Talk:Gotland

message: Given that the Armed Forces have so few BAMSE (RBS 23) batteries due to government penny-pinching, I doubt that we'll see any deployed on the island in the short term even though they're badly needed. However, in case I'm wrong, I'll leave this old but still useful link relating to the BAMSE here just so we'll have a reasonable technical reference handy: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/  Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAMSE 

message: Good evening, or I should  say night, W.carter. A news report I just came across claims there are plans at an advanced stage for a support helicopter squadron (Hkp 16/UH-60M?) and a Gripen 'fast response squadron' to be deployed to the island to shore up the defenses. I'm a bit skeptical though, given that the Swedish Air Force doesn't presently have the resources to deploy even a short squadron on a semi-permanent basis to Visby Airport, and as for the helicopters, well the Helikopterflottiljen is an unmitigated disaster to put it mildly. I'd say right at this moment the Army and Navy are banging down the doors demanding 'their' helicopters back. Just from the political angle alone, the Flygvapnet is on a very thin branch indeed at the moment. 
I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being thrown under the bus by the politicians in the very near future as they try desperately to divert away attention from their own failures & dubious behavior. Anyway, I've added a quick update to the Military section. See you around tomorrow! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of an update on the military side 

message: Moved 72.188.121.176's comment from article to talk page.
"This is wrong. Ragnar's village is in Jutland, ie Denmark, not Gotland." - w.carter-Talk 16:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The History Channel has no clue where Ragnar came from, so they made it up. The clue is in the words "Norse legend".  Philg88 ♦talk 07:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Since the text was unsourced and not verifiable it is now removed. w.carter-Talk 06:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ragnar's village 

message: Does this article really need the following categories: Swedish Army, Military of Sweden, Coastal fortifications, Sweden in World War II, Cold War? /Saftgurka (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were added before the creation of the article Military on Gotland when more contents of that article was just a section here. They have just been left behind and I think it's safe to remove them. w.carter-Talk 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so, then I'll delete them. Thanks. /Saftgurka (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Suggest adding a discussion of this in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.69.66 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial flag of Gotland 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106052523/http://www.ufo.se/fakta/artiklar/martebo.shtml to http://www.ufo.se/fakta/artiklar/martebo.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.popularastronomi.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2008-4_asteroider.pdfdate%3D2008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose we split off the list of notable people into a list article of its own. Following a discussion with ArbieP who so diligently added info to the list, I put the proposal here. Such an article could also again make use of the pictures  that SovalValtos so unceremoniously removed from the article. Thoughts? cart-Talk 22:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My view (perhaps unsurprising) is that whilst the list of notables is indeed on the long side, its division into three sections breaks it up from seeming excessively long. I would also prefer the photos to remain (or come back) as they illustrate the historical perspective of the list, and so, something of where the characters within it come from. ArbieP (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, so far, no text concerning the historical perspective of the list to be illustrated. Until such time as there is, the images have no place in this article as well as their own articles.SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that images realted to lists make reading the article more enjoyable for the average reader (Wikipedia:Readers first). The layout of an article is just as important as the content and lists tend to be rather boring in that respect. Some pictures will spark interest and may entice the reader to actually move on and read the linked articles. Many editors here are scholars, used to trudging through dry texts, most readers are not. cart-Talk 10:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons of readability I think the list should be att bottom of the page, so that it does not disrupt the text. The list is large enough to guarantee a proper article and that is perhaps the best move in the end since the list have much potential for growth. Also wherever the list is I am of the view that it should be supported by pictures. Lappspira (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we may reach a consensus on the two issues here - (1) splitting and (2) the use (or not) of photographs. If a split were to be done, can we be confident that SovalValtos (or others) would not delete the photos from a new page? If so, I would accept the proposal to split, albeit with some reluctance ArbieP (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we can never be sure how other editors will treat our work. This is after all a place where anyone can edit. Doing large edits on any article will always bring out the sharks to take bites from it, as such additions show up in the 'Recent edits lists' and watchlists. We can only hope that some reason will prevail. cart-Talk 18:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that many of the list population do not have sources showing they belong. I would not oppose the creation of a Gotland notable people list article. It would give the opportunity of changing the section in this article into a text summary.SovalValtos (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off "‎Notable people" section to a list article 

message: Since 2003, the use of spaces as separators (for example: 20 000 and 1 000 000 for "twenty thousand" and "one million") has been officially endorsed by SI/ISO 31-0 standard, as well as by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the American Medical Association's widely followed AMA Manual of Style, and the Metrication Board, among others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You should bring that up at the talk page for MOS:DIGITS since both spaces and commas are allowed on this project. --cart-Talk 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thousands separators 

message: The Heraldry section refers to the seal of the Gutnish Republic. A search of Wikipedia reveals only this one mention of this entity. What was this republic? When? If this existed, I would have thought a mention in history would have been helpful, if not an article of its own. Anyone know? First time I’d heard of it. Ptilinopus (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutnish Republic 

message: The infobox here gives the length of Gotland as 176 km. So do the sources I find using a Google search. But Google Earth shows it as 125 km; and so, near enough, do the atlases I've consulted. Even if the nearby island of Fårö is included, the total length is only 140 km. I suspect that the 176 figure comes from an error in a single source which has been copied. This map at Swedish Wikipedia appears to show its length at about 102 km.
I would change the figure in the infobox to 125 km, but that would be original research. Any suggestions? Maproom (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article, which is sourced. The "driving distance" must exceed the direct distance, so I'll go ahead and make the change to 125 km. Maproom (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Gotland