Talk:S-200 missile system

message: There's nothing in the linked source that suggests the missile was ever designated "Tallinn". It only implies that the west probably first discovered it at the ABM sites *near* Tallinn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.127.209.197 (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA frequently referred to it as the "Tallinn" system early on, maybe someone can pull a better source from them. Either way, it was definitely called the Tallinn by the American government at some point. 40.138.149.217 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallinn missile 

message: I moved this page to its native name from a codename it's listed under. If there are any objections, please discuss them before moving it back. --Oceanhahn 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is English Wikipædia?  As such, the article would be easiest to find under the name used in the English Speaking World (i.e. SA-5 GAMMON) rather than the 'native name' (surely the true native name would be in cyrillic)?  92.48.99.38 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: Hey guys, please take out Latvia from the list of operators of S-200, our country does not have these missiles. They could be deployed in the territory of Latvia during age of USSR (1945-1991), but certainly not after collapse of USSR.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.72.90 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsiran-upgrades-s-200-long-range-air-defence-system
*:Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The definition of the word "gammon" is, of course, irrelevant to a surface-to-air missile. However, many of the NATO reporting names used words that are rarely used in English. Often, even words that sound familiar don't mean what they seem to mean, or the correct pronunciation may not be obvious. Gammon, for example, is familiar from "backgammon," but it is also a term for a type of bacon. I placed links to definitions of these words so that readers could look up the definition and pronunciation more easily.
Speaking from my personal experience as someone who grew up on the NATO side during the end of the Cold War, I knew these terms from books and computer games, and many of them were strange and mysterious words. Some weren't in the unabridged dictionary. So I think there are others who might be interested in the meaning of the reporting names. 
A list of articles I changed is at Talk:NATO reporting name if you'd prefer to discuss the changes I made in a place that links to all the affected articles. Roches (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of gammon 

message: Removed the following section from Description:Missile, as it contradicts information given immediately prior and is unreferenced.
"The system utilises radio semi active guidance with mid-course correction and has, for the first time in a Russian system, terminal active radar homing, which is far more accurate at long range than the command guidance method used by the S-75 Dvina and other missiles. The existence of an optional terminal passive radar homing mode for use against AEW aircraft remains unconfirmed. Peak missile speed is around Mach 8 and the single-shot kill probability is quoted as 0.85, presumably against a high altitude bomber-type target."
94.175.244.252 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way do you think it contradicts information given in the previous paragraph?-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I see any contradiction here, I think this may be a terminology issue. The first section mentions "radio illumination mid-course correction". A literal translation would be semi-active homing. Then it speaks of a "terminal semi-active radar homing phase". I don't see any mention of an active phase, was this in another part of the text ? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Removed 

message: The article appears to be quite inconsistent about the means of guidance of the missile. From what I know, it is semi-active radar homing throughout its flight. However, I cannot find any reliable sources myself to verify this. It is hoped that the forum linked below may serve as a starting point for a search for sources.
Obviously, it is not itself usable as a reliable source. I am not suggesting that we do so.
It is hoped that my suggestion would not violate policy or guidelines.
Thanks, a CLoG? | unCLoG 22:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect route to finding reliable sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on S-200 (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227131402/http://www.uni-ulm.de/~s_mlomni/S-200/komplex/rakete/rakete.html to http://www.uni-ulm.de/~s_mlomni/S-200/komplex/rakete/rakete.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403191712/http://old.raspletin.ru/press-centre/news/2008/080603/ to http://old.raspletin.ru/press-centre/news/2008/080603/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The claims about a Syrian S-200 hitting an Israeli F-35 are completely fictitious and are backed by an unreliable website. Wikipedia should not be a government mouthpiece for the Syrian regime. In literally all past failed attempts of Syrian air defence forces to target Israeli airplanes they issued press releases describing the fictional damage they have caused to the Zionist enemy. The facts are systems like S-200, as opposed to S-400, do not pose a threat for Israeli military airplanes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.3.17 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian propaganda displayed as facts 

message: in S-200 (Current operators)  section, is found that Current Operator is Romania?
Which is Incorrect and should be changed !
Reson why is because Romania never introduced this missile system.
On web page "S-200 SAM sites"http://rammstein.dfmk.hu/~s200/ , everyone can see the places around the world where S-200 missile sites were, 
also which one are active and which one are Not.
There you will also not found any site in Romania.
Also i read a tons of articles about S-200 and Not a single one stated that Romania ever become a Operator of this Missile system.
Romanian military currently operate several Air Defense systems:
S-75 Dvina, MIM-23 Hawk and 2K12 Kub.
Article should be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-200  (Current operators)  

message: According to the officials from the illegally  self-proclaimed(1983)https://translate.google.com/translate?u=https%3A//www.pronews.gr/kypros/785115_pos-i-agkyra-hrisimopoiei-hthesino-pyrayliko-atyhima-stin-kypro-gia-na-paroysiasei&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en  fakehttps://www.mfa.gr/en/the-cyprus-issue/https://translate.google.com/translate?u=https%3A//www.pronews.gr/kypros/785115_pos-i-agkyra-hrisimopoiei-hthesino-pyrayliko-atyhima-stin-kypro-gia-na-paroysiasei&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en state of "Northen Cyprus" ,an S-200 missile hit at the  illegally occupied region of Cyprus .
This is the first incident involving Cyprus during the Israeli-Syrian conflict and the air military operations in the Middle East Asia (reuters.com).
This notice can be integrated in the section titled "Incidents involving the S-200", if people will be made sure of the nature of the explosion.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The coverage of the incident needs to be made more neutral - continual stressing of the status of Northern Cyprus is inappropriate for an article on this missile.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not used to edit nor overwrite other user's contributions. I quoted uniquely Deutsche Welle and Reuters.com: both of them are certainly WP:reliable sources, but I wasn't sure that their notices were enough neutral to get them going into the WP article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents involving the S-200 - Cyprus, 1 July 2019 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
:S-200 (missile) →  – "S-200" does not refer to the actual missile itself (which would be the 5V21, 5V25, and 5V28 etc.), but to the whole system, including the launchers, radars, command post etc. Thus, the page name "S-200 (missile)" is factually incorrect. Other pages that use this naming scheme already are the S-300 missile system and the S-400 missile system. – Recoil16 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 July 2023