Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry
Latest comment: 16 years ago by GW Simulations in topic Discussion
A vote on implementing this proposal is now being conducted, please see this page for voting and continued discussion

This is a discussion page for the proposal to bring rocket article namings into some form of a logical order. Moves to bluelinked articles are over redirect unless otherwise stated. I'm not entirely sure whether "rocket" or "(rocket)" should be the standard disambiguator, but either way is an improvement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer ()'s, you can use the link trick. BTW, Saturn (rocket family) covers two major designs and several redesigns, so simply (rocket) doesn't seem appropriate. Maury (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Summary

Use "rocket" without parenthesis as a standard disambiguator.

Proposed moves

Changing disambiguation tag

Other

Proposal 2

Summary

Use "(rocket)" with parenthesis as a standard disambiguator.

Proposed moves

incomplete

Other

Global changes

These changes are included in both proposals

Moves to remove disambiguation tags

Other moves

Mergers

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad Over redirect to itself
  2. ^ a b c Fixing capitalisation at the same time
  3. ^ a b c Though two different rockets called Orion exist, the Argentinian version is actually designated the "Orion-1", and should be located there, with a {{dablink}} template used on both articles.
  4. ^ Over redirect to another article, disambiguation already exists.
  5. ^ a b c d Duplicate articles
  6. ^ a b Split the article into two seperate ones, one about use as a missile (LGM), and one about use as a carrier rocket (rocket)
  7. ^ a b c d e Over disambiguation page, where only one article is listed, which can be disambiguated using {{dablink}}
  8. ^ Official designation contains a number, which eliminates the need for a disambiguator
  9. ^ a b c The article would cover the main version, and basic information on its derivatives, which make up the rest of the "family"
  10. ^ Over disambiguation page where all other entries are redlinks
  11. ^ Adding official name to title in place of disambiguator
  12. ^ Hyphen is more common, and provides disambiguation from the Soyuz 2 mission. {{dablink}} templates should be used on both Soyuz 2 and Soyuz-2 to avoid confusion.
  13. ^ Using an alternative name to avoid the problems that standardising disambiguation would otherwise cause for rockets with the same name.
  14. ^ Bring in line with other rockets in the same series
  15. ^ A component, not a rocket itself, disambiguator is misleading


Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago48 comments12 people in discussion
Please comment on the proposal here. When discussion settles down, a poll will be held on adopting the proposal
  • Personally, I'm a proponent of the non-parenthesised disambiguator, i.e. V-2 rocket and so on. Whatever the eventual mode accepted will me, I am glad a standardization effort is taking place. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you in favour of including this disambiguator on all articles, or just ones where it is required? I too am in favour of non-parenthesised disambiguators, but only where necessary. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the aim here? To produce a consistent naming convention? Or to purge bracketed disambiguators? AIUI, the current plan replaces Black Knight (rocket) with Black Knight rocket but leaves Black Arrow as Black Arrow, rather than moving to Black Arrow rocket. This seems wrong to me. If our intention is "standard naming for rockets", then all names should take the form Black Arrow rocket. I don't like this - it seems contrary to the wiki principle of not stating structure through page names. If we accept that some names can't be of the ideal simple form Black Arrow, because they require disambig such as Black Knight (rocket), then what's wrong with the well-established current behaviour of using brackets to wrap this extra disambiguator?
Additionally, another important wiki principle is that good names should work well when embedded as wikilinks, without needing manual effort to edit them. Black Arrow works. Black Knight (rocket) works with the pipe trick as Black Knight. Black Knight rocket doesn't work as a wikilink and needs a manual edit to Black Knight.
I support the status quo, albeit with tidying where necessary. Black Arrow is best. Black Knight (Rocket) is second-best, where there's already a need for disambig. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The aim is to purge inconsistent and unnecessary disambiguators. Black Arrow lacks ambiguity, whereas Black Knight is ambiguous. I really don't mind if we use "rocket" or "(rocket)" as a disambiguator (although I think it should be lower case). I have two objections. These are that there is inconsistency between which one is used, and that disambiguators should not be used where there is little or no ambiguity. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If we must disambiguate, I favour ' (rocket)' rather than ' rocket', just because of the better use as a wikilink. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain the wikilink issue? I'm a newbie, and would favor just " rocket" otherwise as the standard, for reasons I gave below. Thanks— Wwheaton (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support a call to "purge inconsistent and unnecessary disambiguators". I don't think there's much disagreement over the "inconsistent" part. However purging unnecessary disambiguators isn't what the current proposal suggests! It's actually making disambiguators mandatory on names, and hiding the fact they're really disambiguators by sneaking them into the basename for the page, i.e. Black Knight (rocket) moving to Black Knight rocket. That's still a disambiguator, it's just a clumsy one. If the goal is "purge unnecessary disambiguators", then lets purge those and leave the necessary ones alone. That leaves us with Black Arrow (no dab needed) and Black Knight (rocket) (dab is done by how best to do dab). This is also (AIUI) how other projects, such as aircraft naming, have worked. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am strongly opposed to mandatory disambiguation. I see both "rocket" and "(rocket)" as disambiguators, and I would stronly support standardisation in either direction. I'll try and create an alternative proposal, and we can poll on which one to adopt. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'd thought you supported the proposal as currently worded. I think we're broadly in agreement here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, to be honest, I actually prefer "(rocket)" but when this was used in earlier proposals, WP:ICBM for example, objections were raised, and people said that they prefered "rocket". I am working on the second proposal now, I really don't mind which is used, as long as one of them is. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As to "V-2 rocket", I'd want to see redir pages as a minimum and quite possibly V-2 rocket as the main article name. That's not disambiguation, that's just using the most common form of the name from popular culture (and what's likely to make the best embedded wikilinks). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced about having "V-2 rocket" as the article name, whilst V-2 is available, but I think redirects are absolutely essential in all cases. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically I assume we should try to minimize the average number of tries to get to the right page. So I favor naming in case of serious ambiguity as " rocket" without parens, consistently, as I think a naive user would usually not try the " (rocket)" form without a prior hint or prodding, which we can spare them. Thus, "Viking rocket" for the main name. In cases where there is no serious confusing alternative (eg V-2) I favor just the name alone, with disambig ref to "V2" at the top, and "V-2 rocket" listed on the V2 disambig page of course. Probably we want to keep the (rocket) form as redirects for historical reasons where it has been used previously? But not introduce it without need. For the Redstone, I suspect the rocket is more likely than the arsenal or any of the other things I see on the disambig page, so I would just make that the main article name—although I have little instinct about the frequency of accesses to some of the other possibilities, like the town. (It ? seems like Wiki must have bots or software to keep tabs on the statistics for this sort of thing, and [say] a 3-to-1 winner should basically automatically get the main name?) I would have a redirect for PGM-11, and would definitely not title the main article "PGM-11 Redstone", as I think few users would try that first. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Even so, I still prefer the logic that very few non-expert readers would try "PGM-11 Redstone" first, and would only find it after a few tries or by a redirect. The Redstone is something of a special case in that, besides being a very important early ballistic missile, it also had a major role as a research vehicle and launched the first two manned Mercury flights, so it has notability outside the narrower field of US missile identification and notation. I suppose if we want to be consistent within the just subject of US missile notation, "PGM-11 Redstone" could be the main entry, with a redirect from "Redstone rocket" and disambiguation for "Redstone" alone. That would get you there immediately for many readers' searches, with only one stop to disambiguate the rest. Wwheaton (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it has notability outside of being a missile, but I still feel "PGM-11 Redstone" should be the main entry. Your compromise solution seems fair to me. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • adding rocket to everything that's a rocket would seem reasonable, since that's how people speak about these things (ie. people say "Saturn V rocket", "Minuteman missile", "Skval torpedo", "Patriot missile". 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Out of context it might be common to say "V-2 rocket" (esp. for a hard to pronounce or numeric name) but it makes for awkward wikilinks within articles about a group of rockets. It's easier to add rocket when needed than remove it. Bracketed disambigs also allow the auto-pipe. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous naming

  • Soyuz 2 rocket → Soyuz-2

This is ambiguous, since there's a Soyuz 2 mission, so this is a very bad name. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The hyphen is present in the rocket's name but not the mission name. The rocket is probably more notable than the mission anyway. {{dablink}} templates would be used on both articles. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The hyphen is insufficient, since many people write missions out with hyphens, and not spaces. Leaving it with "rocket" attached makes the pagename clear. The dablink would still remain. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Soyuz 2 mission isn't widely known anyway. The rocket is far more notable. Hyphenation of Soyuz missions before Soyuz T-1 is very rare. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hyphenation is a personal preference of users of wikipedia, and from what I've encountered, not so uncommon, at other instances. As series 1 Soyuz missions are "Soyuz #" a person looking into the history of Soyuz missions would conceivably type "Soyuz-2" for the mission. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Orion (U.S. rocket) → Orion (rocket)
  • Orion (Argentine rocket)

Leaving US Orion where it is is better, (or Orion rocket (US)) 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • M-100 (rocket) → M-100

I think this is bad. Messier 100 is in my opinion a more likely target. 70.55.85.177 (talk)

    • It can be disambiguated using a {{dablink}} template. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at the two names using google, there are 67,000 results for M-100 rocket[1] versus 44,600 for M-100 Messier[2]. Therefore, the rocket appears to be the most common usage of the term. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Consider that M-100 and M100 are being treated the same here. There are 36,900 ghits for "M100 messier" compared to 27,600 for "M100 rocket". I would choose a relatively prominent messier object over a minor sounding rocket any day, but then I'm biased in that regard. =) Personally I'm fine with leaving M-100/M100 as a disambiguation page.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant. The term under discussion is "M-100", not "M100". --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Even so, I agree the confusion with Messier 100 is significant. And many readers will not realize that the hyphen is critical. I see "M100" and "M-100" alone both give over 5,000,000 Google hits to numerous objects, Messier 100 seeming most prominent among the higher ranked. Wwheaton (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you look at GOOGLE M-100 and galaxy there are 240,000 hits. A more restricted search removing rocket and Messier yields an additional 60,000 hits to Messier 100, since it's a galaxy, and commonly noted as just "M-100", "M100", "M 100", without mentioning "Messier". 70.55.89.211 (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Engines and motors

There's a lot of confusion in the vehicle component articles too. If we're to implement this change for rocket vehicles, then I think it ought to apply to motors, engines, satellites, projects et al. consistently. If we do it for propulsion, can we also please have a clear definition of "motor" vs. "engine" in place beforehand (A correct definition is good, but this is wiki after all). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

: Alternatively editors could just wade in in the middle of the night, re-naming a batch of pages without any though of using the talk: page at all! Not Happy. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"editors could just wade in in the middle of the night, re-naming a batch of pages without any though of using the talk: page at all!" And this would surprise you why? =] Trekphiler (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NATO reporting names

  • SS-10 Scrag → UR-200

Wouldn't NATO reporting names be more common in English? 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Weight of the world

Time for a poll?

Has this question been discussed enough that it would make sense to conduct a poll? (sdsds - talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite probably. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Project tags

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I've noticed that the articles listed as being under the purview of this RfC are not listed as part of this WikiProject... their talk pages are for the most part not tagged with this WikiProject 70.55.84.13 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProjectNotice|Rocketry}}

Redstone name change

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Redstone (rocket) really needs an overview article such as "Redstone rocket family" or some such that covers:

This is not my particular area— I got involved with helping a fellow editor for a bit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocketry/Titles&oldid=1238833110"