Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (military vehicles)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

This first draft is based on discussion at the Wikiproject Military history's Weaponry task force. It is meant to supplement the main naming conventions with guidance specific to this domain only, to promote consistency, and remain brief. More background is at the original discussion. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:42 Z

[edit] Implications

To help judge the effect of this guideline, here's a list of the articles currently in category:Medium tanks, and how I would rename some to conform to the proposed policy. There are some judgment calls, so you may interpret it differently, or you might disagree with the way the guideline is written. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 04:54 Z

And category:Heavy tanks:

Also have a look at others in category:Tanks by classification.

Looking at these makes me wonder whether the descriptive names shoudn't be a bit more detailed: T-50 light tank, T-28 medium tank, T-10 heavy tank, instead of just "X tank". —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 05:02 Z

That might be a better approach if the appropriate descriptors are uncontroversial. Are the various types cleanly defined? Or are we likely to see wars over whether a particluar tank is medium or heavy, for example? Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The broad categories light, medium, and heavy are pretty safe—they're already in those categories without any revert-warring that I recall.
Sometimes there have been fights over more specific categorization in the AFV navboxes (e.g. template:WWIISovietAFVs) or in articles' first lines, when a vehicle's name or basic design pattern may appear to clash with its role. For example, whether the T-50 tank's intended role was infantry tank and the T-60's reconnaissance, or alternately that all Soviet light tanks are to be grouped together. Whether the KV-2 is really an assault gun (its usual role), an "artillery tank" (the Soviet classification), or just a heavy tank (what most popular sources call it). Whether aerosan should be translated snowmobile. These issues can usually be sorted out, although sometimes it's been necessary to pummel an editor about whether a source constitutes an expert or a fanboy, or whether a poor Russian-language translation should be considered an authority on English names. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 14:53 Z
Looking at the list, it seems to me that the more obscure or unusual vehicles are the ones which may like to have more description in the article title. For example, "T-34 tank" seems fine, but "Tortoise heavy assault tank" or "DD amphibious tank" immediately demonstrates how a vehicle stands out by its fundamental nature (also T-28 Super Heavy Tank).
Conqueror tank fits in with Chieftain tank, Churchill tank etc, no need ot bring in the largely unknown FV number. GraemeLeggett 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. There are probably other such cases (Excelsior tank?). —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 14:53 Z