Talk:Leyland armoured car

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology

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

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
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

On 11 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Leyland Armoured Car to Leyland armoured car. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 11 November 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 07:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Here the proper name is the brand, and "armoured car" is the generic type, not consistently capped in sources as MOS:CAPS would say. Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, the latter stating: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. These subjects have a little representation in English language sources. Only the Fox armoured car yields an ngram (here) that shows only the lowercase term. For a Google books search, three out of the eight give no results that can be seen as snippets. In those that can be seen, there is mixed usage. The Vespa-Caproni Armoured Car uses lowercase in prose, indicating the article title was incorrectly written in titlecase. In the lead, Garford-Putilov Armoured Car writes: Garford-Putilov armoured cars - ie, the title correctly avoids the plural but it is about a collection of armoured cars by the same manufacturer. As the nom states, in each case, the proper noun is the first word. However, armoured car is a description of its purpose or function and not intrinsically something to capitalise. Having reviewed the evidence of usage and given similar recent RMs to lowercase (eg Daimler armoured car, Humber armoured car and Austin armoured car), I see no good reason to retain capitalisation in these instances as necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usual per nom and others. I notice the Vespa-Caproni Armoured Car article refers to the Humber Light Reconnaissance Car article, and suggest lowercasing of that one as well, and the similar titles Morris Light Reconnaissance Car and Otter Light Reconnaissance Car. And I also notice S1 Scout Car and C15TA Armoured Truck. Trying to understand the hyphenation, I was unable to figure out why the title of Vespa-Caproni Armoured Car includes "Vespa". The article doesn't say anything about that, and the article about Caproni doesn't mention Vespa at all. Vespa means "wasp", so I suspect that one is a car model called the wasp, and I therefore suspect the title of that one should be Caproni Vespa armoured car instead. None of the cited sources contain "Vespa-Caproni", and it seems unrelated to the Vespa brand of motor scooters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Caproni Vespa armoured car would be better for that one. And I agree that there are still a lot of things to fix. I'm trying to avoid "mass" fixing that sometimes creates blowback, whether done via RM or otherwise. And Garford-Putilov needs en dash between the two maker names. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Yes please. Let's not go along with commercial boosterism. Tony (talk) 00:20, 16 November 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.

Frost et al.: Any objection to a follow-up move of Vespa-Caproni armoured car → Caproni Vespa armoured car, as discussed above? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]