Talk:Burma campaign

Article titles Burma campaign (1944) and Burma campaign (1944–1945)

Another editor has raised with me an issue with these two titles and that they have the appearance of being a duplication. Is it possible to consider alternative names that resolve this? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How about:

1. "Allied Reconquest of Burma (1944-1945) or;
2. "Allied Reoccupation if Burma (1944-1945) or;
3. "Allied Liberation of Burma (1944-1945)

2: is a bit tame; the process was not a peaceful post-VJ day march in. Both 1: and 3: might raise complaints of POV. I would go with 3: as it fits with the nomenclature of other allied campaigns e.g. Liberation of France. HLGallon (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 and Option 3 work for me. — Sadko (words are wind) 18:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox - colonies

British colonies were removed from the infobox for several reasons. Firstly, they are not separate state players but act under control of Britain. Secondly, their inclusion in almost every instance is unverified and not supported by the body of the article. Unverified material may be removed at any time and verification does not guarantee inclusion. Thirdly (per my edit comment): Template:Tq (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I also removed Nepal. It is noted that Gurkhas served in the British army but this does not make Nepal a belligerent party. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nepal should not have been removed from the list of combatants. Units of the Royal Nepali Army (not Gukhas) fought at Sangshak, Kohima and Mandalay. I researched the numbers in Talk:Burma campaign (1944–1945)/Archive 1. HLGallon (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Then, the inclusion in the infobox need verification, since Nepal is not otherwise mentioned in the article. Without verification, it should not be there. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing colonies. British colonies and protectorates were separate polities in their own right. Nepal was sourced but the references were removed for some reason. They are now reinstated. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Only one is supported by citation and one other by mention in the body of the article. And I would disagree that they are separate polities (certainly not in the majority of cases) if they do not have a separate constitution. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)