`  * Comment. Sorry I didn't have time to closely analyze everything in this discussion. I would like to at least offer the following. Number one, take heart that no matter which setup gets implemented, even if it's not the one you'd prefer, Wikipedia's coverage won't inevitably ``suck`` because of it. Wikipedia will still end up pretty good either way. Things like hatnotes, and sentences à la ``sometimes X is called Y, but also blah blah``, can make it feel OK overall. Next idea: One of the things bumped up against here is an aspect of natural language that is explained at the article on jargon: it is not uncommon for words to have broader senses among the general public and narrower senses within an industry among its practitioners. Wikipedia ends up acknowledging both, upholding the epistemologic validity of the former within a generalist context (against the latter's tendency to scream that it's ``wrong`` in an absolute/contextless way), but also making space for explaining the latter to laypeople as well (not just discounting it as ``some made-up rule that no one follows``—because it's not true that no one follows it). I'm failing to come up with a lot of examples off the top of my head, but one I can think of at the moment is the pistol-versus-handgun debacle. The fact is that most of the world considers pistol and handgun synonymous, with revolver being hyponymous. But among many members of the gun industry and hobby in the U.S., you're ``ignorant`` if you don't understand the ``fact`` that pistol and revolver are mutually exclusive sibling hyponyms beneath handgun as a hypernym. The rancor mostly comes from the fact that the proponents of the latter taxonomy traditionally haven't even been aware that a legitimate (non-``idiot``) alternate taxonomy existed. And in the decade or so since Wikipedia brought it to their attention, a few have dug in their heels and screamed louder than anyone else, so Wikipedia's pagenaming and redirect taxonomy, as of this writing, reflects their insistence. The topic has periodically generated a lot of edit warring and talk page rehashing, but that's probably inevitable—whichever taxonomy is currently in place, someone from the other camp will come complain about it, but it does help if the hatnotes and explanations and links can defuse 80% of that before it happens. In this firefighting apparatus instance, it's not horrible to have one article that covers both fire trucks and fire engines, acknowledging their synonymy in many human minds (although many a firefighter, in some countries at least, will carefully differentiate them), but then it's also not horrible to have separate articles, as long as they adequately cross-reference each other with links and duly express their hyponymous relationship to a parent-level article called firefighting apparatus or something similar (``firefighting equipment`` could also work). A key takeaway, either way, is, ``Well, OK, I'm reading the result and finding that it doesn't suck, and the competing (alternative) taxonomy is mentioned and explained.`` Anyway, out of time for now, but optimistic that the end result in this case won' suck either way. Best, —  `