Talk:British Aerospace Nimrod AEW3
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Aerospace Nimrod AEW3 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Usage of Vectorsite references
editReferences, by definition, are there to verify information. Therefore, they have to be verifiable/reliable. As established three and a half years ago in the F-4 Phantom's FAC review, and further discussed in WP:Aviation Archive 19's discussion on the matter, Vectorsite is not a verifiable source, that is a source complicant with WP:V or or WP:RS. Self-published sources are allowed as external links of interest, but are not good enough for the role of acting as a verifier for article content. It may be an informative personal account, but it is logically the same as using one part of wikipedia to verify another part. Please do not revert attempts to install compliant sources such as respectable published science journals as replacements. Kyteto (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Requested move 8 February 2017
edit- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Wikipedia's policy on article titles is to use the most common name, not the official name. Jenks24 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
British Aerospace Nimrod AEW3 → British Aerospace Nimrod AEW.3 – With full stop is correct. RadiculousJ (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). BilCat (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – The period/full-stop is deprecated in current RAF usage. The move is controversial as such, and needs to be discussed first. BilCat (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose the short form without the "." is more common for this time frame. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support (obviously) – Surely we can apply the logic that the "official abbreviation" should have a full stop, whether it was common at the time or not. RadiculousJ (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, the short form doesnt have a full stop and they have not been used in these short from contractions for a number of years. You have to remember it is a contraction of the official abbreviation AEW Mk 3. MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.