Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles

{{Nutshell|title=Conclusions of the discussion| }}
 * 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)
 * [Official designation] [Name] (eg PGM-17 Thor)
 * [Name] or [Official designation], if one is not available (eg. V-2)
 * [Name] (missile) or [Official designation] (missile) if one is not available, and the other is ambiguous (eg R-36 (missile)
 * Local designations should take precedence over NATO and US Library of Congress designations (eg. R-7 Semyorka not SS-6 Sapwood)
 * Families of rockets should be disambiguated using (rocket family) where there is ambiguity
 * Individual rockets should be disambiguated using {rocket) when there is ambiguity
 * When there is no ambiguity, there should be no disambiguation
 * Within families of rockets, there should be an overview article for the family, and individual articles for the variants
 * In some cases subgroups of a family can have their own articles

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 08:53, 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)

Summary
Use "rocket" without parenthesis as a standard disambiguator.

Changing disambiguation tag

 * Agni missile system → Agni missile
 * Agate (rocket) → Agate rocket
 * Aigle (rocket) → Aigle rocket
 * Alfa (rocket) → Alfa missile
 * Ariane (rocket) → Ariane rocket
 * Arcas (rocket) → Arcas rocket
 * Asp (rocket) → Asp rocket
 * Athena (rocket) → Athena rocket
 * Atlas (rocket family) → Atlas rocket
 * Avatar RLV → AVATAR rocket
 * Barbarella (rocket) → Barbarella rocket
 * Berenice (rocket) → Bernice rocket
 * Black Brant (rocket) → Black Brant rocket
 * Black Knight (rocket) → Black Knight rocket
 * Bumper (rocket) → Bumper rocket
 * Conestoga (rocket) → Conestoga rocket
 * Cora (rocket) → Cora rocket
 * Cirrus (rocket) → Cirrus rocket
 * Daniel (rocket) → Daniel rocket
 * Dauphin (rocket) → Dauphin rocket
 * Deacon (rocket) → Deacon rocket
 * Dragon (rocket) → Dragon rocket
 * Fulmar (rocket) → Fulmar rocket
 * Falstaff (rocket) → Falstaff rocket
 * Jaguar (rocket) → Jaguar rocket
 * Jarvis (rocket) → Jarvis rocket
 * Jason (rocket) → Jason rocket
 * Javelin (rocket) → Javelin rocket
 * K-1 launch vehicle → K-1 rocket
 * Kappa (rocket) → Kappa rocket
 * Kookaburra (rocket) → Kookaburra rocket
 * Kumulus (rocket) → Kumulus rocket
 * Lambda (rocket) → Lambda rocket
 * Leopard (rocket) → Leopard rocket
 * Loki (rocket) → Loki rocket
 * Long Tom (rocket) → Long Tom rocket
 * Magnum (rocket) → Magnum rocket
 * Maroon (rocket) → Maroon rocket
 * Maxus (rocket) → Maxus rocket
 * Melanie (rocket) → Melanie rocket
 * Meteor (rocket) → Meteor rocket
 * Minotaur (rocket) → Minotaur rocket
 * Molniya (rocket) → Molniya rocket
 * Monica (rocket) → Monica rocket
 * Mu (rocket) → Mu rocket
 * Oracle (rocket) → Oracle rocket
 * Orion (U.S. rocket) → Orion rocket
 * OTRAG Rocket → Otrag rocket
 * Petrel (rocket) → Petrel rocket
 * Polyot (rocket) → Polyot rocket
 * Project Nike → Nike rocket
 * Rigel (rocket) → Rigel rocket
 * Rook (rocket) → Rook rocket
 * Saturn (rocket family) → Saturn rocket
 * Scout (rocket) → Scout rocket
 * Sea Dragon (rocket) → Sea Dragon rocket
 * Skua (rocket) → Skua rocket
 * Skylark (rocket) → Skylark rocket
 * Sonda (rocket) → Sonda rocket
 * Soyuz launch vehicle → Soyuz rocket
 * Sparta (rocket) → Sparta rocket
 * Titus (rocket) → Titus rocket
 * Thor (launch vehicle) → Thor rocket
 * Vega (launcher) → Vega rocket
 * Zuni (rocket) → Zuni rocket

Other

 * NEXUS (rocket) & NEXUS (launch vehicle) → NEXUS rocket (merge)
 * Titan (rocket family) → Titan rocket and LGM-25 Titan (split).

Summary
Use "(rocket)" with parenthesis as a standard disambiguator.

Proposed moves

 * incomplete


 * Agni missile system → Agni (missile)
 * Alazan rocket → Alazan (rocket)
 * Angara rocket → Angara (rocket)
 * Atlas (rocket family) → Atlas (rocket)
 * Avatar RLV → AVATAR (rocket)
 * Europa rocket → Europa (rocket)
 * Long March rocket → Long March (rocket)
 * K-1 launch vehicle → K-1 (rocket)
 * N1 rocket → N1 (rocket)
 * Orion (U.S. rocket) → Orion (rocket)
 * OTRAG Rocket → Otrag (rocket)
 * Pegasus rocket → Pegasus (rocket)
 * Ping-Pong rocket → Ping-Pong (rocket)
 * Proton rocket → Proton (rocket)
 * Project Nike → Nike (rocket)
 * Saturn (rocket family) → Saturn (rocket)
 * Soyuz launch vehicle → Soyuz (rocket)
 * Sputnik rocket → Sputnik (rocket)
 * Taurus rocket → Taurus (rocket)
 * Thor (launch vehicle) → Thor (rocket)
 * Vanguard rocket → Vanguard (rocket)
 * Vega (launcher) → Vega (rocket)
 * Viking rocket → Viking (rocket)
 * Voskhod rocket → Voskhod (rocket)
 * Vostok rocket → Vostok (rocket)
 * Zenit rocket → Zenit (rocket)

Other

 * NEXUS (launch vehicle) → NEXUS (rocket) (merge)
 * Titan (rocket family) → Titan (rocket) and LGM-25 Titan (split).

Global changes

 * These changes are included in both proposals

Moves to remove disambiguation tags

 * Delta III rocket → Delta III
 * Delta IV rocket → Delta IV
 * Dnepr rocket → Dnepr-1
 * Kumulus (rocket) → Kumulus
 * Long March 2 rocket family → Long March 2
 * Long March 5 rocket family → Long March 5
 * M-100 (rocket) → M-100
 * Orion (Argentine rocket) → Orion-1
 * Polaris A1 Missile → Polaris A1
 * Project 621 (rocket) → Project 621
 * Redstone (rocket) → PGM-11 Redstone
 * R-12 (missile) → R-12 Dvina
 * R-36 (missile) → R-36
 * Saturn II (rocket) → Saturn II
 * Soyuz 2 rocket → Soyuz-2
 * T-7 (rocket) → T-7
 * V-2 rocket → V-2
 * Zenit sounding rocket → Zenit-C

Other moves

 * GSLV III → Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III
 * Dart (rocket) → Dart (rocketry)

Mergers

 * Canopus (rocket) → Canopus 2
 * Long March 1 rocket family → Long March 1
 * SS-10 Scrag → UR-200

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 10:35, 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.


 * I support the status quo, albeit with tidying where necessary. Black Arrow is best. Black Knight (Rocket) is second-best, where there's already a need for disambig. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we must disambiguate, I favour ' (rocket)' rather than ' rocket', just because of the better use as a wikilink. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 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 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I'd thought you supported the proposal as currently worded. I think we're broadly in agreement here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 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 18:07, 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 18:07, 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)


 * "PGM-11 Redstone" would be in line with just about every other article about a US missile. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:18, 19 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 13:25, 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)

Ambiguous naming
This is ambiguous, since there's a Soyuz 2 mission, so this is a very bad name. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Soyuz 2 rocket → Soyuz-2
 * 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 07:32, 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 08:54, 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)
 * Personally, I don't think so. Another option would be Soyuz-ST. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving US Orion where it is is better, (or Orion rocket (US)) 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Orion (U.S. rocket) → Orion (rocket)
 * Orion (Argentine rocket)
 * 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 08:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference used on the Argentine rocket states that there's an Orion-1 and an Orion-2. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:33, 18 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 09:09, 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)

I think this is bad. Messier 100 is in my opinion a more likely target. 70.55.85.177 (talk)
 * M-100 (rocket) → M-100
 * It can be disambiguated using a dablink template. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 08:53, 17 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 versus 44,600 for M-100 Messier. Therefore, the rocket appears to be the most common usage of the term. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 09:05, 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.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. The term under discussion is "M-100", not "M100". -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:14, 19 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)
 * If you look at GOOGLE M-100 and galaxy there are 240,000 hits. A more restricted search removing rocket and Messier yields an additional 60,000 hits to Messier 100, since it's a galaxy, and commonly noted as just "M-100", "M100", "M 100", without mentioning "Messier". 70.55.89.211 (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Engines and motors
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 15:34, 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)
 * Which pages have been moved? -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 12:41, 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)

NATO reporting names
Wouldn't NATO reporting names be more common in English? 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * SS-10 Scrag → UR-200
 * Not really. Anyway, some modern missiles don't have NATO designations, so this would not facilitate consistency. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As per the weaponry task force#Naming conventions, the name to be used is the "model number alone, or a combination of the model number and the designer's name". The NATO reporting name is quite ambiguous sometimes, and as per what GW Simulations was saying, most of the world's weapon systems are named with their original or englisized name. --Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 03:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Weight of the world

 * Atlas (rocket family) → Atlas rocket family. If it's not 1 rocket, "Atlas rocket" isn't quite right; dab from Atlas/redirect from Atlas rocket. If I'm looking for "Atlas rocket", I get the family & can look for the specific 1 I want; if I only know "Atlas", I'll get dabbed to "rocket family", ditto. Trekphiler (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good... 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a poll?
Has this question been discussed enough that it would make sense to conduct a poll? (sdsds - talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite probably. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 06:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Project tags
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 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is the generic one... though I suppose that is academic if the wikiproject is dead. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:50, 3 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:


 * PGM-11 Redstone missile
 * Juno I
 * Jupiter A
 * Jupiter-C
 * Redstone-Mercury series
 * Sparta (rocket)

This is not my particular area— I got involved with helping a fellow editor for a bit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a starting new Redstone family article, and moving Redstone (rocket) to PGM-11 Redstone. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)