Talk:Full metal jacket
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Change target
[edit]Untitled
[edit]Change to redirect to full metal jacket bullet because as JHunterJ said, "The hatnotes on each article would suffice to direct those who are on the wrong page, and the change in case would allow wikilinks (like the ones at Beretta 3032 Tomcat, 10.15x61mmR, and .38-200) to go to the page most likely sought." The capitalization of the film versus the capitalization of the bullet type would serve to disambiguate the two pages. Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The claim on the disambiguation page that a full metal jacket bullet is designed to pierce armor is not, strictly speaking, correct. That they are capable of such in some cases is a byproduct of what they are designed for, which is to be a non-expanding bullet in compliance with the Hague Convention. Additionally, FMJ pistol rounds do not typically have the ability to pierce armor because of the low velocities they achieve and their shape, usually round-nose or truncated cone. 67.234.205.93 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Based on the page view statistics for Full metal jacket bullet and Full Metal Jacket:
- Full_metal_jacket_bullet has been viewed 18401 times in the last 30 days.
- Full_Metal_Jacket has been viewed 73707 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 8830 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
I am redirecting "Full metal jacket" to "Full Metal Jacket". Two articles is not enough to require a disambiguation page and each features a hatnote to the other. Given the film's article is so much more popular than the ammunition, it's a given that more people are interested in that. I don't see how this could be argued otherwise. -Gohst (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The movie is named after the ammunition, which is one of the most basic bullet designs around the world. Movie articles will alwats be more popular than articles on technology and the like, thus this cannot be used as a reason to give movie articles the base names of the object they are named after. With this logic Cars (film) could be moved to just Cars, which is a bad idea. Blockhaj (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)