Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dthomsen8 (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 22 January 2021 (Assessment: banner shell, Africa, Military history, British Empire (Low) (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
Rhodesian mission in Lisbon is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
I seem to be developing a habit of querying articles that appear as TFAs .. anyway, I am not sure why the title and article text capitalise appointment. I am really not clear at all that this event is referred to or known as the "The Lisbon Appointment" or "The Reedman Appointment", let alone that it should be capitalised as a formal name like this, in both the title and article text. There may be shorthand, casual references to the appointment in sources, but this does not – or should not – create a proper name or quasi-official title known to history. Is this not, yet again, a WP invention? And if it's a bespoke descriptive title, as it appears to be, nor is it very clear, which WP:TITLE requires such things to be. N-HHtalk/edits09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the main sources, Wood 2005 (see the bibliography) refers to it as the "Lisbon Appointment" (with capitalisations) in a chapter title, but apart from that I've seen no "quasi-official" name for the subject. I think the present title is adequate, but my all means don't hesitate to suggest alternatives for discussion (this goes for everybody). Hope you're well, and thanks for the input. —Cliftonian(talk)10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As a general point, which fits in with what WP:TITLE seems to say, I think we should be very wary of naming pages and things after either one-off chapter titles in books – which can tend to the stylised and quirky; and also capitalise as a matter of routine style – or on occasional passing, casual references in running text. Neither necessarily reflect or create accepted formal or common names for things, and hence end up as a WP invention, especially if presented, as here, as a formal, proper name. If we did rely on chapter titles and casual prose shorthand, we'd easily end up with pages here called "Napoleon's Gamble" – a plausible title of a chapter in a book on the French invasion of Russia) – or "Obama's predecessor as president".
Here, of course, unlike in those examples, there probably isn't a standard or accepted name, but at the very least, surely "appointment" should be lower case, both in the title and text. I'd also go as far as to say that the opening sentence, rather than asserting and then defining the name at the outset, should simply describe the event, as it does in the second half of that sentence. As for the title, as noted, if we don't have a formal accepted name, we need a descriptive title; which needs to be exactly that, eg something dry and with a bit more explanation, such as (off the top of my head) "Rhodesian mission in/envoy to Lisbon". N-HHtalk/edits16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I think either one of "Rhodesian mission in Lisbon" or "Rhodesian envoy to Lisbon" would be good. Thanks for this. I must admit I settled on the name "Lisbon Appointment" in an attempt to give a definitive name to the subject, which on reflection was not something I should have done. I'll have a look at migrating the article to one of these titles soon. Do you have any other thoughts? Have a nice evening —Cliftonian(talk)17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered and constructive response. My occasional quibbles and even complaints about article titles usually get drowned in convoluted and spiralling argument and debate, and/or batted away by the page's primary author, who can be (in my view) over-defensive about their chosen title. I'm slightly surprised the point wasn't raised at the FA and TFA stages, but it's definitely clearer – and yet less assertive about a formal title – now. I guess one other thing is, per WP:BOLDTITLE, ideally something in the first sentence should be in bold (but I can't think what, and it's not obligatory when we have a formulation like this). N-HHtalk/edits12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all; I'm surprised too now you mention it. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it is an improvement here and it has also served as a lesson for me. I don't think having anything bolded in the first sentence is really necessary, and like you I can't think of how this would be implemented as we presently have it. I think it is okay now, but as before please feel free to make any suggestions you might have. Thanks for the constructive conversation thus far and I hope you have a pleasant evening. —Cliftonian(talk)17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
FAR needed
I have some concerns with the article at hand. For starters, I find its prose to be extremely editorializing, and not conforming with NPOV. It utilizes verbs like "knew", "considered", "believed", "thought" and "felt" rather frequently, as if it were an essay. There is also an over-reliance on Wood 2005, with certain pages cited up to nine times. Perhaps some of the judgments come from him? This also opens up the possibility of close paraphrasing in our copy, though I don't know, since I haven't read the book. Eisfbnore01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Barroso, Luís Fernando Machado (23 December 2014). "The Independence of Rhodesia in Salazar's Strategy for Southern Africa". African Historical Review. 46 (2): 1–24. doi:10.1080/17532523.2014.943922.
Berry, Bruce (22 January 2019). "Flag Of Defiance: The International Use of the Rhodesian Flag Following UDI". South African Historical Journal. 71 (3): 495–517. doi:10.1080/02582473.2018.1561749.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
