User talk:The Bushranger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Book of Knowledge.jpg This editor is an Auspicious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix.


Please can you put those pages back where they were - the titles you are moving to them go against established consensus and I also strongly disagree with your assertion that a concatenation of the US and NATO intelligence codenames is the common name for these subjects. In any case I don't think moves on this scale or of this nature should be conducted without discussion, and in some cases pages were moved from those titles as the result of a discussion a few years ago. --W. D. Graham 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see a discussion for moving those pages from the reporting names, or any "established consensus". I see plenty of links in the ancient (~2007) diffs that link to a Naming Conventions/rockets and missiles page - that is now marked as historical/superceded. The vast majority of these names - especially older ones - are WP:JARGON. Nobody knows what a "P-5 Pyatyorka" is; "SS-N-3 Shaddock" is, however, widely known amongst even extremely casual students of the subject. Using the 'official names' is not useful to Wikipedia or the reader, there is no consensus for their use other than "they're official" - to which WP:OFFICIAL says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." - which these are in many cases absolutley not - while WP:COMMONAME says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." - which the reporting names in fact are. You'll also note that in cases of more modern weapons I have not moved pages, due to the reporting name not being the 'most commonly used name in English'. There was a notice posted two days before I began moving at WT:MILHIST which only met with support. I will pause if you wish to start further discussion at WT:MILHIST, however on the grounds of both WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME I don't believe reverting the moves is desirable, or policy-based, unless there is a firm consensus that the WP:JARGON is somehow useful to readers. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
"SS-N-3 Shaddock" is ambiguous. It can refer to P-5 Pyatyorka as well as P-6 or P-35 Progress. In many cases the NATO-reporting names are missleading. They were created when the "official" russian names was unknown in the west. Now when the russian names are official I see no use to use NATO-codenames. The codenames only causes confusion ("Why is a russian missile called Scud?", "It is not. It is called Zemlya.") /Esquilo (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The reasons are under WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME. Scud is, and has always been, at "Scud". I doubt very many people at all, especially in the English-speaking world (which is what is relevant here) know what "Zemlya" is at all. Likewise "K-13" vs "AA-2 Atoll". For everything except the most modern (post-fall-of-the-Soviet-Union) missiles, the "official" designations are essentially unknown in English - which makes using them a violation of WP:COMMONAME, which is policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not active on enwp, so I don't care much what you call your articles. I just noticed that you have changed the interwiki on a lot of items on wikidata in a way that is the oposite of what other wikipedias have done. I doubt that the NATO designations and codenames are particurlarly well known outside a relativly small group of people (with the exception of Scud which became widespread during the gulf war. That was when I first heard the question "Why does a soviet missile have a english name? Is it an abveration?"). /Esquilo (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Well, in English - it's kind of the opposite, really. The official names (except for a few types, like Buk, usually due to infamy, and some modern types where the NATO codename is forgotten/ignored) are essentially unknown, even to more well-read types. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of the failed proposal was eventually adopted into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles, mostly in the discussion there but some parts of it were discussed on other project pages. While that page doesn't have any formal status it has become the de facto standard for spacegoing rockets and larger missiles. I would also contend that less than three days of unadvertised discussion between four editors - one of whom provided no rationale for his viewpoint and another of whom seemed to be leaning towards an oppose - on a WikiProject talk page is not sufficient for a change of this nature. The existing moves should be reverted to maintain the status quo per WP:BRD until a wider discussion can take place - I'm not convinced that MILHIST is the best place for this, since WP:SPACEFLIGHT, WP:USSR, WP:RUSSIA and WP:AVIATION would all likely need to be involved as well. I would suggest reverting to the status quo and opening an RFC on one of the Village Pump pages, with notices on all affected pages and all relevant WikiProjects being informed. --W. D. Graham 20:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If you believe a reversion to titles not supported by policy is necessary, you are welcome to do so per WP:BRD. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── BR, I think one reason that NATO names haven't been used is that is was deemed non-neutral to use the names from an entity such as NATO, that doing so favored a Western bias. It was quite a battle in WPAIR just to get the NATO codenames included in the Lead, as some editors wanted them exluded altogether. Also, all designations could be considered jargon to some extent, especially NATO designations. I honestly think we're better off using the manufacturer/military designations, and redirecting from the NATO names/designations, as we do in WPAIR for Soviet aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

...well I see that more as "it's American/Western therefore bad", but...if there's going to be such an outrageous kerfuffle I guess it's simply not worth it. I'll see about moving them back over time. It is a pain. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The "it's American/Western therefore bad" attitude was obviously a viewpoint of some of the editors involved, like a certain wannabe Communist whise is banned from ENWP, but not all. I'm sorry to have piled on on this move issue, but part of it is my view that COMMONNAME gets too much emphaisis over official names at times. There needs to be a balance with a common-sense approach to titles. Most print encyclopedias have Bill Clinton at Wiliam Jefferson Clinton, not his informal name, for example. If we went stirctly by common name, he ought to be at Slick Willy!  :) - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Should we do something about I know the IP's edits are in good faith, but (similar to Nascarplug), the edits have also been somewhat disruptive, in the IP's case, poorly-formatted referencing, despite my attempts to notify them here, twice. I'm not too familiar with WP:IDHT, but I have a gut feeling that it could apply. Your thoughts? Zappa24Mati 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Given his long-term general disruptiveness, lack of respect for WP:BLP, and the fact he has never communicated, I've blocked him. For six months, since that was the length of the last block that, upon expiry, saw the exact same behavior resume... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)