as "Ford three-ton tank" or, officially, as the "Three-ton Special Tractor M1918" - no mention of "tankette". I'd be inclined to go with Hunnicutt on this one - he had access to the US Army Ordnance Dept Archives. ^[2] Charlie Landships (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Fletcher, David (1991). Mechanised Force. London: HMSO. p. 36. ISBN 0112904874.
^ Hunnicutt, R.P. (2015). Stuart - A History of the American Light Tank Vol.1 (Reprint ed.). Echo Point Books & Media. p. 9. ISBN 978-1626548626.

Requested move 22 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to M1918 Ford 3-ton tank. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ford 3-Ton M1918 → M1918 Ford three-ton tank – Per MOS:SPELL09, MOS:HYPHENCAPS, WP:MILMOS and WP:LOWERCASE. WP:MILMOS#TANKS – "all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end". WP:MILMOS#Capitalization – "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:Heavy Tank M6#Requested move 21 February 2024 and Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024, and the prior comments by Charlie Landships. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom except neutral on 3-ton vs three-ton. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom except that a review of google books here suggests that 3-ton may be more recognisable than three-ton even though MOS:SPELL09 would indicate the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George Forty refers to it as the "Ford 3-ton" as a common name but doesn't mention M1918. so I'd go with a Reliable Source for that.

WP:SPELL09 refers to article text, not article naming so I suggest you strike that.

You also shouldn't get hung up on consistency if an actual policy (WP:Commonname) goes against it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. AFAIK, Commonname does not extend to style but if I'm mistaken, then 3-ton seems ok. Primergrey (talk) 17:44, 28 February 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.

[1] Fletcher, David (1991). Mechanised Force. London: HMSO. p. 36. ISBN 0112904874.

[2] Hunnicutt, R.P. (2015). Stuart - A History of the American Light Tank Vol.1 (Reprint ed.). Echo Point Books & Media. p. 9. ISBN 978-1626548626.

[1]

[2]