Talk:Minor sabotage

Name

The article was created under small sabotage and moved to minor sabotage soon afterwards. Analysis of Google Books indicates that:

• "minor sabotage"+Poland: 60 books
• "little sabotage"+Poland: 39 books
• "small sabotage"+Poland: 68 books

Thus small sabotage seems somewhat more popular. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the name of this article needs to be more descriptive than this, per WP:TITLE. Something like Minor sabotage operations perhaps? [1] The new title would yeld 302 book results in total. I think the lead could use some work also. --Poeticbent talk 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  Done. --Poeticbent talk 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that there are enough sources using only two words to justify leaving it at something sabotage. But which one? Personally I am partial to small over minor, but comments from native speakers would be welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Doopdoop was right. Probably the best title is "Minor sabotage." Nihil novi (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My English language version of the Warsaw Rising Museum guidebook uses the term "Small sabotage" and I concur - I don't like "minor" since it connotes "unimportant" whereas "small" just means "small scale".radek (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The translator of your guidebook probably used "small" because he didn't think of the word "minor." He simply used the expression that he was most familiar with. "Minor" is not synonymous with "unimportant." A minor scale is not an "unimportant" scale. Nihil novi (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New title

Unfortunately the current title doesn't meet the criteria of WP:Title, which says: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." The current title, Minor sabotage, could refer to such actions in virtually any occupied country in virtually any war. That's hardly unambiguous.

An improved article title would be something like "Minor sabotage resistance in World War II Poland", to distinguish Polish actions from actions in other countries. Comments? HarryZilber (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that WP:TITLE does not preclude the use of technical terms. Take a random advanced chemistry article about some compound we never heard of - it is also meaningless to 99.9% of readers, but allowed. I think we demonstrated above that the term is used and understood by the (sure, few) historians and military experts who study this field. If you could show this term is also used for sabotage outside Poland, we could think about globalizing the article, but for now I don't see any compelling reasons to do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

B-class

Confirming as B-class for WP:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minor sabotage. 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/20080526145431/http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/specjal_040529/specjal_a_7.html to http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/specjal_040529/specjal_a_7.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)