Talk:HQ-16

LY-80EV

Even if the source I used is a "long-running enthusiast pub" the information that it quotes was officially announced by the Operator itself during the military parade. I used this source, since this was the only written article I could find about it. I could cite countless YouTube videos where the LY-80EV and its range are officially disclosed but it wouldn't be convenient since they are videos and on top of that, the language used is also not English. An Asphalt (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Then it's best to wait for suitable sources to appear. There's no rush. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@RovingPersonalityConstruct And who's going to guarantee that reliable sources are just going to appear and who even knows when? Two of the three sources I used are already used as citations in other articles. You are just over exaggerating this WP:RS issue and dragging this for no reason. I am pretty sure there are exceptions. If I cite a YouTube video now, I am certain you are gonna come up with another one of those problems I don't expect anything else from you at this point. An Asphalt (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, there are no guarentees that reliable sources will appear. And neither is any number of uses a guarantee of reliability either. The bottom line is that the lack of reliable sources does not make the use of unreliable sources acceptable, or "more" acceptable.

I have been, and seen others be, where you are. One cannot edit Chinese military and adjacent articles for any appreciable amount of time and not run into the verifiability policy, particularly where the latest and greatest news is concerned. But those are the constraints and refusing to work within them just leads to either frustration or policy violations, the latter of which is only good for increasing the workload of other editors at some point in the future. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)