Talk:M6 bomb service truck

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M6 bomb service truck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Trucks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks 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.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Land vehicles / North America / United States / World War II

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 4 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from M6 Bomb Service Truck to M6 bomb service truck. The result of the discussion was moved.

Weight

The weight information in the infobox and narrative both put the vehicle weight as 1.5 tonnes, which is converted to 1.7 tons via template. However, the specifications for this vehicle in Army Technical Manuals TM 9-2800 (p. 194) describe the truck as a 1 1/2 "ton" vehicle. This and other technical manuals were listed in an earlier edit of the article, but have been removed for some reason. In addition, it seems that the proper use of this statistic according to the template is to enter the actual vehicle weight, not a nominal weight. The removed technical manuals indicate that the actual vehicle weight was in excess of 6000 lbs (3 tons). Also, because this is a US vehicle, units should be given in the US version of English measures and converted to metric, not the reverse. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The removed source gave the exact weight of the vehicle loaded and unloaded. See the way weights are presented in M35 2½-ton cargo truck. Since it is available, it should be stated and sourced. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've worked on this from another editor's stub. Is there any reason this article is not M6 Bomb Service Truck? That appears to be the correct name for the vehicle. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved. Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 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. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 08:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M6 Bomb Service Truck → M6 bomb service truck – Per WP:MILCAPS, "When using a 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." Here, "bomb service truck" is not a proper noun, as evidenced by its frequent (and majority) lowercase occurrence in sources (see book n-grams statistics. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note – my bold move was previously reverted, so this needs discussion now. Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per nom, and lots of similar prior RMs have agreed on this – e.g., 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, Talk:M1 armored car#Requested move 25 February 2024, Talk:M1126 infantry carrier vehicle#Requested move 18 March 2024, Talk:King armored car#Requested move 7 March 2024. Many of those were multi-article RMs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original manual for the vehicle calls it "Bomb Service Truck M6 (Chevrolet)" on page 5, indicating that as a proper name. The n-grams are unconvincing as the M6 Bomb Service Truck is a bomb service truck, so the presence of the latter phrase doesn't indicate the former isn't the name. --Sable232 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline I quoted in the nomination says "When using a 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." You're not claiming that "Bomb Service Truck" is a proper noun are you? More generally, the fact that it's lowercase even in the context of M6 in more than a few books means it doesn't meet the general criterion of "consistently capitalized in independent sources". Its manual is certainly not an independent source, so should be given less weight, not more. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that about half the time the M6 follows, and half the time precedes, the "bomb service truck". This is not how proper names behave. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, its Manual has it lowercase! Is there some other manual where you found it capped? Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 5. I had intended to link this in my initial comment but evidently forgot. --Sable232 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I see it also has on that page "The bomb service truck is a 4-wheeled vehicle ...". So "bomb service truck" is not being treated as a proper name. Their convention seems to be to cap it when combined with the M6 designation. Our style convention is to not. And the other manual uses lowercase even with the M6. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:MILCAPS. The designation might be its formal name but the designation is a description of its purpose (a truck to service bombs) and not a proper noun|name where capitalisation would be necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing some other RM discussions, I find that sometimes people will quibble with "the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized ..." because it doesn't say "word or phrase". We should clearly update this, but I won't do so until after this RM closes, even will all the "light tank" etc. precedents. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 11 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.