Talk:AEC Armoured Command Vehicle

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AEC Armoured Command Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119071251/http://www.nasenoviny.com:80/VehiclesWheeledEN.html to http://www.nasenoviny.com/VehiclesWheeledEN.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2024

AEC Armoured Command Vehicle → AEC armoured command vehicle – AEC is the brand, armoured command vehicle is the type, not a proper name. It's not even a specific thing. As the article lead states, these "were a series of command vehicles built by the British Associated Equipment Company (AEC)". Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Yet again, WP:MOS does not overrule WP:RS. "AEC Armoured Command Vehicle (Dorchester)" Andy Dingley (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yet again,"AEC Dorchester ACV (Armoured Command Vehicle)" as a title and proper name for the particular type, and "armoured command vehicle" in the descriptive prose where it refers to a generic class of vehicles. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    Right, capitalize Dorchester, but not armoured command vehicle. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    So, absolutely contrary to the sources, again. You're just not interested in sources, are you? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    Here are some sources that do it that way: [1] [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    Still, you have this touching faith in Google that counting ghits is somehow better than WP:RS. Do you not appreciate the difference between a sentence like "The {AEC Dorchester} (proper name, capitalised) {armoured command vehicle} (explanatory phrase, lowercase) was one of the least shapely armoured vehicles ever built." even when the same author writes about the Dorchester specifically and introduces it as "AEC Dorchester Armoured Command Vehicle" (the full name, as a title and proper name). This is why WP:SECONDARY matters, and serious secondary writing by good authors should always take precedence over automatically counting lexical string matches by a robot. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. (Incidentally, I got here via a rather non-neutral notice at the MilHist talk page.) Primergrey (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the commentary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Decapitalisation of AEC Armoured Command Vehicle is nowhere near neutrally worded. It appears to stray into WP:CANVASSING territory. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    For whatever reason, the present bulk of the admin corps will tolerate unbelievable amounts of pro-capitalization canvassing (and less often some other wikiproject-based cavassing in pursuit of some kind of "our topic is magically immune to policies and guidelines" putsch), and will not lift a finger about it. ANI (and failing that an escalation to RFARB) may be the only way to deal with it. Something I've been considering for a long time, but I'm averse to the stressy drama involved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the RS position. And I seem to recall this using stating they would refrain from making moves with articles of this type "for a while" back on 30 Sep. Apparently "for a while" is a handful of weeks.Intothatdarkness 15:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sources give the definition as "a period of time". Primergrey (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I looked and did not find such a statement, but maybe I didn't look thoroughly enough. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I looked, too. Not clear what Intothatdarkness was referring to, unless it was where I said that if I got JWB access I'd stay away from MilHist for a while, since there's so much cleanup work to be done elsewhere. Lacking JWB, I'm working on what I can do manually. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is from your JWB request at AN. You don't have the conditional "if I get JWB" in the initial request at all. Instead you acknowledged you'd gotten (in your words) "strong pushback" on some moves and continued "So I'm going to avoid the military stuff entirely for a while." Intothatdarkness 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, I said "So I'm going to avoid the military stuff entirely for a while. There's plenty to be done elsewhere. More generally, I'll be doing fewer moves and more just chipping away at cleanup edits, when I have JWB access again." And so I will, when I have JWB access again, so I can work on that other plenty. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  They've already been moving some of them and, of course, yet no attempt at discussion of anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are approximately 8 RMs that are currently open that were launched by Dicklyon that involve questions about capitalization, and 5 of them are about military equipment. He has also been an active commenter in a large number of other RM discussions that were opened by others. I notice 3 others that were opened by him that were closed in the last couple of weeks, and all three of those had unanimous support. That doesn't look like "no attempt at discussion of anything" to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  This very page. Don't treat us as fools. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say there were zero undiscussed moves – only that I don't see a lack of willingness for discussion. Moves to align with WP:MILCAPS (and the broader WP:MOSCAPS) shouldn't all need article-by-article discussion, and it 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)." It also says "the MOS:CAPS default is to use lower case, unless and until evidence of consistent capitalization in the sources is presented." This preference for lowercase has prevailed in the vast majority of listed RM discussions, and improves consistency per WP:TITLECON as well. Can we please get back to the question at hand? This is not a referendum on Dicklyon's behavior – there are other places you can discuss that if you wish, and the "Don't treat us as fools" comment was also unnecessarily rude. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I'm supporting this per someone else's argument... Dicklyon, you seem to be arguing that this full quote exonerates you: "So I'm going to avoid the military stuff entirely for a while. There's plenty to be done elsewhere. More generally, I'll be doing fewer moves and more just chipping away at cleanup edits, when I have JWB access again." Regardless of what you meant, I have to note that you're linking information that is divided by 20ish words. 'I'll avoid MILHIST once I have JWB back' isn't the plain reading of what you wrote. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a venue for trying to raise user-behavior complaints. If you want to do that, try WP:ANI. However, if you go there with these sorts of false claims about Dicklyon's statements and these sorts of other mischaracterizations of his behavior and this sort of bad-faith-assuming speculation about his motives, you can expect a WP:BOOMERANG to head your direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS, WP:MILCAPS and evidence of usage per nom and herein. This article refers to two variants of the Matador trucks based on two different sub-models (the 4x4 0853 and the 6x6 0854). These were built with armoured coachwork for use as armoured command vehicles. Armoured command vehicle is a functional description, like truck, utility, dual-cab, wrecker ot artillery tractor. It is not a brand name like Matador or Unimog that would be capitalised. A naive view of proper nouns|names is that they have a specific referent but this ignores that specificity can also result from use of the definite article and other (adjectival) modifiers. This article refers to two different models. We are not even using armoured command vehicle here in a way that it could be argued that it has a specific referent. Capitalisation in English is not reserved just for proper nouns|names. It can be used for emphasis or distinction but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. It can also be used to introduce an acronym, such as ACV, but we don't do that either per MOS:EXPABBR. Some of the sources presented in evidence use Armoured Command Vehicle (capitalised as such) to introduce the acronym ACV. They do not assist us in determining how the phrase should be capitalised in prose because they are likely applying capitalisation for a different reason. Overall, there is no intrinsic reason why we should consider this a proper noun|name.

Contrary to comments above, MOS:CAPS (the ultimate prevailing guidance on capitalisation) does not override WP:RS but requires a survey of reliable sources to determine if a word or phrase is consistently capitalised in prose in a substantial majority of sources. It resolves a conflict between sources where some might capitalise it but others don't. AD has offered two links to support capitalisation but this is not a survey of sources. The link to the IWM uses capitalisation in a title/heading. It does not resolve the matter of capitalisation in prose. The second is not viewable, so usage in prose cannot be confirmed or it might be being capitalised in a title like the IMW source. Even so, it is only one source. DL has provided some searches of book sources. I have also made some searches.[3],[4],[5] Within individual searches, we see some duplicate hits (the same source appear more than once), some self published (non-RS) sources, sources that only use the term in titlecase in a caption or to introduce an acronym. These tend to increase the representation for the capitalised form. From a survey of an aggregation of these searches, it is apparent that the term is not consistently capped in sources and that, per MOS:CAPS it is not necessary to cap the term here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support—Andy Dingley, you're being treated with respect. AEC is the distinguishing factor. I don't need my eyes poked out with successive caps to a common noun group. Tony (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Cinderella157's persuasive argument. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Cinderella157. Some sources use title caps, some use significance caps, some cap every word in any abbreviation, some cap anything military. Wikipedia doesn't. WP:MILCAPS says "the MOS:CAPS default is to use lower case, unless and until evidence of consistent capitalization in the sources is presented." We haven't seen that. We should have consistency. Caps are not necessary here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This is a routine MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:MILCAPS, WP:LOWERCASE example. The proper name here is AEC (Associated Equipment Company). The armoured command vehicle[s] material is simply description, and not captalized by the vast majority of sources. This isn't even a vehicle, but a class of vehicles, so it by definition is a common-noun phrase not a proper-noun phrase. Being able to find a smattering of sources that over-capitalize this (there always are some, not least because WP over-capitalizing inspires other writers to do it) does nothing at all to obviate the fact that this is demonstrably not "consistently capitalized in a strong majority of independent reliable sources", which is WP's standard. So, at what point are the "capitalization or else" pudits who recycle the same broken arguments over and over again, which never succeed, going to drop the stick? This is getting very tiresome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References