Talk:Wz. 35 anti-tank rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I believe it should be renamed "Wz.35 anti-tank rifle". Pibwl 14:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we translate the name, then we should translate all of it (Anti-tank rifle Mark 35), not only part of it. Halibutt 00:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that this article should be moved back to the original name.


It was suggested that this article should be renamed Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35. The vote is shown below:

  • Rename Anti-tank rifle Mark 35 or Anti-tank rifle Model 1935, or something similar. Between the other alternatives which have been presented, I'd prefer "Anti-tank rifle wz.35" to "Wz.35 anti-tank rifle". I think whatever it is should be 1935 rather than 35. Gene Nygaard 21:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC). Changing my vote to Keep Anti-tank rifle wz.35. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 12:14 (UTC)
  • Rename (to Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35): The problem is that the name of that weapon was Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35. So, if we wanted to translate it to English, it would have to be Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35 mark 1935 anti-tank rifle, which makes little sense. Why to forcibly translate it when there is no need to? You don't translate Panzer I to Armoured I, nor do you translate Panzerschreck to Tank Terror and panzerfaust to Armoured Fist. Similarily, you don't translate RPG-7 to Hand-held Anti-tank Grenade Launcher Mark 7 or HAGL 7 for that matter. Finally, you don't expand the name of Ordnance QF 6 pdr, you simply leave its name as it was. Thatąs why I believe that the name of this particular piece of weaponry should be left in its original form. Halibutt 23:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
We don't translate "Panzer", in part because "Panzer" is used in English. But "karabin przeciwpancerny" is not used in English.
There can well be differences between translating spelled out words, and not translating abbreviations and acronyms. So the title as is is not necessarily objectionable on those grounds.
Your RPG-7 argument would lead to the conclusion that this article ought to be Wz.1935.
Ordnance QF 6 pdr and the inconsistent QF 25 pdr are both bad names in their own right. Gene Nygaard 23:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard is also barely ever used in English, yet you use it as your name and there's no reason to translate it to Gene Newtown for instance. The proper name (not descriptive name but a proper noun) was either Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35 or kb ppanc wz.35 in short. If we are to translate proper names, then we should also start with our own names and all other proper names in wikipedia. Panzer to tank and Unterseeboot 110 to Submersible No. 110 included. Halibutt June 28, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
Finally, as to the RPG-7 example - it is an acronym. If we are to expand it, it would be Ruchnoi Protitankovoi Granatomiet 7 - that is Hand-held Anti-tank Grenade Launcher Mark 7.Halibutt June 28, 2005 21:28 (UTC)
I already pointed out, in disproving your claims of half-way conversion, that we are more likely to use acronyms in their original form in English. We don't use Ruchnoi Protitankovoi Granatomiet 7 in English, and that is not used as the article title in Wikipedia.
In this case, of course, it also helps that the acronym corresponds to the English name of this class of weapons. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 00:08 (UTC)
Do I get you wrong, or are you actually suggesting that "Kb ppanc wz.35" is a better name than a full name of Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35"? Halibutt June 29, 2005 10:35 (UTC)
No. First of all, that is not an acronym or initialism, and that abbreviation is not known in English and not closely attached to the identifying numerals as the "wz" is. Furthermore, I have no idea about the uniqueness of that abbreviation in Polish, and in any case I'd think that it would not be acceptable as a title even in the Polish Wikipedia, let alone this English Wikipedia. Now that my ideas have been more clearly developed, I'm changing my vote to retain the current title, though I still have some remaining doubts about the discrepancy in various sources between "35" and "1935", something which you haven't really addressed, but since both are used it can stay as it is. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 12:14 (UTC)
In fact this particular piece of equipment never had any other name than the official army name (more on that later) and the code-names used by the counter-intelligence. For a reason unknown to me, the Polish wiki uses the code-name (Karabin ppanc Ur) rather than its official name, but I guess that's simply a mistake.
As to the name vs abbreviation - this name is unique since it uses the same scheme as all other equipment developed by and for the Polish Army (or simply used in Poland since even French armament had Polish designations). Anyway, the kb or karabin stands for carbine. The same designation was used for other rifles and carbines in Polish service, most notably the kb wz. 98 (better known as Mauser rifle), kb 8mm wz. 1886/93 better known as Lebel rifle, and so on. ppanc or przeciwpancerny means anti-tank and was used to designate all AT weapons in Polish service, from grenades to artillery and from bombs to this rifle. So, these names as such were not unique - their combination was. And that is why it was used.
Anyway, we might leave this article here, but we should write a new article on some weapon that actually bore such name. No such piece of equipment ever existed in Poland, so the Anti-tank rifle wz.35 must be some foreign equipment. If you insist on placing some article here, then please do so. I'll simply move my contributions to the article on Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35, and we'll make Anti-tank rifle wz.35 a disambiguation leading to the article on the Polish rifle and the other article on some (British? American?) arms actually named Anti-tank rifle wz.35. Fine? Halibutt June 29, 2005 12:48 (UTC)
The key to the whole this is that "since even French armament had Polish designations". Wikipedia is replete with weaponry that is known by different names in different languages. Only in a few well-known cases does one designation get used generally around the world, and those cases are usually acronyms or include short names of manufacturers.
Your latest proposal is simply to rename this page without having achieved consensus to do so. Such renaming would normally include a redirect from the old name; making it a disambiguation page when there is nothing to disambiguate in the first place is also not an acceptable option. No, that is not acceptable. Any such move, now that you have placed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves would be totally improper. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)
Again, something is wrong with my English. Do you suggest that English equipment should be named in English (as it is), French in French (as it is), German in German (as it is) and Polish equipment should be named in... English? Strange.
Anyway, if moving the article to where it should be is out of the question for you, then what do you suggest? The problem is that there was never a rifle called Anti-tank rifle wz.35. Currently this article suggests there was such piece of weaponry, but it's simply misleading (you yourself noted that there is nothing to disambiguate).
Finally, this case is similar to the case of city naming here in WP. If a city has got a well-established English-language name, then the article is under the English title rather than original, local name. However, when there is no English name then the articles are left under their original names. Similarily, if a weapon has got a well-established English designation (which is not the case here, apparently), then it is kept under English title. However, the person who moved this article from its original name simply invented an English name. Which also falls under WP:NOR, since in google war the original name beats the English translation 7 to 1 (even if only English pages are counted) and only one English-version link leads to a page that is not a wiki mirror [1].
So, basically, we're left with two options:
  1. Use the proper name of this rifle
  2. Keep with the name that was/is never used, yet sounds better for a Brit or American.
If you decide on the latter, then I'll be happy to ask you to translate your name to English as well. After all that's what we're talking about. We can move the article on Przemyśl to City of certain Przemysław (since that's what the name means), but would it make much sense to you? Halibutt June 29, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 11:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

New voting[edit]

  • Move for the reasons mentioned above and in the WP:RM. Halibutt 16:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - what should we call Type 97 20 mm AT/AA Rifle then? This looks like a dubious vote so soon after the previous one. --Henrygb 01:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same reasoning. Plus, there also should be a time limit on reproposing failed requested moves. Gene Nygaard 09:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - to me "karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35" is OK, becase I'm Polish - but at least 99% English-speaking readers won't have idea what it is, and just for the sake of convenience we should stick with it. Further comments below. Pibwl « 20:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've delisted this. The vote is far too soon after the original one and has merely gained a further oppose vote. violet/riga (t) 14:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Please do not use the term pdr as an example of an acceptable term. I queried the acceptability of pdr recently. Bobblewik  (talk) 28 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)


Ok, since there is a consensus on wikipedia to invent new names instead of using original ones, then I'll simply withdraw what I added to this article and post it under the proper name. At the same time I encourage all people involved to find a gun that was actually named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35" and write an article on it.

Or perhaps there is some other solution? What do you say? Halibutt 13:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I replaced the misleading article with a stub describing the whole WP:NOR phenomenon. Halibutt 14:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've sorry you feel this way. I've undone your changes as they are against the GFDL and the consensus of the editors at this article. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and, while I understand your frustrations about the result not going your way, please remember that this is a consensus-driven project. violet/riga (t) 15:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I've simply moved my contributions to a new article, which is in accordance with the GFDL. If you feel the two articles (one on the actual gun I wrote and the other on some mysterious "wz.35") should be merged, then it's ok with me. There's always the {{merge}} and {{include}} tags, feel free to use them and discuss the merger. Or perhaps you have some other idea? Halibutt 15:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
You weren't the only person that contributed to this article, so unless you rewrote the other one from scratch you have broken the GFDL license. I've "merged" these article now - there's no need to go via WP:DA as that and the use of the merge tags is not policy. violet/riga (t) 15:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute[edit]

The current article suggests that there used to be a firearm named Anti-tank rifle wz.35, while I can think of no such gun - at least no gun ever produced in Poland was named that way. There was a Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35, which could roughly be translated to English as Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35 anti-tank rifle, but the name Anti-tank rifle wz.35 was most surely invented by some wikipedian. Or perhaps there was some other gun named that way, say from Belgium or USA? Halibutt 15:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You aren't disputing accuracy. This has already been discussed in connection to your requested move. You yourself admitted that Polish names differed from French names. English names can differ from Polish names for the very same reason. It's not like people's names, it's not even like place names. It is a descriptive designation used to identify it in inventory, or in a manual, or whatever, and there is no need for it to be unique, rather sufficient to identify it. How many other "wz.1935" rifles are there? that's the relevant question to determine whether or not this is sufficiently identified in the title. BTW, why do you insist on "wz.35" rather than "wz.1935"? You never answered that, did you? Gene Nygaard 15:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Note also the lowercase "r" in "rifle" in the title. Do you understand the significance of that in the English language in general, and particularly in Wikipedia naming conventions? It means that this is not a "name" per se. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Compare that "r", for example, with the "R" in Browning Automatic Rifle. Gene Nygaard 15:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
So, the current article suggests that the rifle was actually named "wz.35"? Nope... the full name was longer and there were other peaces of weaponry designated "wz. 35" or "wz. 1935" (earlier form was used in most cases), for instance the "wz. 35" which was nicknamed Vis pistol and the "wz. 35" hand grenade.
On the other hand, I still fail to see a single source outside of the wiki that:
  1. this rifle has an English name other than the original name
  2. the name "Anti-tank rifle wz.35" is used by anyone outside of wikipedia
Halibutt 15:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Do you understand the point about "r" vs. "R"?
The wz.35 is the relevant portion of the designation, this being the only anti-tank rifle with that designation. Gene Nygaard 16:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, I can live with the current name, as long as there is a consensus to move other peaces of weaponry as well:
And many, many more. All should have their name changed to the new system, with the actual name being abbreviated and preceded by the description of the type. Halibutt 16:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
So propose them if you want to. You probably won't get far on many of them. Just keep in mind the guidelines at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
There are also additional factors which come into play relevant to the discussion above about the use of "Panzer" and the like in English, including:
  1. German is more widely spoken than Polish.
  2. German is much more closely related to English (both being Germanic languages) than Polish (in the Balto-Slavic languages).
  3. English speakers were much more exposed to the German names of weaponry, especially from World War II.
All of these are legitimate reasons why your proposed Polish name doesn't work in the English Wikipedia.
Regarding your SVT-40 example, you yourself have pointed out the reason for adding the additional identifying information that this one deals with an "anti-tank rifle", since the name alphanumerical designation can also be used for a pistol and a grenade.
Regarding Walther and Springfield, you yourself have failed, in all the discussion here on the talk page, to mention the designer's name which is also often used in identifying the rifle in this article. You should be aware of the simple fact that names of persons and of companies are much more transportable across languages than descriptive terms are. Compare the use of eponymous names for many of the units in the International System of Units; why do you suppose that was done? Gene Nygaard 16:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Which, unfortunately, doesn't have much to do with my questions. Please be so kind as to provide sources for:
  1. the current name being used by anyone anywhere outside of wikipedia
  2. the Wikipedia rule that would promote invented descriptive titles over the original names
  3. that only a part of the original name is valid, while the other is not (your example is a complete absurd, since it's the other way around: there was only one Polish "karabin przeciwpancerny", while there were much more Polish "wz. 35" weapons)
Also, take note that the initial title of this article was changed without any consensus reached on the talk page. Also, please refrain yourself from this childish revert war: deleting the dispute tag will not prove your point and will not make the current title right. So far this article is misleading since it suggests that there was either an anti-tank rifle named "wz.35" or that there was a piece of weaponry named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35". Both of these statements are false (or highly dubious, if you prefer) and are disputed by yours truly. Halibutt 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Finally, if you prefer abbreviations over full names, then let's simply move this article to kb ppanc wz.35 and settle the dispute once and for all. Halibutt 17:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

why not call it after Maroszek, it seems others did GraemeLeggett 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would still prefer to call it with its actual name and not some handy shortcuts invented by modern authors, but if that's not a choice and we have to use some non-original name, then Maroszek would be a decent choice. But what should be the name then? Halibutt 13:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that there was a weapon named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35". Otherwise this article is misleading. Halibutt 09:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


I've read through the discussion a couple of times now. My interpretation of the name would be Rifle, Anti-tank, Model 35. Sounds just like a British military title doesn't it. Not a good name for an article though. "Maroszek Anti-tank Rifle Model 35" or "Polish Anti-tank Rifle Model (19)35" are probably passable article titles. You can then set up no end of redirects to it tocover all other eventualities eg k________ p_______ wz35. GraemeLeggett 14:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

But this would be just another way of using some descriptive title instead of a 100% legitimate proper name. See my example with possible move of Queen Victoria to That fatty ol' lady who ruled the UK. I still see no reason for such a move... Halibutt 15:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

From my further investigations, I am going to suggest that the best approximation in English is Armour-piercing Rifle Model 35 and for a wikipedia title add (Poland) afterwards. GraemeLeggett 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The real problem here is Halibutt's faulty premise that weapons have and must have a unique, international "proper name". Then you want to compound the problem by insisting on what I'd presume to be an overliteral translation style, and one that also gets us into arguments about the proper spelling of "armor". Gene Nygaard 12:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no proper spelling of armour - just the one appropriate to the author. GraemeLeggett 13:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Rather than wait for you two to agree on a name. I have taken unilateral action. To whit - move/rename, copyedit, fix links ie general article improvement. GraemeLeggett 15:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
That is totally improper in light of the fact that this is a recently failed request for move. After a reasonable time has passed, you could bring it up again. Gene Nygaard 15:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Arms, cars, spaceships, sea vessels, people, computer programes - all have their proper names and all are under their appropriate names in wikipedia (except perhaps for the royal families). Why should this carbine be an exception to that rule? And again, was there any weapon named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35" anytime - anywhere? Halibutt 11:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
There are, of course, differences of opinion on what to use for the Wikipedia article titles of almost all of the things you have mentioned. In other words, there aren't any generally accepted, international, offical names for any of them—including especially people, and especially when they have spent parts of their lives in different parts of the world.
Damn it, you are still not disputing the factual accuracy of any statement in this article. Stop adding the sham dispute tag. There is an established procedure for settling disputes about names of articles. You know that—you used it and failed in the initial attempt. Use it again at an appropriate time if you still think a change is necessary.
The integrity of the WP:RM process needs to be defended.
Since you keep raising the point, and apparently need a little help in getting the most out of a search engine:
  • AT Rifle wz.35, 20 mm Raventhorpe
  • AT Rifle wz.35 and Cavalry Crew (dismounted), 20 mm SHQ WZ2
  • AT Rifle wz.35 and Cavalry Crew (mounted), 20 mm SHQ WZ6
  • AT Rifle wz.35 and Cavalry Crew (mounted/dismounted), 1:76 BW Models CP3
  • Ur. Wz. 35 A/T Rifle Team Moving & Firing
  • During the invasion of Poland in World War 2, examples of ammunition for the Polish Wz-35 antitank rifle were captured
  • WZ 35 AT-Rifle
  • Mounted Cavalry Trooper, with Wz 35 anti tank rifle, standing horse
  • Laying Cavalry Trooper with Wz 35 anti tank rifle
  • WZ-35 Marosczek anti-tank
Of course, the basic problem remains your faulty premise that weapons have official, international proper names. Consider, for example, the fact that chemical elements have proper international symbols, and international agencies which establish their names, yet though the symbols are uniform internationally, they can be spelled out as "Wolfram" in Deutsch and "tungsten" (which doesn't even match the symbol W) in English, plus all the cesium/caesium and sulfur/sulphur and aluminum/aluminium arguments we get into here on Wikipedia. Some other things such as comets are assigned official, international names by somebody whose authority to do so is fairly generally conceded by the involved parties.
Unlike those elements, which don't have absolute uniformity even with international naming standards, there in no international weapons-naming standards agency. Gene Nygaard 12:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

(Back to margin) Can you give me any good reason why we shouldn't rename Tungsten to Wolfram (pierwiastek)? Gene Nygaard 13:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to make my point even more simple:
  • You say that the fact is, that the weapon was named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35"
  • You state that this name is accurate and factual
  • I say you're wrong
  • That is called a dispute
So, if there's a dispute about facts, then what's wrong with adding the factual accuracy tag? I tried to use the WP:RM procedure, but someone simply deleted it. There's no rule that would prevent me from starting the process so someone simply deleted the RM entry unlawfuly, but I decided not to argue about it and ask you for sources, which you still failed to provide. (excuse me, but out of the links you provided only one German site supports the name you defend so fiercely. The rest use different names (and wrong in the case of that Danish site. Also, using internet sites as sources is a two-bladed sword since most of them use the correct name.
So, unless you'll be able to present a book that would state clearly that the name of this weapon was not "Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35" but "Anti-tank rifle wz.35", the title of this article will still be wrong and misleading. Get the point now?
Also, who are you to decide that the names of some things in wikipedia are perfectly ok, while others should be omitted? And I'm still waiting for the answer for my previous question: what would wikipedia benefit from having this article under a wrong title? Halibutt 22:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and as to your quasi-argument bout wolfram and tungsten, the article on tungsten should remain where it is because that is the English name of that particle. However, unless you claim that names, surnames and other proper names are commonly translated to English, this example is invalid here. Of course, I might be wrong on this one and perhaps we should move Lech Wałęsa to Lekh Wanderer (since that's what his surname means) and Łódź to Boat (city)... Halibutt 22:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Your notice here was properly removed from this talk page, under the rules of WP:RM, when it was determined that your move failed to generate consensus, after it had been listed considerable longer than the normal five-day period specified in the rules there. It was delisted there at the same time. This was done back around 7 July, IIRC, just going from memory since I'm only editing one section now. That's a busy place; they can't just leave things lying around forever.
  • That's not what I say.
  • Even if it were, it isn't anything in the article and you are not disputing the factual accuracy of anything in the article.
  • It is pretty darned dishonest of you not to do the search that finds all the anti-tank (what do you suppose that AT stands for) rifle names which I have already pointed out to you.
  • Even the antitank rifle references you found yourself are a significant portion of the non-Wikipedia references to this rifle--and, your search was not limited to the English language.
  • As near as I can tell, your searches did not find any of the results I have already pointed out to you. Gene Nygaard 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, Halibutt, why don't you just drag your butt over to the Polish Wikipedia, and change the name of the article Karabin ppanc Ur (which, of course, is not even one of the other "official" alternate names in your list above) to this official, proper name you keep talking about, the one it carries on its birth certificate and passport, Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35. Maybe they're all half-asleep over there, and won't notice your shenanigans. (Of course, since English is the only listing in the interwiki section there, some of them may already have been forewarned about you by reading this talk page.)

Good grief, the Poles don't even have a redirect from that birth-certificate name!

Then just leave us alone here on the English Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Listen, Gene, instead of accusing me or sending me to hell, why don't you simply provide sources when asked to? You defend an obviously wrong title, but I still assume your good faith and believe that there are some sources you could provide. However, so far you provided none. Instead, you:
So, let me ask you: why do you break so many rules? Is this article really worth it? You didn't even write it or start it... I would really like this dispute to be resolved the easy way. However, your behaviour shows that perhaps the hard way is the only option... Or perhaps you could at last reply to my questions? Halibutt 10:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  1. You are not disputing the factual accuracy of anything in this article.
  2. There is a separate procedure for dealing with naming of articles. Follow it.
  3. I have never broken the three-revert rule.
Gene Nygaard 11:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I should mention
  1. Yes, I do accuse you of bad faith in repeatedly sticking in that "factual accuracy" tag when there is no dispute about the factual accuracy of the article, and you are merely disingenuously trying to sidestep the established procedures for dealing with article names. Note that the presumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption.
  2. It was your choice to pick a handle likely to be the butt of jokes. Gene Nygaard 11:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
"K...p.... wz 35" does exist on the Polish wiki now- I may not be able to read Polish but redirects aren't difficult - your suggestion that Halibutt (who does claim a certain polyglot status) limits himself to his native language is improper, and ungentlemanly. GraemeLeggett 10:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
A day late and a dollar short. The point has already been made. Gene Nygaard 11:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, after counting your reverts it turned out that indeed you reverted only three times in a row. Sorry for that. The other questions remain unanswered.
As to your accusations of bad faith - it's a pity, but that tells more of yourself than of me, so it's ok with me. You write that I'm trying to "sidestep the established procedures for dealing with article names". You're wrong, my friend. I tried the WP:RM procedure after someone unilaterally moved this article to an idiotic name. When it failed, mostly because of low attendance, I tried it again, but it was deleted (probably due to procedural reasons, I'm not sure). So, I decided to settle the issue by means of community consensus. I presented my arguments and expected others to discuss them. I'm sorry to note that the other side, represented by you, has not presented any serious arguments or commented mine in any way.
Also, the title of the article is an integral part of the article itself. By deciding on the title, we also decide how to link to this article and how to mention it in other articles. Finally, wikipedia is now influential enough to promote different names, even if they were invented by someone not earlier than 1 month ago. So, the longer this article stays under the current title, the longer wikipedia promotes an artificial name.
As to the rest of your comments: I am disputing the merithorical content of this article. Currently it suggests that there was a piece of weaponry named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35", while I believe this to be a misunderstanding. So far you failed to provide sources that would prove that this weapon is known enough in the English-speaking world other than the one it had when it was made. So, according to WP:UE, If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages like Spanish or French should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example.. So far you failed to provide a proof that there is a commonly accepted English name while I provided evidence that the commonly accepted name is the original, proper name. Halibutt 14:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states that: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.. Google test: "Anti-tank rifle wz.35" gives 33 hits [2], from first page all but one are Wiki and its mirrors. "Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35" gives 121 hits [3], 2 of which are non-wiki. While I am not sure what name would be most useful, cosnidering that this equipment was produced under the Polish name, which does seem more common used on the net, I would think Polish name would be of more use here, because it is more unique. It is also important to determine what is the actual name: if karabin przeciwpancerny is simple description, then by all means, translate it. But if it is the official name, then don't translate it - for the same reason we don't translate Panzer I into Tank I. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since apparently nobody is able to give any reliable sources, I will state mine:
  1. Departament Broni Piechoty (1938). Dodatek do instrukcji o broni piechoty. Część I. Karabin wzór 35. Polish Ministry of War. 
  2. Zbigniew Gwóźdź, Piotr Zarzycki (1993). Polskie konstrukcje broni strzeleckiej. SIGMA NOT. ISBN 8385001697. 
  3. Aleksander Smoliński (1992). "Wybrane problemy z historii karabinu przeciwpancernego wz. 35". MWP bulletin. 
  4. Jerzy Sadowski (11/1995). "Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35 w fortyfikacjach II RP". Nowa Technika Wojskowa.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Tadeusz Nowakowski (6/1995). "Karabin przeciwpancerny wz. 35". Nowa Technika Wojskowa.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
There is also a plethora of web pages in English, just ask me should you need the links. [4] Halibutt 06:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Piotrus, we don't translate Panzer because it has been assimilated into English. Just see that article, it doesn't identify a particular piece of equipment without additional identifying information such as an alphanumeric designation or some other common name. As I've pointed out before, there are several reasons for this, including the fact that German is much more closely related to English than Polish is, and because of the familiarity of English speakers with German terminology from World War II.
This is a descriptive term. Halibutt has already admitted that Polish weapons terminology differed from the French even for the same weaponry.
There is not enough usage in any language to elevate this from a descriptive term to a "proper name". It is not consistent enough in any language, including Polish as evidenced by the Polish Wikipedia title and all ther various other evidence already presented on this talk page, to elevate it to anything even close to a "proper name".
This weapon is probably better known on the internet by the "Panzerbüchse" (Panzerbüche, Panzerbuchse, Panzerbuche, PzB) descriptive terms than the English or Polish descriptive terms, not just in German but even in English-language and Russian-language usage. Gene Nygaard 15:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
It is a descriptive term, but also the proper name of that weapon. After all that's what the military naming schemes are. Just like the M16 which is both a descriptive name and a proper name. So far you have not posted any argument to prove this right. On the other hand, the original instruction of the arms (see the link above) refers to it always and invariably with the full name or its abbreviation. Wz.35 itself is just a year designation and is too ambiguous. Also, you are wrong about the German designation being more popular than the original Polish one. Compare [5] with [6] and [7] with [8]. Of course, the German name is yet more popular than the whole "Anti-tank rifle wz.35" thing invented solely for wikipedia, but that is no wonder to me. After all it was actually used by someone outside of wikipedia, which can't be said of the name you defend so fiercefully. But if you insist we merged the current article with the article on anti-tank rifle (since that's what "Panzerbuchse" actually means), then I withdraw my objections. I'm not that sure if that's the right thing to do, though.. Halibutt 16:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

My 3 cents (Pibwl «):

  1. I think, that the article name "Karabin przeciwpancerny ..." makes no sense at all in English wikipedia. The problem with this weapon was, that it had not unique name. However, as a descriptive name, in my opinion it should be translated, so that non-Polish speakers have an idea what it is. Therefore, it should be named "anti-tank rifle...", which is an exact equivalent of "karabin przeciwpancerny.." (precisely it translates as: "anti-armour rifle", not "armour-piercing rifle", however "anti-tank rifle" is far more convenient, with the same meaning).
  2. It's true, that there was no weapon named "Anti-tank rifle wz.35", but I think, that it's better to keep Polish original designation style "wz.", than to replace it with "international" Mark or Model. With "wz.", the reader might be able to recognize the weapon origin at once, knowing other Polish weapons (similar situation is with Czech "vz.")
  3. to be precise, "wz." = "wzór" should not be translated as Mark nor Model, but rather as Pattern (see "Rolls-Royce Armoured Car 1920 Pattern"), because it is connected with a year of commision, not with a model number.
  4. especially to Halibutt: it is common to translate descriptive names. For example, M1 Carbine is known in Poland as "karabinek M1", not "karabinek model 1" or "..wzór 1", as it should be, according to your logic (btw: carbine is karabinek, not karabin, which is a Rifle). A sole M1 doesn't mean anything specific, just like "wz.35", so it needs some description as well. And in both cases, I believe it should be description possible to read and understand by target reader, in understood language. We don't speak: "czołg model IV", nor "Tank Mark IV", but "czołg Mark IV" as well (I mean that romboid WW I monster).
  5. I accept article titles, like "PzB 39", "Panzer I" (which IMHO should be PzKpfw I), "SdKfz 222", because they are simple abbreviations, that became unique weapon names in fact. What's important, they are commonly used throughout the world to name this weapons (with an exception of the Soviet books, where PzKpfw IV was T-IV). However, we should not name an article: "Sonder Kraftfahrzeug 222". We might name the article with an abbreviation "kb ppanc wz.35", but I think it is worse option, similar to, for example "20 pst kiv/39" when writing about the Finnish AT-rifle. (btw: I don't like title Karabiner 43 as well).
  6. specific questions raised above:
  • SVT-40 is OK, because it is an abbreviation of official name. I think you go too far here, and with some other examples as well.
  • "Maroszek" is definitely a wrong name, used by Western sources only
  • "kb ppanc Ur" on Polish Wiki is a common code name... anyway, it should be disputed there, not here
  • as for 1935 or 35: I'm not 100% sure, but it seems, that theoretically 1935 is more correct, but 35 is definitely most commonly used, also in a titile of an official manual, quoted by Halibutt.

That's all as for now. Pibwl « 21:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. So, the name used by the producer, creator of the instruction, the ministry to order its production and finally most of the literature on the topic is not a proper name? Then why the hell do they use it as such?
  2. If we keep it that way, it would suggest otherwise. Also, even if we treat the "anti-tank rifle" as description here, then the title would suggest "wz.35" being the name of the gun, which is completely false. It was but a designation while the full name was... you knbow what.
  3. Not always was it so, and as well the British "Mark XX" system sometimes used the date of design/patent/production. But I agree with you, translation of proper names of arms or designation can never be 100% accurate - and that's the reason why proper names of different weapons are barely ever translated. Except perhaps for the Japanese weapons.
  4. Nope, M1 is called M1, regardless of the language. We might call it "karabinek M1" to distinguish it from the M1A1 tank, for instance, but its name is still M1 - since that is how it was called by its producer. Same with kb ppanc wz.35 - we might call it "kb ppanc wz.35 anti tank rifle", but it should be clear which part of that is the name and which is just a disambiguation.
  5. Well, the abbreviated name suits me fine since it's also being used by the sources. However, I still believe article on George Washington should not be moved to First president of the United States of America nor to George Washington, pierwszy president of the Stany Zjednoczone of America (if we are to translate only half of the name, just as in the case of wz.35 treated as a full name)...
  6. As to the names proposed - indeed Maroszek is only used by foreign sources (and his name is often misspelt, just like Gene did). It is both counterfactual (since he was the lead designer, but not the only person to make it) and against the Polish naming tradition, not to mention the fact that it was not used prior to 1970's. "Kb ppanc Ur" seems like a strange mixture to me: "kb ppanc" is an official designation while "Ur" is one of the code-names. However, although these names are often combined on internet pages, I have yet to see such a crazy mixture in any of the sources. To use a comparison, it would be like naming the invasion of Normandy "D-Day" for security's sake, and then all of a sudden renaming it to "D-Day, that is the Invasion of Normandy", to let the Krauts understand what's the fuzz all about. The code-names used were "Ur", "Ursus" or "Urugwaj", not "kb ppanc Urugway" - it would have no sense to name the weapon that way.
  7. As to the dates - the official documents of 1920's used the full dates rather than last two digits. However, the names did not stick and barely anyone used them - the highest command of the Polish Army included. Hence the problem with the dates - theoretically they should be expanded, but nobody ever did it. Halibutt 05:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  1. "karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35" is most proper name indeed - but in Polish.
  2. and 3 - IMO, the case of M1 is exactly the same. It was not just M1, but at least two different guns: M1 Rifle and M1 Carbine. And (at least in Poland) they are freely translated. Moreover, the oficial name was not just M1 Carbine, but: United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1. If the Americans had M1 Anti-tank rifle, it would be "karabin przeciwpancerny M1" in Polish. So the same pattern should work other way IMO. Of course, some may think, that M1 is a sole name of the gun - while it isn't (btw, it is Army designation, not producer's). I agree with you, that some may think, that "wz.35" was the name of the gun - but I think it's not that big danger (that's why the title says "anti-tank rifle wz.35", not just "wz.35", like, say, "MP 40", and that's why "wz.35" should not be used in an article alone). Anyway, this danger can be avoided by Wiki readers simply by explaining it in an article. However, going in this direction further, I think, that better name in English Wiki would be "anti-tank gun Model 35" (which I don't like), instead of all-Polish one. As somebody already mentioned, does it mean, that we should use Japanese equivalent of "anti-tank rifle", when writing about Type 97 ATR, and Chinese equivalent of medium tank, when writing about Type 95 tank? Pibwl « 10:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's fine with me, as long as the article states loudly and clearly that the "English name" was invented solely for Wikipedia and is not used outside of it. Halibutt 11:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have given you several examples outside Wikipedia; you have found others yourself.
Part of your problem is that you fail to understand how indexing order can differ from natural order, and as well the fact that word order is often less important in English than it is in some other languages.
When my name is indexed as "Nygaard, Gene" that doesn't mean I have acquired another name, different from "Gene Nygaard". Nor when I am listed as "G. Nygaard", analogous to calling this an "AT rifle" rather than an "anti-tank rifle".
Similarly, military designations are often just that type of indexing and classification scheme. For example, "United States Rifle, Caliber .30, Model 1903" in natural word order would be Model 1903 Caliber .30 United States Rifle" or "Model 1903 .30 Caliber United States Rifle". Of course, you won't find its article titled under that name in the English Wikipedia, and probably not in any other Wikipeida either. Gene Nygaard 12:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there is one thing we can all agree on: there is no single correct English name (just see the 'Final naming decision' name list below). We should avoid non-English names when possible, but then how do we chose the correct English name? From the names suggested so far, I like the abbreviation argument, so I'd go with kb ppanc wz.35 (or sth similiar). However, after doing some research I came to the conculsion that this entire argument is pointless. There is no consensus for equipment naming on wiki. Just see Category:World War II German infantry weapons - some weapons are abbreviated, other have German names. Sure, Panzer and Panzerfaust may be common in English, but I doubt Faustpatrone, Sturmgewehr 44 or Gewehr 43 are. Category:World War II British infantry weapons can't even agree on the correct naming convenction for the granades (No 76 Special Incendiary Grenade vs. No. 69 grenade vs. Hawkins grenade (supposedly No 75)) or using abbreviations or not in the title Bren vs Lanchester SMG). Soviet? Just chose between abbreviation (RG-41), English description (Russian M1910 Maxim) or Russian name (Pistolet-pulemet). There were no French infantry weapons, but their artillery is listed under full French name (Category:World War II French equipment). Italians are also confused, using abbreviations mostly (Category:World War II Italian infantry weapons) but not for Carcano (M91). Japanese category is mostly standarised with two exceptions (see Category:World War II Japanese infantry weapons). And while we are at this, let's agree wheter those names for other Polish guns are correct: 7.92 DS, [Vis (weapon)]]. Ufff. As you can see, whatever we decide on, it won't have much value unless we can create and enforce some official weapon (military equipment) naming policy. Otherwise, this will just be more chaos. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Gene, what you fail to understand is that this is not a case of "Gene Nygaard" vs "Nygaard, Gene", but of "Gene Nygaard", "G. Nygaard" and "Jene Newtown". You suggest the latter option just because it sounds "more English" to you.
Piotrus, tell me, how is it that I always agree with what you write? Isn't it strange? Hmmm, perhaps I'm your sockpuppet :) Halibutt 11:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
No, it's like the difference between water closet and ubikacja. Gene Nygaard 15:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
So, following this logic, if your name is Gene Nygaard, then it should be translated to Gene Newtown in English, Gienek Nowomiejski in Polish, Džin Novoměstny in Czech, Gene Neustadt in German and Zhenia Novgorodov in Russian... why didn't you translate it? Wikipedia urges you to use English... Halibutt 17:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Your logic circuits must be shorted out.
I would expect that when my article is written in the Russian Wikipedia, it will be transliterated, just as ru:Ньютон, Исаак is. Gene Nygaard 17:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Then why do you propose to translate the names instead of transliterating them when needed and leaving them alone when Latin alphabet is used? Note that Russian Катюша is not translated to English as en:Cathy. Instead, it's left as en:Katyusha, untranlated and uncut. Similarily, we should leave other pieces of weaponry under original names instead of inventing new ones, just for the sake of it. Halibutt 18:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Get over it, Halibutt! Like I said, this is like using water closet rather than ubikacja in the English Wikipedia. This is descriptive terminology which often varies in different languages, as is amply demonstrated by all the various descriptions in use, many of which are listed in the suggested titless for this article, and more in other discussions on this page.
It has no connection whatsoever with personal names. However, in any case, your arguments about personal names are not all that persuasive to someone who could as easily be "Newgard" (as my gggf was in the 1880 U.S. census) or Mortens(on) (his name in 1865 census in Norway) or Aadland or Nygard or Nygoard or Jacobson, as well as Nygaard and -sen variations, other names used by him and his sons.
That's without even getting into arguments about the accuracy of your translations.
There is nobody with authority to issue "international birth certificates" with a uniform international name for weapons. If any of them are going to have such a generally recognized name, they need to earn it, as the Katyushas did by becoming associated with the title of a literary work, or as Hunkesni did when he became Tatanka Iyotake (which, of course, is not the title of his biography in this Wikipedia, as you will see if you follow the link). Gene Nygaard 21:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
But you still failed to provide any evidence that the proper name of that weapon (that is the one used by the producers or the Polish Ministry of War) is actually not a proper name. We might call this weapon anything, but as long as you fail to provide such evidence, such a name would be either inaccurate - or simply and plainly wrong. Specific sources and links to original documents preferred. Halibutt 06:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'll butt in again. Halibutt, it seems you delibateraly fail to understand, that "karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35" was an official name, but in Polish only. Why we don't call United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1 by its official name, but instead call it commonly M1 Carbine here, and "karabinek M1" in Poland? You quote Katyusha - ok, but note, that it is Rocket Launcher Katyusha BM-13, "wyrzutnia rakietowa BM-13 Katiusza" (or whatever we translate it), not Bateryeyny Minomyet-13 Katyusha in English (which, moreover, officially should be translated as something like: Battery-ized Mortar - mortar with many barrels). Pibwl «
As for translating human names - it is completely different thing, and it can't prove anything. Moreover, "karabin przeciwpancerny" should not be regarded as personal name, but as occupation. We translate, say, "polski hydraulik Jan Kowalski" as "Jan Kowalski, the Polish plumber", or (possibly?) "le plombier Polonaise Jan Kowalski" in French - instead of forcing "hydraulik" (and we don't translate it as "John Smith..."). Therefore I think, we must translate "karabin przeciwpancerny" as anti-tank rifle. The whole problem is, whether to leave "wz.35", or replace it with ambiguous "model 35", "1935 pattern" or whatever. I say, "wz." as a part of the name is typical for Polish weapons. And don't quote "Panzerbuchse 39" in reply, because: a) - it is commonly known name, b) - I believe, that it should be called "PzB-39", or even "AT-rifle PzB-39" in English. PzB-39 itself is a nice abbreviation of official name. Pibwl « 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
So, if the weapon was used in Poland only, by Polish Army only and the Polish name was the only name used by:
  1. the producer
  2. the ministry to order it
  3. the guy to make an instruction
  4. the factory to make it
  5. the guy to qualify it for military service
  6. the historians to describe it, both under its name and under the names invented by various English authors,
then why should we change the name? Also, my questions are still valid. Halibutt 02:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks and I'm still waiting... Halibutt 03:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Also, if the original designations are to be replaced, then we should immediately move 7TP to 7 Tonnes Polish light tank and C2P to 2 Tonnes Polish Trailer. Also, move the ORP Błyskawica to RPS Lightning, since that was also a military designation... Halibutt 09:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Almost a month and I'm still waiting... Halibutt 12:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Final naming decision[edit]

This has gone on long enough. Please put forward any names that you believe are acceptable for this article. Add them to the list but please do not discuss it in this section. This is also not a vote, which I will start once we have some submissions. I will add the current title to begin the list. violet/riga (t) 13:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Commentary to name suggestions[edit]

  • Can you cite any other Wikipedia titles including a description as both an English translation and some other language? We don't even put both American English and British English in the same title (except for a brief trial of a Gasoline/Petrol title, or something along those lines). These two shouldn't be considered a serious proposal, but rather just Halibutt trying to make a ridiculous suggestion that everyone will reject. Gene Nygaard 13:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was not me to propose a partial translation of the name of that weapon in the first place. Halibutt 15:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this is getting pathetic. Cool down, stop wasting your time and spend it on something more productive. --Lysy (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation[edit]

User:Halibutt, since you have already falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule, you are obviously well aware that it exists. So why have you violated it yourself? This has been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR with times, etc., listed there. Gene Nygaard 15:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether Halibutt is guilty or not, you should not remove a dispute tag. Such revert war should be solved by discussing it here, not by deleting the tag. As a sidenote, I'd like to note that {{dispute}} tag is not the most appopriate in this case. The contenct of the article is not disputed, just the name - you should use the {{moveoptions}} tag. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe he removed the tag for the reason you are stating - it's not the right one. If there was (is?) a tag for a naming dispute then that should be used. However, WP:RM tags (including moveoptions) are used a) when it is listed on WP:RM and b) on the talk page. I'm hoping that the above section will gather the possible name options and then go through normal WP:RM voting proceedings, this time with more voters. violet/riga (t) 16:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Strange. My apologies remained unnoticed. My plea for sources remained unnoticed. My questions I asked Gene remained unnoticed. Do you read the talk page at all? Halibutt 19:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


Ok, after almost a month without any discussion here I decided to move this article to a shortened name, in accordance with other Polish arms listed in the Template:DefWarPlInfWeaponsNav. Halibutt 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I can accept it (though I still think we need a consistent way of naming weapons, maybe more descriptive for all weapons). Pibwl « 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The one we use know seems fine to me - at least we use original names and not ones invented by someone just to make them sound more "English". OTOH perhaps we could add an article on Polish weapons' naming scheme to the template. Halibutt 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WZ.35 "UR" AT rifle for sale in 2013.[edit]

Hello, a nice copy of this rifle is up for sale in March 2013. Only $25,000! The site listing with nifty photos... rifles Miscellaneous Military Rifles. Should the price be included in this artice? I suspect these are so rare that prices are fairly meaningless. John

Hagler bullets -- probably a typo?[edit]

In the article, we refer to:

... the tests of German-made Hagler bullets ...

This intrigued me, so I started hunting for more information -- but all in vain. The only reference I can find to these "Hagler bullets" are pages that (like this one) seem to translate one original Polish article (or possibly it is actually a blog post.)

However, in one forum I found a reference to these bullets being invented by "Gerlich" (presumably Hermann Gerlich of later squeeze bore fame), and that might set us on the right path. Because Gerlich's commercial high-velocity hunting rifles were made in Kiel by his partnership, "Halbe und Gerlich", which used the portmanteau Halger (not Hagler) as a brand name. Incidentally, while Halbe und Gerlich made the rifles, the high velocity cartridges were actually made for them by RWS. -- (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)