Talk:FCM F1

Military history: Land vehicles / European / French C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

France C‑class Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is odd[edit]

An editor wants to change "Despite two engines its speed would have been low" to "Despite two engines its speed would have been slow". This not a big deal, the words are essentially identical in this context, but the change is just roiling the phrase to no purpose, plus "its speed would have been slow" doesn't scan quite as well ("it would have been slow" would be OK though). Still, no big deal. But I liked it better before, but whatever.

The thing is, though, the editor feels really really strongly about this -- " Get it right, fucking moron" in the edit summary, so not much liking that I've reverted, but the editor reverted again, so now we have a really lame edit war I guess.

The editor, and any other editors, are invited to weigh in on this pressing issue. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things are even odder, because it was the editor who desired the change to "Despite two engines its speed would have been low"! At the time I opted for "slow" because the English idiom allows for both possibilities and "slow" emphasises the sluggishness this behemoth would likely have shown, had it ever been built. But I have no firm objection against "low".--MWAK (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, I got it backwards -- the editor is insisting on changing "slow" to "low". The editor is making the case that "slow" is semantically completely wrong and utterly inappropriate rather than just preferable, and that "slow" can only mean "low acceleration", and that only a "fucking moron" could hold otherwise. Whatever. I have to open this thread to protect myself, since it's an edit war. The editor is certainly invited to make his case cogently here. Convince us on the merits, hopefully without insults and obscenities. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he already tried to make peace with me on my talk page, thinking I were you. So perhaps it isn't a war any more.--MWAK (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct options would be either "Despite two engines its speed would have been low", or "Despite two engines it would have been slow", or "It would have been slow, despite having two engines", or anything else like that. In any case "speed is slow/fast" is wrong and it would be correct to say that "it is slow/fast". If you want to have the word "speed" in there, then it should say "speed is low/high". GMRE (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a bit colloquial. Or silly. Nevertheless (or therefore :o) a very common construction...--MWAK (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get your shit straight[edit]

There's a sentence with this fragment: "...Westwall (often incorrectly called the "Siegfried Line")...". The problem is that Westwall redirects to Siegfried Line, meaning that they're the same thing. GMRE (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that the Westwall is often incorrectly called the "Siegfried Line". So often in fact that arguably it is the mandatory Wikipedia title of the article. The real Siegfried Line however, was a First World War German defensive line in France.--MWAK (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. GMRE (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

FCMF1-1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

FCMF1photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]