Talk:Guidon (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Guidon (United States) is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Not moved. Vegaswikian 20:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Guidon (U.S. Army)Guidon — no need to disambig —Pmsyyz 01:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC) -discussion section created by SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support: If there hasn't been another Guidon page until now, there's no point in waiting further. Once someone gets the ambition to create another Guidon page, this can be moved back to the disambiguated title. Until then, it's pointless to have an "X" redirecting to an "X (whatever)". —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Guidon should be redirecting to Colours, standards and guidons, as generic terms. Again, Guidon (U.S. Army) refers to a specific American interpretation of a broader topic; it does not automatically inherit the disambiguated use, since the term guidon is indeed ambiguous. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Strong oppose. This article deals with U.S. Army guidons in particular, which are a very different animal from guidons used in (e.g.) Commonwealth armies. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per SigPig. Disambiguation is often necessary for common terms even if they don't have their own article (being more dictionary definitions best left to Wikipedia) or which are best redirected to a less ambiguous, existing Wikipedia article as in this case. Gene Nygaard 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.