Talk:Operation Mistral 2

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Article move
Should this article be moved to "Operation Mistral 2" or "Operation Maestral 2"? After a cursory search of google books, disqualifying wikipedia itself, there is a predominance of search results for "Mistral 2" rather than the same without the number in English language sources. Number 2 was a part of the official codename of the operation. Furthermore there is 5 to 4 split between "Operation Mistral" and "Operation Maestral" hits. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be moved to "Operation Mistral 2", but I'm wondering if it would be worth considering moving it to "Operation Maestral 2" instead (the official name, nearly equal in use in English language sources). Personally, I'm inclined towards the latter solution, but I'd rather see if others share this view or not. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)