1. Move M1 Mortar, M2 Mortar, M3 Howitzer, M19 Mortar, M29 Mortar, M30 Mortar, M108 Howitzer, M224 Mortar and M252 Mortar to uncaps. Leave no redirect

2. Move M4 carbine, M9 pistol, M14 rifle, M16 mine, M16 rifle, M40 rifle, M47 bomb, M55 rocket, M101 howitzer, M102 howitzer, M109 howitzer, M110 howitzer, M115 howitzer, M116 howitzer, M120 mortar, M125 bomblet, M134 bomblet, M138 bomblet, M139 bomblet, M198 howitzer and M777 howitzer to caps. Leave no redirect

username 1 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• #1. Looking at the article, it seems that the name is M120, and "mortar" is just a descriptor. Jafeluv (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• #1 username 1 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoa, that's a lot. And I bet it's not even limited to mortars... Is there a naming convention for these things somewhere? Jafeluv (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), i am reading it now.username 1 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Mortar should be capitalised if it is a proper noun. is it? I'm not an English major.username 1 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It says not to capitalize unless it's a proper noun. So I guess it really boils down to "is the name of the mortar M120 or M120 Mortar?" If the former, then "mortar" is just a descriptor and should be uncapitalized; if the latter, it should be capitalized as part of a proper noun. Looking at the sources doesn't exactly settle it either: this one uses "M120 120mm Mortar" and this one (from the same site) "M120 mortar". I personally would prefer not to capitalize words unless they're almost always capitalized in running text. But that's just, like, my opinion, man. "Mortar" on its own is definitely not a proper noun. Jafeluv (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The army fact files uses caps for mortars and howitzers[1]. Does this change your vote?username 1 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, that link seems to capitalize everything in section headers, but uses "M102 105mm towed howitzer", "M198 155mm towed howitzer" and "M252 81mm mortar" in running text... Jafeluv (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've trancluded this to the articles above.username 1 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • i've changed my vote to #1username 1 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• #1. This option is less work and, more importantly, more logical. "Mortar" and "howitzer" are common noun descriptors as you stated, not proper nouns. The official "name" of a weapon is its alphanumerical designation, i.e., the name is "M4" not "M4 carbine". Neil Clancy 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there a "Leave as-is" option? Commander Zulu (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment: I oppose this. All or nothing. username 1 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that sometimes a name "M-whatever type-of-weapon" will not be unique. E.g. "M3 howitzer" may refer to a towed 105 mm howitzer or to a vehicle-mounted 75 mm howitzer. At least in these non-unique cases, I think it's not a good idea to remove caliber from article name. Bukvoed (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• #2: The descriptors are not proper nouns, but should remain part of the article title so that the topic of the article is clear and easy to find using the search function. Otherwise the title is simply not descriptive enough. I'm not sure why the original proposal would call for "leaving no redirects", that doesn't make any sense at all actually. If there is a move, redirects should most certainly be left.--IvoShandor (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Definitely leave redirects, properly tagged with ((R from other capitalization)), to discourage creation of duplicate articles. By the way, "capitalization" has an "a" :) Jafeluv (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)