Talk:Canada's Hundred Days: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Bureaucromancer - "" |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Merge?== |
==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--> |
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? == |
== 46 Divisons, or 49? == |
Revision as of 08:49, 22 May 2009
![]() | Canada C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Military history: Canadian / North America / World War I Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
- C-Class Canada-related articles
- Mid-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles