This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janes Information Services 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Does this Jane have something to do with the 1990's flightsimulators from Jane's/EA?
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)
They also have a transport business news section. Maybe to be added? Ingolfson 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
Howard from NYC ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
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;
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janes Information Services 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Does this Jane have something to do with the 1990's flightsimulators from Jane's/EA?
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)
They also have a transport business news section. Maybe to be added? Ingolfson 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
Howard from NYC ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
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;