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
M5 half-track received a
peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Requested move 19 December 2014
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Merge Since all the other M5 articles redirect to the M3. As for APC, isn' this a little anachronistic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). --
Lineagegeek (
talk)
00:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment The original move request was to remove the anachronism in the first place. As to whether that is done or this article is merged into the M3 Half-track article I figure depends upon what the general consensus is, as well as what the article creator thinks.–
Nohomers48 (
talk •
contribs)
02:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Reject Merge This is a major version of the M3, 67.70.35.44, now stop making comments to merge this article, because I the creator of this article do not want it merged in the M3. And no this is not a minor variant of the M3 and I support the moving of this article to the title M5 Half-track.
Tomandjerry211 (
talk)
18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The bit about a encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit" is that there is
no ownership of articles. The M5 is an interesting case since it is actually the M5 and M9 and together with the GMGC variants I reckon to amount to around ten thousand vehicles.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
31 Dec 2014 infobox
I thought that a US designed and built vehicle should have US numbers as base. I used
"TM-9-2800-1 Standard Military Motor Vehicles". 1 Sep 1943. for dimensions. All TMs here (most, actually) use inches, not feet/inches. I have been told that Europeans understand meters to two places, that’s what I have been using.
Not all Europeans follow metres, and those that don't work better in feet and inches. In fact as an experiment, I'd like to see someone mentally estimate something like 250 inches without converting it to feet first.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
15:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I used official document and measurements. We are doing this at the same time, stepping on each others toes. I just did M17. I'm done, enjoy.
Sammy D III (
talk)
15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply