Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] What missiles/rockets to include in this?
- Air-to-air missiles
- Surface-to-air missiles
- Air-to-surface missiles
- Air-to-air rockets
- Air-to-ground rockets
In my opinion all of these can be included, but I'm leaving it open for suggestions since I can imagine that people would want to make a difference in policy for rockets and missiles. - Dammit 14:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what is the issue?
Where has a naming problem occurred? Any examples? How were they resolved? Rmhermen 04:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- The naming problem is perhaps best visible with the Russian/Soviet surface-to-air missiles:
- S-25 Berkut - SA-1 Guild
- S-75 Dvina - SA-2 Guideline
- S-125 - SA-3 Goa
- S-200 - SA-5 Gammon
- S-300P - SA-10 Grumble
- S-400 - SA-20 Triumf
- Some users are moving the articles to the Russian designations already, but without a naming convention nothing is stopping others from undoing that. - Dammit 09:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger?
I would support merger with WP:ICBM, with that page as the main one, and this as a redirect. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A single designation sequence
In Russian missiles, there should be a single designation sequence, spanning all from xx-1 to xx-26 (or whatever other number that that designation sequence has reached).
That way, any user who is not very highly familar with the subject can easily and intuitively learn the designation sequence as well as the differences between the various types, models and generations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.R. (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
- I don't agree. A user who wants to learn NATO reporting names for Soviet and Russian missiles can do so reading the article NATO reporting name and following intuitive links at the bottom of that article. But article names for Russian and Soviet missiles should use the designation system of the country of their origin, i. e. of Russia or of the Soviet Union in my view. We don't prefer Russian, Chinese or Zanzibar designations for NATO weapons, then why should we prefer NATO designations for Russian weapons. Cmapm 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
