![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please cease the edit warring on this. Australian national legislation protects the word 'Anzac', three Australian states protect 'ANZAC'. I haven't a clue what the Kiwi's do. None of the refs I have seen say one is 'official', even the AWM (it just generally uses ANZAC). It probably deserves its own section regarding the issue so we can move past it, as I note it has been the subject of much discussion in the past. I am reverting it to the status quo ante until we get some discussion here. I will report any further edit warring on this issue. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 02:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
While what AussieLegend has pointed out regarding capitalisation in Bean's Vol 1 Glossary is technically correct ('The glossary lists the acronym "ANZAC" (all caps - not sentence case)', this is potentially misleading, as EVERY entry in the glossary is in all caps. Thus there are entries such as DIXIE and MOUNTAIN GUN, and it would be difficult to imagine anybody claiming justification for those terms' full-capitalisation in every instance merely because they appeared in title case in the Glossary here. I would suggest that the fact that 'ANZAC' is fully-capitalised in the glossary is therefore meaningless in any discussion on whether the word should ALWAYS be fully-capitalised. Also, it is wrong, I believe, to ignore any source on the matter except Bean. There were literally hundreds of books, articles, documents etc. produced that indicate correct use of 'Anzac / ANZAC.' It was not until the seventies (I believe) that we started to see usage such as ANZAC Day creeping in. The fact that ALL place-names are fully-capitalised in military writing makes that also irrelevant to a discussion regarding the case of 'Anzac.' I also disagree that '1 Anzac Corps' and 'II Anzac Corps' are like writing 'ATM Machine.' That would be true ONLY if 'Anzac' were still being used as an acronym, but even by 1916, when these NEW formations came into existence, it was a WORD, no longer an acronym for the Army Corps. Thus 'I Anzac Corps' should be read exactly as it appears - 'One Anzac Corps' or 'First Anzac Corps', not as 'One Australian and New Zealand Army Corps Corps'. Incidentally, I am positive I can point to hundreds of uses of 'Anzac' in contemporary military writing for every one case of 'ANZAC.' Hayaman 23:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman ( talk • contribs) Really interesting read re the usage of ANZAC. Thanks to all who have contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.170.93 ( talk) 00:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Really interesting read re the usage of ANZAC. Thanks to all who have contributed. Dairyflat ( talk) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation removed (The Times of Malta, Thursday, April 25, 2013) UNQUOTE
The above has been added from personal experience and also from family recollections.
Both my Grandfather (Franscis Bricat) and my uncle (Charles Brincat) used to be the curators of the Anzac cemetry in Malta.
As far as I am aware I have included only well known and recorded facts. The number of persons buried can be verified by a visit to the cemetry. I am now nearly 81 years old and as far as I remember there has always been a commemoration on Anzac day.
I therefore suggest that you re insert this information. It is a pity that Malta had never been included even though many soldiers received medical aid in Malta and some are buried here.
The reference to The Times of Malta was included so as to shaw that this has also been corroborated by a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.31.38 ( talk) 13:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please edit this page to remove Kiribati from underneath the "China" heading and make it a new headline under "other countries". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.57.77 ( talk) 23:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Anzac Day has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Other overseas ceremonies Antarctica Scott Base, Antarctica holds a ceremony honoring the fallen on April 25. Americans from the nearby McMurdo Station are often invited.
[1] Person0605( talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015
Done Thanks for the suggestion and reference
(PS your edit did not show properly as you closed your reference with <ref> instead of </ref> -
Arjayay (
talk) 13:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Somehow the impression has taken root that in that terrible Battle of Gallipoli (1915) only the Anzac troops fought and suffered in Turkey.
Britain actually suffered greater losses than Australia or New Zealand, as did France. Many Australians are unaware that other nations took part.
The article should make mention of this to avoid the myth living on.
India and Canadian troops were also involved, as were many others.
The Allied casualties included 21,255 from the United Kingdom, an estimated 10,000 dead soldiers from France, 8,709 from Australia, 2,721 from New Zealand, and 1,358 from British India.
AussieLegend, the PDF file you're using as a reference on criticism of ANZAC day looks like a middle- or high-school textbook, which would not be a quality historical source. Could you provide bibliographic details on the book? Beyond that, it's important to note that the mere fact that a particular source calls critics of ANZAC day "radical" doesn't mean that that's an NPOV statement. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 17:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.) The source is a PDF published by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, an Australian federal government department, and the specific text is from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. As a publication from a reputable source, referenced by an authoritative federal government department, definitely not a "middle- or high-school textbook", I don't see an issue with it. Note that it is also used by the Australian War Memorial, [3] another reputable and highly respected government institution. It's not a violation of NPOV to report exactly what a document from a reputable source says. There is a difference between "socialism" and "radical socialism". Perhaps your opposition to use of "radical" is caused by a lack of understanding of that difference and an apparent belief that use of "radical" is a way of denigrating socialists, which it is not? If the source refers to radical socialism, we aren't at liberty to decide that the claim refers to all forms of socialism. Please also note that per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when an edit of yours is good faith reverted, you do not immediately revert, as you did here. Instead you open a discussion on the article's talk page with the aim of resolving the issue and, while the matter is under discussion, the status quo prevails. That you opened a discussion is commendable, but removing a valid citation, contrary to Wikipedia:Link rot, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, is not. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a standard for how "ANZAC" (or "Anzac") should be capitalized in this context? Currently it is mixed in this article, and in other places that link to it. My opinion is that it should be "ANZAC" because it is an initialism, and that seems to be the most common practice through the rest of Wikipedia. But the world does not always work according to my opinion, so before changing anything I thought I should ask here. So are there any other views? (Note:I have also raised this same question on the article for ANZAC Cove.)-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
At present the article is unclear on this. The date of Anzac Day does not change, -there is merely a substitute holiday entitlement on the following Monday, and ONLY for employees who wouldn't have otherwise worked on the day in the weekend it falls (who get their holiday entitlement on the actual date). Also the shop trading restrictions of not being open before 1pm still apply to the date itself 25th April, and this does not change. Sources here, here, and re restricted trading; here, and here. Number36 ( talk) 20:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, most of the lede is of of very little importance to the Holiday (using the broad sense of the term), since it isn't even celebrated in Canada. I assume this is the work of some (Canadian) troll. Could someone remove the material on Canada (it belongs in History, if anywhere) from the lede or include citations showing its importance in Canada? Abitslow ( talk) 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anzac Day. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not Istanbul? That's how we know it today, and the Turks called it that back then. Sure, Anglophones (and some others) called it Constantinople at the time. But they also said other things we don't repeat today. So why not Istanbul? Why create confusion without a reason?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Anzac Day. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand why the specific reference to Zoo Weekly was removed, but I think there is a separate issue that is worth addressing. It is not just commercialisation of Anzac Day, but also the idea that certain kinds of promotions are in appropriate. In the past there have been complaints about strip clubs, for example. [6] I removed Karl Stefanovic's complaint about the Avengers movie coming out on Anzac Day (because I think that's trivial unless other join the campaign), but there does seem to be an attitude in Australia that Anzac Day is holy, even more so that religious holidays... It would also be good to have more information what the regulations are about use of the name and the day in general.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Many claims here have no citations and citations from a decade ago are treated as if they are current.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask if ANZAC day should be written in capitals or if it is now written as per the page as Anzac Day. I understand that ANZAC stood for the Australian and New Zealand alliance and wondered why it now became all lower case. I understand Anzac biscuits etc having the lower case but if someone could point me to where the day and identification because upper and lower case. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veterans Centres Network ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In the info box, listed under "Related to" are Remembrance Day, Commonwealth of Nations (in brackets for some unknown reason), Armistice Day, Veterans Day and Memorial Day. I don't think that most of these belong here, as other similar remembrance days can be found under the category Observances honoring victims of war (which could no doubt do with looking at and adding to at some point too!). I would remove all except perhaps Remembrance Day because of the link to poppies, etc. and the fact that Anzac Day is mentioned there. Or just remove the Related To heading altogether. Thoughts? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 08:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please cease the edit warring on this. Australian national legislation protects the word 'Anzac', three Australian states protect 'ANZAC'. I haven't a clue what the Kiwi's do. None of the refs I have seen say one is 'official', even the AWM (it just generally uses ANZAC). It probably deserves its own section regarding the issue so we can move past it, as I note it has been the subject of much discussion in the past. I am reverting it to the status quo ante until we get some discussion here. I will report any further edit warring on this issue. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 02:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
While what AussieLegend has pointed out regarding capitalisation in Bean's Vol 1 Glossary is technically correct ('The glossary lists the acronym "ANZAC" (all caps - not sentence case)', this is potentially misleading, as EVERY entry in the glossary is in all caps. Thus there are entries such as DIXIE and MOUNTAIN GUN, and it would be difficult to imagine anybody claiming justification for those terms' full-capitalisation in every instance merely because they appeared in title case in the Glossary here. I would suggest that the fact that 'ANZAC' is fully-capitalised in the glossary is therefore meaningless in any discussion on whether the word should ALWAYS be fully-capitalised. Also, it is wrong, I believe, to ignore any source on the matter except Bean. There were literally hundreds of books, articles, documents etc. produced that indicate correct use of 'Anzac / ANZAC.' It was not until the seventies (I believe) that we started to see usage such as ANZAC Day creeping in. The fact that ALL place-names are fully-capitalised in military writing makes that also irrelevant to a discussion regarding the case of 'Anzac.' I also disagree that '1 Anzac Corps' and 'II Anzac Corps' are like writing 'ATM Machine.' That would be true ONLY if 'Anzac' were still being used as an acronym, but even by 1916, when these NEW formations came into existence, it was a WORD, no longer an acronym for the Army Corps. Thus 'I Anzac Corps' should be read exactly as it appears - 'One Anzac Corps' or 'First Anzac Corps', not as 'One Australian and New Zealand Army Corps Corps'. Incidentally, I am positive I can point to hundreds of uses of 'Anzac' in contemporary military writing for every one case of 'ANZAC.' Hayaman 23:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman ( talk • contribs) Really interesting read re the usage of ANZAC. Thanks to all who have contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.170.93 ( talk) 00:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Really interesting read re the usage of ANZAC. Thanks to all who have contributed. Dairyflat ( talk) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation removed (The Times of Malta, Thursday, April 25, 2013) UNQUOTE
The above has been added from personal experience and also from family recollections.
Both my Grandfather (Franscis Bricat) and my uncle (Charles Brincat) used to be the curators of the Anzac cemetry in Malta.
As far as I am aware I have included only well known and recorded facts. The number of persons buried can be verified by a visit to the cemetry. I am now nearly 81 years old and as far as I remember there has always been a commemoration on Anzac day.
I therefore suggest that you re insert this information. It is a pity that Malta had never been included even though many soldiers received medical aid in Malta and some are buried here.
The reference to The Times of Malta was included so as to shaw that this has also been corroborated by a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.31.38 ( talk) 13:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please edit this page to remove Kiribati from underneath the "China" heading and make it a new headline under "other countries". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.57.77 ( talk) 23:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Anzac Day has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Other overseas ceremonies Antarctica Scott Base, Antarctica holds a ceremony honoring the fallen on April 25. Americans from the nearby McMurdo Station are often invited.
[1] Person0605( talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015
Done Thanks for the suggestion and reference
(PS your edit did not show properly as you closed your reference with <ref> instead of </ref> -
Arjayay (
talk) 13:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Somehow the impression has taken root that in that terrible Battle of Gallipoli (1915) only the Anzac troops fought and suffered in Turkey.
Britain actually suffered greater losses than Australia or New Zealand, as did France. Many Australians are unaware that other nations took part.
The article should make mention of this to avoid the myth living on.
India and Canadian troops were also involved, as were many others.
The Allied casualties included 21,255 from the United Kingdom, an estimated 10,000 dead soldiers from France, 8,709 from Australia, 2,721 from New Zealand, and 1,358 from British India.
AussieLegend, the PDF file you're using as a reference on criticism of ANZAC day looks like a middle- or high-school textbook, which would not be a quality historical source. Could you provide bibliographic details on the book? Beyond that, it's important to note that the mere fact that a particular source calls critics of ANZAC day "radical" doesn't mean that that's an NPOV statement. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 17:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.) The source is a PDF published by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, an Australian federal government department, and the specific text is from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. As a publication from a reputable source, referenced by an authoritative federal government department, definitely not a "middle- or high-school textbook", I don't see an issue with it. Note that it is also used by the Australian War Memorial, [3] another reputable and highly respected government institution. It's not a violation of NPOV to report exactly what a document from a reputable source says. There is a difference between "socialism" and "radical socialism". Perhaps your opposition to use of "radical" is caused by a lack of understanding of that difference and an apparent belief that use of "radical" is a way of denigrating socialists, which it is not? If the source refers to radical socialism, we aren't at liberty to decide that the claim refers to all forms of socialism. Please also note that per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when an edit of yours is good faith reverted, you do not immediately revert, as you did here. Instead you open a discussion on the article's talk page with the aim of resolving the issue and, while the matter is under discussion, the status quo prevails. That you opened a discussion is commendable, but removing a valid citation, contrary to Wikipedia:Link rot, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, is not. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a standard for how "ANZAC" (or "Anzac") should be capitalized in this context? Currently it is mixed in this article, and in other places that link to it. My opinion is that it should be "ANZAC" because it is an initialism, and that seems to be the most common practice through the rest of Wikipedia. But the world does not always work according to my opinion, so before changing anything I thought I should ask here. So are there any other views? (Note:I have also raised this same question on the article for ANZAC Cove.)-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
At present the article is unclear on this. The date of Anzac Day does not change, -there is merely a substitute holiday entitlement on the following Monday, and ONLY for employees who wouldn't have otherwise worked on the day in the weekend it falls (who get their holiday entitlement on the actual date). Also the shop trading restrictions of not being open before 1pm still apply to the date itself 25th April, and this does not change. Sources here, here, and re restricted trading; here, and here. Number36 ( talk) 20:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, most of the lede is of of very little importance to the Holiday (using the broad sense of the term), since it isn't even celebrated in Canada. I assume this is the work of some (Canadian) troll. Could someone remove the material on Canada (it belongs in History, if anywhere) from the lede or include citations showing its importance in Canada? Abitslow ( talk) 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anzac Day. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not Istanbul? That's how we know it today, and the Turks called it that back then. Sure, Anglophones (and some others) called it Constantinople at the time. But they also said other things we don't repeat today. So why not Istanbul? Why create confusion without a reason?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Anzac Day. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand why the specific reference to Zoo Weekly was removed, but I think there is a separate issue that is worth addressing. It is not just commercialisation of Anzac Day, but also the idea that certain kinds of promotions are in appropriate. In the past there have been complaints about strip clubs, for example. [6] I removed Karl Stefanovic's complaint about the Avengers movie coming out on Anzac Day (because I think that's trivial unless other join the campaign), but there does seem to be an attitude in Australia that Anzac Day is holy, even more so that religious holidays... It would also be good to have more information what the regulations are about use of the name and the day in general.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Many claims here have no citations and citations from a decade ago are treated as if they are current.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask if ANZAC day should be written in capitals or if it is now written as per the page as Anzac Day. I understand that ANZAC stood for the Australian and New Zealand alliance and wondered why it now became all lower case. I understand Anzac biscuits etc having the lower case but if someone could point me to where the day and identification because upper and lower case. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veterans Centres Network ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In the info box, listed under "Related to" are Remembrance Day, Commonwealth of Nations (in brackets for some unknown reason), Armistice Day, Veterans Day and Memorial Day. I don't think that most of these belong here, as other similar remembrance days can be found under the category Observances honoring victims of war (which could no doubt do with looking at and adding to at some point too!). I would remove all except perhaps Remembrance Day because of the link to poppies, etc. and the fact that Anzac Day is mentioned there. Or just remove the Related To heading altogether. Thoughts? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 08:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)