Talk:List of soft-skinned vehicles of the US military

Merger proposal: List of United States Army tactical truck models

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for any particular change discussed: merge or deletion. It is acknowledged that there is overlap, but no solution has been agreed and the discussion is stale. Klbrain (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging and/or redirecting List of United States Army tactical truck models into this list. The former list is at times poorly sourced and even includes vehicles that have only seen USMC service, this list is sourced and inclusive of all services of the US. Cavalryman (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

As creator of the list I'm going to object strongly.

The tactical truck list has been in place since December 2016 A similar list "utility vehicle" title was created a month ago. Both have the same information.

The title is inaccurate. "utility vehicle" is a term for a type of small tactical vehicle. Jeeps are utility vehicles. Ambulances are not utility vehicles. Cargo vehicles are not utility vehicles. Tankers, dump trucks, on and on, are not utility vehicles. Most have the word "Truck" in their proper title, recent have "Vehicle", very few have "utility". The "Armed Forces" sounds good.

The quote "even includes vehicles that have only seen USMC service" is a cheap insult, the line "The US Marines have used both US Army and their own specific models, some are shown" is in the first paragraph.

I'd like to talk about "at times poorly sourced". I don't think you understand.

Most of the references are links to download the US Army Technical Manuals. These are secondary sources for all mechanical information, the manufacturer provides them to the Army. These numbers are one level below the manufacturer and published by the US Government. I have not only shown my numbers to be accurate, I have given the reader the chance to see and possess them directly from the list.

Your "Bibliography" is good. You can back up your information and tell the reader where to read it, but I give the actual vehicle to them directly from the list.

You should have renamed it and added your stuff, just moved in. That's how it works. Making up your bad name on a knock-off list just stinks, and you sort of insulted the wrong person.

The entire reason I made this list so that I could give the reader direct, accurate information. I want those PDFs in from the start, then someone will have to try to remove them. I want them in before your good stuff. I suggest that the "army" list should be moved to a good title and then "utility" be merged into the new title. I'm going to fight for the PDFs first, then you take over. (Edit: I just noticed size into name order, we're going to talk about that later).Sammy D III (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m pretty relaxed about this list’s title, and requesting a possible history merge, but I much prefer this format with a table than the other, which frankly is a little disjointed and confusing. Further, the other list’s title was pretty descriptive (and restrictive), I wanted a much broader list. Further still, it would have required me to WP:BLOWITUP, and your response above indicates you would likely have objected.

I agree the title was not perfect, I have moved the list accordingly.

Re Technical Manuals, they are only suitable as sources for technical aspects of vehicle types, they tell very little if anything about history and production details etc. If not required to cite aspects of the vehicle, drive and nominal payload, they shouldn’t be included as sources, but ... the benefit of a table is links could be added as a separate column or added as notes.

Re USMC vehicles, a reader should not have to read the fine print to understand the jist of the list, the title should be pretty self-explanatory. Cavalryman (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC).

You're a real class act. I guess you can't do your own work anymore. Knock your socks off. Sammy D III (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: I am sorry if you feel aggrieved, it was not my intention to cause you offence. I take from your last comment that you are happy for this merger to occur? If it is felt we need to link to technical manuals is necessary in this list then below is a possible solution (I have condensed the indentation to keep it inside this section). It would allow readers to search by TM also. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC).

Although upon reflection I don’t think this list is improved with a dedicated column for TMs, really the place for them is the various articles. Cavalryman (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC).

Possible integration of Technical Manuals

Vehicles Name Image Class Drive Service entry Technical Manuals Notes 6-ton 6×6 truck '666' 6-ton truck 6x6 1941 TM 9-813 The US Army's standard 6-ton truck during World War II, it was built by Brockway, Corbitt, FWD, Ward LaFrance and White in three chassis lengths and several body types. AEC Y Type 3-ton truck 4x2 1917 British truck built by the Associated Equipment Company that was used by the US Army in France during World War I. Willys M38A1 1⁄4-ton vehicle 4x4 1952 TM 9-804A Produced by Willys as a follow on from the M38; 101,488 were built. Willys M274 'Mechanical Mule' 1⁄2-ton load carrier 4x4 1956 TM 9-2320-213-10 Produced by Willys as a low-profile load carrier to transport ammunition and stores. Technical Manuals Notes References

I owe you a huge apology. I didn't even make sense. Then you make that table with the horrible column just to shut me up.

I was upset because I felt that instead of improving "my" list you just made "your" own (better) one and then threw mine in. I was losing my edit history for the same list with yours. And I'm selfish. If you had put your stuff into mine, fixed it up, I would have been tickled pink. Ego.

You are absolutely correct about the TMs. This was part of a project to get as many manuals out as possible, and I think it worked. They're already in most articles and are just a left-over device here. I made a web page to put all the WWII ones in the same place.

My idea was to list military style vehicles only. (Side note: virtually all US combat trucks since 1940 have the front axles powered). The US Army has bought everything ever built for administrative work, if you let commercial vehicles get a toe-hold you would need a "list of wheeled vehicles since 1776". But that was only my opinion.

I don't do army so I'm not sure of the definition of "soft-skinned", as a layman I would think they would have canvas sides. But I don't do army.

Tractors never occurred to me.

There are a couple of TMs that are a catalog of all vehicles, those might be interesting.

Edit: I do not support this merge as proposed.

Good luck. Sammy D III (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Do you have a policy based rationale for opposing the merge? Cavalryman (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC).

I guess I better get one. I'll ping you and leave a note on your talk page when I make my presentation. Sammy D III (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No need for the note on my TP, here is fine as it's on my watchlist. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC).

@Sammy D III: below you have stated this list contains less information [than the US Army list], factual errors, and inconsistencies, please can you tell me what these are? Cavalryman (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC).

Ha. Nice try. I have no incentive to assist you in editing in bad faith against my interests. Feel free to say they are unfounded allegations, if there is any kind of real discussion I can show some to a NPOV editor. Edit: Or you could just look at the first list.

I consider you to be acting in bad faith and I don't think I'm going to answer you any more. NPOV editors that AGF towards both of us are welcome. Sammy D III (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sammy, it is sad that you consider this such, as said previously it was not intended to be so. It seems your primary objection to this merger is the loss of your edit history, as suggested above and expanded upon below, if feasible a history merge would preserve all of your US Army trucks list’s page history in the new list, with the loss of only my merger notice edits x 2 and template removal edit [1]. Then any missing models, which there are not many, can be added to the new list. Cavalryman (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC).

--- Moved comments to appropriate area--- see below. Otr500 (talk)

• Procedural oppose for now: This has to be looked at more closely. There are many individual lists and embedded lists that appear to me to be a lot of unnecessary redundancy. Splashing the same pictures on many articles to fluff up an article is unnecessary. If a country uses a different nomenclature for the exact same vehicle that can be covered with linking to the appropriate article or section negating the want to provide multiple gallery sections.
• Concerns of the original author have validity. Creating even unintentional forks doesn't mean we should create a new article and merge an old one with it without some collaboration and consensus. I think both titles could be shortened to comply with our naming policy.
• I was not aware there were so many lists.
• Just a quick glance showed:

• • List of military vehicles
  • List of land vehicles of the U.S. armed forces,
  • List of U.S. military vehicles by model number,
  • List of currently active United States military land vehicles,
  • List of U.S. military vehicles by supply catalog designation,
  • List of currently active United States military land vehicles,
  • List of vehicles of the United States Marine Corps, and even
  • List of United States Army tactical truck engines, and embedded lists,
  • Philippine Marine Corps#Utility vehicles, even
  • List of United States Army tactical truck engines -- Otr500 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why would we merge a page which appears to pass WP:GNG with one that does not? Wouldn't the more appropriate course of action be to delete this page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Existing list or new one

In October 2016 List of US Army tactical truck models was created, this is it today. It may be ugly but it is accurate, well-referenced, and includes most vehicles. Nobody else has ever bothered to edit it and that was the best I could do on my own.

In September of 2021, almost five years later, @Cavalryman: created List of soft-skinned vehicles of the United States Armed Forces (it has been moved at least once) with less information, factual errors, and inconsistencies, but arranged differently. Then he asks that the list already in place be merged into his new list (whatever that means).

I believe that Cavalryman has created a new list and is disappearing the current one done years earlier for personal reasons. I believe his editing should have been used to improve the list in place, his list adds nothing but style and is arguably inferior in some areas to the one in place. I don't think he should just bully and insult his list in. I created the first list and should be allowed to track and compare changes, including Cavalryman's errors. I worked hard to put up accurate information, which I stand by.

Cavalryman asked if I have a "policy based rationale for opposing the merge?" I think "Before you even start thinking of writing a new article, you'll want to make absolutely, positively sure that Wikipedia doesn't already have an article on the same subject might work. Cavalryman just made his own list which is largely the same as the list that had existed for years.

I suggest that the original list be moved to "List of tactical trucks of the US military" or some similar title and Cavalryman's new list be edited or merged into the original list so that the original list's history shows. Frankly, though, I'm pessimistic that a background plodder will prevail over a star. Sammy D III (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I have posted ideas for improvements of the original list at it's talk page. It's fun even if it gets thrown away. Sammy D III (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Should a list that has been in place for years have been edited or replaced with a new list?

Should a list that has been in place for years have been edited or replaced with a new list? Sammy D III (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

List of United States Army tactical truck models was created in December 2016, it looked like this then and today. This is its edit history. The information is accurate and sourced.

List of utility vehicles of the United States Armed Forces (moved to List of soft-skinned vehicles of the United States Armed Forces during the discussion) was created in September 2021 with most of the same information as " List of US Army tactical trucks". This is what the new list looked like at creation, when the discussion started, and today. This is its edit history. It has a different structure for the same information.

Two days after publishing the new list it's creator moved to have the first list merged into the new list. This is the new list's TP and this is the first list's TP.

Should the list in place have been edited to improve it or should it simply be replaced? The two lists are less than an hour's editing apart, and most of that is the new list having additional references to referenced entries already on the first list.

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The title of the older list is very prescriptive, it is about wheeled trucks that have been employed by the US Army (a single service of the US military), the newer list is greater in scope, being inclusive of all services of the US military and a greater variety of vehicles. This was not a planned takeover, the merger was suggested in another forum and I happened to agree so proposed it, after all the US Army is a subset of the US military and tactical trucks are a subset of soft-skinned vehicles. Cavalryman (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
• Comment I suggest this RfC be closed as invalid and re-started if it's still needed. It clearly does not comply with WP:RfC since "Should a list that has been in place for years" is clearly not "neutrally worded". The wording is actually more likely to harm what I assume is Sammy D III's intent i.e. to keep the list in current form, as experienced editors know the length of time the list has existed is mostly irrelevant to what we should do now. However we still should do things properly. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"what I assume...current form". This has never been about editing, it is about whether the first list should exist at all. Sammy D III (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Without looking into the issue at all, yes, this is definitely not WP:RFCNEUTRAL. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Without looking into the issue at all you feel my question should be discarded because my best effort has a form error that you find intolerable in a vague way and I can't even see. Sammy D III (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment assuming the merge goes ahead I suspect a WP:history merge is likely possible, albeit bearing in mind I'm not familiar with our current guidelines for this. The 2016 article only has 3 overlapping edits since the creation of the new list and these seem unimportant so I suspect they could be deleted. The history might still be a little confusing since one list gets replaced by another before they are merged but IMO this would be fine. As for the general issue, I know very little about military vehicles so this doesn't count for much but I do agree the first list does sound unnecessarily limited. It would probably be better to expand the scope in some way perhaps in the manner suggested by the merge. A merge would of course entail useful info from both versions being combined into one article. So even without a history merge, both edit histories will need to be preserved. And without a history merge, the target/recipient for the merge which would likely be the older article, would need to have its edit history annotated to make it clear that content was copied from the other article to comply with our licence terms, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand most of that, but I don't need to. I would like to ask about the scope.

The first list was made specifically to identify army trucks. If someone saw something in a parade or a movie they could look and see what truck it was. I don't object to linking it into something, copying, or editing it, I just think the list itself has a real use and shouldn't be just thrown away.

I tried very hard to keep a neutral tone and be clear. Thank you for talking. Sammy D III (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC - The first line of this is a fallacy of presupposition intended on suggesting one of the answers is the more correct one. Re-word it neutrally, and restart. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

One more person tells me that I'm not smart enough to ask a question. At least they left me a link that I don't understand. It will be hard to "Re-word it neutrally" when I have already tried and don't know how it isn't. Sammy D III (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

People place weight on the status quo, as it sometimes suggests WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Editors frequently argue about some article, "...but it's been that way for years", meaning to indicate that there can't be anything wrong with it, or somebody would have fixed/changed it earlier (this happens to be a fallacy).

Your opening follows exactly this pattern, and seems (at least to experienced editors) already argumentative. We already (believe we) know your point, before we even find out what you're talking about.

Does that help any? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: thank you, that helps a lot. So "that has been in place for years" is prejudicial? It implies that I don't want the article changed? I would never have gotten that, it's the opposite of what I intended.

If just that phrase was gone would it be ok? Is the content fair? Should the first line of the comment explain my goal? Maybe the last line, as a clean-up? I'm not really looking for an opinion on the question from you (maybe COI), the form itself is a great help.

Just a note(s): since I am the only one who has ever edited it maintaining a consensus exists would be tough, I freely admit it looks like - and needs editing, and I'm largely concerned with the scope now (the target keeps getting moved on me). This subject is just so boring that any NPOV is tough to get and it looks/becomes "ownership" pretty quickly with only two or three editors.

Again, thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments - (Note; I haven't looked at all the aspects at this time): It seems there is more than one problem. The neutrality issue is one and serious because this is listed for others to see but two, I think it is a subtopic of "Merger proposal" which is currently ongoing and also listed for others to see. A third issue involves transparency. I saw "I'll ping you and leave a note on your talk page" and this means, innocent or not, others have to trample around gathering up information so is inappropriate --at this stage.

Requests for "outside help" are when things can't be solved locally. Once the can is opened it takes consensus that involves the one with the can opener (that requested the merge and can withdraw it) ---or-- the can stays open. It does seem this request is worded correctly making it appear that you are right and want a wrong resolved. Even if you think that is the case requests for outside help can't be worded as such or comments like "Invalid RFC" will result and the initial subject side-tracked.

A resolution to this would be to procedurally close the RFC and possibly colapse it. If the merge request is ongoing "all" the discussions should be here. There are avenues to advertise this discussion that include the projects, as well as neutrally seeking other outside help. This would still fall under the heading of Merger proposal: List of United States Army tactical truck models. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I have to go to work but want to add that I think there will be a push against 1)- merging that results in adding too much to any existing article, 2)- that does not consider "Concision". Otr500 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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.