Talk:Romanian Air Corps

Milhist B-class

I had a look at the article regarding MIHLIST B-class assessment request. There are some referencing issues:

• The last part of the first bullet in the Second Balkan War (1913) subsection needs a reference
• Referencing of the bulleted lists in Campaign of 1917 and Campaign of 1918 subsections is unclear. There is reference in the final item of the two lists, but it appears unclear if that refers to the item or the list. If the former is the case, other items (except one) are missing references, if the latter is the case, I'd suggest you to make the reference clearer (e.g. by placing the reference in the introductory sentence "From January 1918, the Aeronautical Groups were organized as such:", or placing everything in a table or any other preferred method).
• The penultimate paragraph of the War of 1919 section lacks references
• Roundels section lacks references
• Some of the information presented in notes may need referencing, for ex. "These were converted from Bristol-Coandă monoplanes." and a ref to a source giving the alternate spelling.

Nice work overall.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

-The source/sources at the end of each bullet list are supposed to apply for the list as a whole, I moved them at the beginning of each list to clear the confusion (for some reason, I thought it would be better to keep them at the end, oops..).

-Added the reference I missed for that paragraph in the War of 1919 section.

-Added references for 2 of the notes (where needed). But not sure I understand what you mean by "ref to a source giving the alternate spelling". Just to clear any confusion, here's what the cited source says (page 10 to be exact or page 12 of the pdf): "7 "Bristol-Coandă Military" with 80 hp engines, numbers 118, 147, 148, 149, 152, 188, and 151 an airplane equipped with bomb launching equipment. These monoplane aircraft were converted to biplanes and will be called "T.B.8"." On the same page these aircraft are listed again as "Bristol-Coandă Tractor" (so Bristol T.B.8, after the conversion).

-Regarding the roundels, the information there comes from photos and not sure how I can actually cite a photo, that's why I placed an image of a Romanian N11, to give an example of how the French overpainted roundels (the ones with the light blue) look like. Likewise, in the Second Balkan War section, a Blériot 11 with the darker blue roundel can be seen. The 1916 roundel also comes from photos (these are seen in Valeriu Avram's 2018 book used throughout the article, I could cite that but again, only from photos), a photo with that specific roundel can be seen online as well, here. I had a text source for the overpainted markings but it was from theaerodrome (this one) but after I saw a whole discussion about the site, I chose to remove it. Again, not really needed as the actual source comes from original photographs, other than that there are no dedicated books to the markings/roundels and emblems of the RAC.

And thank you for the assessment! Alin2808 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding referencing of roundels - the images themselves should have source information provided at the Commons where they are uploaded so that has nothing to do with the article itself. The information presented in the caption should either be already referenced in the article prose and merely repeated in the caption, or referenced to a source where that information comes from - unless it is a simple description of the image. For example, where a caption introduces information that french roundels were just overpainted with yellow, and that information is not supported by other cites, it should be referenced separately in the caption. It would be better yet if that is someplace in the prose. (At least I did not see that one.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I would re-add the reference from theaerodrome for the overpainted roundels, problem is that it might be taken down as "not WP:RS", however in this case it is very much reliable as it is confirmed by original photographs. About the other roundels, again, the question is how would I add a source that doesn't talk about roundels but only shows original photos with those roundels? I could give the source where those photos were presented (like page numbers from the book) or maybe add a note saying "See original photographs" and then add the source to the specific note.

As for integrating this information in the article itself, I can't see where that would fit as the roundels have a specific section and again as said above. Alin2808 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the photo containing the image of the roundel at the Commons? If yes, it will have source there and no action is needed in the article. Otherwise, I assume the photo is published someplace (website, book etc.) so just reference that site/book.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ignore the above. The roundel images are certainly at the Commons, never mind that. Just reference the information that the French roundels were kept and other such information presented only in the captions.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, added references for the 1916 roundel and the French roundel (to the pages of the book where those can be clearly seen in photos). Also did a little trick in order to re-add that aerodrome reference without it being taken down (added it to the description of the roundel on wikimedia), because as said previously, in this case theaerodrome is a reliable source. Alin2808 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gun sychronization gear

Hello,

In my brushes with Austro-Hungarian aviation, I have noticed that gun pods were mounted on the upper wings so gunfire would clear the propeller. I am not sure the Austrians ever figured out gun sychronization or interrupter gear, and I also wonder about the Romanians. Did either Romanians or Austrians ever make planes with sychronized guns? The subject probably should be covered in this article, and in any article on the A-H Aviation Troops.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Austrians did have synchronization systems: See here. As for the Romanians, since the aircraft that the RAC used were imported, those came with synchronization systems, I'm guessing both French and British ones. Though by the end of the war and into 1919, there was a slight lack of systems available. In Valeriu Avram's 2018 book, the one I used for the article, a picture of a Strutter with what appears to be a top wing mounted Lewis and no synchronized gun is shown. According to the description of said photograph, it was taken at Debrecen, in Hungary, in 1919.

As for Romanian designed interrupter gears, there's the "Constantinesco-Colley" (or C.C.) system that George Constantinescu made in Britain. Constantinescu's system was used in Romania as well, but after the war. Alin2808 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see A-H Albatros D.IIIs with obviously unsynchronized guns in photos. I expected the Germans would have left synchronized gear in the exported planes.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: As far as I'm aware, all A-H Albatros D.IIIs were Oeffag-built, not supplied by Germany. Though, even if the Germans delivered Albatros airplanes with synchronization gears to Austria-Hungary, considering the reliability of those gears they would've likely needed replacement over time, and producing them took time. Anyway, if you want to, we can continue the discussion on one of our talk pages so we can keep the talk page of the article related to the article only. Alin2808 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romanian Air Corps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I will get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a lengthy article, so I will be working my way through it in sections.

I've reviewed all of the images used and have updated tags as needed and nominated several for deletion as they generally lack publication information which would allow us to determine whether they're still in copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking the time to review the article! I have replied to the deletion request for the Romanian Front map and added the source and date when it was published for Bert Hall and Nieuport 11. Any other problems regarding the copyright of photographs? Alin2808 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the quick response. You've fully satisfied me on the Bert Hall photo, although you should replace the generic PD-old tag with a more specific PD-France tag. There were several others that I listed for deletion, although I don't remember which ones. Just click on the images and then go to their Commons page to see any deletion noms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Hall's book was published in New York, so PD-US would work better. Or I could just keep the PD-1926, what do you think? And I think the only other image was the Battle of Bender diorama (unless I missed one), and I've just replied to that page as well. Alin2808 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point about Hall's book, PD-1923 would be just fine. I'll check out the diorama's discussion page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, kept only PD-1923 for the Bert Hall photo. The copyright status of the Romanian Front map has been cleared if you check the deletion request page. As for the diorama photo, we need someone to clear that one as well, like for the Romanian Front map. Alin2808 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So let's get this show on the road:

• two branches – the aviation and the aerostation I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I think you mean fixed-wing aircraft and lighter-than-air ships like aerostats and airships. Aerostation isn't a real word in English.

- Yes, aerostation as in the branch of the military that operated lighter-than-air ships. Found these two definitions for the word in English: this and this so I thought that it is somewhat known. Since it's not exactly a word in English, what should I replace it with? Would "the balloon branch" work better?

I've never seen aerostation used before, but I'm not surprised that somebody used it somewhere before. I suppose balloon branch could work, although it's an uncommon term. I almost prefer heavier- and lighter-than-air branches for the symmetry, but either could do.

I went for "the balloon branch", so I could replace "aerostation" with "balloon" in other cases like "aerostation units", "aerostation companies" etc.

• transformed into an independent force category Awkward. Easiest thing that comes to mind si something along the lines of "became an equal to the Army and Navy when it was redesignated as..."

 Done.

• I think that a better translation of Aeronautica Regală Română is Royal Romanian Air Force as the Romanian Air Force name was only used after the pro-Soviet coup in 1944

 Done.

• Generally, the lede is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and not get into details. So I'm not a fan of using the precise aircraft numbers to track the grown of the RAC as I think that the increase in force structure does that just fine.

 Done - Removed all aircraft numbers.

• The names of the commanders should also be dropped.

 Done.

• I'd suggest revising the last sentence in the second para along these lines: "Limited by the few aircraft it had available, the Aeronautics Service carried out..."

- With 19 airplanes in 1913, I wouldn't say that's a small number of aircraft, so I just removed the number as suggested. However, I used the "Limited by the few aircraft it had available" line for the start of WWI, as 44 aircraft at that time was indeed a limited number.

Works for me.

• Starting the First World War, in 1916 Awkward, suggest "When Romania entered the First World War on the Allied side in 1916, the RAC was..." with all appropriate links.

 Done - You'll probably find this kind of awkward sentences in the article again... sorry.

Don't be. Your English is better than some native speakers that I've reviewed in the past.

• You'll also need to rework the rest of the lede to eliminate the aircraft numbers.

 Done - I removed that last paragraph as it only talked about aircraft numbers. I don't think it was needed anyways as the numbers are presented throughout the article.

• Link all ranks on first use and provide an abbreviation for later use in parentheses. Forex Colonel (Col.) and provide equivalents for Romanian ranks like Sulocotenete (Sub-lieutenant), etc.

 Done - I've added the equivalent to the Romanian rank of "Sublocotenent" and the abbreviation in parentheses as "Second Lieutenant - Slt.", I hope it's good this way. I've also replaced the ranks with their abbreviations in the article. If I missed some then I'll make sure to edit those as well. Also, I'm not sure what equivalent I should use for the rank of "Plutonier", the NATO equivalent is OR-7 and that would be the Sergeant First Class in the US and the Staff Sergeant in the UK.

Either would do, just be consistent by picking one country's ranks throughout.

Went for the US equivalent. It seems that Staff Sergeant being equivalent to OR-7 is only for the UK. The rank appears to be lower for other countries that have it.

• Link balloon, kite balloon

 Done - Also added links to hydrogen balloon and captive balloon.

<Homer Simpson voice: Links good!>

=)

• These serially produced airplanes will start to be delivered from 30 August. The tense is wrong here, but what do you mean by serially produced?

- As in the type of aircraft manufactured in numbers (serial production). I was thinking of using the term "mass-produced" but I don't think that would work for only 6 airplanes. I could replace it with "license-built" if that sounds better.

I think license-built does work better as I think that readers have already figured out that the state of aircraft manufacturing in Romania before the war was pretty primitive.

 Done.

• What relationship did the National Air League have with the Romanian military? Down to the Second Balkan War, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

- The Air Leage was a civillian organization that Bibescu formed in order to help the aviation by raising funds and buying airplanes (both for its school and the military). Though it was a civillian organization, it also provided training for military pilots with its piloting school. In fact, from 1915, the Air League took over all pilot and observer training until 1916 when it had to be evacuated and reorganized in Moldavia (the pilot school later moved to Odessa). After the war, the Air League became the Royal Aeroclub of Romania (today's Aeroclub of Romania). This (as in the situation of the flight schools) is something I didn't expand on and I should probably add to the article. Alin2808 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but be careful to avoid going into too much detail, as this is already pretty long.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done - expanded on the situation of the flights schools and the role of the Air League in the early aviation years of Romania. I don't think I went into too much detail. Alin2808 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• When you say mobilized against Bulgaria, do you mean declared war?

- No, I mean just mobilized, as in preparing for attack. If you check the Second Balkan war article, it is mentioned that Romania mobilized on 5 July and declared war on 10 July. This also means that the date of 22 June is given in the old calendar, I'll have to add that. Problem is that the source sometimes mentions the old dates, sometimes the new ones and sometimes it provides both. Now, I'll have see if I can find what dates are given in the old calendar and which ones are in the new. Maybe I should add some note saying that the dates might not all be in the modern calendar?

Best to be consistent throughout the article, so I'd suggest giving both dates all the time. Most readers aren't going to be familiar with that war, so provide the date of the actual declaration of war.

Done with the declaration of war. I also added a link to the "campaign" directly to the Romanian intervention in the Second Balkan War article. And yeah, I will see what I can do with the dates. Problem is the sources aren't always clear about what date is in which calendar. I'd assume the dates, or at least most dates, are given in the new calendar unless pointed out.

• Still using years in your dates when it's obvious to the reader that you mean in the same year. After the first mention of the year, don't bother with it until it changes.

 Done - removed the years where not necessary. At least in most places. If I missed any, I'll remove those as well. I also removed some of the mentioned hours (only left the ones in quotes and before a quotes) as I don't think those are important.

• Romanian Aviation reads oddly to me, probably because Aviation is not generally used for a specific name of a unit. Earlier you used "Military Aeronautics Section" and I'd continue with that usage until the unit is formally renamed. And then use its Air Corps name thereafter.

 Done - left "Romanian aviation" when it refers to the general aviation and not to the unit. Also used "Romanian military aviation" in some cases.

It does get complicated once the French arrive and take charge.

• Names of pilots in training really isn't necessary, only the numbers matter.

 Done - thought it would be useful to see the pilots that will be mentioned again in the article (as commanders and such).

I know, but remember summary style. This article is at the highest level of coverage for the RAC and its predecessors and such details as pilot's names and commanders of subordinate units are better saved for daughter articles like Romanian aviation in the Second Balkan War and World War I. Generally, the only names mentioned herein should be politicians, rulers, commanders of the RAC and (sometimes) their deputies. It's always a struggle to find the right level of coverage for these types of articles. Over the years I've learned that less is best for high-level articles like this and you can use all the details that you've uncovered in your research in articles that are more highly focused on individual topics like the examples that I gave earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, then perhaps I could move the details to the List of Romanian Air Force units/WW1 and add a link to that article in the see also section. If so what details should I keep in this article? Should I keep the headquarters of each group and the army it was assigned to or should I remove those as well?

I'd move the details to the separate list. You can keep the headquarters info or just summarize it by saying that each Army was assigned a grupul in support, your call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Moved the detailed lists to the dedicated article. I only left the assigned army, as I feel like mentioning the army is important to know where each group was assigned. The headquarters can be seen in the group names.

• Same with the names of the pilots who greeted the Tsar. Remember that the article is supposed to be a summary of the facts (WP:SUMMARY).

 Done.

• Provide conversions of all measurements from metric into English units, and vice versa. This is optional for the engine power for the early aircraft as those were effectively part of their designations. I've done one that you can use as a model if you're not familiar with the template.

 Done.

• Commanders of squadrons and groups aren't necessary

- I do think that the commanders should be mentioned where known.

-Remember summary--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

- Moved the commanders to the list article

• fulfilling Aurel Vlaicu's dream What's this in reference to? Doesn't really seem appropriate to this article

- It references how Vlaicu wanted to cross the Carpathians in 1913 but died while attempting it. I could remove it if it's not appropriate for the article, but since Vlaicu was important for the Romanian early aviation I think it should stay.

Either remove it as it should be saved for an article about the early days of Romanian aviation, both military and civilian, with coverage of Romanian aircraft designs and designers (my preference). Or tell the reader about Vlaicu's dream; don't spring it on the reader with no warning.

Moved it to the Aviation in Romania article. There's so much wrong information there... after finishing with the review of this article I'll have to go and edit it.

• Your one or two sentence paragraphs in the Campaign of 1916 section should be merged together.

 Done - also did this with the other sections.

• Link army corps,

 Done.

• It really doesn't matter which squadrons were commanded by Frenchmen or where the flight school was located.

- Removed the list of squadrons commanded by French officers. However, I do think it is important to mention where the flight schools were located.

Why is that important?

I mentioned the location of the flight schools before (that being Cotroceni and Băneasa, eventually the pilot and observer training was taken over by the Băneasa school). And after Germany occupied Bucharest, the reader should know that the flight schools were moved.

I still think that it's excessive detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can remove it, but I feel like the reader should know that the flight schools were relocated. Maybe I should remove the locations and just mention that the flight schools were moved from Bucharest?

• 12 aircraft, 12 pilots, and 2 pilots were killed in training flights No observers were killed? And were the pilots lost in training flights in addition to the others? Down to Campaign of 1917.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

- The source isn't clear about it, though it does seem that some observers were killed as well. The pilots lost in training flights are separate. Should I instead write it as "12 aircraft and 14 pilots and observers were lost in combat and training missions"? Because it's unclear. Alin2808 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarify it by saying that the 12 died in combat, plus two in training and that the numbers of other aircrewmen lost is unknown.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Alin2808 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Break inserted so I don't have to scroll down so much

• Give a brief explanation of the RGA. And spell out the abbreviation on first use.

 Done - can you check if the explanation for the RGA is good enough?

• The 1917 order of battle is definitely too detailed and should go into the WWI unit list. Treat it the same way as you will the 1916 OB.

 Done.

• I'm fine with the description of the 31 March mission, but I think that the 25 May mission should be removed to an article on aviation in the 1917 Campaign.

- Mentioned the 25 May mission since I wrote about "From May onwards, the aviation started night bombings..." and thought it would be good to give an example of such mission.

-Delete the names of the air crewmen involved. I've tweaked the language a little to save time. Revert if you prefer.

• How is all the details of the Romanian offensive in July and subsequent maneuvers relevant to the RAC? You haven't laid out their initial deployments and actions to give the reader a basis of comparison, either. Cut this and skip to the RAC's actions during the CP offensive.

 Done - moved the details about the offensive to the battle article itself.

• Summarize the actions of the squadrons in August.

- Are there too many details with the August actions?

-Yes. Summarize them more by saying the F.4 flew bombing missions to supplement the Romanian artillery while N.11 and N.3 defended the Romanian troops... and then going into the formation of Fliegerdetachment Nikitsch.

• What is FliK 31? And why does it matter?

- Fliegerdetachement Nikitsch was a detachment as the name suggests, and it was assigned to a company ("fliegerkompanie"). So that's why I think the company should be mentioned as well, wrote it with the full name instead of the shortened "Flik".

• The use of the 12 squadrons at Mărăști and Mărășești gave a modern character to the battles, the commands of the 1st and 2nd Romanian army benefiting fully from the contribution of the aviation in making decisions. Rephrase

- "The commands of the 1st and 2nd Romanian army benefited fully from the contribution of the 12 squadrons at Mărăști and Mărășești, giving a modern character to the battles", does this work or how should I rephrase it?

-I took a stab at it, see how it reads to you. Feel free to revert or tweak my language.

-Looks good to me.

• Summarize the movements and air victories after the summer offensives.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

- I already mentioned the re-locations of squadrons/groups (specifically that of Grupul 3) that happened, if that's what you mean by "movements". As for the air victories, sadly I don't have the numbers for the whole summer campaign, but I do have the victories for the month of August so I could mention those. Alin2808 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

-Summarized losses and victories, if available for a decent interval, are always welcome.

- Alright, will add those to the article.

 Done - added the victories for the month of August as presented in the book. I also added the number of missions and flight hours that were executed on 19 August, thought it would be good to show how active the aviation was at that time.

• I trimmed some of the 1918 and 1919 material to give you an idea of how to summarize the individual actions.

Alright, I also removed some unnecessary info. For the 1919 section I think I'll keep the names of the pilots involved as there's not many of them.

• I'm confused by the reference to a counter offensive on 25 July. It seems to me that the Romanians resumed their offensive, or had the Hungarians counterattacked in May and June?

See Hungarian–Romanian War#Hungarian offensive and the Romanian counterattack afterwards. Also, in that article it says it started on 24 July, but the book I have says it started on the 25th. It's possible that it started during the night of 24/25, but I'll keep the info from the book I cited throughout the article.

I'm not concerned about the exact starting date, but rather that you need to tell the reader that the Hngarians launched their counterattack on whatever date and then the Romanians resumed their offensive on 25 July.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Please ensure that all geographic places and aircraft are linked on first use; I fixed several for you, but I'm sure that there are more that need to be done.

 Done - Removed some of the duplicate links. Left the Royal Palace -> Vrana Palace link just so the readers know that both times the "Royal Palace" is mentioned, it's referring to that one.

Late comments

• I've tweaked the text some more, feel free to revert if you like.
• Is it really necessary to list the names of those pilots who received the Order of Saint Michael? Only one of them appears to be notable. Well, two if you include the Frenchman.

I could remove the names of the pilots but I think they should be kept because there's no other article where I could mention all of them.

• What do you mean by "profile formations"? Supporting or logistical units? And what about "technical operations"? What's that?

"Profile formations" refers to other aviation formations like the mentioned aviation groups, the central material depot, etc. I removed it as it doesn't really need to be included. The technical operation group, if you are asking about that, is my translation of "grup tehnic de exploatare" (as it appears in the article) meaning that it provides technical service during operations, while the technical service works with the Aeronautical Arsenal.

• Although Romania did not have the financial and industrial resources to form and maintain large aviation units, the development of Romanian military aviation kept pace with the development of the aviation of the most advanced European states, in close accordance, however, with the economic and financial possibilities of the country and with the principles of the use of aviation in combat. Awkward and long-winded. Basically you mean that Romanian military aviation kept up with the European powers as best it could, given its lack of resources, both economic and financial.

Rephrased it.

• • Also this is a one-sentence paragraph and should be combined with the first paragraph in the section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done that Alin2808 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Status query

Sturmvogel 66, Alin2808, where does this nomination stand? As best I can tell, the most recent edits to this page and to the article itself were on 31 January, over three weeks ago. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Sturmvogel 66 to continue the review. Been waiting since the last reply... Alin2808 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, I've had some problems with depression over the last month or so. We should be nearly done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No problems, I'm glad you're back! I did some minor edits to the article for now, but will have to continue in the weekend when I'm back home because I don't currently have the book with me. Alin2808 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nieuport 11 C.1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Romanian Front - January 1917.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bitwa o Bendery 1918.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)