Talk:Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

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.

The result of the move request was: No move. After over 5 weeks and a relisting, we are no closer to a consensus to move. We have a disagreement as to whether this is a proper name, in which case it should be capitalized by

Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle → Mk 14 enhanced battle rifle

– Move back to lower-case, per

• Some time ago I moved this page in line with our convention on military weapons and their capitalization style. Now suddenly there are two editors reverting to a deprecated title. From the guideline: "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." Primergrey (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  First, I only moved the talk page back to match the article's title, as you didn't move the article the last time, only the talk page. Second, the other user is asserting that "Enhanced Battle Rifle" is a proper name, and you haven't addressed that point directly. The title isn't "Mk 14 rifle" or "Mk 14 battle rifle", and "Enhanced" isn't a common term for rifles. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  "Enhanced" is a descriptor and occurs after the number so per the guideline should not be capped. It's no different than "improved" or "revised". Primergrey (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's used with initial caps in the reliable sources, ie. treated as a proper name, and that's generally what we follow per COMMONNAME. Granted, most of the sources are dead links now, but the ones that are still readable use initial caps and/or EBR as a name, not a descriptor. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Last time I checked we don't source for style, and COMMONNAME has nothing to do with capitalization. I'll bet that the RSs on the M109 howitzer cap it, but that's specifically given as an example of the overarching guideline that applies. Whatever. I'll give it 30 days and leave a couple of neutral notices and it'll be fine. 'Til then enjoy an article that sticks out like a sore thumb amongst its peers. Primergrey (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup. Sources call it the "M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer". I guess you would not call "self-propelled" a descriptor? See how this is flying in the face of a consensus-based guideline? Primergrey (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do those sources repeatedly refer to the M109 as "the SPH"? If not, then that's a clear indication it's a descriptor, not a proper name. And I will enjoy an article that uses its proper name until some a move discussion determines that the page should be renamed. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested further input at the appropriate TPs. Primergrey (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore lower-case, per
  WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy, a quick examination of reliable sources shows that usage is inconsistent, despite the habit of milspec types to capitalize everything military. E.g., here's the U.S. Air Force, in an official publication, giving it in lower case ("on the Mk 14 enhanced battle rifle at") [1]. Despite claims below that gun/mil people will somehow be confused or distraught by lower-case presentation, here's military gun fans at the AR15.com forum using lower case ("the Mk14 enhanced battle rifles with") [2], U.S. military personnel at ArmyForums.com using mixed case ("the Mk 14 Mod 0 enhanced battle rifle was" – note capitalized "Mod" but lower-cased other terms) [3], and so on. One of the principle rules at MOS:CAPS is when the real-world usage is not consistent, default to lower-case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support as clear application of commonly accepted naming conventions
  MOS:CAPS. Sources such as this book support the conclusion that it is neither an exact name nor consistently treated as proper name in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose. Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy makes some excellent points about the application of Wikipedia-invented styles to article title. However it appears to me that "Enhanced Battle Rifle" is effectively a proper noun. [Almost] Every source which I could find (many of the links in the article are dead) capitalizes the term or abbreviates it as "EBR". (One exception:[4], which uses "M14 rifle / Mk.14 Mod.0 Enchanced Battle rifle") It does not have any other name that I can find. It is a more consistent usage than its numeric designation, which seems to be either "Mk 14" or "M14", even in this article. As for similar uses, compare to: M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, M231 Firing Port Weapon, M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle, M25 Sniper Weapon System, etc. Felsic2 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are violating a specific style guideline which, unless consensus for it changes, reduce the opposing arguments to IDONTLIKEIT. Primergrey (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the determination of whether the text following the numeric designation is or is not a proper noun phrase. Since the phrase is used to refer to the weapon, and since it is commonly capitalized, I'd say it appears to be a proper noun. As for violating the style guideline, I'll discuss that below. Felsic2 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Dicklyon has pointed to one book link where it has been decapsed, but taking that back out to a general book search, we see that the rest of the results,[5] overwhelmingly capitalise it. A very clear case of this being treated as a proper noun by reliable sources, and we should follow suit.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

For the record, SMcC is a primary contributor (author?) to the

"This appears to be justification for the tendency of some MOS cliques on WP to not capitalize everything, the extremely stupid sentence case requirement for headings being a prime example of this idiocy."

Your agenda seems to be the driving force behind your disregard for a consensus -based house style.

"I do not support "Mk 15 enhanced battle rifle" under any circumstances."

That would have been good to mention in your original statement. Primergrey (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disregarding a "house style", but an over-aggressive interpretation of the MOS by certain cliques. I'm not contesting the use of sentence case, as it is MOS, even though I do think it is stupid. As to "Mk 15 enhanced battle rifle", it was typo by SMcC; it was intended to be a humorous response on my part that you've totally missed. - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are disregarding house style, codified in several places. Site-wide guidelines are not a clique; "don't touch

MOS:TM are. SSF is simply a summary of why that sort of "gimme my special capitalization because me and my friends like to write this way in our specialist publications, or because the govt. does in its specialist materials" is an invalid argument against these guidelines. It was an invalid argument before I wrote that essay, and it will be an invalid argument long after I'm dead. PS: I'm about 99.99% certain you knew "Mk 15" was a typo. It's been since corrected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course I knew "Mk 15" was a typo! It was just my way of pointing it out in an apparently failed attempt at humor to lighten the serious tone here. "Enhanced Battle Rifle", trademarked or not, is the product's name per the visible reliable sources, and thus a proper noun. End of discussion. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The serious tone was manufactured by you. I quote (in order of appearance): "MOS cliques", "extremely stupid", "idiocy", "over-aggressive", "certain cliques", and "stupid". There's nothing humorous about that. Please see

taking a stand for what is Right, True and Proper against all naysayers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• I never claimed those parts of my comments were intended to be humorous, only the Mk 15 part. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will address a couple of points in SMcC's rebuttal rant. One, I don't generally edit this article, and so I don't have a claim to ownership in any way, nor have I asserted such a claim. My only participation in the move war was to STOP it by requesting page protection. Concurrently, I corrected an orphaned talk page move (ie. someone carelessly moved the talk page only), and chose the Caps title as the "correct" one based on the sources, which use "Enhanced Battle Rifle" as a proper name. I stand by that as the logical and intuitive choice based on the reliable sources, the illogical SSF essay not withstanding. Now, that's opinion, not my decree. I haven't edit or moved-warred to enforce it (note that I haven't changed the caps in the article because of that), and as stated, I will abide by the consensus of this move discussion. - BilCat (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that your own "stake" in this article is lower than I surmised. My mistake. But ignoring opposing arguments and labeling them "illogical" without reading the cited guidelines and explaining how they somehow don't apply in this case, nor addressing any actual points in the arguments you're skirting, is not a rebuttal of any kind, it's just hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read enough of it to know it's quite condescending. You apparently labeled me an SSFer right off the bat, and went straight to "the SSF tactic itself is simply disruptive and a pain. There's not much to do against it systematically, other than decline to enable it." Very condescending, as you've been here on the talk page all along. You don't even realize that bandying about terms like "fallacious" can be offensive, and set the tone for my response, which you pejoratively labeled a "rant". (Also not very helpful if you hope have to a civil discussion.) I realize that you feel this is a settled issue, and I deal with that quite a lot myself in my own editing. Also, showing up here and citing your own essay without pointing out it was yours had the appearance of being duplicitous. It may not appear that way to you, but it did to me. By the way, the term "proper name" isn't even used in your essay, so what is there to rebut? It's not relevant. - BilCat (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. SMcC, how exactly did you determine that "Enhanced Battle Rifle" is not trademarked? That process might be useful to me in the future. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). "EBR" was trademarked at one time but has been abandoned. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point, originally and currently, is that we have an existing guideline that addresses a specific type of article, of which this is one. No interpretation on anyone's part is necssary. Primergrey (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My interpretation of "wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, it should be capitalized" is that this would apply to M4 Sherman, where "Sherman" is a proper noun, but not to this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#Capitalization, it says:

• 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.

That text refers a single word, not a phrase. The text was added in 2010,[6] as a result of a discussion in 2009 that started here: [7] and ended here: [8] in which four people expressed their views. The discussion solely concerned titles in which a numeric designation is followed by a one-word noun, such as "M1 Mortar". In those cases, it's clear that the noun is not a proper noun. No one would refer to it as a "Mortar" - it'd always be a "mortar". Therefore, I think

This "one word" idea is no way to determine a proper name or not. What about "M# fragmentation grenade"? "M# light tank"? "M# weapons system"? In fact, we would have weapons articles about "rifles" and "mortars" alongside "Battle Rifles" and "Heavy Mortars". Simple descriptors. A grenade that fragments is no different than a battle rifle which has been enhanced, for the purpose of this discussion. Primergrey (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you determine whether something is used generally as a proper noun? Felsic2 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the discussion you linked to actually shows an agreement that the name of these weapons is simply the alphanumeric designation and there is no mention of the number of words being any kind of a sticking point.Primergrey (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an agreement for one-word, generic weapons. That's different from this case. As for proper nouns, the fact that this phrase is commonly capitalized makes it appear to be a proper noun. Do you have some other way of making the determination? Felsic2 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "generic weapons"?Primergrey (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that is is commonly (not exclusively) capped is no way to determine its status as a proper noun. The term is not trademarked and is not a nickname, it is a descriptor. In cases like F15 "Eagle" and F14 "Tomcat", those are names and not descriptors (note the quote marks).Primergrey (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "mortar" is a generic weapon - there are many mortars. An Enhanced Battle Rifle is a specific weapon. One is a

common noun, the other is a proper noun

.

"Federal Bureau of Investigation" is a similar term. There are many federal bureaus. There are many bureaus of investigation. But there is only one Federal Bureau of Investigation. Proper nouns don't need to be tradermarked, and trademarks don't always appear in capital letters. More important is the fact that people refer to this item by its name or initials, EBR. This is the only item called "enhanced battle rifle", to the best of my knowledge.

Other refering to specific things and being capitalized routinely, is there some other test for a phrase being a proper noun that I'm missing? 20:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the "Mk 14 enhanced battle rifle". Whichever way this goes, without the "Mk 14" it will simply be an "enhanced battle rifle".Primergrey (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a variety of sources which call it that? Otherwise it seems like we're replacing common usage with an arbitrary style decision made by a few people regarding a different topic.

I've asked you a few times to describe how you are determining that "Enhanced Battle Rifle"/"EBR" is not a proper noun.[9][10][11] Since that's the key issue in this discussion it's important for you to respond. Otherwise this discussion has reached a fruitless stalemate. Felsic2 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on the specific guidance that exists. I see your "one-word-only" interpretation as the cause of this impasse. Primergrey (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance says that it should be capitalized if it's a proper noun. By my view, it is a proper noun. You haven't presented any reason to decide differently. And remember - it's just guidance, not a rule. Clearly, this is a contentious matter so there's no point beating a dead horse. Felsic2 (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources capping a word do not make it a proper noun.Primergrey (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in circles. If you can't answer the question - what does make a proper noun? - then there's no way of resolving this. Felsic2 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, where are the sources calling it a proper noun?Primergrey (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're evading the question. Very few proper nouns are explicitly identified that way. Felsic2 (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the military weapons projects are full of over-capitalization, e.g. these that I just fixed. Looking in some of the rifle categories, caps are quite mixed. I agree it would be better to get away from the "specialist" capitalization and use what most of the rest of wikipedia uses, avoiding capitalization where it is not necessary, reserving caps for proper names. It seems that that naming convention already says to do so, so why not just do it? I'll be happy to help. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general. But not every case is the same. Felsic2 (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2016 (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.