From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

I thought Jane was a first name, not a surname. I found it strange how one woman would have such a fascination with military vehicles. JIP | Talk 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I know right! Always thought it was the female name. :) 192.121.232.253 ( talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Question

Does this Jane have something to do with the 1990's flightsimulators from Jane's/EA?

Jane's provided EA with the data for the aircraft and weapons in the games, and in return got a cut of the profits. Imp i 21:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't forget that the Jane's brand has a strong association with accuracy, and EA wanted to convey that to their audience. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Recent additions to the list of annual books

I have shunted these here to be sorted out. The anonymous editor who placed them here deleted some information. This needs to be cleaned up:

Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Transport Business

They also have a transport business news section. Maybe to be added? Ingolfson 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It might be of some value [1]. 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Ownership

Can the bulk of the ownership details in the intro (namely previous ownership) be removed or placed into it's own ownership / corporate history section? Are previous ownership percentages crucial to understanding what Jane's is?

Done. It didn't make a lot of sense to discuss an ex-owners financial stake without context and also have no detail about the current owners status. And no source to say that who owns how much was relevant anyway. Cheers. Weakopedia ( talk) 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Competitors

Get rid of The Shephard Group as a competitor - the guy who added that entry was their former marketing manager. They only compete on a very small number of products. Methna7 ( talk) 22:11, 24 Feb 2012 (UTC)

reasons for pruning

Really, it's almost entirely a list, rather than an article. It's the sort of thing that might be pasted up here by a publisher (for marketing purposes) or an enthusiastic fan. Neither use is acceptable.

Almost all of the entries are "red-linked" meaning that the publications aren't important enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

None of the entries has a prose explanation of the publication.

Given those three failings, it'd perhaps be better to delete this completely. However, I'll begin by removing the red.
Weeb Dingle ( talk) 09:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

First, I cut all those red links, which took entirely too long. Then I removed all entries lacking an article or even a rudimentary source. What remained was turned into sentences. Finally, the pointless section divisions were dropped.
Weeb Dingle ( talk) 16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comparison to WEG

How similar is Jane's to the Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG) that many militaries use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.92.159.28 ( talk) 07:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Q: any known scandals or investigations or censorship?

Howard from NYC ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

given these various publication contain intel of value to various governmental entities (military officers, covert intelligence analysts, policy wonks, etc) it would not be a surprise if efforts at censorship occurred; so too scandals and/or investigations;

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

I thought Jane was a first name, not a surname. I found it strange how one woman would have such a fascination with military vehicles. JIP | Talk 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I know right! Always thought it was the female name. :) 192.121.232.253 ( talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Question

Does this Jane have something to do with the 1990's flightsimulators from Jane's/EA?

Jane's provided EA with the data for the aircraft and weapons in the games, and in return got a cut of the profits. Imp i 21:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't forget that the Jane's brand has a strong association with accuracy, and EA wanted to convey that to their audience. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Recent additions to the list of annual books

I have shunted these here to be sorted out. The anonymous editor who placed them here deleted some information. This needs to be cleaned up:

Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Transport Business

They also have a transport business news section. Maybe to be added? Ingolfson 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It might be of some value [1]. 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Ownership

Can the bulk of the ownership details in the intro (namely previous ownership) be removed or placed into it's own ownership / corporate history section? Are previous ownership percentages crucial to understanding what Jane's is?

Done. It didn't make a lot of sense to discuss an ex-owners financial stake without context and also have no detail about the current owners status. And no source to say that who owns how much was relevant anyway. Cheers. Weakopedia ( talk) 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Competitors

Get rid of The Shephard Group as a competitor - the guy who added that entry was their former marketing manager. They only compete on a very small number of products. Methna7 ( talk) 22:11, 24 Feb 2012 (UTC)

reasons for pruning

Really, it's almost entirely a list, rather than an article. It's the sort of thing that might be pasted up here by a publisher (for marketing purposes) or an enthusiastic fan. Neither use is acceptable.

Almost all of the entries are "red-linked" meaning that the publications aren't important enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

None of the entries has a prose explanation of the publication.

Given those three failings, it'd perhaps be better to delete this completely. However, I'll begin by removing the red.
Weeb Dingle ( talk) 09:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

First, I cut all those red links, which took entirely too long. Then I removed all entries lacking an article or even a rudimentary source. What remained was turned into sentences. Finally, the pointless section divisions were dropped.
Weeb Dingle ( talk) 16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comparison to WEG

How similar is Jane's to the Worldwide Equipment Guide (WEG) that many militaries use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.92.159.28 ( talk) 07:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Q: any known scandals or investigations or censorship?

Howard from NYC ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

given these various publication contain intel of value to various governmental entities (military officers, covert intelligence analysts, policy wonks, etc) it would not be a surprise if efforts at censorship occurred; so too scandals and/or investigations;


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook