This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Find better phrasing for whatever this was trying to express. There have been 0 moments since WWII where its veterans weren't honored or respected in the US, even though Slaughterhouse Five and Catch-22 were theoretically based during that war specifically instead of any other. There was no cultural shift where people suddenly remembered that they owed a debt of honor to the WWII vets. — LlywelynII05:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So many professional historians here on Wikipedia. What does the second sentence say after the one you edited? Or did you not read that far? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
books of Stephen E. Ambrose and accounts of the deaths of members of a single family such as the Niland brothers
There are 4 record of'es in this main article section. 182.253.54.87 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The countries for the distributors of the film have been removed from the infobox. WP:FILMDIST guidelines clearly state, "Using the same rationale as the release date, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released. If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them." However, on this infobox, they are replaced with hidden notes saying not to include them, as they are discussed in the body text, when it's clearly known that DreamWorks distributed in the United States and Paramount distributed internationally. Other articles for films show countries for distributors (domestic and foreign in the infobox). TPalkovitz (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading the guideline. The distributor guideline has nothing to do with country field, and both distributors are American. The hidden notes are there to stop people adding "(North America)" and "(international)" to the infobox when we a) try to avoid using the term international becuase it's an English Wikipedia, and b) it makes the infobox a mess. Plus there will be countries where other companies ultimately distributed on behalf of others. And it is discussed in the body text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the guideline, and I am trying to figure out how this is being "misread". I am aware that it is discussed in the body text, as I stated on here. Maybe there should be updated infobox guidelines to avoid confusion on further articles? The quote I used is directly from the distributor portion of the guidelines. I'm just trying to figure this thing out because the guidelines appear rather vague (the quote I said was the only thing listed in the distributor section), and with all due respect, I don't see anything in the guidelines that back up your statement. TPalkovitz (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
