User talk:Markg002

Welcome!

Hello, Markg002, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Type 075 landing helicopter dock did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. BilCat (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type 76 AAS

Hi, I noted the article Type 076 landing helicopter dock, while checking edits to the Type 075 landing helicopter dock page. I see that you created the Type 76 page, and likely are still adding to it. With that, I thought I'd mention that even though some of the sources describe the Type 76 primarily as an LHD, I noted that one source described it as an "Aviation assault ship" (AAS). That name/page title had not yet been created, so I created it and redirected to the Type 76 page. The Type 76 is a new and interesting design, somewhat different than anything else on the seas right now. I don't know if the AAS name/type will come up again, or if so, in what context or how often. Just the same, you might want to consider using it. Either just simply adding it to the Type 76 page, or renaming the page to "Type 76 Aviation Assault Ship", (or with another Type), or perhaps just create an "Aviation Assault Ship type" page to cover multiple classes that may fit. Ultimately it's up to you. I just wanted you to know about the page and it's potential. Cheers - wolf 06:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Hi, it is indeed a weird ship and it could be interesting to mention the aviation assault ship concept. Right now I am trying to stay conservative because there's a user who keep trying to delete any link to my page from the page of previous chinese warships. I was considering writing about the upcoming Type 054B frigate but I received a similar response from that same user. I will make an edit and you can tell me if you like it. Feel free to add infos if you want. I'd like the page to stay up because it is definitely relevant. Markg002 (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and links to speculative future objects

On the subject of "Succeeded by" links:

I did not remove those links because Wikipedia articles existed or not for the topics. I removed them because they were a premature declaration of their real or likely existence. By likely, I mean acknowledged by official or scholarly publications. The swirl of rumours and speculation revolving around Chinese developments makes this more (not less) important.

For the Type 095 and Type 096 submarines, these have actually been mentioned in recent (within the past few years) US DoD reports; granted, those reports have been rather interested in those for a decade so the namedrops just might be carryover-by-inertia. I do not know about the Type 004 carrier situation on Wikipedia; just browsing the reference list (National Interest, Popular Science, Global Security) makes me think that linking it as "successor" is premature.

It may very well be that "Type 054B" or "Type 076" have shown up in government or journal reports and studies (publications from various military institutes can be a gold mine for those.) Or maybe even Janes. I haven't looked, but you may be interested in doing so.

So I repeat: I have no specific objection to articles being written on, say, the Type 054B or Type 076 even if they just contain speculation from lesser, if still WP:RS, sources.

Saying that, you should keep WP:SPS in mind. https://www.china-arms.com and http://www.eastpendulum.com fall under this.

You should be careful about using any sort of aggregation site like Global Security. As I mentioned in a edit summary, coherency and accuracy are suspect given how they report (namely, just throw everything in, mix sources, etc..) GS probably has a Type 054B article simply because the enthusiasts started talking about it. It doesn't help that, for some reason, the GS Type 054B is partly written in the past tense, as if the ship already exists. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in good faith. If we compare the chinese articles to indian ones, the users on the indian side openly write about even more speculative projects like Project 18-class or the S5-class which has, unlike the Type 054B, only indian sources. Markg002 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat: I am not concerned, in the main, with the creation of articles for the Type 054B or Type 076 provided WP:RS sources are used (although I have pointed out that the China Arms website is unacceptable due to WP:SPS.) What I am saying is that the existing sources are not so authoritative as to categorically declare (prematurely, in my view) that they exist or will exist.

Given your comment on "Indian sources", you should familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia accesses the reliability of sources (WP:REPUTABLE). Language or geography doesn't have anything to do with it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably interest you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Type_054B_frigate - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]