Talk:Qianliyan (disambiguation)

Don't blank content

The policy is there for needless disambiguations. These are additional meanings of the Chinese term that are important to note and would clutter up the head of the Qianliyan article if they were placed there instead. Just leave them here until someone creates articles. — LlywelynII 06:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the policy for needless disambiguations? According to WP:DABDIC, a disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. And this page is exactly under WP:G14 criteria before the creation of any other article listed there. Anyway, you're free to remove the speedy deletion tag directly per Wikipedia:Deletion process. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is not a list of articles for creation. For now, I have moved it to draft space as you contested the speedy deletion. When another extant article is added or a red-link article listed there is created, it can be moved back to main namespace and recategorized to disambiguation pages. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope: Valid dab

Valid dab. The topics are notable even if they're currently redlinked because Wiki is slow/lazy about adding East Asian topics. See Talk:Lotus Bridge for a similar case of editors ignoring a different extremely notable East Asian topic because they don't know any better and prefer blanking. Here, the previous complaint of "only one extant" ignored the blue link in the 1st alt. No, blanking isn't helpful to anyone. Just leave it til people do fill the others in. — LlywelynII 03:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The "only one extant link" argument pointed out that it was a disambiguation page with a primary topic and only one other topic, which are invalid under WP:ONEOTHER, not simply a disambiguation page with two items, which generally are valid. With that settled, disambiguation pages generally aren't created preemptively for several reasons, so I don't really agree with the "let others fill it in in the future" rationale. Also, most of the subjects listed don't seem notable at a glance to me, but I do agree that systemic bias is an important issue, so what do I know? I will note, however, that Tianxiang TX, the article which TX-2000 Clairvoyance redirected to, was deleted in September 2022 due to an expired PROD. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that you meant well based on the blanked format of the page that User:Keyboardsmash left. That said, it shouldn't've been left in that state after the first revert anyway. — LlywelynII 06:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Bring the discussion here. Stop ignoring the reverts and blanking valid and notable entries. [ Link to the notification on NmW...'s talk page to stop the edit warring and come in for discussion, which was subsequently blanked. ] — LlywelynII 06:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Per a request at WP:RFPI (which I will respond to shortly), I have fully protected the page for a week. I'm pretty sure many admins would have blocked everyone they could find for edit warring. Please don't do that! It would be best to start a new section to discuss specific edits. Please use a meaningful heading (not Nope). Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting undiscussed blanking of content (<3 times) while requesting/starting discussion isn't edit warring, so, yeah, I didn't do that. No relevant content at WP:RFPI, it looks like. — LlywelynII 07:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:RPPI but that gets archived quickly. It's now here. The edit warring exemptions are at WP:NOT3RR and I don't see undiscussed blanking mentioned. Note that WP:VAND defines vandalism as something obvious. Regardless of the merits, trust me that many admins would have blocked participants. It's a good idea to get help by raising an issue on a noticeboard to avoid problems. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Two related stubs have recently been created since the AfD issued and the involved editor has agreed there to remove the red link entries and add entries for each stub instead. Thus the dispute is believed to be resolved and the early lift of this protection could be helpful for the remaining work. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes for future expansion

Currently

• Qianliyan Conservation Area/Qianliyan Waters National Aquatic Germplasm Resources Conservation Area
• Qianliyan Lighthouse

redirect to Qianliyan Island, which covers those topics. Each could be split off with enough sources and additional details, though.

This and similar sources could be used to create articles on the PLA's related UAVs including

• HLKX Clairvoyance, a Chinese drone model
• IPT FMS-280 Clairvoyance, a Chinese drone model
• Xinying Clairvoyance, a Chinese drone model
• TX-2000 Clairvoyance, a Chinese drone model

although how notable any particular one of those models is (particularly in English) presumably depends on how quickly the technology shifts vs the timing of a major conflict. — LlywelynII 16:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)