|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M24 Chaffee article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Tanks||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
To Phillipsbourg : Can you please be more specific about what's wrong with the article ? Bukvoed 09:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
1030 Hours 14 April 2006
It is difficult to be more specific when so much is wrong. The page needs a complete re-write.
I will re-write a small portion so you can see what I mean.
- What factual accuracy is disputed?? King nothing 13:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing the accuracy tag as I can find no errors. Its development, deployment history, and variants all appear correct. Feel free to re-tag it but please provide any actual disputed fact. Tofof 00:23, 9 June 2
- Well done and overdue. DMorpheus 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
--Ldsandon (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) In "Don Camillo e l'onorevole Peppone" Peppone says they sized a German tank, but Don Camillo soon discovers the white star on the tank, and when he says "it wasn't a retreating German tank, it was an advancing Americans' one" Peppone replies something alike "you know Italy, people come, people go..."
- Uff, not acourate at all, tank was extemely unreliable, had aughfull reputatión among crews. extreme problems in sycronizing the two engins. --Elloza (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Question re: gun comment
The article states 'A new lightweight 75 mm gun was developed, a derivative of the gun used in the B-25H Mitchell bomber' – last time I checked, the B-25 was a medium bomber with a bunch of .50 cals, not 75 mm. cannon... 220.127.116.11 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Read B-25 Mitchell. Megapixie 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- My mistake. 18.104.22.168 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember seeing M24s portraying German tanks in Guns of Navarone, which is at least as notable as some of the other films.
- One more request, I spesifically recall seeing one in Full Metal Jacket. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Cavalry Unit Designations
Cavalry units are designated Troop and Squadron, not Company and Battalion. So I believe the relevant portion of this article should read "F Troop, 2nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion (Mechanized) and F Troop, 42nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion (Mechanized)" instead of "F Company, 2nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion and F Company, 42nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion".
M24 Chaffee in PC Games
I remember playing the M24 Chaffee light tank in the classic PC-Game Conqueror as a kid. It was one of the first 3D games at the time and I believe it deserves a mention under the section of appearances in fiction. This section can be created simply by expanding and then renaming the "in popular culture" to include the M24 Chaffee appearances in other forms of media. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I updated the article in the popular culture section. The PC-Game cover shot and release year can be found here. I know it is not much but it is at least proof of the PC-Game's existence. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bridge at Remagen
The article states that the use of M24s in this movie was "historically accurate". In actuality, and citing the original book by Ken Hechler which inspired the movie, the 14th Tank Battalion, which along with the 27th Armored Infantry Battalion constituted the task force that seized the bridge, was equipped with M4 Sherman medium tanks and M26 Pershing heavy tanks. There were some cavalry units in the vicinity that may have been equipped with M24s, but they were not directly involved with the seizure of the bridge as shown in the movie.
"Hot" Brazilian M24s?
- An odd one. These http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-31015477 look like M24s to me. turrets and armament look modified. Can anyone confirm type? Is it fit for inclusion in article somewhere, sometime? Just an oddball story but it is armour fan territory Cheers Irondome (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's M41 Walker Bulldog. Bukvoed (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Rather than reducing the number of external links from 8 to 1 with no explanation except "WP:ELNO" which is rather broad, I ask the editor to instead describe, for each link, in at least one full sentence why removing that link will improve the article. Awaiting that, I've restored the links (except for the one that editor correctly described as being a Wikipedia mirror, and the dead link). (Also BTW thanking the editor for his IMO correct repair of overlinking). Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- How about if I just outline them here?
- 1: We have 2 links from afvdb.50megs.com. WP:ELPOINTS 4 says we should have only 1 link from a site as an external link. Further, AFVDB likely won't pass RS. It's a user generated site that we shouldn't be using. See ELNO 11.
- 2: www.wwiivehicles.com is another user generated site. You may be able to find some good RS's there, but the site itself won't pass RS. See ELNO 11.
- 3: primeportal.net is another one for ELNO 11. It's a fansite, not a RS.
Does anyone know the British service history for these? They were introduced in "1945", but just when? It was a busy time! When did they first see combat? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
105mm versus 105 mm
It's a minor question of formatting, but contended, the question being if the proper description of the Chafee's gun caliber is "105mm" (no space) or "105 mm" (contains a space).
AFAIK we don't have a WP:Manual of style guidance on this particular matter. So let's see.
Some data points in favor of "105 mm" are:
- Most or all of the sources for the article use "105 mm" (an editor vouchsafes and I believe him).
- Our article on the caliber in general is titled "105 mm". (There are not separate articles for other calibers that I saw).
- It seems that more article titles use "105 mm something" rather than "105mm something" (e.g. 105 mm Indian Field Gun versus 105mm Gun T8). Not 100% sure of this as I did not do an exhaustive survey.
Some data points in favor of "105mm" are:
- For 105's in particular the Ngram shows "105mm" overtaking "105 mm" in 1975 and holding the whip hand since.
- Google Ngrams for other calibers is a mixed bag; there is maybe be small advantage for the spaced version, but for some calibers the unspaced version leads, and the trend is always toward the unspaced version for the calibers I sampled. 75 mm beats 75mm although the gap is closing fast and isn't large anymore. For 150's there's a bigger spaced-version advantage, although also closing. On the other hand, for 76's the spaced version is also falling fast, and into a tie with the unspaced version. 88's, trend unclear but unspaced version does lead. 90's, spaced version holds a large lead, although the trend shows the gap closing.
- Article titles seem split. Searching on "105mm" does bring up fewer results than "105 mm", but there are a reasonable number of article titles with "105 mm". "75mm" versus "75 mm" brings up a more even split I think.
- Anyway this is article titles, a search on article text seem to show lots of instances of both "Xmm" and "X mm". This is at a glance, a thorough count I did not perform.
- I can't think of any advantage to either on the merits. I don't know if "105mm" is easier to read and understand that "105 mm" and it's possible that no one does.
Some analysis and thoughts on all this:
A mixed bag. Here at Wikipedia it seems we use both versions more or less equally, at least within the same order or magnitude. In the wider world, it also seems a mixed bag. The clear trend is toward the unspaced version, but this has not yet taken the lead for all calibers, and arguably the area below each line is more important than the current situation.
I would not favor using "75mm" and "105 mm" generally. It seems using one format for all calibers makes sense. I'm more interested in "Xmm" versus "X mm" generally.
We usually don't much care about other publications manuals of style (we say "December 7" even if all our sources say "December 7th" etc.) But since there seems no big de facto advantage for either format, what the larger world does takes on more weight. I don't think that that format that happens to be used by the sources for a particular article carry much weight IMO. This would lead to different articles using different format, which is the current situation but necessarily one we want to overtly valorize. That is why the Google Ngrams are more important IMO as they show general usage overall.
Summary: Neither format has a clear preponderance overall. Thus the default would be to retain the current format, as changing it is just roiling the text to no clear gain. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- TLDNWMTR. I looked at several linked articles, including M37 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage (note space in the actual article's title), and they predominantly use a space between the number and measurement already. Other articles uses spaces in gun designations and calibers include M1 Abrams, Rheinmetall 120 mm gun, Royal Ordnance L7, etc. This appears to already be a settled issue in favor of using spaces. Pleas don't revert again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hmn well couple things. First of all, TLDNWMTR is opaque and Google has not heard of it. I'm guessing it is some version of TL;DR which is insulting, indicates that did not actually read the arguments, but instead posted your own point and on this basis decided that you are correct and so reverted to your preferred version. All of these things -- insulting your colleagues, refusing to read your colleagues' post, refusing to seek consensus but rather deciding that you are correct on your own say-so, and edit warring -- are not actually how it works here. Normally my stance would be: whatever, if you care that much it's not worth fighting over. However, since you appear to have an attitude problem, this gets my back up. Can you understand how that would be, how it's not really a good way to approach your fellow editors, and makes extra work for both of us. You're also probably wrong on the merits as both methods are used in our titles and our text (as well as in the wider world) to a more or less equal degree, probably. Which you saw when you... oh that's right, you didn't read it. Per WP:BRD I'll revert to the previous stable version and you probably want to let it lie there. Herostratus (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I made a big mistake here. The OP claimed that "AFAIK we don't have a WP:Manual of style guidance on this particular matter." Regrettably, I didn't investigate the matter for myself, and doing so first could have potentially diffused a tense situation before it became contentious.
Per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS, in the table titled "General guidelines on unit names and symbols", it is clearly stated that spaces (breaking or non-breaking) are to be used between numbers and unit names or unit symbols. There are very few exceptions given for specific measurement types, "mm" not being one of them. Therefore, putting a space between the number and unit symbol in "M37 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage" is correct, and should not be changed. Discussions on whether or not the MOS is correct should be held on the relevant MOS talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- i'll just add that sometimes when I come across inclusions of 'official' designations I render them in quotes, ie like reported speech, in which case the requirement for the gap might be temporarily in abeyance. Also in references or external links. But otherwise I would expect the MoS to be followed within the article. It may be that a thin space is permitted to avoid the "40" and the "mm" getting two far away from each other but that would need to be checked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)