Talk:Canada's Hundred Days: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:49, 22 May 2009

Canada C‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Canadian / North America / World War I 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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War I task force

Merge?

Any particular reason this shouldn't be merged into the hundred days article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bureaucromancer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was discussed at length previously, I don't know where that discussion disappeared to, but yes, there are many reasons it shouldn't be merged with the hundred days article, not the least of which is the spectacular level of contribution made by Canada during the hundred days get's watered down by doing it. Something like a quarter of all german forces defeated during the period faced the Canadians. While there is no doubt Americans and Brits are very good at minimizing others contributions and maximizing their own, this is one case where the meek Canadian viewpoint needs to be anything but. It would be very much appreciated if every time this issue gets resolved, someone else wouldn't immediately renominate it to be merged. Frankly, if one has to ask the question should it be merged, then they don't know enough on the topic to nominate it for merger. Only a cogent argument for why it doesn't stand on its own should be justification for such nomination. That never happens of course.

46 Divisons, or 49?

A user posted in the article:

"Canada defeated 49 divisions wikipedia"

Can someone check if this is correct? I don't have the time to do so just yet. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two sources who list the number of German Division defeated as 47. Perhaps furthur research is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.200.183 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Merge?==
 Any particular reason this shouldn't be merged into the hundred days article?  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bureaucromancer|Bureaucromancer]] ([[User talk:Bureaucromancer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bureaucromancer|contribs]]) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+That was discussed at length previously, I don't know where that discussion disappeared to, but yes, there are many reasons it shouldn't be merged with the hundred days article, not the least of which is the spectacular level of contribution made by Canada during the hundred days get's watered down by doing it.  Something like a quarter of all german forces defeated during the period faced the Canadians.  While there is no doubt Americans and Brits are very good at minimizing others contributions and maximizing their own, this is one case where the meek Canadian viewpoint needs to be anything but. It would be very much appreciated if every time this issue gets resolved, someone else wouldn't immediately renominate it to be merged. Frankly, if one has to ask the question should it be merged, then they don't know enough on the topic to nominate it for merger. Only a cogent argument for why it doesn't stand on its own should be justification for such nomination. That never happens of course.
 == 46 Divisons, or 49? ==