This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks
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
I propose that M54 5-ton 6x6 truck be merged into M35 series 2½-ton 6x6 cargo truck. I think that the content in the M54 5-ton 6x6 truck article can easily be explained in the context of M35 series 2½-ton 6x6 cargo truck, and the M35 series 2½-ton 6x6 cargo truck article is of a reasonable size that the merging of M54 5-ton 6x6 truck will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Kalininos (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think 2+1⁄2-ton and 5-ton trucks have in common other than their cabs and some (not all) engines? They are completly different trucks that only look the same. If you have any mechanical questions please ask. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested:. The first page of ref "TM 9-8240" says: "This copy is a reprint which includes current pages from Changes 1 thru 3". Change No. 3 is dated 4 June 1985. Shouldn't that be pub date? Do you think they should be the original date instead of the revised one? I have used change dates on many TMs. If you care you may have a lot of refs to change, one way or the other. I wouldn't have mentioned it if you didn't post that cheap shot on the edit summary. You didn't change the access date, either, but I'm sure you did check. Sammy D III (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something I have an opinion on, but your change has caused an error in the article. I've only edited this article to fix this type of error. The article is using short form refs, and if you modify the dates in the cites you must also update all the refs that you break by doing so. If you're going to be editting articles with such refs I suggest you turn on the error messages so you can see the problem. Category:Harv and Sfn template errors shows how to do this. I've fixed the error you caused in this edit -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the flag but was lazy, I was pretty sure you'd be back (but not this fast). Your opinion on both the year and format of the date led to the error to start with. I thought it was accurate before you got there and I thought I showed you how. I don't have much opinion on form but you changed the content of the ref. Ooops? Sammy D III (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back because you pinged me. The dates I used where just to get the references corrected. |date= could be used for the original date with the reprint date going in |publication-date=, or the reprint date can go in the |date= field and the original publication date in |orig-date=, ultimately that just a matter of preference not an error. Having broken references in the article is an error. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original edits to the article were to correct mistakes in that had caused broken references, after my edits there weren't eror messages in the article. You can disagree about which publication date should be used, but it's not an error either way just a matter of choice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
