Talk:Belize Defence Force

message: Add more information etc.  VarunRajendran 22:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: 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)
thread_title:  Military budget 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Refer to recent edit by , 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 ). And my argument are as follows:
# 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".
# 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".
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  image2 parameter on infobox 

message: Should image2 parameter on the infobox be filled in when the image is available? 
Btw, images in questions are as follows:
Ckfasdf (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on usage of image2 parameter on infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: You didn't  , who added the image, when posting this. They can't respond if they don't know. - wolf 22:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two non-free images