Move article to Terminology & nomenclature
I would like to propose that the article be moved to Terminology and Nomenclature (alt spelling: Terminology & Nomenclature), as that is what the article is moving to become either way. Abbreviations will still be part of this change as it belongs to termonology and nomenclature.--blockhaj (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
HK & VK designations
- Conflicting sources. Half says Vollketten, half says Versuchskonstruktion. Until we can find a reliable source (ideally a German source from WW2), there won't be any changes. --Colok76286 (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- VK is an abbreviation for a lot of things, including vollketten (full tracks) and versuchskonstruktion (trial construction).--blockhaj (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This page is still very much WIP. Unlike other pages, however, no in-game inconsistencies need to be adopted here. I therefore suggest that someone (a moderator?) creates rules or a template according to which entries should be made. For example, what exactly should be entered under “literally”? I had a look at the German section, “Tank thrower” is not the same use of “literally” as “Dive attack aeroplane”. Leaving aside the problem of multiple meanings. Humans make mistakes, who would know better than me. But I would never think of editing a Chinese entry entirely on my own. Perhaps we editors should agree not to write entries in a language we're unable to speak at CEFR level B2 at least? --Disabled#1 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- In general, the page can cover any abbreviation that could reasonably be expected to appear in the game or on the wiki. More broadly, this means that any abbreviation that might be used as part of a description of military equipment would likely fall under the scope of the page.
- "Literally" denotes a piece-by-piece translation with minimal regard for the wider context. Languages that make common use of compound nouns or phrases such as German and Chinese lend themselves well to this, while others may not. The information itself is meant simply as a minor point of interest.
- This is a free wiki, anyone is free to contribute wherever they want (with some particular exceptions). If you notice something incorrect, please feel free to correct it. Additionally, it would be infeasible for us to require verification of (or even judge, in many instances) a degree of fluency in any particular language. - DnaGonite (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Since this evidently gives cause for misunderstanding: I entirely agree that it would contradict the idea of a free wiki if moderators here had to start checking certificates in the manner of a doorman. Certificates that both native and non-native speakers often do not have, and which, depending on the issuer, have the validity of a school report.
- By "we editors should agree" I was thinking more of a voluntary self-restriction by the contributors themselves.
- I hope I have understood this correctly, and will not take the addition of "literally" as an obligation, and treat it as a metaphrased but meaningful translation rather than a curiosity.