Talk:Bombing of the Vatican

Untitled

There's never going to be enough information here to fill out the article beyond a stub, and it's impossible to know whether this was actually intended as a separate bombing or whether this was an accidental consequence of the Bombing of Rome in World War II. This should be merged to that article. I know it's a sovereign state, but we should still use common sense here. Savidan 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that common sense should be used, but if we delete this article (excuse me, 'merge' is the PC term these days) it'll just further contribute to the over-simplification of wikipedia. Many people on here have a 'brevity over information' attitude that would only be worsened if we 'merge' this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.62.45 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean merge in a rather literal, not PC, sense. This content should be moved, and the article history should be maintained, not deleted. If there is ever enough cited information about this topic to make that article too long (nowhere near in my estimation), a new article should be written. But it is my suspicion that there is not enough information for over-simplification to be a concern. Savidan 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough sourced content here for a separate article. This article consists of a few facts borrowed from the bombing of rome article plus a handful of unreliable blog posts. See WP:CITE; WP:RS. Splitting these topics will inevitably create repetition and needlessly confuse the reader. There is so little sourced information about the bombing of rome at all that it just doesn't make sense to parcel it up. Any more than separating the bombing of 5th street from the bombing of 6th street. If you expand that article substantially with reliable and cited content, perhaps there will be a more compelling reason for a separate article. Savidan 04:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

1: I've improved the page greatly (see my post below)

2: Re the 5th street vs 6th street issue. If 6th street happens to be a separate country, then yes, they should be separated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.201.125 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stub

Sorry, random question here, when does a stub stop being a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.62.45 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent work

Okay, i've made a concerted effort to improve and bulk out the page, i now thnik it very much stands on it's own and should be free from the threat of deletion Swalgal (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

second bombing

the article says theres no doubt who did it, but doesnt say who it was 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bombing of the Vatican. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715095503/http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/cultura/2011/007q05c1.html to http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/cultura/2011/007q05c1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103060159/http://www.vatican.va/archive/actes/documents/Volume-7.pdf to http://www.vatican.va/archive/actes/documents/Volume-7.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bunkerdiroma.it/vaticano.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It seems rather odd that the Vatican is included amongst the 'belligerents' when it was neutral and did nothing except be the target. This is not in accord with the normal meaning of the word belligerent. Sbishop (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but would go further. The infoboxes are not only misleading; they contribute nothing to the article. They should be removed. Kablammo (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now removed them. The two infoboxes, used for military conflicts, were added on 1 October 2021. This was not a conflict; there were no belligerents here; the Vatican's neutrality was recognized by all. Kablammo (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)