Talk:Gulf War (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit]

The content between the makeshift horizontal rules, to which i have added the unsigned and undated templates, was moved here 19:02, 31 March 2003 by MartinHarper.
--Jerzyt 06:52 & 07:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

from talk:War in Iraq
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talkcontribs) 19:02, 31 March 2003

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I question whether this should be a redirect as there have been several wars in what is now Iraq in the past and there may well be another war in Iraq after the present war is over. --Daniel C. Boyer — Preceding undated comment added 14:54 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Right! I created this redirect in response to Ed changing the "Invasion of Iraq" on the Main Page into "War in Iraq". The Main Page should link to the current war, which started with the US/British invasion of Iraq (if one likes that term or not). Best solution from my POV would be to make War in Iraq a list of all Iraq wars (the first gulf war between Iraq and Iran, the second gulf war with US and others reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the current war). In other words: the redirect is a reaction on what I see as namespace wars, some people who activly want to ignore the fact that the current war is a "preventive war", started with an invasion with no UN backing etc.
till we *) 15:18 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
I redirected to Gulf War (disambiguation). Does that solve the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talkcontribs) 18:52, :54, & :58 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is better, though there may be some debate about whether the 2003 events are simply a continuation of the 1990-91 events. --MartinHarper — Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 31 March 2003
Just as a sidenote, up until about a decade ago and the appearance of the internet generation, if you said "The Gulf war" you meant the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, if you meant the 90/91 war that was the second Gulf war. Altering the names retroactively just feels dangerously close to "fixing" history to suit the people with big mediapull. Just wanted to mention this somewhere... DW75 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(Merge prop'l)[edit]

I'd like to merge this with Iraq war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talkcontribs) 23:53, 20 April 2003

(American geographic illiteracy)[edit]

'War was invented for the Americans to learn Geography' by Ambrose Bierce. An AMERICAN and author of 'The Devil's Dictionary' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.32.7 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2003

(Misplaced discussion)[edit]

Text moved to talk:Military preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanKeshet (talkcontribs) 15:19 & :40, 14 August 2003

Specifically,
contributed 18:52, 20 May 2011 by Xeeron, and
moved to #Very inconsistent redirects/disambiguation pages: new section).
--Jerzyt 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Very inconsistent redirects/disambiguation pages[edit]

Try:

Different pages for different capitalisation.

    • These are correct - redirects allow users to reach the intended page, even if they use slightly different spelling/capitalisation. --NSH001 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also:

Lead to the same page.

    • now corrected, so that second gulf war leads to the appropriate disambiguation page. --NSH001 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally:

A main article + a disamb page with the same name ....

- Xeeron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeeron (talkcontribs) 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicable revision[edit]

User:Necessary Evil reverted my edits without any substantive reason given, either here on this talk page or in the edit comments. All that was said was "Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.)"! What baby? What bath water? What the f is he talking about? If he thought that a "baby" was missing why didn't he add that back in? That would have been the Wikipedia way. Why did he add back the bathwater too? I find it insulting and against the spirit of Wikipedia (inclusiveness, cooperation, consensus, etc.) to revert good-faith edits without any effort put into explaining the action, let alone any effort to edit to add in what is missing. The Wikipedia way would have been to add what Necessary Evil thinks was missing -- the mysterious "baby". The page as it exists now is a repetitive mess that obscures more that it illuminates and has too much information for a disambiguation page. It cannot stand as it. We need to reduce the wording and bring the formatting back into line with other disambiguation pages. If no one comments here I will assume that I consensus has been reached and will re-edit the page along the lines that I did before. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iloilo Wanderer, sorry for the troubles. "Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water" is an idiomatic expression or a metaphor as you have mentioned.
You good-faith edit reduced the number of words, but information was lost. Your version tells us that five names covers four wars - but the four wars haven't got all five names. The disambiguation is to clarify which names belong to which wars. If the names and wars were unambiguous connected, we could avoid the repetition, but they aren't. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Multi-purpose Dab??[edit]

   While editors of the Dab pages for any names applicable to at least two of the three wars should be aware of each others' work, the attempt to disambiguate on one page all the names that are ambiguous among some of the three wars is grossly misconceived, and could be remedied by creating a separate Dab page for more-or-less each ambiguous title. That may be too extreme for variations that share a pattern of applicability; in theory, i can easily imagine 4 Dab pages being needed: one for the terms that plausibly apply to both of the first two, one for the last two, one for the first and last, and one for terms that apply to all three, but i wouldn't be surprised if even that were overkill.
   I'm gonna start work here on this talk page, and hope for consensus before editing the mainspace pages needed.
--Jerzyt 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Numbering removal[edit]

I just finished a major cleanup of this disambiguation. It seems like this page got way too confusing with a series of sections on the numbers of each Gulf War. That is completely unnecessary. You have to keep in mind that this is a disambiguation, and the only purpose of it is to guide people to the respective articles. I feel like this page did not do a good job of this, because it was cluttered with hypothetical numbering. The way I have it now is a lot better. People can read very short summaries of the different wars and conflicts that have been referred to as "Gulf War" (numbering doesn't matter here) and then can go to the article they want. I also added an infobox to help with this process. Leave everything else to the individual articles. Tavix |  Talk  23:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)