Talk:Belize Defence Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clean up[edit]

Add more information etc. VarunRajendran 22:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military budget[edit]

The 1.2 million/1.87% of GDP figure sounds implausible. The current CIA World Factbook (the reference given) doesn't give a dollar figure, but says military expenditures were 1.4% of GDP. I'm assuming the 1.2 million figure was calculated by dividing GDP (in a previous version of the CIA Factbook) by 1.87%, with a mistake in the math. If we divided the current figure of 1.431 billion GDP by 1.4%. the expenditure is around 20 million. 1.2 million leaves less than $1000 salary for each member of the armed forces, not to mention other military expenses. Surely 1.2 million is off by a factor of 10 or more? 20 million could plausibly support an army of 1400 people.70.245.239.133 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

image2 parameter on infobox[edit]

Refer to recent edit by FOX 52, whereas he remove flag of Belize Defense Force (BDF) from the infobox and on his edit summary, he said "... don't muck up the box with duplicate symbols". I propose to reinsert flag of BDF into the infobox (or filled in |image2=). And my argument are as follows:

  1. Refer to Template:Infobox national military, whereas image2 description is "A secondary image relevant to the county's armed forces." Hence, as long as it is relevant, it didn't prohibit any image to be displayed even if it was "duplication".
  2. Emblem is not the same as flag, colours, banner, or other symbols. Even though they all may and usually contain element of emblem, so they are not "duplication".
  3. Other armed forces pages already have both emblem/logo and flag on its infobox, such as British Armed Forces, Russian Armed Forces, People's Liberation Army, Canadian Armed Forces, Indian Armed Forces and etc. This implies that this is common practice used in armed forces pages, may be considered as general consensus as such edit is done by various editors.
  4. Per MOS:INFOBOX, "General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox.". Since other armed forces pages also display both emblem/logo and flag on its infobox and Flag of BDF is available. Then it can be displayed to maintain consistency.

Ckfasdf (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out 150 Armed Forces pages I've inspected, only 32 use a secondary image(s), so consistency is not the case. Several instances have duplicate symbols place on the a flag (Estonia, Uzbek, Hungary) which lend no educational value to the reader. Also on a majority of these "flags" they are poorly or erroneously sourced IE: Armed Forces of the Philippines flag, which applies this source - crwflags.com itself is user-generated content, and their disclaimer states "we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website" - FOX 52 talk! 04:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article with two flags is downright ugly and we should spare our readers exposure to it as a favour to their eyeballs. Plus I am not convinced that either conveys much information to a reader, much less both. Leave it at one. Unless there is an appetite to discuss removing both? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan, agree to remove that image afterall it's not the emblem or flag used on uzbekistan armed forces (see https://mudofaa.uz/). So it's not relevant per Template:Infobox national military. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason image2 parameter not used for national armed forces pages are either that country national armed forces dont use such a thing (such as Austria) or there is no such images available in either commons/enwiki. If such image available why not using it, afterall the infobox is designed to put 2 images on the top section of infobox. Also, as I mentioned earlier emblem is not the same as other symbols eventhough usually other symbols have elements of emblem (let's use Estonia for example, https://mil.ee/kaitsevagi/kaitsevae-symboolika/#t-kaitsevae-lipud). Regarding crwflags, while I do agree that website may not be the good source per WP:SPS, the information on that source cannot always be considered incorrect as crwflags usually provide reference to the original source. if the source is changed from crwflag to others then it should be no issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on usage of image2 parameter on infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Removal of both images due to copyright violations. If PD images available, both parameter can be filled in. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should image2 parameter on the infobox be filled in when the image is available?

Btw, images in questions are as follows:

File:Belize Defence Force emblem
Belize Defence Force emblem for image1

Ckfasdf (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the issue
I have disagreement with other editor (on the section above), regarding the image2 field on infobox. He argue that we should not filled in this parameter since this image on image2 paramater is duplication of image1 parameter. While my argument is image1 and image2 serve to shown different image (logo and emblem). flag may contains element of logo, but it is not duplicate image. As discussion between just 2 parties wont go anywhere and not many editors are interested on this article, hopefully, we can find consensus thru this RfC. Ckfasdf (talk)

  • Don't see a problem with having two. One's a emblem, the other a flag. Why the need to remove the flag just because the emblem is on it? That is taking away information, which some readers may find useful. (jmho) - wolf 23:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the images here are blatant copyright violations, as the Commons records falsely claim that the uploaders own the design. I've removed the current image from the article. Has the Belize government released these images under a licence that's compatible with Commons or into the public domain? If so, the details need to be corrected. If not, they need to be uploaded per the fair use guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also just nominated both images for deletion on Commons, as this seems pretty clear cut. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nick, beat me to it. In a theoretical sense (ie if we had PD images we could use) the use of both would be appropriate, and reflects common practice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's unfortunate. It would've nice, and useful, if the article was able to use at least one of those images, if not both. Thank you for your attention to this matter, both of you, Nick & PM67. - wolf 05:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all for your input. I think the discussion is pretty much crystal clear, I'll end this RfC. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images w/ tables[edit]

The images currently placed next to the tables need to be moved to prevent squishing them (see wp:imgloc). Posting here first so active editors here can make suggestions. - wolf 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the desktop version is works best side by side, with no major effect on smart phone as well. - leave it as is - FOX 52 talk! 22:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's try it this way... if there was to be a change, what would you suggest? (Iow, I realize 'no change' is your first choice, but out of curiosity, what would your second choice be?) Thanks - wolf 02:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of your curiosity, nothing really comes to mind for a second choice. - FOX 52 talk! 14:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be helpful if you could suggest something. Just because the page looks ok to you, does not mean it's looks ok to everyone else (which is why we have guidelines to follow and talk pages for discussions). It would be nice if this time around we just come to a compromise, instead of this becoming... contentious. Thanks - wolf 23:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The few editors I've spoken with don't seem to have the issue your having, so do we change it just for you? - FOX 52 talk! 23:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We would change for all the potential users who may have problems. We would change it per the guidelines. We would change it to something that works for everyone, including you. There is no need for any "it must be my way and that's it!" type attitude here. This isn't about winning and losing. This should be be a simple compromise, among adults. That's all - wolf 03:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week, does this mean you won't discuss this any further? - wolf 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: This isn't about "consensus", this is about a layout issue. I gave you an oppotunity to enagage and find a solution and you refused. - wolf 22:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did respond here, here & here - According to WP:IMGLOC "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity", not seeing the part where its squishes the table(s) - FOX 52 talk! 23:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and all your responses show a general lack of cooperation on your part. Parsing various bits of guidelines to suit your position only demonstrates more intransigence on your part. The images, as they were placed, interfered with the two tables they were placed against. All I was trying to do here, was engage you in a dialogue to hopefully find a solution. You usually aren't particularly cooperative in these types of situations, but I was hoping for a different outcome. Just becuase a particular layout suits you, does not mean it's the most ideal, or that works for everyone else. Attemtping to find a solution, that may require change, does not mean you need to treat it as battle, where you must 'win'. The layout is problematic, I've explained why, now why is you refuse to consider an alternative solution? This really should be just a quick fix. - wolf 04:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Parsing various bits of guidelines"? Please show me how I parsed one. Look it's either done your way or mine, so when you begin to throw around insinuations that am uncooperative, be sure to put yourselves in that category. - Best not to fall into old ways - Again I do not have an issue, with viewing on the any small screen - Image(s) or not table is still squished, so I'm confused what you are seeing. - FOX 52 talk! 09:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... block logs now? Grow up. The fact that I started this discussion first, before editing the article, pointed out the issues with the images, and asked you repeatedly to consider an alternative solution, then waited patiently for over a week for a response, shows that I've made every effort to be coopertive here. Meanwhile, I don't have to "insinuate", or dig through old and unrelated edits to show how obstinate and uncooperative you have been... all I have to do is point to your behaviour in this very discussion. It's really no different than your equally uncoopertive, and disruptive behaviour at Talk:List of currently active United States naval aircraft#Images or Talk:United States Armed Forces#Lead image / flags (info box). And those two threads are just from recent and personal experience, if I were to take a page from your book and go digging through your past edits, how many other talk page disputes would I find you involved in, with this very same uncooperative, battleground type behaviour?
But let's not get off track here. The images I'm trying to discuss with you here were problematic as they were compressing the tables to the left, and also leaving gaps of whitespace on the right. Why this isn't apparent to you I have no idea, but is also quite besides the point, it's not as if I'm making it up, nor demanding the images be removed completely. I simply asked that you consider moving them elsewhere, so they don't cause these layout issues. (if not visible to you, then to others. People besides you also use this site, and do so from various devices). If these images are that important to you, then you still have the option to re-add them somewhere else. Just try being cooperative and stop treating this like a win or lose battle... cuz it's not. - wolf 01:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two non-free images[edit]

For the concerned parties involved, please explain your justification for having 2 non-free images in the info box - FOX 52 talk! 15:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't WP:PING Skjoldbro, who added the image, when posting this. They can't respond if they don't know. - wolf 22:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belize_Defence_Force&oldid=1206511049"