Talk:Battle of Pinsk

General sources or bibliography?

The purpose of the full citations listed in section § Works cited (all the ones with Polish authors and English titles, up through 'Lech Wyszczelski') is unclear. (Note: this is the section that was called "Bibliography" in earlier versions; I changed the section name because of this confusion.) A spot check reveals that at least some of these citations duplicate sources from inline citations that are rendered in the § Footnotes section. If these are meant to be there just to give the English titles of inline citations already present, that is not how we do it in English Wikipedia. In that case, the English title (and any other non-duplicated source info) should be merged into the inline citation, with the English title added to citation template param |trans-title=, and the citation should then be dropped from § Works cited. If this section is meant to be something else, please explain. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I dislike Harvard cites on Wiki, as they are a pain to use and often result in mixed citation styles :( I see this comes from your recent edit - I understand nobody likes to redo cite styles, not blaming anyone, but I am not sure how to solve this mess. Many works in that section seem to be not cited and should be in further reading. Maybe split them into a section named such? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, agreed. This was a matter of prioritization of article improvement. Previously, the article dove into a context-free discussion of a couple of generals lined up against each other in Poland, without any context in time or space, leaving the reader unmoored about how we got there, or why they were fighting, and no clue how this was related to the Polish-Soviet War, or prior events of World War I or the Russian Revolution. Providing a minimum of context was a first step, and the easiest path to get there was by importing one chunk from Polish–Soviet War, and another chunk from Vladimir Lenin, so that's what I did. The latter had a different citation style, which is unfortunate, but not serious (WP:CITEVAR is only a guideline) so I added a hidden comment to the § References section about the style variation and noted that the style should be converted over eventually to the prevailing style. In my opinion, for the time being this is okay; the important thing is getting the article content and verifiability right for the reader; readers don't care about variable citation style (or even references, for the most part), and even though it should and will be fixed, it's nowhere close to the main problem with the article right now. Regarding uncited references, I've moved those to § Further reading. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Quality assessment question

I was just wondering, is this article still Start class or C by now? Setergh (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Setergh There's no math to calculate this, it's subjective. I think it is good enough for C-class, personally, given the ref density and relative comprehensivness. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

PS. I fixed the link to Władysław Dąbrowski using ill for you. You can just copypaste it in visual mode, and edit the template accordingly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Setergh (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

But I'd strongly prefer to see Template:Ill used rather then no links ([1]). Do try to use them, I require this from my students for good grade :P - it maay take you few minutes, but it is is not terrible tool. If you need help, do ask _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)