Talk:M2 mortar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M2 mortar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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

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 science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Image removed

Image removed. The mortar shown was *NOT* a US M2 60mm mortar. Even a cursory comparison would reveal major differences in the bipod configuration, it lacks the T&E mechanism of the US M2, the tube is quite different, and the breech cap is completely unlike that of the US M2. The baseplate was also completely unlike that of the US M2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.130.1.193 (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move all Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M2 Mortar → M2 mortar — per concensus at user:user name one/Capitalization username 1 (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hardly see consensus, since there's no mention of the WikiProject Military History taskforce on weapons, or any attempt to involve it. 76.66.202.213 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this was contested, I've removed it from "uncontroversial requests". Please express your opinion below. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments at user:user name one/Capitalization. These are not proper names, as shown by usage in the sources. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The designators are obviously "proper", and should be capitalized (there designators anyway of course, so that's basically a moot point), but the descriptors of "mortar" or "howitzer" are not actually part of the proper name, so they probably shouldn't be capitalized. Although... I could see an argument against that as well. "Ship" in "United States Ship" would be capitalized, for example. An expression such as "M1A1 Abrams Tank" is usually all capitalized. Regardless, I think that the main idea discussed at user:user name one/Capitalization is on the right track, in that they should all be capitalized or none of them should be. PS: I also agree that a redirect with {{R from capitalization}} should be left behind, no matter what happens.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also lets move M5 Bayonet

username 1 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does anyone know why we have a big directory box to the "United States Chemical Weapons Programme" at the bottom of the page?

I suspect this is a case of mistaken identity for the M2 4.2 inch mortar (which was a chemical weapons project), especially since this M2 mortar didn't fire any chemical munitions. Unless anyone has a good reason for this I suspect the "U.S. infantry weapons of World War II and Korea" directory would be a better fit. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]