Talk:Glossary of Russian and USSR aviation acronyms

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Article

Please fill in gaps and add cyrillic equivqlents.Petebutt (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the SHOUTING in the section headings. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:MOS, section headings fixed. This article is now tagged as lacking refs - each definition needs to show a ref to indicate that the information is correct and where it came from. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lsted the reference sources I used to compile the list, but to give individual references would be a herculean task I am not prepared to do, suffice it to say that all the info was gathered from those references. I published it to see what reaction there was to it, hoping that the rea ction would not be an edit nit-pick but discussioin on the actual content.Sorry about the SHOUTING Petebutt (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - that is the strength of Wikipedia: collaboration! You don't have to get it perfect on your own. I have changed the tag to indicate that it lacks footnotes, rather than refs since you have added the refs. It is probably easier to add footnotes as an article is being written, rather than after the fact, which, as you point out would be a lot of work now. When I had the refs, such as in the case of V-Speeds I have been able to reference a list like this in the past retroactively, but I don't have the refs for this article. I think the article is very useful and I hope that it will be retained and expanded over time. Thanks for starting it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some to the section titles, if that is not good enough please revert and re-insert the citations neededPetebutt (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a lot more individual citations and removed the section citations, however other editors have done a good job of tidying up my previous effort so I have appended my latest version to the bottom of the last revision. Could Ahunt or Smackbot do their magic on my latest effort and delete the unwanted bit, ThanksPetebutt (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit was mine but i saved whilst logged out, if anybody has any issues with it.Petebutt (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new edits

lucky i checked history first, incorporated new edits into my new editted archive version before saving it, PHEWPetebutt (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)++==[reply]

A question

Will this list show up in a search for one of the listed items. If not how do i get it to do it?Petebutt (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer my own question:- it works fine, any search for one of the listed acronyms will return an entry for this glossary#/listPetebutt (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! Yes it will! - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Stale

Can someone please put an edit hold on this page. It is getting too big for my flaky connection to save once I've editted. I intend to split it into more managabeable sections, but will need an edit block until I'm finished. Then, any edits people have lined up can be carried out on the relevant sections.Petebutt (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might try putting an {{inuse}} tag at the top of the article, which produces this box: - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the article not just the talk page, but Thanks, all done now, it was a lot quicker than I anticipated. Any comments?Petebutt (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant that you should put the tag on the article page ;). No problem, looks like you got it done! - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

This article was submitted for FLC, but I have removed the nomination because this list is not really eligible for FLC in its current state; it's basically a table of contents for the real glossary. In addition, why is this page a subpage of another article? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Standard title case, per WP:AT. Subtitles are first-letter-capitalized as subtitles, per WP:NCSPLITLIST. Consistent and grammatical naming (two were using "USSR/Russian" which will be parsed as subpages, others "USSR Russian" which is gibberish). Put Russian first as more relevant today. It shouldn't be "Russian" by itself, since that implies Russian language (i.e., Cyrillic script). "Aero-engines" didn't seem to mean anything not conveyed in the context by "engines"; if we need to specify, use "aircraft engines", since "aero-engines" has multiple meanings and isn't a common usage anyway. When list articles are split, it is "preferred" to use colons, not en dashes (while the latter are permissible, they're harder for people to use, and don't seem to serve any particular purpose here). "Miscellaneous, materials and nicknames" is redundant; just "miscellaneous" will do, and neither predominate the content of that list, which is quite mixed. I would have just redirected the "aircraft weapons" one to the better-developed "weapons and armament" one, which seems to have been accidentally WP:CONTENTFORKed from it; however, there may be details in the former that are not in the latter but which should be merged in, so move it to a sandbox page for now. Finally, the corresponding Category:Glossaries of Russian aviation should be renamed Category:Glossaries of Russian and USSR aviation along with these articles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rename WP:SLASH We should not be using slashes in article titles. All those that use slashes should be moved forthwith. They appear as WP:SUBPAGES and thus cause problems with talkpages. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notes on glossary formatting

The {{term|1=}} value must be bare text, and cannot contain any formatting. If you need an italicized (or whatever) entry, the formatting must go in the |content= parameter:

{{term|Polyarnyi|content=''Polyarnyi''}}

I've fixed all the current cases.

Also, the template-structured glossaries need to be done consistently using the templates for this, or undesirable results may ensue, and you'll miss out on a lot of features, e.g. multiple paragraphs within definitions. All the cases like this:

{{term|PT}}
:(suffix) ''Perkhvatchik'' Teplvaya golovka samonavedeniya – interceptor with IR seeker head

need to be redone like this:

{{term|PT}}
{{defn|1=(suffix) ''Perkhvatchik'' Teplvaya golovka samonavedeniya – interceptor with IR seeker head}}

A complex case, with multiple definitions:

{{term|PM}}
:1. (suffix) ''Pilotazhnyy Modifitseerovannyy'' – aerobatic modified<ref name="Gordon & Komissarov" />
:2. (suffix) ''Perekhvatchik' Modernizeerovannyy'' – interceptor modified<ref name="Gordon & Komissarov MiG" />

{{term|PM}}
{{defn|no=1|content=(suffix) ''Pilotazhnyy Modifitseerovannyy'' – aerobatic modified<ref name="Gordon & Komissarov" />}}
{{defn|no=2|content=(suffix) ''Perekhvatchik' Modernizeerovannyy'' – interceptor modified<ref name="Gordon & Komissarov MiG" />}}

As long as you load it within the | (a.k.a. | of the {{defn}}, you can include images, block quotations, multiple paragraphs, even hatnotes (with {{ghat}}) in individual definitions. (Don't try to apply them inside the |term=content; like much of Wikipedia formatting, things are fairly brittle.

If you need to give two spellings of the same term, and don't want separate entries that cross-references each other (which is advised if the spellings are not alphabetically close, e.g. "cat" and "feline") there are two approaches:

{{term|Foo |content=Foo (Fu){{anchor|Fu|foo|fu}} }}
{{defn|1=Blah blah blah ....}}

or

{{term|Foo |content=Foo {{anchor|Fu|foo|fu}} }}
{{defn|1=''Also '''Fu'''.''  Blah blah blah ...}}

If you need both lower and upper case to link to the entry (often advisable unless it's obviously a proper name and always capitalized like "Mikhail Gorbachev"), use {{anchor}} or {{vanchor}} in {{term|...|content=}}, as already illustrated in the last examples. The {{term|1=}} value is always anchored, exactly as-is (which is why it can't contain any markup).

Hope this helps. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]