This page is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
Conclusions of the discussion in a nutshell:
All disambiguators that are not part of the rocket or missile's official name should be in parenthesis
Titles for missiles should follow one of the following formats (in order of preference)
A vote on implementing this proposal is now being conducted, please see this page for voting and continued discussion
This is a discussion page for the proposal to bring rocket article namings into some form of a logical order.
Moves to bluelinked articles are over redirect unless otherwise stated. I'm not entirely sure whether "rocket" or "(rocket)" should be the standard disambiguator, but either way is an improvement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I prefer ()'s, you can use the link trick. BTW, Saturn (rocket family) covers two major designs and several redesigns, so simply (rocket) doesn't seem appropriate. Maury (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal 1
Summary
Use "rocket" without parenthesis as a standard disambiguator.
^ abcThough two different rockets called Orion exist, the Argentinian version is actually designated the "Orion-1", and should be located there, with a {{dablink}} template used on both articles.
^Over redirect to another article, disambiguation already exists.
^ abSplit the article into two seperate ones, one about use as a missile (LGM), and one about use as a carrier rocket (rocket)
^ abcdeOver disambiguation page, where only one article is listed, which can be disambiguated using {{dablink}}
^Official designation contains a number, which eliminates the need for a disambiguator
^ abcThe article would cover the main version, and basic information on its derivatives, which make up the rest of the "family"
^Over disambiguation page where all other entries are redlinks
^Adding official name to title in place of disambiguator
^Hyphen is more common, and provides disambiguation from the Soyuz 2 mission. {{dablink}} templates should be used on both Soyuz 2 and Soyuz-2 to avoid confusion.
^Using an alternative name to avoid the problems that standardising disambiguation would otherwise cause for rockets with the same name.
^Bring in line with other rockets in the same series
^A component, not a rocket itself, disambiguator is misleading
Discussion
Please comment on the proposal here. When discussion settles down, a poll will be held on adopting the proposal
Personally, I'm a proponent of the non-parenthesised disambiguator, i.e. V-2 rocket and so on. Whatever the eventual mode accepted will me, I am glad a standardization effort is taking place. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you in favour of including this disambiguator on all articles, or just ones where it is required? I too am in favour of non-parenthesised disambiguators, but only where necessary. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the aim here? To produce a consistent naming convention? Or to purge bracketed disambiguators? AIUI, the current plan replaces Black Knight (rocket) with Black Knight rocket but leaves Black Arrow as Black Arrow, rather than moving to Black Arrow rocket. This seems wrong to me. If our intention is "standard naming for rockets", then all names should take the form Black Arrow rocket. I don't like this - it seems contrary to the wiki principle of not stating structure through page names. If we accept that some names can't be of the ideal simple form Black Arrow, because they require disambig such as Black Knight (rocket), then what's wrong with the well-established current behaviour of using brackets to wrap this extra disambiguator?
Additionally, another important wiki principle is that good names should work well when embedded as wikilinks, without needing manual effort to edit them. Black Arrow works. Black Knight (rocket) works with the pipe trick as Black Knight. Black Knight rocket doesn't work as a wikilink and needs a manual edit to Black Knight.
The aim is to purge inconsistent and unnecessary disambiguators. Black Arrow lacks ambiguity, whereas Black Knight is ambiguous. I really don't mind if we use "rocket" or "(rocket)" as a disambiguator (although I think it should be lower case). I have two objections. These are that there is inconsistency between which one is used, and that disambiguators should not be used where there is little or no ambiguity. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain the wikilink issue? I'm a newbie, and would favor just " rocket" otherwise as the standard, for reasons I gave below. Thanks— Wwheaton (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support a call to "purge inconsistent and unnecessary disambiguators". I don't think there's much disagreement over the "inconsistent" part. However purging unnecessary disambiguators isn't what the current proposal suggests! It's actually making disambiguators mandatory on names, and hiding the fact they're really disambiguators by sneaking them into the basename for the page, i.e. Black Knight (rocket) moving to Black Knight rocket. That's still a disambiguator, it's just a clumsy one. If the goal is "purge unnecessary disambiguators", then lets purge those and leave the necessary ones alone. That leaves us with Black Arrow (no dab needed) and Black Knight (rocket) (dab is done by how best to do dab). This is also (AIUI) how other projects, such as aircraft naming, have worked. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to mandatory disambiguation. I see both "rocket" and "(rocket)" as disambiguators, and I would stronly support standardisation in either direction. I'll try and create an alternative proposal, and we can poll on which one to adopt. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, to be honest, I actually prefer "(rocket)" but when this was used in earlier proposals, WP:ICBM for example, objections were raised, and people said that they prefered "rocket". I am working on the second proposal now, I really don't mind which is used, as long as one of them is. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As to "V-2 rocket", I'd want to see redir pages as a minimum and quite possibly V-2 rocket as the main article name. That's not disambiguation, that's just using the most common form of the name from popular culture (and what's likely to make the best embedded wikilinks). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about having "V-2 rocket" as the article name, whilst V-2 is available, but I think redirects are absolutely essential in all cases. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically I assume we should try to minimize the average number of tries to get to the right page. So I favor naming in case of serious ambiguity as " rocket" without parens, consistently, as I think a naive user would usually not try the " (rocket)" form without a prior hint or prodding, which we can spare them. Thus, "Viking rocket" for the main name. In cases where there is no serious confusing alternative (eg V-2) I favor just the name alone, with disambig ref to "V2" at the top, and "V-2 rocket" listed on the V2 disambig page of course. Probably we want to keep the (rocket) form as redirects for historical reasons where it has been used previously? But not introduce it without need. For the Redstone, I suspect the rocket is more likely than the arsenal or any of the other things I see on the disambig page, so I would just make that the main article name—although I have little instinct about the frequency of accesses to some of the other possibilities, like the town. (It ? seems like Wiki must have bots or software to keep tabs on the statistics for this sort of thing, and [say] a 3-to-1 winner should basically automatically get the main name?) I would have a redirect for PGM-11, and would definitely not title the main article "PGM-11 Redstone", as I think few users would try that first. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Even so, I still prefer the logic that very few non-expert readers would try "PGM-11 Redstone" first, and would only find it after a few tries or by a redirect. The Redstone is something of a special case in that, besides being a very important early ballistic missile, it also had a major role as a research vehicle and launched the first two manned Mercury flights, so it has notability outside the narrower field of US missile identification and notation. I suppose if we want to be consistent within the just subject of US missile notation, "PGM-11 Redstone" could be the main entry, with a redirect from "Redstone rocket" and disambiguation for "Redstone" alone. That would get you there immediately for many readers' searches, with only one stop to disambiguate the rest. Wwheaton (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it has notability outside of being a missile, but I still feel "PGM-11 Redstone" should be the main entry. Your compromise solution seems fair to me. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
adding rocket to everything that's a rocket would seem reasonable, since that's how people speak about these things (ie. people say "Saturn V rocket", "Minuteman missile", "Skval torpedo", "Patriot missile". 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Out of context it might be common to say "V-2 rocket" (esp. for a hard to pronounce or numeric name) but it makes for awkward wikilinks within articles about a group of rockets. It's easier to add rocket when needed than remove it. Bracketed disambigs also allow the auto-pipe. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The hyphen is present in the rocket's name but not the mission name. The rocket is probably more notable than the mission anyway. {{dablink}} templates would be used on both articles. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The hyphen is insufficient, since many people write missions out with hyphens, and not spaces. Leaving it with "rocket" attached makes the pagename clear. The dablink would still remain. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Soyuz 2 mission isn't widely known anyway. The rocket is far more notable. Hyphenation of Soyuz missions before Soyuz T-1 is very rare. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hyphenation is a personal preference of users of wikipedia, and from what I've encountered, not so uncommon, at other instances. As series 1 Soyuz missions are "Soyuz #" a person looking into the history of Soyuz missions would conceivably type "Soyuz-2" for the mission. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The correct name for the Argentine rocket is Orion-1, therefore it is better there, and that leaves the other name free for the US rocket. The US rocket is more notable anyway (in terms of number and publicity of launches). {{dablink}} templates would be used on both articles --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk08:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
However it gives Orion-1 as effectively the family name. See the page title. If you would prefer, we could split the page. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If it were split, we'd have two very small stubs, instead of one very small stub... It's problematically small right now. 70.55.89.211 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would send M-100 directly to Messier 100 as a redirect, and put a dablink on the Messier 100 page to point to the rocket. So, I too believe that a dab page is not needed, but for the opposite reason. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the two names using google, there are 67,000 results for M-100 rocket[1] versus 44,600 for M-100 Messier[2]. Therefore, the rocket appears to be the most common usage of the term. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk09:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Consider that M-100 and M100 are being treated the same here. There are 36,900 ghits for "M100 messier" compared to 27,600 for "M100 rocket". I would choose a relatively prominent messier object over a minor sounding rocket any day, but then I'm biased in that regard. =) Personally I'm fine with leaving M-100/M100 as a disambiguation page.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Even so, I agree the confusion with Messier 100 is significant. And many readers will not realize that the hyphen is critical. I see "M100" and "M-100" alone both give over 5,000,000 Google hits to numerous objects, Messier 100 seeming most prominent among the higher ranked. Wwheaton (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of confusion in the vehicle component articles too. If we're to implement this change for rocket vehicles, then I think it ought to apply to motors, engines, satellites, projects et al. consistently. If we do it for propulsion, can we also please have a clear definition of "motor" vs. "engine" in place beforehand (A correct definition is good, but this is wiki after all). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this should be sorted out, but I feel that a separate proposal might be a good idea. I will look into it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
: Alternatively editors could just wade in in the middle of the night, re-naming a batch of pages without any though of using the talk: page at all! Not Happy. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"editors could just wade in in the middle of the night, re-naming a batch of pages without any though of using the talk: page at all!" And this would surprise you why? =] Trekphiler (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Anyway, some modern missiles don't have NATO designations, so this would not facilitate consistency. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that the articles listed as being under the purview of this RfC are not listed as part of this WikiProject... their talk pages are for the most part not tagged with this WikiProject 70.55.84.13 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is, effectively, a dead project. I don't even think it has a tag. I'm only using its namespace for this discussion for want of a better alternative. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
For a "dead" project, it has a fair amount of traffic. I think it's worth "reanimating" given the state of a lot of the articles out there. ComputerGeezer (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Redstone name change
Redstone (rocket) really needs an overview article such as "Redstone rocket family" or some such that covers:
.jpg){kind=small}
