Talk:Bombing of the Vatican

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 5, 2015, November 5, 2017, November 5, 2019, November 5, 2021, and November 5, 2023.

European Microstates: Vatican City Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates 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.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as High-importance).

Catholicism High‑importance

Bombing of the Vatican is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Military history: Aviation / European / Italian / World War II Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stub[edit]

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)[reply]

Recent work[edit]

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)[reply]

second bombing[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]