Talk:Chronology of the Oil Campaign of World War II

Article title

I have my doubts about the article title, so I'm going to braoch the subject on the milhist ptoject pagesGraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history wikipage does not contain the term "Oil Campaign", so to what specific "milhist ptoject pages" [sic] was User:GraemeLeggett refering on 26 March? 74.5.112.42 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Untitled Citations

I would like to qualify the assessment on the citation side, a number of cites are unfinished - particularly web ones with "tbd" instead of title and no access date.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• REVIEW: Note that the Revision history of Chronology of the Oil Campaign of World War II shows that User:GraemeLeggett is the wikieditor who converted the hyperlinks within the wikiarticle into references that appear at the end of the article (i.e., using an extra line for each citation; each which had, and still has, no substantial information). In particular, when converting the hyperlinks to citations, User:GraemeLeggett neglected to provide titles, accessdates, or even citation code (e.g., Template:Cite web). It appears that "tbd" now simply illustrates missing information which User:GraemeLeggett's neglected to provide when User:GraemeLeggett created the citations during the conversion. 74.5.112.42 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Quality assessment of this article

on the 26th that marked citation as passed. The MoS states a direct citation should be provided for any quoted material, and I assume that the citation shold be complete for it to count. That I had not completed the external weblink data myself when moving them from inline to ref has no bearing - an article moves through stages to completion and that includes the refinement of the citations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate citation for each date

Having had a further look, there are uncited quotations a couple of Bomber Command ones - within the chronology itself I can see that there is a direct date reference that means you can go to the right section of the BC diaries (with perhaps a little confusion within 1941) but these could be made more accurate by individual cites.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• REVIEW: User:GraemeLeggett's 27 March claim that "there is a direct date reference" (i.e., webpage with distinct hyperlink) is apparently a veiled recommendation to have a citation for each date on which there was a bombing mission. Since there are hundreds of bombing missions already listed on this wikipage, this recommendation would cause a preposterous waste of space (hundreds of citation lines). 74.5.112.42 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nelson has 230 odd citations, is that too many? In the case here several citations will aggregate into one citation with multiple links (a, b, c, d etc I'm not aware of the correct terminology). I don't think it was a veiled suggestion of anything - my concern was to improve the citation quality by giving the location of the quote rather than a block of links which it might be from. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)