Talk:Battle of Goliad

closest Mexican settlement?

San Luis Potosí? That can't be right: the article itself refers to Monterrey, half the distance to SLP, and that's without thinking of the cities along the Río Bravo such as Laredo, Reynosa, Matamoros... Aille (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence fragment

Inder "Aftermath" the following fragment appears: "Goliad won." This should at least not be a fragment and possibly should not be there at all. Peter Flass (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

On checking the history, I found that an anonymous user added those words last December, and I have now removed them. Well spotted! Bencherlite^Talk 11:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Belligerents

This battle appears to be missing one of it's belligerents. ~ the meccaneer (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So it was. I looked through the history and fixed it, Meccaneer. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

There seems to be some dispute of the use of flags in the infobox with a user citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.

However, it states that "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infoboxes for military conflicts, infoboxes for international competitions such as the FIFA World Cup or Olympic Games, or to list the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport."

Under Accompany flags with country names it states that "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. It then links to THIS article on the Battle of the Somme as a good example to be followed and in this article, flags are in the infobox next to each country.

And concerning historical issues "Flags change, and sometimes the geographical or political area(s) to which a flag applies may also change." and "Use a historical flag and associated country name when they have at least a semi-officially applicable rationale to use them. For example, in lists of Olympic medalists, the USSR flag and country name should be used for reporting before 1992, not those of the Russian Federation or the CIS."

Considering that this involves a military infobox and list a political entity/country that no longer exist in its current form (The United Mexican States and Centralist Republic of Mexico are two different political entities with two different flags) and the precedent that other pages on battles and the overall Texas revolution in general uses flags in the infoboxes, I see no reason to claim it cannot be used in this one article specifically about the Battle of Goliad.Friedbyrd (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Friedbyrd, Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. The exception for military conflicts only occurs when there is more than one co-belligerent on one side. The flags then convey additional information in other fields by being a short hand way of indicating allegiance. This article is not such a case. WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a sound argument unless these otherthings reflect best practice. They don't nor do articles about this revolution consistently use this flag. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"The exception for military conflicts only occurs when there is more than one co-belligerent on one side." Where is this stated or even implied at? Again, it clearly states that military conflict infoboxs are the exception for this rule and you are simply adding some sort of qualifier for this exception that is never actually mentioned anywhere.

"They don't nor do articles about this revolution consistently use this flag" Yes, they do, here, here, and was also present on the page for the Battle of Concepcion and the Battle of San Jacinto before you yourself removed them which I can tell from the pages history. Other than that, pretty much any other conflict involving two belligerents with flags also follow this rule. The otherings did reflect this practice before you were the one who removed those examples. Again, there is no qualifier rule as you mentioned.

Friedbyrd (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. The only way they can do this is if there is more than one co-belligerent on one side; otherwise, they fall to MOS:ICONDECORATION - Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. They would fulfil the purpose of providing visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension when used in the way I described when there is more than one co-belligerent on one side. The guidance is pretty clear. Do not use icons when words suffice. They must convey additional information and not be primarily decorative - even in a military conflict infobox. The exception for military conflict infoboxes exist because they can sometimes be used in a useful way but not always. When they do not convey information in addition to the text, they should not be used in a military conflict infobox. Seems pretty clear and pretty simple to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

PS, I did not remove the flags from Battle of Concepción. It is also not present in Battle of Agua Dulce, Battle of San Patricio and Battle of Lipantitlán. It is not present in the belligerent section of Grass Fight but does appear against a unknown commander. I did not remove it from those article but I have now removed it in Grass Fight, where it appears against a commander. Please be a little more careful. Don't assume that just because I have edited on a page I have made a particular edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)