Talk:Machine Gun Corps

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Machine Gun Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830064830/http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/dyke.htm to http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/dyke.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

More info about your source
@Cjrother Would it be possible to provide further detail about the source that you added:


 * title=Infantry Branch
 * journal=History of War
 * page=18
 * date=January 2023

Can you advise if this is online? If not, which organisation is the publisher? Who authored the article? When was it published? It is very sparse. I would be interested in using the source for an article I am trying to improve. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The source is a British magazine that I read through my library's app (Libby) - I assume it is also a paper magazine. I could not find the article online - the magazine doesn't seem to have any web presence - which is why I tried to quote it as a journal. The article does not have an author listed.  The publisher is Future PLC (based in Bath UK).  The magazine is dated January 2023 and is issue 116.
 * Hope this helps. Please let me know if you feel this is an inappropriate source. Cjrother (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to reply. It would appear to be online, with limited scope for buying hard copies
 * https://www.magazinesdirect.com/az-single-issues/6936994/history-of-war-magazine-single-issue.thtml
 * Their FB page looks tacky, unless James Blunt at War is a subject of merit. It's a shame they don't provide proper sourcing and the names of the contributors. They just want to be the History Channel of online historical magazines, which downgrades them as a source. It's a shame, as this sounded like it had potential. You'd think that a magazine would want to be dotting the i's & crossing its t's so it could be a credible source, rather than something disposable. Keith H99 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Although I am not so keen on online sources, I think a more plausible alternative source of info is the website of the Vickers MG Collection & Research Association. I saw their head honcho at Kew a few weeks ago in the reading room.
 * https://vickersmg.blog/about/
 * Hope this is of interest. Keith H99 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * For the reasons that I have stated, I do not think this is a reliable source, and have replaced one citation from it with an equivalent from Corrigan, which is a more reliable source. Whilst you have been trying to improve this dreadful article, which is laudable, it would be justifiable for a wiki editor to either mark this as unreliable or to remove the content itself, in my opinion. Keith H99 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info. I tend to agree about the source being low quality but I had it so I thought I'd use it to improve an article I remembered needing work.  I have added the issue number to the ref to make it easier to find. Cjrother (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)