Talk:M1918 Ford 3-ton tank

The term tankette is an anachronism for this vehicle
The term tankette wasn't used before the 1920s when the Morris-Martel vehicle was trialled by the British Army. Charlie Landships (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * But when looking back on it, it has similarities with a tankette. The question is - "what do sources call it" ?GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hunnicutt in his book on the US Light Tank notes that the Ford 3-ton tank was referred to as "Ford three-ton tank" or, officially, as the "Three-ton Special Tractor M1918" - no mention of "tankette". I'd be inclined to go with Hunnicutt on this one - he had access to the US Army Ordnance Dept Archives. Charlie Landships (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2024

 * 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 to M1918 Ford 3-ton tank. (closed by non-admin page mover) –  00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ford 3-Ton M1918 → M1918 Ford three-ton tank – Per MOS:SPELL09, MOS:HYPHENCAPS, WP:MILMOS and WP:LOWERCASE. WP:MILMOS – "all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end". WP:MILMOS – "When using numerical model designation, 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. Please note the related RMs at Talk:T1 Light Tank, Talk:Heavy Tank M6 and Talk:A7 Medium Tank, and the prior comments by Charlie Landships. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom except neutral on 3-ton vs three-ton. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom except that a review of google books here suggests that 3-ton may be more recognisable than three-ton even though MOS:SPELL09 would indicate the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * George Forty refers to it as the "Ford 3-ton" as a common name but doesn't mention M1918. so I'd go with a Reliable Source for that.
 * WP:SPELL09 refers to article text, not article naming so I suggest you strike that.
 * You also shouldn't get hung up on consistency if an actual policy (WP:Commonname) goes against it.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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.
 * Support - per nom. AFAIK, Commonname does not extend to style but if I'm mistaken, then 3-ton seems ok. Primergrey (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)