This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
NPOV:Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
no -- the bureau name was OKB-155. Period. MiG (which is short for Mikoyan-i-Gurevich, where i is "and" in russian) is the name prefix for aircraft designed by the OKB and entered service. Like in MiG-21. --jno 11:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I won't edit this page, since i'm not in the "maintenance" team, but please note that parallel between fictional MiG-31 Firefox and real world MiG-31 Foxhound is flawed. MiG-31's radar set is not NATO designated "Fox Fire", it's designated "Flash Dance". MiG-25's radar set is "Fox Fire". Zb10948 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"No" to what? "No," as in you want it to stay Mikoyan-Gurevich, "no," as in you want it to be OKB-155, or "no," as in you're being obstinant? Joseph/N328KF(Talk) 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
"No" to move to mere Mikoyan. Names like Mikoyan-Gurevich, MiG (the current company name is RSK MiG), and OKB-155 have some meaning while simple Mikoyan is a source of possible mess (his brother was a famous politician is exUSSR, for instance).--jno 12:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Mikoyan-Gurevich is inaccurate, MiG is inconsistent with the naming of other OKBs, same with OKB-155. I think Mikoyan is the best choice, but if we have to, we can call it Mikoyan (company) or Mikoyan (design bureau) or something olike that. Joseph/N328KF(Talk) 14:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, folks. I don't understand why is it "inaccurate" and/or "inconsistent". I'm a russian fun of aviation history and dont know of western naming traditions. All the "proper" (not too popular) russian-language books refer to any design bureau or production facility by their "numbers", except of some R&D institutions ("NII"s). Yes, Gurevich is mostly known for his missiles as the head of OKB-155-2. But his name was and is the part of OKB name. I believe, it's a sort of "popular vs scientific" (of "physics vs lyrics", if you want ;-) discussion. --jno 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's inaccurate because the company/design bureau is officially named "Mikoyan," and has been so named for thirty-three years. The inconsistency would be in that we don't name the article for Sukhoi "Su", and we don't name the article for Ilyushin "Il." Joseph/N328KF(Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, my God...
8 December 1939 - experimental design division of Moscow plant No1 (Опытно-конструкторский отдел (ОКО) завода №1 (Москва))
October 1941 - experimental design division of Kuybyshev plant No1 (Опытно-конструкторский отдел (ОКО) завода №1 (Куйбышев))
March 1942 - design bureau of experimental plant No155 (OKB-155) (опытный завод №155 (ОКБ-155))
BTW, how about to, say, move "Blum und Voss" (German industrial company) to mere "Blum"? What is the common practice in such a name reduction? --jno 15:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Blohm + Voss did not change their name, though. In this case, it's the same as FedEx Corp. becoming FDX Corporation and then changing their name again. Other than that, I'm not sure I understand your question. Joseph/N328KF(Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This looks like a major flop to me. The MiG-29 Fulcrum wasn't intended as a BVR fighter or interceptor, and definitely isn't comparable to either the F-15 Eagle or the F-18 Hornet. Going by role, the Fulcrum is a modern-era dogfighter, comparable to the F-16 Falcon, and the article should really reflect that, unless the comparison was based on shape only (twin vertical stabilizers and dual engines), but that's usually the less important part. However, I will not edit the article until someone can prove or disprove this. Stealth 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right. But I'll avoid to edit as well - my level of english does not allow me to engage folks into a real flame. Hence, we have to wait for a real english-speaker to edit this. ;-) --jno 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The MiG-29 is generally considered comparable to the F-16 and F/A-18 (which are comparable to each other); it is not comparable to the F-15. Askari Mark(Talk) 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The mig-13 page directs here MiG I-250 (N). The page states that the I-250 never entered service and never passed its trials, which, I would argue, put it into the experimental section. Crocodilicus 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
MiGs appear in computer games like command and conquer generals, and red alert 2 yuri's revenge so shouldn't that be added as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That should be added to the article of the aircraft that appears, but please only insert notable video game references. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it was intentioned when it was created (although it must have been semi-intentioned, at least), but perhaps it would be good to mention that миг (mig) in Russian means "moment, instant, blink", suggesting the speed (the association certainly doesn't escape the Russian ear). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the abbreviation "MiG" short for "Mikoyan i Gurevich (Mikoyan and Gurevich)" or is it derived from "MIkoyan-Gurevich?" I've always understood it to be the former. This may seem like a trivial matter but I want to clarify it for inclusion in my dissertation. 22.214.171.124 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC).
The following discussion is an archived 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 consensus. If we include the opinions expressed in the discussion mentioned by the proponent there is not a consensus in favor of this move. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Support in part: Move the company's primary article but take the aircraft pages case by case. A year after our 2005 article move to "Mikoyan," the company changed its name to "Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG". The first bit, the "Russian Aircraft Corporation," is more of a formal status than a name, similar to the British "plc" or the American "Corporation". WP:COMMONNAME requires that for the current company we use the name commonly adopted by the more recent reliable sources. This is "MiG." As for the other pages, many of these are for aircraft types which were created under the "Mikoyan" name and these should remain so. Only types created since 2006 should be moved to "MiG." For new variants of older types, we need to follow what the RS do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
We already have a mig disambig page to help those people who cannot tell "MiG" from "MIG" - or from a load of other things. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
And that PoV assertion that "Mikoyan" is historically commonest appears false. Formally the company began as "Mikoyan-Gurevich" then, when Gurevich died, "Mikoyan" and since 2006, "MiG." Meanwhile the "MiG" aircraft type designation has remained in use throughout and everybody has always commonly referred to "MiGs". Google counts about 7,440,000 for "MiG aircraft" but only 1,190,000 for "Mikoyan Aircraft." Sure "Mikoyan" was common during the Mikoyan era, but that was then and this is now.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [Update] In case it hels establish that I have no PoV to grind, I certainly think that a number of entries in the List of aircraft (M) need renaming from Mikoyan-Gurevich to Mikoyan. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
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.