Talk:M1905 bayonet

From the M1 Bayonet article

"These shortened bayonets, along with the newly made 10-inch bayonets, are called M1 bayonets. They functioned well in the European theater, where in the rare bayonet-actions of the time, they were matched up against the 9 3/4 inch long blade of the German S84/98 III bayonet fitted on the Karabiner 98k. However, in the Pacific theater, the much longer Japanese sword bayonets on the already very long Arisaka rifle caused many American troops to retain the long M1905 bayonet."

Needs sourcing though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have helped

I have added a couple of pictures and the "weapons box", I think more information should be found to continue filling in the "weapons box". --Az81964444 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

...of M1905 bayonet, M1942 bayonet, M1 bayonet.

These three bayonet articles should be merged, since according to our articles, the M1 is just a modified / cut down M1905, and the M1942 is identical to the M1905, so isn't a different bayonet, just another name for the same bayonet. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should named M1905 bayonet. The M1 is a modified M1905 redesignated due to a change in the numbeering system, and M1942 is just an unofficial nickname for M1905 bayonets made by contractors during WWII and date stamped 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.16.251 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

DONE--RAF910 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits

There is unclear need for the additional pictures recently added (rather haphazardly) to this article. I refer to the two almost-identical photos inserted by Dataproducts that badly broke the article format, per MoS (to be honest, I at first thought it was the same photo being added twice). The reasons for my reverting the addition is quite simple: 1) The two photos added are nearly identical, therefore redundant to each other; 2) The captions of the two photos specifically add spammy, uncalled-for, name-dropping of the manufacturer to the article (possible COI?); 3) the way these pictures were inserted into the article breaks formatting, causing graphic book-ending (copy squeezed by pictures), and probable accessibility issues—due to positioning—to those using readers; 4) the article is way over-illustrated for its length by these additions (per indiscriminate collections); and 5) after I reverted the addition, these photographs have been aggressively (see edit summaries) re-inserted with no desire to discuss the edits here. There may be a place in the article for one of these photos, perhaps by substitution with an existing one, I don't know. That is why the photo addition needs to be discussed here, not forced into the article by an editor apparently not familiar with, or not caring about, BRD. I would hope that Data will respond here in a civil manner, so this issue may be resolved here. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Pee Version"

In the text box under image in the M1 Bayonet section, the following is written, "U.S. military bayonets of World War II. Shown are (top to bottom:) the M1905 bayonet (pee version)", I suspect this is a case of vandalism but I'm not experienced enough to figure out what it's supposed to say. Can someone with more experience please resolve this issue? 2600:4040:11F0:6B00:9897:80EF:4B25:485F (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)