Talk:IX SS Mountain Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

National usage[edit]

The syntax is that the brackets contain the nation the formation was established by, and in this case this is Germany. The Article title therefore needs to reflect this because currently it looks like the Corps was a part of the Croatian Waffen-SS subordinated to Croatian government.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced History content[edit]

It appears that this topic is not notable since no sources or citations have been added in the past 3 years, since the article was tagged "unreferenced". Are there any editors willing to improve the article? Otherwise, per WP:V, I plan to remove this material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No. A corps-sized formation is automatically going to be notable. I think you misunderstand notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the unit itself is notable (I renamed the topic accordingly). My concern is the narrative (in the section History) may be constructed of inaccurate or biased information, as none of the material there is cited. The article has been tagged "unreferenced" since 2013. Who knows why Balck said what he said (if he indeed did) or how many panzers they had left, especially "barely".
Re: photo, I've not seen other Corps articles have a photo, see for example L Army Corps (Wehrmacht), III Army Corps (Wehrmacht) or XX Army Corps (Wehrmacht). Some have insignias, some none at all. Most appear to be short articles, with infoboxes and lists of commanders. But if there's a preference to keep the photo in this case, then it's not a big deal.
The article should have the infobox, list of commanders, OOB, perhaps add a list of subordinate units, etc. But WP:V applies to the History, no?
Or if the Corps is mostly notable for its role in the siege of Budapest, then perhaps the references there can be improved, but there's not been any interest in the article since I took out the most obviously POV and dubious statements back in Dec 2015. If no future improvements are forthcoming to the History section, then I suggest removing it. What are your thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The idea is pure deletionism. Little of this material is in the least bit controversial, and there is no reason to delete it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)