Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (rockets)

Poll to implement

Support

GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
212.219.59.241 12:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
195.27.52.149 08:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--aceslead 22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Include missile or rocket (with or without parathenses) in the name for consistency. -Fnlayson 22:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Use missile or rocket where applicable, without parentheses. Nick L. 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poll to vote for with parentheses, you voted in favour of rocket in parentheses at the end of all. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER #2 and #3 are offical government designations as i understand #2 is US and #3 is Russian.

Oppose

Oppose the elimination of missile is prejudicial. 132.205.93.88 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? How exactly is it predudicial? - Have you ever heared the Saturn V called a missile? How about the Space Shuttle, or the Zenit 3SL? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peacemaker missile, Polaris missile. Trident missile, Minuteman III missile, etc ad nauseum. The Saturn V is not a missile, but eliminating "MISSILE" is prejudicial to missiles. 132.205.45.148 23:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Leaving designations out of titles when they were available will lead to complicated disambiguation between rockets which share names (which can happen as they are only for show) but rockets can never share designations. Notably the R-12 Cosmos and the R-14 Cosmos. I am also yet to find any rockets that flew that dont have designation numbers. And I don't think sounding rockets should be included in this as they are different. Notably you mentioned the zenit sounding rocket, how do you intend to disambiguate this from the Zenit rocket, without mentioneing it is a sounding rocket? Philc _T^E_C^I 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose Proposal below as explained in Comments and in paragraph below proposal. --Serge 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It seems premature to decide what's best in advance without seeking input. Try restructuring this with approval voting after some discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think be "Name only" when possible with (rocket) to disambiguate as necessary. --Usgnus 04:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Serge 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Usgnus's proposal (name only, (rocket) as necessary) better fits the naming conventions elsewhere. Duja 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, basically, the proposal outlined here. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the proposal needs to be reworded. Two people have misunderstood it already. --Usgnus 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree again. I don't see a proposal that proposes what Usgnus is saying. The only one I see is near the bottom of this page which proposes including rocket in all rocket articles, whether it's needed for disambiguation or not, and without parentheses. That's the opposite of what Usgnus has wisely suggested. --Serge 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is currently one proposal on the project page as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how (rocket) and (rocket family) are incompatible, afterall, one is about a family of rockets (say... like the K-car) and the other is about a single model (say... a Plymouth Reliant). And sounding rocket should be acceptable for sounding rockets. Missile should be preferable for actual missiles... like SLBMs, IRBMs, ICBMs, AAMs, SAMs. The world calls them missiles, just look at the acronyms. Look at the Anti-ballistic missile treaty as official and legal documentation known across the world... 132.205.93.88 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is trying to simplify the system, so ideally, one single name should be chosen. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 11:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MISSILE from my experience usually refers to a weapon such as "Stinger missile." While usually refers to rockets as non-weapon, such as Saturn V rocket. However there are cases that both work and relavent such as titan II missile (which was an ICBM) and Titan II rocket which launch the Gemini Capsule into space.--aceslead 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The V-2 rocket is only missile I have come across that was commonly called a rocket. It did go onto to be just a rocket after WWII. -Fnlayson 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

The need for disambiguation seems to be common for missiles and rockets and sometimes "rocket" or "missile" is included in the name, so it might be good to include them in all names. Also, it is much nicer to have rocket or missile on the end instead of in parentheses, in my opinion. I propose that all articles have missile or rocket after them without parentheses, depending on whether that particular rocket meets the definition of a missile or if it is just a rocket (see missile for the definitions). If a particular rocket is overwhelming called a missile, or vice versa, then perhaps the most common usage should be used, with a redirect made and a note somewhere in the article that it does not meet the definition of a missile, or in the reverse situation, that it is actually a type of rocket called a missile. If this is implemented, then I think that articles about rocket families should have "rocket family" or "rockets" in their names (preferably not in parenthese), since it seems weird to have rocket families have "rocket" or "missile" in their names. There may be some rare cases where we'll want to make exceptions on these rules, though. If this proposal is not accepted, I think there should be another proposal made, since I think a good, but imperfect, naming convention would be better than the current randomness. -- Kjkolb 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to be convinced by unneccisary disambiguation, but it may be neccisary to reach a compromise in order to clean up the worst of this nonsense. I'm on the fence for now, but I will support this if the other option is no convention. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a parenthetic remark to disambiguate is the standard convention in Wikipedia for good reason: to clarify the name most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article from the disambiguation information. Including "rocket" or "missle" in the title, without parentheses, implies that "rocket" or "missle" is part of the name of the rocket or missle. That's misleading. Those rockets with names that collide with other article subjects should be disambiguated (presumably with (rocket)); those that do not require disambiguation should have a title which is the name of the rocket only. That's the clean, simple, consistent approach. Otherwise, you have a mess. --Serge 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support your idea of using parentheses for disambiguation to make clear "rocket" or "missile" or whatever we will decide to use is not part of the name. // Duccio 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I've started posting {{User:GW Simulations/ICBM}} on relevent talk pages. This can be used to keep readers of these pages up-to-date with the naming convention, let them know that discussion is taking place, and eventually can be turned into an RM template. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Fnlayson 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LV

A separate set of naming conventions already in existence: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Launch_vehicles#Naming_conventions. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]