Talk:S-2 Tracker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
 |
S-2 Tracker is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
My 2c on the name question (as already discussed by Stan and Maury on their talk pages)
- Maury favours Grumman S-2 Tracker
- Stan favours S-2 Tracker
- I prefer Grumman Tracker
However, in this case, we have an instance of US vs non-US usage. Here in Australia we say "Grumman Tracker" or "Tracker", so that sounds more natural to me. In the US, I should imagine that "S-2 Tracker" is much more common.
I don't think it is usually appropriate to apply the "first-in, best-dressed" naming rule (that generally decides between US & International English issues) when it comes to aircraft entries. Instead, it is almost always best to use the name that the major users of the aircraft used. This is why Brewster Buffalo is better than "Brewster F-2A" - the best-known users called it the Buffalo. And (in my view) it is why S-2 Tracker is the correct name for this entry. (Even though I personally prefer Grumman Tracker).
(But when it comes to certain little-used and really dumb-sounding aircraft names - which I'll not mention here for fear someone might read this and be prompted to resurect the damn things - we should make exceptions, of course. :) Tannin 04:30 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
- It's not so much that I prefer "S-2 Tracker" - among its downfalls are that a search engine won't find it if handed "s2f tracker" or "s-2e tracker" - but it's what the^H^H^Hyour :-) naming conventions page says to do. You can see in the effort to have assigned names and numbers that the US services are trying to avoid dependence on corporate names, which can change at the drop of a merger; it would be pretty confusing to have to start talking about the "Boeing F-4" fighter, heh-heh, or more realistically the "Boeing F/A-18". (Boeing building fighters?? That's weirder than having McDonald's in Russia!!) Stan 07:10 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't have the material to dig into this, but there is probably an interesting story behind the seemingly-counterintuitive avoidance of corporate names for US military aircraft. For instance the unified numbering of 1962 is said to have come about because McNamara was being made crazy by the Navy and Air Force using completely different numbers to refer to the same kind of plane. (it's certainly having that effect on me... :-) ) Stan 07:20 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
