Talk:Field ration eating device

message: As http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Australian_military_slang has no referencing itself, in my view it does not meet WP:RS--Golden Wattle  talk 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More sources have been added. DPCU 03:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Golden Wattle  talk 08:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It it just me or are non of the sources reliable. Wiktionary and 3*blog links. Google shows only 42 non-wikipedia links. Does anyone have a reliable source for the slang ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect slang will not usually have what might meet the criteria for a reliable source.  Blogs meet my standards under these circumstances--Golden Wattle  talk 20:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 42 google hits is simply not "widely known". We can't chose to ignore that it's lacking reliable sources just because it may be true. Meal, Ready-to-Eat is a good look at sourceable slang, I think this is simply not sourcable or notable, just listed on a handful of blogs/forums - Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not regard the number of Google hits as an authoratiative measure.  The sources in the article are various, do not refer to each other and would appear to have credibility in that they are forums for military or ex-military personnel.  In particular Australian Defence News & Opinion - MilitaryPeople.com.au and Digger History: an unofficial history of the Australian & New Zealand Armed Forces are not merely blogs or forums.--Golden Wattle  talk 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Peripitus, two of the sources for MRE slang are blogs (1, 2). How is a military community site less reliable? --bainer (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of the sources may be blogs but "Meals Rejected by Everyone", "Meals, Rarely Edible" and "Three Lies for the Price of One" at least seem sourced to news articles. Some of the others really shouldn't be in the article. The reason I stated the 42 google hits is to highlight that that the term used in the article is not in wide parlance. There are no books or news articles mentioning and it cannot be reliably sources. While the sites that Golden Wattle has listed are not just blogs or forums the particular bits used as a reference do not seem reliable except for this, and hardly back up that it's "widely" used - Peripitus (Talk) 04:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out this one  which is one of the best if not the best Australian military history website. DPCU 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitionary appendix dubious citation 

message: Currently the stub contains "It was formally issued" - is that what is meant - I know the army is pretty strict but perhaps the article should read formerly as in not at the present but in the past?--Golden Wattle  talk 00:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, FREDs are still issued in the CR1Ms, so I think "formally" is what is meant, although I haven't eaten one in a few years so I can't be certain. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually scratch that, it seems they've been phased out :( I'll update the article. --bainer (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This article and the talk brings back memories. 2.122.35.56 (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly or formally?