Talk:197th Rifle Division

Formatting errors/typos

Regarding the dash typo, please see MOS:DASH, and regarding the plural, please see MOS:PIPESTYLE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Add your special hyphen. They seem to be all the rage. As to the rest, I ask you this:

When I write, for example, "5th and 10th Armies", no-one tries to fix the latter as 10th Armys. It would look stupid. ANYTHING can be used for the basis of a link. I just wrote "German summer offensive" as the basis of a link to Case Blue. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But you didn't write 5th and 10th Armies, which to make it plural, you must change the structure of the singular word, so that's a bit of a straw man argument. When you simply add an "s" to make a word plural, there is no reason to structure it the way you did, simply add an s after the brackets. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

External links against WP:EL

So I removed the external links since they contained no additional information on the topic of the 197th Rifle Division than what can be in the article as per WP:EL, however they were reinstated with the summary "The External links contain more complete information on these officers than can be easily contained in the article, some of which is not directly relevant to the article." This summary is not a justification for reinstating the links. It is very easy for the article to include the dates at which these two officers were in command of the division (if it can be reliably sourced and I'd be amazed if some of the sources in the article can't already cover that) and the rest of the information, as stated by the reinstated in the summary, is not relevant to the article. This is an article on the 197th Rifle Division, not what some of its commanders did at other points of their careers. If they're notable commanders then by all means give them their own articles, but links not enhancing information on the actual article topic of the 197th Rifle Division are not not relevant for this article and the links currently fail WP:ELNO #1. Canterbury Tail talk 01:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My argument for inclusion is based on the following:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

It's "the amount of detail" that I feel is relevant. For bare dates of when these officers joined or left the division I have Commanders of Corps and Divisions in the Great Patriotic War, 1941–1945, with relevant page numbers, in the Bibliography. This doen't give any info of where they came from, or where they went afterward.

There is a very relevant example in this article. General Danilovskii left the 197th to take command of the 120th Rifle Corps, which the 197th was part of at the time. He later left the Corps to return to the 197th. The only source in English that I have for his move to and from the 120th, part of the "encyclopedic understanding of the subject", is www.generals.dk. I can include it as a ref, or I can include it as an EL, but I have to include it somehow or it is unsourced. From what I've read on WP:EL the latter is considered preferable. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)