Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Warka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
@Historyk.ok: The infobox should ideally reflect what is said in the body text; the only mention of this Ritter in the body is: "At the same time Lubomirski attacked the regiment of an officer named Ritter, destroying it" - and it's unsourced. Obviously, being a regimental officer alone doesn't merit an inclusion in the infobox as commander. And again, obersztlejtnant is more than likely his rank, not his name - per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX ranks should be omitted. His role, if significant enough to be included in the infobox, needs to be clarified in the body text along with a source to support it. Imonoz (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't even know that obersztlejtnant was a military rank, for which I apologize, but as I mentioned in the book I use, it is written that he is the commander of the rear guard and the truth is that there is not much mention of him in the article, just like in the book. I put it there because, as I mentioned, he was called a commander. (My English is poor so sorry for any mistakes) Historyk.ok (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries about any grammatical errors - my English is also far from perfect. Is it absolutely necessary for you to have him included as commander in the infobox? If so, I'd recommend that you clarify his role as a rearguard commander in the article's body text (so basically within the Battle section), with a source and page number to follow. Imonoz (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
well, when it comes to sources and page numbers, there is no problem, there are at least two sources mentioning his death, but when it comes to his participation in the battle itself, it is difficult, because the sources only write about his death Historyk.ok (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The part where it's claimed he was the commander of the rear guard should be sufficient, along with the source and specified page number. Imonoz (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for that, and thank you for removing his rank 'obersztlejtnant' from the infobox. I'm not entirely convinced he should be included there just because he commanded the regiment in the rearguard. But since that's just my opinion, I will let it go. Imonoz (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply