Talk:Nag (missile)

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Indian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Could somebody please correct the atrocious English used in this article? There is no semblance of any sentence structure or grammar and quite a few misspelt words. 117.195.153.98 (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed page move

Oranjelo100, why did you move the page? There only a couple of sources for the "renaming" and most sources continue to use the name Nag. Even assuming that it was officially renamed, we should continue using the old name per WP:COMMONNAME as most reliable sources are still use the name "Nag". —Gazoth (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official name is Prospina.Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oranjelo100: There are only a couple of articles from Times of India, for the alleged renaming with no corroboration from any other sources. Again, even assuming that it was renamed, we should continue using the old name per WP:COMMONNAME as most reliable sources such as India Today, The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Line, Jane's and even The Times of India have continued to use the name "Nag". —Gazoth (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm for leaving it as Propspina because multiple articles say it got renamed. Even if more articles still call it Nag, I don't think commmonname is that important in this case because it's not widely known under either of these names in English speaking countries. Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oranjelo100: The absolute popularity is quite irrelevant. A Google search for '"Nag" missile' returns about 560,000 results, while '"Prospina" missile' returns only 5,600 results. "Nag" is more popular by two orders of magnitude and it is still widely used as I have shown in the articles linked above. The "renaming" is hardly well-reported, with most newspapers making no mention of it at all. —Gazoth (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oranjelo100 In addition to the points raised by Gazoth, the Indian Government also officially calls is Nag per PIB ([1]). I am reverting the name change. If you wish to change it back, I would like you to gain consensus first, since currently by WP:COMMONNAME and the official name the missile is still called Nag. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Article for MPATGM

Somebody please create a new Article for Man Portable Anti-tank Guided Missile. This is deserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavafro (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see MPATGM Streamline8988 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur wiki-editing

Is it necessary to use a media coined term in Wikipedia? If not, why has the missile been described as “long delayed” here in Wikipedia. Also, the hit probability of the missile has improved to 0.9 after testing. Why is it necessary to mention the older hit probability of 0.77 as well as 0.9?

The English used in this Article is pathetic. (No offence) Vaibhavafro (talk 3:13 PM, 13 Aug 2019

The missile has been in development since the 1980s (!) and has still not been inducted into service. This is an important fact that we should communicate and include in the summary of the article. And in fact, a large portion of this article is the many attempts to get the Nag missile into service. The current phrasing (“long delayed”) is concise and well cited (Haaretz is better quality than most of the other sources).

I agree about the old hit probability and have moved it to the "history" section. Streamline8988 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Streamline8988 for your recent edits. I think that a more recent source for the hit probability is needed. It must have had improved further. 0.9 is not that good. Till then we’ll stick to 0.9. Vaibhavafro (talk) 2:33 PM, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I agree, if you find a more recent source please update the number. Streamline8988 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]