Talk:Army of the Rhine (1791–1795)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Army of the Rhine (1791–1795) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Armée du Rhin (Révolution française) from fr.wikipedia. |
Wikidata hmmm
editWell I tried to sort out some links and fell foul of Wikidata. i.e there are a whole heap of Armies of the Rhine, and the French have not been reticent aboutr adding to their number. How do people think we should handle this.
What I would suggest is this:
- Keep page with current titleLeutha
- Develop pages such Armée du Rhin (1791) as and when people develop content.
What do people think? Leutha (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Confirming the Smith reference
editGday @Auntieruth55: I notice this article uses a number of short citations to Smith (e.g. ^ Smith, pp. 21–22.), but unfortunately doesn't seem to give the corresponding long citation (per WP:CITESHORT). As such its not really possible to know where this material came from. That said from looking at one of your other recent articles - Army of the Rhine and Moselle - I'm assuming it is from Digby Smith, Napoleonic Wars Data Book, Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1996. Is that correct? If so could it pls be clarified in the reference list? I'd have gone ahead and added it myself but I wanted to check first. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, fixed. Thank you. Ruth auntieruth (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Ruth, all sorted. Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)