Talk:Skif (anti-tank guided missile)

Relationship between Skif and Stugna-P

RS are had to come by for this. It seems Stugna-P is the 130mm variant with a tandom HEAT warhead (which is obviously exactly the right system to use against Soviet/Russian tanks) using exclusively domestic components for use by the Ukrainian military, while the Skif is more like the entire system family for export, and also uses some (pre-war) Belarusian components. Maybe someone with a good understanding of Russian can trawl the ruwiki article (http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%9F) for sources. Some Western sources refer to the Stugna-P as the Stuhna-P; both are transliterations of Стугна-П; Stugna-P is the result of using the Russian rules, Stuhna-P of using Ukrainian rules (easy to check using https://translit.cc/). Which one is correct? I'd guess, since it's an Ukrainian system, one should be using Ukrainian transliteration, not Russian, which would make Stugna-P wrong despite being more commonly used. Phiarc (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually just merged the Stunha-P/Skif entries on the List of Equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Page based on the info I got from this website: https://www.military-today.com/missiles/skif.htm

From what I can tell, Stunha-P is the original system while the Skif is, as you say, the export version. This source (https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22377/Ukraine_Tests_New_Anti_tank_Guided_Missile_System____Skif___#.YjeImTVUlPZ) says the only difference between the Stunha-P and the Skif are on the launcher system, specifically on adapting the launcher for in soft soil and sand, and the missile is unchanged.

Your link to the Russian Wikipedia page only confirms what I've read. In my opinion, this page should be renamed to Stunha-P since that is the name of the original ATGM. Falconet8 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Missile was developed by Luch, Kiev, while the whole aiming device was made by Peleng, Minsk. Same arrangement was made on Shershen, another slightly newer joint system. The original was called Skif, Stugna-P is a version not reliant on belarusian components and using new ukranian aiming module. If you want to name it after the missile, then its name is Barrier. Skif/Stugna is a lightened version of that ukranian missile. Barrier was developed in 2005 so it IS an original. http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%80_(%D0%9F%D0%A2%D0%A0%D0%9A)

As for pronunciation, it's a ukranian missile produced in Ukraine and used to defend Ukraine. Why would you use russian pronunciation?! 46.53.248.99 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed "the system was the first ATGM to shoot down a helicopter. A Ka-52." claim.

There is footage of helicopters being shot down by TOW missiles during the Syrian Civil War - and that is not to say that ATGMs have not been used for this prior to widespread smartphone / camera footage. At best it was the first recorded use of an ATGM to down a helicopter during the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.226.12 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The veracity of this claim is covered (in part) by military historian, Perun, on YouTube, in his essay: End of the Helicopter? (no) - MANPADS and helicopter losses in Ukraine. Recommended. El_C 13:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Back to g (from h)

Diff. Removing g (Stugna) entirely and replacing it with h (Stuhna) seems questionable, per WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe it makes sense in Ukrainian, but this is the English Wikipedia, so ensuring accessibility for the English-language readership should be paramount. Thank you. El_C 13:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, Stugna-p is the russian translitaration into english, which doesn't make sense. It's a ukrainian system, that's why it makes more sense to use the ukrainian translitaration, not the russian one. This has nothing to do with the english language, but has more to do with the translation, which makes Stugna-p wrong. FleekRush (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The ukrainian language should be respected and the wikipedia community should stop translating ukrainian things into english by russian rules. It's not hard to use the ukrainian translitaration. FleekRush (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd personally argue that Stuhna sounds way weirder than Stugna if you compare it to the original pronunciation. 93.73.169.88 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Stugna-p is still wrong. If you like it or not. FleekRush (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As much as I personally sympathize with the Ukrainians and their cause, "Stuhna-P" is both factual wrong and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. The company that developed and produces Stugna-P, Luch Design Bureau, lists the product as "Stugna" on their own homepage. It may well be that the product is named after a river and that the river may be spelled with an "h" in the Ukrainian transliteration compared to a "g" in the Russian transliteration, but the product itself - and this page is about that product (!!) - is undoubtedly spelled with a "g": Stugna-P. Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, there is also no doubt hat Stugna-P is the correct term that should be used in this article (Stugna-P shows 82k hits on Google.com while "Stuhna-P" only shows 4400, and even that number of hits can most likely be attributed to the fact that the article of the English Wikipedia spells it this - wrong - way). I advise the people that wish for the derussification of Ukrainian terms to reach out to Luch Design Bureau and ask them to change the name of their product(s) accordingly. Once that is accomplished the road is clear to eventually change the name of the corresponding Wikipedia-article and maybe include a subsection or at least a short sentence that points out that the former name was "Stugna-P". But until none of that has been done, it is painfully obvious that listing Skif as "Stuhna-P" on Wikipedia is politically motivated and in contradiction of verifiable facts. MiBerG (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not just company that developed Skif uses the term "Stugna" (with a "g"), but also the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in its official publications: https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2022/02/16/in-the-rivne-region-president-observed-the-course-of-tactical-exercises-of-the-armed-forces/ MiBerG (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the German, Polish and Italian language versions of the article all use Stugna instead of Stuhna. The Spanish language version avoids the issue by using neither and simply referring to the system as Skif. The French, as you would expect, use a third option of their own making, but at least mention that the system is referred to as "Stugna" in an English-speaking international context. MiBerG (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s misrepresenting the sources. The page MiBerG linked to on the Luch site represents a completely different weapon: the 100-mm gun-launched Stugna ATGM.

For the weapon that’s the subject of this article, the man-portable ATGM system, Luch uses the name Skif,[1] perhaps because their English-language website is aimed at export sales and doesn’t refer to the missile in domestic use.

MiBerG is also misrepresenting the usage and selectively citing sources. Ukrainian MoD uses both Stugna-P[2] and Stuhna-P[3] in the English-language material on its site. The PDFs aren’t loading for me, so I count 1 use of each spelling for 50:50 usage. This tiny statistic is hardly authoritative, but since MiBerG considers the Ukrainian MoD’s usage to be significant, I think it’s safe to include both versions in the bold text in the lead. —Michael Z. 03:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm "selectively citing sources"?? In the Google-links that you provided, Google provides results for "Stugna-P" instead of "Stuhna-P" because the number of occurrences of the term "Stuhna-P" is so low that Google assumes you made a typo. You have to actively click on "Search instead for site:mil.gov.ua stuhna-p" to get results for "Stuhna-P"! If you do a plain search just for the term "Stuhna-P", Google comes up with 3.530 hits while at the same time a search for "Stugna-P" comes up with 182.000 hits. Yet you have the guts to spout off about a "50:50 usage" and then immediately edit the article to include the spelling "Stuhna-P" in the first sentence of the head section of the article. I'm just a guy with a broad interest in military history and weapon systems. You sport a "Hero of Ukraine"-batch on your user profile page and state your interest in changing language usage on Wikipedia in a way that fits your narrative, e.g. "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine". One of us is in a conflict of interests and it's not hard to see who. MiBerG (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. mil.gov.ua has exactly one page with Stugna-P and one with Stuhna-P. You claimed it uses only one. I can understand if you made a mistake or the result didn’t show up for you, but having seen the evidence you appear to be doubling down on it.

I’ve already warned you about casting aspersions. You think there’s something sinister about correcting obsolete language like “the Ukraine”? Please get a grip. Write about the subject, and stop trying to say things about other editors. —Michael Z. 04:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I feel sympathy for the Ukrainians and their struggle. At the same time, I think that Wikipedia is not the right place to initiate such changes. I've already stated before that the right way to have the occurences of "Stugna" in this article renamed to the Ukrainian transliteration "Stuhna" is to get in contact with the designers and manufacturers of the ATGM (Luch) to have them rename their weapon system. They are calling it "Stugna". The Ukrainian MoD, or all official Ukrainian sources, should start to do the same. Once that is achieved, I'd gladly volunteer to rename all occurences of "Stugna" in this article to "Stuhna" myself. Change has to come from the source, not from Wikipedia that is just providing an encyclopediatic entry for that term. You as an administrator should share that mindset. It's my opinion that your barrage of edits of this article didn't do anything good and in fact inflicted damage on it. Nevertheless, I'm willing to let that dispute rest and refrain from any further action or discussion if you agree to this one statement: "The prevailing spelling of the weapon system discussed in this article follows the Russian transliteration "Stugna" and it is thus this spelling that should be used in this article."

I think the Ukrainian transliteration "Stuhna" deserves a mention in this article. I think the best place for that would have been the "Etymology and spelling" section. You moved it to the first sentence of the head section. Fine. Just let us draw the line here and thus keep the last bit of impartiality of this article intact. MiBerG (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t renamed any occurrences in this article.  —Michael Z. 05:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You deleted occurences of "Stugna" and included occurences of "Stuhna". Do you agree to the statement that I proposed in my preceding comment? MiBerG (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Penetration ?

I'm septic about all these numbers regarding armor penetration. I'm not a specialist but i can't believe that anything can penetrate 800 mm of armor made of metal, ceramics, etc, even concrete. I'm sure these numbers are false. Even a meteorite can't go through 800 mm of armor, because, armor has a certain inertia and the energy of the impact is diverted. E = 1/2 mV^2, E= 1/2 x .5 x (14km/s)² E= 50 megajoules. Chaptgpt says 800 mm of penetration is unlikely.

~~ 2A02:A03F:615C:9C00:D88:3A02:377F:450E (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

German Panzerfaust 3-IT600 penetrates 900mm RHA, same as US-produced BGM-71 TOW. The Russians claim that their 9K135 Kornet penetrates 1300mm RHA, although I'd expect that it's more around 900mm RHA, like the TOW, which has the same diameter and roughly the same weight. Skif is in the same ballpark regarding weight and diameter, so I don't see why it shouldn't have equivalent penetration values. MiBerG (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources in the "Etymology and spelling" section

On July 31th 2023 all sources that were linked in the "Etymology and spelling"-section of the article were deleted by user Mzajac. The reason for those deletions were alleged violations of WP:SYNTH. Taking a look at the user's user page, it becomes obvious that the user has a very strong pro-Ukrainian attitude. He is also a Wikipedia administrator. I therefor see no point in reverting the deletions as that would surely lead to a counter-revision and possible block of the users that would attempt such a correction. In light of earlier attempts at renaming this article to a factual wrong spelling (Ukrainian transliteration "Stuhna" instead of the Russian transliteration "Stugna", which is the only correct version that has been used for the weapon system discussed in this article) I want this obvious conflict of interests to be documented at least in the talk page of this article. I also want to make it known that the claim of an alleged WP:SYNTH violation is, in my opinion, clearly made up. The section states, that the manufacturer of the weapon system uses the spelling "Stugna" on their own web page. One source linked to the web page of the manufacturer on which that spelling was used. The section also states, that the international press uses the spelling "Stugna". Another source linked to an article of The Guardian that used that spelling. Those are not violations of WP:SYNTH where "a conclusion is reached or implied". They are matter-of-fact statements that are verified by the sources in an exemplary manner of WP:RS. I call for an inquiry to determine whether those deletions were justified and whether a conflict of interest of the user who executed those deletions exists. MiBerG (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I deleted this statement:

. . . the Russian transliteration Stugna is still used by the company that developed the Stugna-P, Luch Design Bureau, as well as the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in its publications, and by the international press.

The assertion is synthesis because none of the three cited sources say that, and you’re relying on presenting three examples that supposedly but not actually prove the statement. It is also just plain factually wrong, because the Luch website uses the name Skif for the missile in promoting it for export. One of the supposedly supporting citations was a link to the company’s page on a completely different weapon, the Stugna 100-mm gun-launched missile, not the Skif/Stuhna-P.

Taking a look at the user's user page, it becomes obvious that the user has a very strong pro-Ukrainian attitude.

@MiBerG, your accusations of conflict of interest are not only wrong, because this article problem has nothing to do with them, but they are way out of line. If you really think there’s a problem, take it to WP:ANI and be ready for a WP:BOOMERANG. Or just look at the facts and kindly apologize for the rude casting of WP:ASPERSIONS  —Michael Z. 02:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the use of Stugna-P and Stuhna-P

Should the term "Stugna-P" or "Stuhna-P" be used in this article? MiBerG (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In this comment I'll try to give a summary of the issue but will also include my personal opinion on this matter. Since the start of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, there have been discussions about whether the term "Stugna-P" (with "g") or "Stuhna-P" (with "h") should be used in this article. The article itself is named "Skif", which is the name of the export version of the ATGM system that is the subject of this article. "Stugna-P" is the name of the domestic variant, which is also discussed in the article and which is often used interchangeably with "Skif", although those two differ in certain details. "Stugna" is the Russian transliteration of the river "Stugna", a tributary of the river Dnipro. The Ukrainian transliteration of that tributary is "Stuhna". In the wake of the Derussification in Ukraine, the use of the Russian transliteration for objects and events in Ukraine was replaced by the Ukrainian transliteration (e.g. "Battle of the Stugna River" to "Battle of the Stuhna River").

The arguments for the use of "Stuhna-P" in the context of this article come down to the fact that the river, that the ATGM system is named after, is written "Stuhna" in its Ukrainian transliteration, which is the correct official name of the river since new Ukrainian legislation has been passed.

The arguments for the use of "Stugna-P" in the context of this article are the following:

• The company that designed "Skif", Luch Design Bureau, uses the term "Stugna" on their website and the parent company of Luch Design Bureau, Ukroboronprom, uses the term "Stugna-P" in their annual report, which is in favor of the idea, that "Stugna-P" is indeed the official name of the ATGM system, according to WP:OFFICIAL
• Google.com finds 117.000 hits for "Stugna-P" but only 12.600 for "Stuhna-P", which according to WP:COMMONNAME should take precedence over WP:OFFICIAL - which happens to be totally unnecessary in this case, as the official name is identical to the common name.
• The fact that "Stugna-P" was named after the (Russian transliteration) of the Ukranian river "Stugna" does not automatically mean that a change of the official name of the river leads to a change of the name of a product that was at a certain point named after that river. No one argues that the Ukrainian government hasn't the right to pass legislation to have a Ukrainian river's name transliterated in an Ukrainian transliteration in favor of the formerly used Russian transliteration. But that legislation does not affect the name of a product that was named after the Russian transliteration of that river. In the context of Wikipedia, WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME take precedence over national or personal agenda.
• The German, Polish and Italian language versions of the article all use "Stugna-P" instead of "Stuhna-P" (the French use neither, but a unique French version)

I'd like to end my comment by pointing out that I have sympathy for the Ukrainian people and their cause. It was one of the reasons I started the "Etymology and spelling"-section in the article to give that background info some space within the article. Unfortunately that wasn't enough for some advocates of the derussification, who deleted several links in that section (TheGuardian, Luch Design Bureau, Ukrainian Ministry of Defense), rewrote the entire section and placed "Stuhna-P" in the first sentence of the article as a spelling variant of seemingly equal value - all that unilaterally without taking part in the discussions regarding that issue on the discussion page before making those changes. I am in favor of using the version "Stugna-P" as, in my opinion, that is the only variant that should be used considering WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME. MiBerG (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• What do RS call the missile (not the river)? Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  A Google-search limited to forbes.com shows 49 occurences of "Stugna-P" and none for "Stuhna-P", another search limited to bloomberg.com shows 4 for "Stugna-P" and none for "Stuhna-P". Associated Press and the BBC list neither. A Google book search shows 20 different print media publications that use "Stugna-P" and none that use "Stuhna-P". There's the website of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, that use both, but even then Stugna-P is predominant (Stugna-P six times, Stuhna-P two times in a Google-search limited to mil.gov.ua). I'd considere the website of the owner of the system to be reliable when it comes to the correct spelling of the system. Luch Design Bureau uses "Stugna" on their website, while their parent company uses "Stugna-P". MiBerG (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Then we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that has - so far - been enough to revert renaming attempts by IPs like it happened today. My main concern is the series of edits before that, which reduced the "Etymology and spelling"-section to just two sentences and removed any info that gave the reader the possibility to recognise the stark disparity in frequency at which both terms are used. By looking at it now, you would get the idea that both terms are equals. I could, begrudgingly, live with that version of the "Etymology and spelling"-section, but what I find really inappropriate is how the very first sentence of the article was changed, now starting with "The Stugna-P or Stuhna-P (...)". If you check up on the discussion page, you will find that this change was justified by the six-to-two occurence of the two terms on the website of the Ukrainian MoD, while ignoring or dismissing everything else. MiBerG (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Are those UTD or just broad searches? If all or most recent RS use "Stuhna-P" that should be what is used. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the term UTD in this context. MiBerG (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh! Its an abbreviation for "Up To Date", basically whether its the majority of recent sources that use Stugna-P or just the general majority. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Google stops displaying the number of hits when you limit the search for a specific time frame (or I wasn't able to figure it out). I switched to Bing and they list 489.000 hits for Stugna-P within the past 12 month while only 1.030 hits for "Stuhna-P" for the same time frame. MiBerG (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh! Then I will support refering to the system as Stugna-P, while retaining a referance to Stuhna-P in the intro sentence. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't the already existing "Etymology and spelling"-section be a better place for that? I would support to use the other spelling in the head section of the article if there would be at least a significant occurence of it, let's say 5 to 1 or so. But it's not even 10 to 1. And even that is only for the Google search, which includes non-RS like forums etc. If we look at the RS, Stuhna-P is almost non-existant. There's literally not a single occurence in the Google Book search, compared to 20 for Stugna-P. Forbes, Bloomberg, BBC, Associated Press - none of them list "Stuhna-P". The article is named "Skif". I'd say it's a good thing to mention the name of the domestical version of the system, but is it really within the focus of the article to mention an alternative spelling of the domestical version within the very first sentence of the article? Is it in the interest of Wikipedia-readers to start the very first sentence of the article with "The Stugna-P or Stuhna-P (...)", which gives the impression that those two terms are equally used? Or is it more in the interest of the readers to be informed about that alternative spelling in the "Etymology and spelling"-section, where there's also the right place to inform about the differences in frequency that those terms are used. That was, by the way, the situation that had already existed before certain unilateral changes were made without discussing them on the discussion page beforehand. MiBerG (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  IMO, a better wording is "Stugna P , sometimes known as Stuhna P, ......" which is quite accurate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  The manufacturer has serveral pages on its website:

  • a "Skif" page [4] for the full system and for the training simulator it still calls "Skif" [5]
  • a "STUGNA" (no P) page [6] for the single round comprising an antitank guided missile (that can be fired from multiple platforms I guess).

  The official website never uses the terms Stugna-P or Stuhna-P [7][8]

  It would seem that the official name is therefore "Skif" now, while "STUGNA-P" is an old name for the system (I guess they probably changed it due to the "Russian" link). Some sources claim that Skif and Stugna-p are identical but the first is the export name [9]. However I can't verify that on the website of the manufacturer as Stugna-P is never mentioned. Even in the Ukrainian version of the website it is still called "Skif". I'm guessing the official name is now Skif but everyone still uses the old common name "Stugna-P". Recent coverage by Ukranian sources of soldiers using it calls it the "Stuhna-P" [10].

  I would simply call it the "Skif" and mention in the intro that it is "also known as the Stugna-P". The current intro is confusing as it does not follow the article title. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've changed the order of the terms as it seemed a rather innocuous change [11] and makes the article more in line with the title. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  The Stugna missile (the 100 mm version) was developed in the 1990s by Luch Design Bureau to be launched from the various 100 mm anti-tank guns and guns used in vehicles (e.g. the T-55). Based on that missile, Luch Design Bureau developed in the mid-2000s the ATGM system Skif that uses the guidance system PN-C, which in turn was developed by the Belarusian optoelectronic company Peleng. Skif was produced with a commercial focus that aimed for export, especially to buyers from North Africa and the Middle East. An example for that is that the stilts that stabilize the launcher have a wide base at the bottom, so that the stilts stand firm and don't sink into soft ground like sand - which is a tribute to the fact that such ground is often found in the North African and Middle Eastern theater. In 2011 Luch Design Bureau also developed a version for domestic use, that is for the Armed Forced of Ukraine. One requirement in that regard was to use domestically available components. As a result, the Belarusian guidance system PN-C was dropped in favor of the guidance system PN-I (although I'm not 100% sure if that "I" isn't actually supposed to be a roman numeral "1"), manufactured by the Ukrainian company Izyum Instrument Making Plant. That variant of Skif (with a guidance system produced in Ukraine and pointy stilts instead of ones with a broad base) was designated Stugna-P and is, under that name, listed by Ukroboronprom, the parent company of Luch Design Bureau.[12][13] So to summarize: The ATGM system Skif (ATGM plus launcher plus guidance system), which the article is about, is based on an ATGM called Stugna. A few years later a variant of Skif was developed for the Armed Forces of Ukraine that was named Stugna-P, which uses a different guidance system and has some small design differences compared to Skif. Since the discussion about whether Stugna-P or Stuhna-P should be used, certain "efforts" have been made to make the Stugna ATGM (the 100 mm variant) look like a completely different piece of technology that has nothing in common with Skif and should therefor not be used as a reference that would favor Stugna-P instead of Stuhna-P. An example is the introduction of yet another sentence in the head section of this article that was made after this RFC had started: "The Skif ATGM shouldn't be confused with the Stugna 100-mm gun-launched anti-tank missile." I hope I was able to make it clearer both why Stugna (with a "g") should be used in the context of this article and why I worry about the NPOV of this article as I see edit after edit being made that chip away at the neutrality of the article and that try to see the use of Stuhna in favor of Stugna creep into it. MiBerG (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, "Stuhna" missile returns one result and a few maybes with no previews. Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History: 163: Instead, they met the Russians with Javelins, Stingers, and Ukraine’s own Skif (Scythian) or Stuhna anti-tank guided missiles.  —Michael Z. 22:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  A search for "Stuhna-P" on google books returns "Jane's Infantry Weapons 2011-2012" https://www.google.it/books/edition/Jane_s_Infantry_Weapons_2011_2012/P6s9YgEACAAJ?hl=en which would be the golden standard but I do not have access to it unfortunately. I wonder what they say exactly. Maybe someone has access to it? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot)This sort of debate has come up frequently wrt Russia and Ukraine, when slight variations of spelling the names have to be considered. THe correct outcome, in every case, is to follow the majority of sources. In this case, it is Stugna-P; and we follow that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Dear Gtoffoletto, Michael Z., Googleguy007, please excuse the ping, but the RfC has not yet reached consensus and looking at the discussion I've identified the three of you to have an opinion that varies to some degree from the other people involved in the discussion that agree that "Stugna-P" should either be the only or at the least the clearly predominant spelling used in this article (as compared to "Stuhna-P"). In the course of the RfC it has been established that the word "Stugna" spelled with a "g" instead of "h" is vastly predominant in Google hits, literature (Google book search) and the publications of the manufacturer (Luch Design Bureau) and parent company (Ukroboronprom). Yet, the issue at hand is, that the current state of the article gives the impression that the "h" version is equal to the "g" version which, in my opinion, is not in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. I kindly ask you to elaborate on your opinion on how and why one version or the other or both should be used in this article to rectify that issue, so we can - hopefully - reach consensus. MiBerG (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Stuhna should remain in the lead, because it is sometimes used and it is the standard romanization of the Ukrainian name. The current lead with “Skif, also known as the Stugna-P or Stuhna-P” is fine. It does not give the impression that Stuhna is equally or more commonly used as Skif or Stugna-P: it gives it third and last, following the universal convention in dictionaries and encyclopedias for indicating frequency of use. If that doesn’t suit you, you can change it to “also Stuhna-P” or something. —Michael Z. 00:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree the current lead is fine. The manufacturer (as I linked above) uses Skif as the official name of the weapon system on its website. It never uses Stugna-P on its website. From my understanding it's an older name it doesn't use anymore (hence why many sources referenced it that way and many people still use the "old name"). There was some confusion due to the fact that they also still produce a round called "STUGNA" (which has a page on the website). But the official name seems to just be "Skif". {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  The term "Skif" is older than "Stugna-P", but "Stugna" (without -P) older than "Skif". Nevertheless, "Stugna-P" is used more often than "Skif" as the product "Stugna-P" has been produced more often than the product "Skif" - which makes kind of sense if you realize that Ukraine has been fighting a war for the past nine years and "Stugna-P" is the version produced for the Ukrainian Army while "Skif" is the export version. All this has been made abundantly clear already and - without meaning to disrespect you in any way - I'm honestly completely puzzled about how you can still mess up these simple and well established facts after you have have commented on this discussion several times. The only element in your statement that is correct in the broadest sense, is that the manufacturer (Luch Design Bureau) doesn't use the term "Stugna-P" on their website. But even that statement is rather poor as it ignores the fact that the manufacturer uses the term "Stugna" on their website and that the manufacturer's parent company (Ukroboronprom) uses the term "Stugna-P" on theirs. What makes the matter even worse is that you - while the RfC about the correct naming of terms in this article was still going on - significantly edited the article and almost completely removed the very subject of the RfC - while the RfC was still going on. That action was a complete disregard of Wikipedia's established code of conduct. You do not unilaterally edit an article in a way that changes the very subject a current RfC on that article's discussion page is about. You've changed the article in a way that would either need a complete rollback or a significant overhaul to explain the development history and the different versions of the system. That being said, I think it's time to close this RfC and establish that it is the least common denominator of the participants of the RfC that a) "Stugna-P" takes precedence over "Stuhna-P" and b) "Stuhna-P" should remain in the lead of the article. If no objection is made against that conclusion, I will close the RfC within the next few days. Should no further comment be made, then please let me thank you all for your participation. For me it was an enlightening experience. 17:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) MiBerG (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  the manufacturer uses the term "Stugna" on their website" this is not true. They use that name for another product. They call the portable ATGM "Skif" [14]. They call the anti tank missile round STUGNA (no P) [15]. They never use the term Stugna-P on their website.

  Ukroboronprom uses both those terms (Skif and Stugna-P) only once in their website: in the annual report for 2020 [16]. They use the terms Stugna-P for "portable anti tank missiles" and the term "SKIF ATGM" as well.

  I've removed the use of the Luch round page as a source in this article as it was incorrect and made other edits to make the article clearer but they are unrelated to the Stugna/Stuhna spelling topic I think. In general I found it was very confusing for the article to be titled Skif and then start with Stugna-P so I simply swapped the order to follow the title. I will self revert if you think they are wrong. However I think that if we want to keep the other order we should change the article name first.

  In general I think the Skif/Stugna-P confusion is a bigger problem than the Stugna/Stuhna problem. The actual version of the article is kinda clear but better sources would be appreciated. Having access to Jane's Infantry Weapons might solve those issues. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)