Talk:RATTLRS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RATTLRS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin RATTLRS → RATTLRS — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) supported by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence (most references in article do not routinely use <manufacturer> <missile name>). Also other missiles on Wikipedia do not seem to use this format most of the time e.g. other pages in Category:Guided missile stubs. —Callmederek (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose - Some missles do use the manufacturer name, and some use their military designation. I think the manufacturer here ought to be used, as it is a normall convention in WP:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all missile articles should have the maufacturer as a prefix. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Closest naming convention I can find for a missile is WP:WEAPON#Naming conventions which does not demand a manufacturer. More importantly it is not referred to as "Lockheed RATTLRS" in most of the sources either in the article or elsewhere.Global ecurity, Defensetech.org, Deagel.com, and Popular Mechanics, so probably for WP:COMMONNAME reasons as well. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even Lockheed Martin does not call it a "Lockheed Martin RATTLRS".[1] Horsesforcorses (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. The guidelines of WP:AIR and WP:WEAPON seem to be in conflict here. In that case I would defer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) as per nom, esp. given evidence in links provided by User:Llamas above. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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

Results?[edit]

When did this project end? Did it achieve a successful demonstration flight?

There is nothing in the article that gives the answer to either question. I could not find any answers by searching the WWW. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]