Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 24 June 2008

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

• Talk:Soy milk Several issues are at dispute, including whether or not a controversial claim made by a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material.
• Talk:Constantine I Are images of Diocletian and Maxentius without Constantine essential to an article on Constantine
• Talk:Duchy of Samogitia There is still no consensus on whether we should use Duchy of Samogitia or Eldership of Samogitia. See discussion and proofs presented in the linked section.
• Talk:Chippawa, Ontario A disagreement exists as to the correct local name for the river flowing through Chippawa - Chippawa "Creek", or "Crick"
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Is there enough support for alternative start dates to be considered the viewpoint of, at least, a significant minority?
• Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia There is a dispute about the neutrality of the article between Kobra85 and Revizionist, with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise and a few others sometimes involved in the discussion. There are basically two versions being argued for here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title
• Talk:Contras Need support of third party to request mediation unless you can think of a way to solve reversion and disputes
• Talk:Knights Hospitaller Should order be described as "revived." Does it "claim" sovereignty or does it have sovereignty?
• Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 This was a national troop type that can not be readily translated into English, with a variety of translations offered (see copious sources above). The naming in Misplaced Pages is based on the same principle as that used for Cossacks, Hussars and Landwehr
• Talk:GADA 601 GADA 601 is an article about a South American military unit, the majority of the article covers a war with the British. Which form of English spelling should be used?
• Talk:Belgrade Offensive there are several issues involved 1)that at the operation was not a combine/joint operation between the Red Army and the Yugoslav Army at the planing involving higher headquarters, but only involved front-line incidental cooperation at tactical level as required on those occasions when the troops from the two forces encountered each other; 2) That when this encounter occurred, the Yugoslav troops came under command of the Red Army (I need to provide a source for this, but English sources seem rare); 3) that the sources provided by User:DIRECTOR are valid, one being derived from a very general reference in the Library of Congress country dara entry, and others from a site the owner of which admitted they are not referenced (even if true)

For more information, see User:RFC bot