Talk:AK-47

lead

@Swatjester: Please explain why you reverted my edit which made the lead of the article much shorter and readable than the previous version.

For context for other people, this is what my edit looked like:

The Avtomat Kalashnikova 47 (AK-47) is an assault rifle that is chambered for the 7.62×39mm cartridge.

Notes

Compared to the previous:

The AK-47, officially known as the Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова, lit. 'Kalashnikov's automatic [rifle]'; also known as the Kalashnikov or just AK), is an assault rifle that is chambered for the 7.62×39mm cartridge.

―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to provide context -- Wikipedia maintains a revision history they can just look at as well as compare diffs of the revisions. As I explained in the edit summary, your changes are not an improvement to the lede of the article. As the article title is "AK-47", not "Avtomat Kalashnikova 47", and per MOS:LEDE the page title should be the subject of the first sentence; alternative names typically come later. Your change had the effect of making the formal page name into not just an alternative name, but quite literally the last in order. So as it both went against our MOS and was not an improvement to the article, I reverted and requested you seek consensus for the change here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how putting the abbreviation later in brackets makes it worse. The article for NASA does this exact thing, and it works since people can quickly understand that it's meant to be an abbreviation. Also, I don't see how being "last in order" matters, since there are only two of them and they're right next to each other, so it doesn't become less readable somehow. It is true that the abbreviation is far more frequently used than the official name, but by integrating the abbreviation into parentheses, we quite obviously indicate the official name and the abbreviation. By contrast, the would require we break the lead sentence up before we actually explain what the subject is. In any case, per MOS:BOLDSYN, we are encouraged to place common abbreviations between parentheses so your argument to MOS does not apply. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That provision of MOS:BOLDSYN explicitly refers to alternative names. Common abbreviations (in parentheses after the corresponding title) are considered significant alternative names in this sense not article titles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If your goal is simply to shorten the lead sentence with efns, fine, but putting the infrequently used formal name before the commonly used name and page title is the part that's problematic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

They are right next to each other in my proposal (so the exact position really does not matter), whereas in the previous version the names are even further apart, thus making it more difficult to read. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the level of concision is not the issue -- and there was no indication there was a problem in the first place -- but rather the placing of the infrequently used formal name ahead of the more frequently used common name that also is the article title. Significantly more readers arriving at the page will be looking for AK-47, not "Avtomat Kalashnikova 47". We should always be presenting the most important information in the article first. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless they are completely unaware of how abbreviations work, the average reader would the make the obvious connection that AK47 stands for "Avtomat Kalashnikova 47". Again, they are right next to one another, and yes, the level of concision is an issue (in the previous version), since it makes the sentence uglier by inserting useless words that could be shortened by simply inserting a parentheses. The same case applies to something like the NASA, which has the article title as abbreviation yet it still puts the abbreviation between parentheses as it should in the lead. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Concision absolutely matters more than position. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not an accurate statement of our MOS, and NASA is an organization, not a firearm. Different subject areas may be subject to individual naming schema from Wikiprojects or sub-sections of the MOS -- as the AK-47 article explicitly was in its previous incarnation (back when it was a formerly featured article -- in which the words "Avtomat Kalashnikova" did not even appear in the lede whatsoever). A more accurate comparison would be the article on M16 rifle, which you'll note begins with the article name and THEN goes on to deliver the formal nomenclature. In any event, I've explained my reasoning why I don't think the edits were an improvement. You've not made an argument that alters my opinion here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not explained your reasoning for why it's problematic that the abbreviation comes immediately, directly, literally-two-characters-apart after the official name. Any reader would reasonably conclude that AK47 and Avtomat Kalashnikova 47 refer to the same thing. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I've explained it quite clearly: our MOS states that the article title is the subject of the first sentence, and article titles and common names come before alternative names. You've failed to establish that your changes are an improvement. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears this is a matter of adherence to rules versus better form. You cannot be persuaded then. I give up. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

Fox quotes in pop culture subheading. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

Change "AK-47" into just "AK" since the name "AK-47" refers to a prototype variant, using it in the context of AK Type 1, 2 and 3 is colloquial and incorrect AxeDeodorant123 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done -- no sources cited to support the claim that "AK-47 refers to a prototype variant." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request – Dead Link Replacement Suggestion for AK-47 Book Reference

Hi,

I noticed that the citation for:

Kalashnikov, Mikhail Timofeevich; Joly, Elena (2006). The Gun That Changed the World. Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-3691-7. [permanent dead link]

is currently marked as a permanent dead link.

To keep the reference reliable and informative, I’d like to propose replacing it with this relevant, accessible resource:

🔗 https://gunsamerica.com/digest/century-arms-debuts-its-new-ak-47-the-bft-core-shot-show-2022/

Title: Century Arms Debuts Its New AK-47 – The BFT Core (SHOT Show 2022)

Summary: This article discusses Century Arms’ debut of their new AK-47 model, the BFT Core, at SHOT Show 2022. It provides detailed insights into the AK-47’s continued evolution, manufacturing updates, design features, and its significance in the modern firearms market—consistent with the original citation’s focus on the AK-47’s impact and development.

Source credibility: GunsAmerica, founded in 1997, is a respected firearms marketplace and educational platform that produces expert-reviewed content for the firearms community.

I believe this replacement will enhance the Wikipedia article’s accuracy and usefulness.

Thank you for your dedication to maintaining Wikipedia’s quality and reliability! Gunamerica (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)