Jump to content

User talk:Thehistorianisaac/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Type 072/Type 072II landing ship

Given the scope of the potential changes, the potential contradictions/inconsistencies in sources, and the demands of VERIFY/INTEGRITY, this should be a discussed and info collated on the, say, Type 072 talk page. Sources need to be found identifying class designations (Chinese and NATO), ships for those classes, and classes of those ships. The Type 072II article is not robustly sourced; one is an old SELFPUB and the other doesn't - I think - mention the class name. Then a general edit strategy (which article or articles first, how to indiciate contradictions or inconsistencies in sources) needs to be devised. Then make the changes. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah ok Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Is this source usable? I see the same website on many references all around wikipedia; here is the about us page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Not RS. No indication the author is anyone with any credibility in the subject matter. No indication of editorial policy. No indication that the publishing organization is of any note or has credibility in the subject matter. Cites Wikipedia on some pages. So no better than SELFPUB with a dose of WP:CIRCULAR. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh ok. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Possibly we could try to merge them if we cannot find more sources on the type 072II class
but let's find more sources if possible first Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@RovingPersonalityConstruct Found this Globaltimes article saying they are separate classes. Typically gloabltimes is deprecated, but from what i have heard from other editors in these cases globaltimes can technically claim WP:ABOUTSELF. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just an addendum for something to keep in mind: a lot of these old articles on Chinese military topics are badly sourced and much of their content cannot be taken at face-value. Reusing/basing stuff from them tends to be hazardous. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I usually use chinese wikipedia articles/older english wikipedia articles as a way to see it what direction where to find sources.(how i managed to find the name of the CCG ships Nansha and Huyu was with unsourced chinese wikipedia info and finding sources in that direction) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

At the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, you wrote this is not the place to ask for help. I hope that you can see the contradiction. Where else should an editor ask for help other than a help desk? Cullen328 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Oops
did not write correctly
it is "ask for contributors to the draft" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Haijing

If this name is going to be used without sources, it should be discussed and approved by relevant WikiProjects (Ships, maybe with Military History.) If you find youself making a rather largish edit comment explanation to justify something without a source, it's likely time for a discussion.

I hope that it's found to be acceptable (it makes things much cleaner) but since it touches a good number of articles it would also be much cleaner to get wider approval. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that tonnes of official sources use the term "Haijing"(海警, aka coast guard) when referring to ships when the official name is not used, such as in the case for Haijing 2350 or 1310 earlier in the article.
I could not find any chinese sources on "6301", but nearly every single chinese ship whose name is unknown has the term "Haijing" at the start so it has sort of became common practice Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Make the case to the WikiProjects. If there's enough support, an observation on ship naming might be added to the CCG article directly. Or even better, additional eyes may uncover sources that make the blanket use of Haijing explicit and then this whole matter clears up instantly. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
6301 there are little to no sources on other than ONI.
However honestly we should keep the Haijing name first, 6301 overall seems pretty weird and illogical, especially considering the fact that the history section says it was called haijing 1310(which we do have sources on stating it was called that) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
This is not just about 6301. It's about the naming conventions for the CCG fleet. You are going to keep making these sort of edits, and I am going to keep contesting them on the grounds of WP:VERIFY. So make the case to the WikiProjects and get a consensus so whatever happens afterwards is completely above board. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think other articles it is proved the Haijing name is used, and there are citations
6301 we have problems with sources and i will try to dig a bit further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Sikkim earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Public Security.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, please stop creating red links for everything. Everytime you do it, you're effectively proposing an article, regardless of notability, frequently with verbose names, and inviting the creation of unncessary redirects.

For example, if there was to be an article for "People's Armed Police Border Defense Corps", it would be better named (per WP:CONCISE) as "Border Defense Corps (China)" (unless there's multiple very different Border Defense Corps in China, then there might be some more qualifications needed.) It's why the article for the People's Armed Police 1st Mobile Contingent is called "1st Mobile Contingent", and the Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission is just "Joint Staff Department (China)" (that one could possibly be contracted to just "Joint Staff Department".)

You also don't need to use Template:Ill for everything.

You're creating a maintenance nightmare. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand, however I do believe that the vast majority of them are notable, and I think until they have their own articles, an inter language link is the best possible thing. I do plan to make some of the links blue in the near future, however I believe there is no harm in having a red link, in particular for interlanguage links.
As for Border Defense Corps, I believe that this may be confused with PLAGF border defense regiments(which is the successor to some of the units; btw, if possible stick to the WT:MILHIST section) and is not the most common(for the same reason) so I still would rather wait for community consensus. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
On red links, I typically avoid adding them to things like "Border Defense (city/county) Detachment/Battalion" and only add red links for provincial contingents. Even though typically detachments and brigade sized are notable(on the other hand, municipal law enforcement agencies are also considered notable in WP:LE), I agree that excessive red links can be annoying, especially due to the fact that municipal border defense detachments likely will not get articles in the near future. Same thing is for the forestry corps. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

JF-17

This edit is erroneous. "JF-17" is the Pakistani designation for the aircraft. The Chinese export designation is "FC-1", and since it is not operated by the PLAAF, it has no domestic designation. - ZLEA T\C 18:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Then possibly instead it could have been marked as "unconfirmed" just like the J-36 or J-50 instead, or maybe marked as unassigned. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The difference is that analysts actually believe the "J-36" or "J-50" designations to be a part of the Chinese aircraft designation system. The same cannot be said for the "JF-17" designation, which originated in Pakistan and, as explained in the article, comes from its status as the F-16's intended successor in the Pakistani Air Force. - ZLEA T\C 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For not following the herd and listening to emotional manipulation. I applaud you for thinking independently and not following what other people try to enforce on you. DotesConks (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Reply at AFCHD.

Hello, @Thehistorianisaac. While your reply to WP:AFCHD#06:24, 21 March 2025 review of submission by Radharani1867 is generally correct, please note that :

  • notability is a property of subjects, not articles. "The article is not notable" is incoherent. The subject may or may not be notable. A more appropriate comment might be "The article does not establish that the subject is notable".
  • I disagree that "any sources are better than none". Unreliable sources are generally not better than none, and sources that do not say anything about the subject are worse than none. (For example, inexperienced editors will often cite the website of a university at the end of a claim that the person attended the university. This is not only useless, but fills the article with irrelevant clutter).

ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I think I did not phrase it well enough Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Armed Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Public Security.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thehistorianisaac/Archive_2&oldid=1296984031"