Talk:NATO reporting name

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation 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 Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Cold War 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 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 Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) inactive .NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

International relations Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

What about moving the subpages to "List of NATO reporting names for X"?

It's Ok by me. Any volunteers? ;-) wojpob 29-07-2002

Done.

What about NATO reporting names for ships? I have heard, for example, that there was a class of Soviet ships called Koni by NATO, but I can't find them—or any other ships, for that matter—in this article. Could anyone clear this matter up for me, please? Maikel 15:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know that most submarines (obvious exceptions are the Akula and Typhoon) were named according to the U.S. (NATO?) alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.). There doesn't seem to be any logic to which letters were assigned to which; does anyone know the rationale? Grsing 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Were names used by'.. Aren't these still used for Chinese equipment? Not to mention that they're still being used to refer to Russian equipment. I'll replace it with present tense. Joffeloff 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that there was an additional “code” built into the code names, in that one syllable names indicated a prop driven aircraft; i.e. Bear, or Colt, and two or more syllable names indicated jet powered aircraft; Blackjack, Condor. It seems to work, but I can't find a reference. Speedbump 18:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this here, rather than on each of the sublists, for simplicity's sake. The sublists contain pointless links for the nicknames. Most of these links provide no useful information about the actual item in question (the article on

Another things to clean up is that Fulcrum & Ber are not popular name in Russia... Never heard about this.--Oleg Str 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the five countries on the commission aren't members of NATO (Australia and New Zealand). Are these names used by the non-English speaking NATO countries? It seems rather odd if the names aren't used by the majority of member countries. Lisiate 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of countries are using this nomenclature, even those who are not member of NATO (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, ect.). They are called "NATO reporting names" because of the historical NATO-Varsaw Pact rivality. Germ 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because NATO adopted them and, since "NATO" is more well-known than ASCC, "NATO reporting names" has become the common way to refer to them. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes sense. But the thought of non-English speaking countries using the names as well seems a little odd - I wonder how Foxbat sounds said by a Portuguese speaker. Lisiate 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in the Danish Navy during the

Aircraft Recognition. Even though the number of vowels dictates the number of syllables in Danish, we still knew that 'BEAr' was propeller driven etc. On the radio it was funny to hear German, Norwegian and Danish tongues trying to pronounce the NATO reporting names, so it was used by non-English speaking countries. NATO was a major standardisation organisation, so even Portuguese must have used 'Foxbat' (is it obscene in Portuguese?). A Danish fighter squadron could land on a Portuguese air base and be replenished. A File:Filled-circle-black.svg means hydraulic fluid, a means lubricating oil etc. Necessary Evil 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(Edit conflict) I'm sure there are some interesting accents! BTW, NATO air operations are chiefly standardized on the use of English – as is most civil aviation air traffic control, so it's not quite as odd as it seems. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this system related to the WWII practice of assigning nicknames to Japanese aircraft? (Tony, Oscar, Frank, etc.)

It evolved from that practice. In both cases, the actual designations/names were not always known at first, so this further sustained the approach. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NATO was formed in 1949 but throughout the Korean War (1950-1953) the MiG-15 was referred to in the Western press simply as the "MiG-15" (not "falcon," its original reporting name, or "fagot," its best-known code name). This leads to the question: when was this system adopted? or when did it start becoming known to the general public? 165.91.64.137 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)RKH[reply]

It’s difficult to answer your questions because the assignments were – and remain – classified; what names have appeared have been leaked over time. It should also be kept in mind that these code names were used primarily for intelligence purposes, not operational practices. The ASCC was established in 1948, but I have not seen any source that says when it started assigning reporting names. From 1947-55, the US used what were called “Type” numbers. Obviously, something had to have replaced them, so it’s fair to speculate that they were introduced circa 1954-55. I don’t know when the first example of the ASCC usage appeared in a public source, but certainly not until after the actual Russian designation became known. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US

The Americans don't classify their own Ospreys as helos, so I doubt NATO would classify ROW tiltrotor aircraft as such. 92.48.99.38 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent years and years not knowing what a "ganef" or "gimlet" is. So, I started putting links to Wikipedia or Wiktionary into the relevant articles. Since this affects many pages I thought I'd make a note of it on here.

I have only added definitions for names that are obscure, according to my arbitrary decision on which names were obscure and which were not. I didn't add inline definitions. One might be especially useful at

So far, I've done the AA, AS, SA, SS and AT series of missiles. I haven't done SA-N- or SS-N- missiles or any reporting names for Chinese equipment. I looked through the aircraft lists, and I don't think there's nearly as much need for definitions, as there are only a few obscure words.

These are the pages affected.

I hope this is useful to some readers and, of course, I encourage other editors to add or correct entries. The definitions above are more or less the ones I put into the edit comment box. They're not necessarily the right ones, just the ones that seemed most likely.

Roches (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Chinese Navy qualify for a list? All its ship types have NATO reporting names. I've added Chinese subs to the submarine list but they could feature in a Chinese Navy list.

List of NATO reporting names for ships
Or
List of NATO reporting names for ships of the Chinese Navy
Lankyant (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the article name is related, my changes today reflect the fact that I have looked, in vain, for several years now, for a source stating that NATO now controls this system. In fact, NATO does not appear to have superseded the non-NATO body ASIC (previously ASCC/AFIC) which, after all, had this as its main role initially.

Hence my cleanup of the text today, including removal of a long unsourced assertion, that control had been transferred to NATO.

There is no doubt, historically, that the system emerged outside NATO. And it makes sense, historically, that a "Five Eyes" body invented and oversaw it, given the precursor system for Japanese aircraft in WW2, used by Allied air services (USAAF, USN, RAF, FAA, RAAF and RNZAF) in the Pacific/Asian theatres.

The submarine system may well be a NATO thing, but the two have nothing to do with each other. Hence move of sub material to relevant article.

@BilCat:

Grant | Talk 05:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the move and name change text, but I agree with removing the totally claims that NATO now controls the names. However, "NATO reporting name" is unequivocally the most common name for this naming system (in English, anyway), and I can't recall ever seeing an alternate name used. To call it anything else is

Original Research on your part. BilCat (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

For what it's worth, I discussed the system with a former RAF officer involved in AFIC and NATO at different times, and he agreed that "NATO reporting names" was a misnomer, at best.

Since the system did not arise within NATO, any reference to NATO in the name comes later. As such, NATO reporting name is a misnomer.

There are, furthermore, many precedents for the rejection (or demotion) of a common name as the location of a particular article.

Are you open to compromise regarding the title?

Title aside, I would also point out that one-click reversions of text content is a blunt instrument and supposed to be used only in the case of vandalism.

The article in its previous form has issues, such as absence of references. In future, please edit rather than reverting and trashing

WP:Good faith

edits by other users.

Grant | Talk Grant | Talk 06:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't asked there about this before, you might ask at

WT:MILHIST, as they have several editors who were/are in NATO militaries, and may be aware.if some sources on this. BilCat (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

See above. Grant | Talk 06:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not open to a compromise on the title. While it may or may not be managed by NATO, it's commonly associated with NATO, and used by NATO nations, so in that sense it's not inaccurate. But you're welcome to propose a new title as an RM, and let that run its course. I will abide by the consensus, of course. BilCat (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that at a future date. In the meantime, I have amended the introduction, including removal of the OR/fallacy that the reporting name system is controlled by NATO. Grant | Talk 06:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works. I may tweak it later. Sorry about the edit stomp earlier. I'm dealing with a sock, and was distracted. BilCat (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

As I say, there are many precedents for renaming articles, to an alternate common name, or even a neologism. (See, for instance, the case of Association football v. American football, not to mention several other sports known simply as "football" in one country or even just a part of a country. Such compromises make aficionados of the things unhappy, but make sense to everyone without a "dog in the fight".)

One of the reasons why alternate names are chosen is that the most common name is demonstrably a misnomer and, as such, tends to confuse/mislead ordinary, casual users. And that is clearly the case with this article. That is shown by the fact that someone felt it necessary to posit (or simply invent) and insert a fictitious factoid regarding a purported transfer of control of the reporting name system – apparently just to defend the current article name. What could be confusing/misleading than that? Not to mention the fact that unidentified, pure conjecture like that is ethically anathema to any encylopedia. That phenomenon is closely connected to, and underlines, the deleterious tendencies of misnomers.

Since the subject of the article is so strongly associated with military aviation, both in origins and currently (i.e.) The only major exception being the system for submarines, which has dwindled in relevance since the Cold War ended, and was clearly inspired by the ASCC/AFIC reporting names.

Hence, I think,

Calling anything "NATO ____" implies a direct connection that, in this case, simply does not exist.

Grant | Talk 03:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notes section is blank here. Should this be removed or were some previous notes deleted for some reason? ABCDOMG (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BilCat, there have been several posters making the point that these designations were ASCC now Air Forces Interoperability Council, not repeat not NATO, and WP is actually not in the business of perpetuating inaccuracies. From my personal perspective, I've been using such designations for 20 plus years, and since I came across them, I knew they were ASCC originally, and I'm a New Zealander - have little affiliation with NATO.

I would rather see the page moved to AFIC forthwith.

There is no problem whatsoever with redirects remaining for "NATO reporting name" to account for any *proved* "common usage," but in the same way that we all switched over to Russian real designations rather than DOD or ASCC codenames in the 1990s, we ought to switch here to what is correct.

Do you have anything more to add, references, I trust, before I begin an RM or discussion at the forum you mentioned,

Go ahead with the RM and/or WT:MILHIST, and we'll see what the community thinks. I haven't changed my opinion per WP:COMMONNAME, but I'll abide by the consensus. My preference is for an RM with a notice at WT:MILHIST and WT:AIR, but whichever way you want to go is fine with me. BilCat (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If not a discussion, I have just dropped an advisory at

WT:MILHIST, so more people can come in. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]