Talk:M5 half-track

Requested move 19 December 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Although a merge was suggested, there was no consensus for it. Number 57 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

---

M5 Half-track (APC) → M5 Half-track – The "(APC)" element in the title is superfluous – – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment M5 Half Track, M5 Half-track, M5 halftrack all currently redirect to M3 Half-track, of which the M5 is a variant of. If this is moved the other two titles will need to be retargetted -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this a minor variant? Shouldn't it be merged into M3 Half-track ? (I note that this M5 article is a new article) And the M3 article already contains many variants. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge Merging to M3 would be one approach. if moved the destination should be M3 Half-track. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

For the moment Move to M5 Half-track.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Merge Since all the other M5 articles redirect to the M3. As for APC, isn' this a little anachronistic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The original move request was to remove the anachronism in the first place. As to whether that is done or this article is merged into the M3 Half-track article I figure depends upon what the general consensus is, as well as what the article creator thinks.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've modified my comment to deal with the move issue alone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reject Merge This is a major version of the M3, 67.70.35.44, now stop making comments to merge this article, because I the creator of this article do not want it merged in the M3. And no this is not a minor variant of the M3 and I support the moving of this article to the title M5 Half-track. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The bit about a encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit" is that there is no ownership of articles. The M5 is an interesting case since it is actually the M5 and M9 and together with the GMGC variants I reckon to amount to around ten thousand vehicles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

31 Dec 2014 infobox

I thought that a US designed and built vehicle should have US numbers as base. I used "TM-9-2800-1 Standard Military Motor Vehicles". 1 Sep 1943. for dimensions. All TMs here (most, actually) use inches, not feet/inches. I have been told that Europeans understand meters to two places, that’s what I have been using.

"TM-9-705 Scout Car M3A1". 26 Oct 1942., "TM-9-707 Basic Half Tracked Vehicles (IHC)". 21 May 1943. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help), and "TM-9-7010 Basic Half Tracked Vehicles (White, Autocar, Diamond T)". 23 Feb 1944. may be interesting. TM-9-2800(43) has 1⁄2 tracks on pages 24-35 and 48-57. I did not use "TM-9-2800-1 Military Vehicles". 27 Oct 1947., (43) has more info, and is closer to build time. Doyle, David (2003). Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles. Kraus Publications. ISBN 0-87349-508-X. is updated version of Berndt.

I have been doing infoboxes like this, slightly different form. Please feel free to revert. Sammy D III (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all Europeans follow metres, and those that don't work better in feet and inches. In fact as an experiment, I'd like to see someone mentally estimate something like 250 inches without converting it to feet first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I used official document and measurements. We are doing this at the same time, stepping on each others toes. I just did M17. I'm done, enjoy. Sammy D III (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try some things as feet/inches, a couple of TMs use it. Maybe Tomandjerry has a preference. Sammy D III (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:M5 Half-track/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this in a day or two

• I've tweaked a few sentences for readability, added some links. Please review. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: