Talk:King armored car

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

I created this article hoping more knowledgeable wikiusers would take it from there. All help is appreciated!!!--MKnight9989 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from King Armored Car to King armored car. The result of the discussion was moved.

To become a B[edit]

For this article to become a B, it needs at least twice as much info. Also, two large redlinks don't look good in an intro.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More details to mine on my userpage[edit]

Due to using several resources which didn't mention the King by name, I created an article on the AMC armored car. Later realised it's actually the King, so redirected to this article. That said, my page had some pretty good tech detail and links, so please feel free to mine it: User:MatthewVanitas/King Armored Car. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible patent for the King?[edit]

Here's an AMC patent filed in 1916, think this might be the one? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1358579.pdf

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 23:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Armored Car → King armored car – Per WP:MILMOS and WP:LOWERCASE. WP:MILMOS#Capitalization – "... the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, 'M16 rifle' or 'M109 howitzer') unless it is a proper noun.". Also for consistency, e.g., among Category:Armored cars of the United States. There have been several closely related RMs recently; perhaps the most similar is the one at Talk:M1 armored car#Requested move 25 February 2024 —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. No good reason to cap a descriptive term. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support—not part of the proper name. Tony (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per data. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all of the above. This is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of RS, and is a descriptive phrase not a proper name (the "King" in it is the proper name). So, add in WP:CONSISTENT as a rationale: this should be consistent with M6 heavy tank, T32 heavy tank, and other vehicle classifications/categorizations. This could also move to King (armored car), but natural disambiguation is probably preferable. PS: I see several other case like this that probably need to move, listed in articles like List of combat vehicles of World War I and List of military vehicles of World War II (why are these inconsistently titled?), etc. Also a whole lot of over-capitalization that is outside the links/article titles in these lists, e.g. in phrases like "Austin K2/Y Ambulance", Bedford QLR/QLC Radio/communications", etc., etc. And lots of mis-punctuation, with numerous entries in some of these lists ending with "." or even having "." in mid-item, as in "Austin K2/Y Ambulance.^[5] (13,102)". Just kind of a general stylistic trainwreck. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.