This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Kletsk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Please stop using the template for this citation. Using the template causes the cite to be defined and linked in footnote 6, while footnote 1 refers to it. This is not a proper citation method, particularly when the "ref name" function consolidates the cites in footnote 1. Compare the references section using the template with the current 'ref name' format. Also one of the copyedit changes you made is ungrammatical. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The references should only have the FOOTNOTES while the Bibliography should have the cite book template. I'm not sure what you are talking about, I have seen you before and your constant editing next to me doesn't amuse me one bit Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've now left the references section with a "Cite error" notice. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as "editing next to" you, but perhaps you should review WP:CITE as to citation methods and formatting. As it states, various styles of citation are approved, but consistency within an article should be maintained. Here, the other notes in the article contain full references, as did the note with the Kolodziejczyk cite. So it was consistent to maintain that cite in footnote 1, as the other references are listed. You have introduced a format error and inconsistency in citation style. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make me laugh sometimes. It's all good, fixed it just for you, I hope you are happy now and can move in with counter-editing other people. I have no time for your games. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This retains the inconsistency in citation method on the page, and worse, you have removed the Google Books link to the cited text. There is no point in adding this template and it removes the direct link to the source. That is not a game; that is preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no reason that it should be, and you again removed the direct link to the text cited. The citation method was consistent previously and within MoS policy. You are adding a template for no purpose and providing no reason for it, and your edit makes the sourced material less accessible. This is simply disruptive at this point. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the page was consistent doesn't mean it can't be changed towards a better organized structure. I added the template for a purpose. I already provided for it. All materials will be less accessible that is the point of bibliography since multiple footnotes will connect to it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the link to the text of the source and making the material less accessible is not an improvement. That makes the article a less useful resource to the reader. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference will be crowded, this is how top Editors in Wikipedia make their articles featured article, not like you, playing these small games. So tell me how not having an efficient footnotes less better by having a crowded reference. ?? Most of the time readers have to buy the book, what happens if the pages are not accessible, I just link it to the publisher. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on content - as I have done - and dispense with these petty barbs. I have not reverted your changes, even though WP:BRD states the article should return to the status quo ante while disputes are discussed, and though Renata3 also disputed your changes. Yet in return you issue insults. Please stop. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the insults? I will try my best not hurt your feelings. You can do whatever you want with this article, go ahead and edit it Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis, there is NO preferred referencing format on Wikipedia. Editors are free to choose a style as long as it is CONSISTENT throughout the article (WP:CITESTYLE). So you either change ALL citations to the style you prefer, or you adapt to the style that's already used. It is really confusing for a reader to see multiple citation styles. (for the record, I like the Harvard footnote style when citing multiple pages from the same work, but that's not the case in this article). Renata (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kletsk. 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).
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.
