This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Much of this "article" is completely unreferenced and unverifiable. It is impossible to differentiate between genuine terminology and content that has simply been made up. 51.9.187.2 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article and removed the censoring on certain words due to Wikipedia's guidelines on offensive material. "In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be minced by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols.". However, I am aware that the policy also states "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". Therefore, I am torn whether these terms should be outright removed or not. - QuadColour (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
That frankly is enough. But also troubling for unverifiable information is the fact that some of it is blatantly unencylopedic and offensive e.g.:
"A particularly scary group of women from the valleys in South Wales who would descend upon RAF St. Athan on NAAFI Bop night. They would abduct any young airman they chose for use in dignity-robbing acts."
"Station Bike (the) – Derogatory term for a particular WAAF, WRAF, or civvy female with station access who develops a reputation for frequent sexual activity with many different Airmen. As in – "The whole station has ridden it"."
"SPAM (abbreviation) – Spastic Plastic American Mouth – a derogatory term for gobby Yank." Mark83 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
