Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Semi-protected edit request on 29 Aug 2023

Hull losses and fatalities need to be consistent between this article and Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey. 139.218.233.166 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

DIRCM

I added that the Osprey has DIRCM capability in the "Specifictions" section and this was deleted. Why? The MV-22B does have DIRCM capability according to: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32309/osprey-rear-ramps-and-carrier-aircraft-elevators-make-for-great-fast-rope-training 2.25.65.76 (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No source was added IN the article to support that addition per WP:Cite and WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I just gave a source here. So why wasn't my edit restored? Bloody hell, what is wrong with established Wikipedians? It's not hard to Google something to check if it's true or not. But no, instead someone just deletes the edit without checking if it's true or not. So much for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And a few questions Fnlayson: (1) If a source is absolutely required, why does Wikipedia let people submit an edit without a source? That makes absolutely no sense. It would be easy enough technologically speaking to require an editor to provide a source before allowing the edit to be submitted. And this would avoid this whole submission-deletion farce in the first place. (2) Apart from MY edit, ALL the other entries in the Specifications>Avionics section of this article lack sources. So why did my CORRECT edit get deleted, yet all the others with NO sources get accepted? That is totally illogical and utterly inconsistent. (3) If it was you who deleted my edit, why didn't you apologise and restore my edit that you incorrectly deleted? (4) Why didn't you do a little Googling instead of deleting my edit? Or at the very least give me the benefit of the doubt? But nope, my edit got deleted. Are YOU here to build an encyclopedia? Seemingly not, if it was you who deleted my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia

Entries lacking souces

All the following enties lack sources:

AN/ARC-182 VHF/UHF radio KY-58 VHF/UHF encryption ANDVT HF encryption AN/AAR-47 Missile Approach Warning System AN/AYK-14 Mission Computers APQ-168 Multifunction radar

I'm not saying they're wrong, but what I AM saying is that sources are required. 2.25.65.76 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Annotated links in See also section

BilCat removed annotated links from the See also section, with the edit summary that they are not optimal. (This is opening the discussion in BRD.)

1. An edit does not have to be optimal, just better than what was there before, to justify it remaining in an article.
2. MoS recommends annotations to lists of links, for the benefit of the reader, including in 'See also sections'. Most short descriptions are better as annotations than no annotation.
3. There is nothing preventing any editor from replacing a sub-optimal annotation, or any other sub-optimal addition to an article with an optimal one (or even just a better sub-optimal one - better is better, removal of something which was better, is worse.)

Therefore reverting template generated annotated links without replacing them with something better or an adequate reason why the specific link should not be annotated, could be seen as tendentious at best, disruptive at worst.

If any given short description can be improved, it should be improved, as that improves two articles at a minimum. If it cannot be improved, the annotated link template for that link should be either replaced by a better local annotation, ideally referenced to a reasonably reliable source, or an explanation provided why that specific link should not have an annotation at all.

If an editor feels strongly enough that short descriptions are generally worse than no annotation at all they can start a community wide RfC explaining why annotated links should not be used for this purpose, as in almost all cases there has been no pushback at all, and there is currently only one place that agreement has been reached not to use them, which is in disambiguation pages, and most of those objections are no longer valid. Also disambiguation pages mostly have appropriate local annotations already, so there is no clear need. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)