Talk:Battle Birds

Battle Birds is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2024.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 17, 2023	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Cover copyrights

For the Dusty Ayres covers, all the copyrights were renewed except for August and September 1934. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Issue

To be clear, why has Wikipedia put all this effort into highlighting what was a relatively superficial publication? Given the infantile/boys own nature of the subject, might not the article be cut back and down-rated? 91.110.75.94 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have thorough coverage of obscure topics, as long as they meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. 203.211.75.97 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because infantile doesn't mean non-notable.

Also, "Wikipedia" isn't a monolith. Editors can choose freely what they wish to work on, and if someone decides that some obscure pulp magazine should get an article, they can do so within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Cortador (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, what is notable about Battle Birds? 91.110.75.94 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't notice, but the article includes an extensive list of published sources on the topic. This clearly meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. 203.211.75.97 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US Air Force did not exist in 1942

Last paragraph of Contents section. 128.62.74.63 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, this is true, the USAF didn't arrive until 1947 -- in 1942 it was the US Army Air Forces. That said, although the USAAF was involved in the Battle of Midway, I'm not sure if they contributed dive bombers (that was more a US Navy type). Can we double-check the source? It may be the artist got it wrong, or the source did. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check this evening, but the source, Robert Lesser, is a pulp art expert, not a military expert, so he probably just made an assumption. It might be best to modify the sentence to something that doesn't specify what the organization was, just that it was US planes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Lesser actually says "Douglas dive bombers" so I used that, and linked to the Douglas SBD Dauntless, which he doesn't name specifically but I think is uncontroversial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 128.62.74.197 (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Mike, and tks to the OP for kicking this off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]