Talk:AK-47

How about we split the article?

Throughout this article, "AK-47" is used in at least three meanings:

- what Kalashnikov called "AK-47", types 1-2-3, that is - prototypes and pre-production models;

- that, plus what was the first actual production model of AK-type rifle - AKM, or simply AK, although we already have a separate article for AKM;

- or any automatic rifle from the AK family in general, although - you guessed it! - we already have a Kalashnikov rifle article.

And yeah-yeah, WP:COMMONNAME, yadda-yadda. We should lie about what "AK-47" actually is. I understand that. I totally dig that! But still, this article can't keep its lie straight. And people that want to know what exactly Kalashnikov meant by "AK-47" will be left a bit puzzled after reading it. I think that's a bit of a problem. So, how about we have two versions of this article: AK-47 (or whatever is called in Western media as such), where we could keep lying incomprehensibly for the sake of WP:COMMONNAME, and AK-47 (the real thing), for people that actually want to know something about firearms? 95.48.23.137 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• The article is only 146,023 bytes, I think it's covering it pretty well. If you have any actual constructive ideas for improvement to the existing verbiage, by all means, give them. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

YNW Melly

The AK47 features in the lyrics of "Murder on My Mind" by YNW Melly: "I wake up in the morning, I got murder on my mind, AK-47's, MAC-11, Glocks, and .9s, And all these pussy niggas hating, tryna knock me off my grind, But I can't let 'em do it, I got murder on my mind." 86.175.165.164 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"No. Built" seems unsupported

Killicoat's "Weaponomics" declares that the '75M AK-47, 100M AK platform' data comes from the 2004 Small Arms Survey, but after searching through the survey (https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/resource/small-arms-survey-2004-rights-risk) I couldn't find any claims of specific production numbers by model. The closest statement I could find was from Chapter 1:

"Assault rifles (also known as automatic rifles) are the most numerous and effective type of infantry weapon. Few innovations have emerged over the last years, the category being dominated by the Kalashnikov series, both in 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm. These rifles may be encountered almost anywhere—they are manufactured in a number of countries and are in service in nearly 80 countries (see Table 1.10). It is estimated that between 70 and 100 million of these weapons have been produced since 1947"

The 100M Kalashnikovs part lines up, albeit taking the highball figure, but 75M AK-47s is entirely absent. A matching 75/100 figure does appear in the introduction of Gordon Rottman's 2011 "The AK-47," though presented as more a casual factoid than a research result. 98.170.219.238 (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

Under History > Further Development its written: "Instead of halting production, a heavy[N 1] The machined receiver was substituted for the sheet metal receiver." I assume there is meant to be something after "a heavy..." or possibly before it but currently its a fragment of a sentence Benjinoodle (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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)