Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division/FAQ

I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?

In all probability, what you added was unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly from any Wikipedia article due to relevant policies and guidelines here on site. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.

I see information in the article that has no source. What should I do?

The sources used in this article are cited at the end of each paragraph (known on Wikipedia as "per paragraph citation") so a check of the numbered note at the end of the paragraph should provide the source for the information. If this does not work, then add {{cn}} to the suspicious information to draw attention to information that may not be cited by a source. Alternatively, you may add reliable sources to the uncited information by using ref tabs (<ref></ref>). If you do add a source to the article consider using one of the citation template(s) to ensure that you add all necessary information from your source to the article.

Should ANZAC be capitalized in the article name?

The honest answer is "it depends". The sources given for the abbreviated name of the unit are not universally clear on the matter of capitalization, and as a result the article was moved to an all caps abbreviation in June 2010. The present consensus appears to be in favor of the retention of the all caps abbreviation for the article name, so if you wish to rename the article you will need to gain consensus for the new name by filing a move Request.

Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{fact}} tag on it right now.

This article (like many others) uses the approach of putting no citations in the lead section. This is because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation, as the lead functions as a summary of the entire article.

This article appears to use the terms "Ottoman Empire" and/or "Turkey/Turkish" interchangeably. Why?

The issue of which of the two terms to use was a contentious one until a straw poll in November 2013 resulted in consensus to continue the use of "Turkey/Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favor of this term.

Is it ok to change the terms "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey/Turkish" in the article?

No. Current consensus Turkish Empire wording dispute is that the terms should be left as they are. If you wish to change the terms in the article you will need to gain a clear consensus to do so on the article's talk page first, otherwise the terms should be left as they are. Changes made to the terms in the article without first establishing a clear consensus for the change on the article's talk page or the main Military history Wikiproject talk page may be reverted by any Wikipedian in good standing until such time as the required clear consensus for the change is established and agreed upon by the community as a whole.