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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
PWS-1 is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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.
Oppose - No substantive reason given to ignore WP:AIR/NC Naming Conventions, which are also part of Wikipedia:Article titles. Per the opening section of that guideline, "This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right)...". - BilCat (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal does appear to comply. Green and Swanborough (see ref in my vote below) refer to Mikoyan-Guervitch in full, as does WP:AIR/NC in the example it gives. But G&S refer only to P.W.S. in the title, saving the full expansion for the text. This supports the view that to comply with WP:AIR/NC we should do likewise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIR/NC recommends using the manufacturer-designation (M-D) format for aircrsft with designations but not names. If "1" is the designation. Then "P.W.S. 1" or "PWS 1" would be the recommended title. If the designation is "PWS-1", then "Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów PWS-1" or pehaps "PWS PWS-1", would be the correct title. - BilCat (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referring back to Green and Swanborough, PWS types are referred to in the text as the P.W.S.1, P.W.S.10, etc., while PZL types are referred to in the text as the P.1, P.6 and so on. That would support the view that the type designation is indeed the P.W.S.1 (punctuation to taste). I missed that issue before, well spotted. The question remains, should this article be moved to "PWS PWS-1" (punctuation to taste)? I comment below about that — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference pulls the same trick but with a sting at the end. Kenneth Munson, Aircraft of World War II, Ian Allan (1974 reprint) writes P.7 for example for PZL types and P.W.S. 26 for example for P.W.S. types - punctuation for the manufacturer's names also as I give it here. The sting is the entry titled "P.W.S. RWD-8" which is referred to in the text as the "RWD-8". This adds further support to a move to "P.W.S. P.W.S. 1" but I personally think this would just look silly and we are back to the original debate - do we ignore M-D or don't we? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with consulting reliable sources to determine what the actual designation is, or at least the most common from of it (PWS-1, -1, or 1). But our guidelines recommend using the M-D-N/M-D/M-N format for all aircraft article titles, as these are the most common formats used in most reliable sources. Just because one cherry-picked source uses something else is no reason to throw out the standard format. - BilCat (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Illustrated encyclopedia of Avaition for what its worth uses the P.W.S 20 format so I suspect that PWS-1 is actually wrong so it should probably be more formally Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów Type 1, it appears to use abbreviations for P.Z.L as well so it may be that English sources try to not use the Polish words as they are meaningless in English. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get from "source X uses the short format" to "so let's use the long format"? FWIW Green and Swanborough stick to the P.W.S. format for all their (fighter) aircraft listed - 1, 10 and 15 - while fearlessly trotting out the full Polish name in the text. Also, is the parallel with PZL valid? I notice we have articles on Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów and PZL. Does that reflect their respective preferred names in Poland or just our own confusion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support oppose Green and Swanborough, The complete book of fighters, Salamander (1994), Page 483 titles it the "P.W.S.1" but why this differs from the "PWS-1" form already mentioned is not clear to me. Would be nice if we could understand that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Vote changed due to above discussion of type designation. Might change back if new facts come to light. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Yep, changed back following the unearthing of another reference per above discussion - I think we should resolve the issue the way all the references do. It may ignore M-D but it is the voice of sanity. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
