Talk:Kosovo offensive (1915)

Citing sources

An article without identified sources has to be regarded as a work of pure fiction, out of place in an encyclopedia. Please help to remedy this by identifying objective or at least balanced reliable sources discussing the topic.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog:, Completly rebuilt this page using lots of references from various sources, please check thank you Aeengath (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Strength of Central Powers at the time of Offensive

Still looking for a reliable source, that is why I left it blank for now Aeengath (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Avidius:the official history of the campaign published by the Bulgarian General Staff that you mentioned sounds really interesting can you send a link, haven't been able to find one thanks! Aeengath (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aeengath: I have a scanned PDF copy that is over 500 MB in size so i could send you the relevant pages. Unfortunately the Bulgarian site I downloaded the from appears to be offline at this time. However there is an archive page [[1]] which allows the PDF to be downloaded. Look for "Българската армия в Световната война 1915-1918г. Том V Косовска операция" it was uploaded by user dibo on 12-02-2010. Note that the book is in Bulgarian and is extremely detailed.--Avidius (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Avidius:great thanks I'll check that out and hopefully manage to run it through google translate, in the meantime could we work together in making this page work? I'm sure you agree that reversing edit back and forth is a waste of time for everybody no? having two sources for one belligerent is confusing just like having tons of information crammed in one box about one army... I don't think it will be useful not to be able to compare numbers of guns and machine guns between them since only one side has records about it or understand the difference between 156k men and 79k combatants(?) therefore we should be adding what can be compared.. that is manpower.. what do you think? Best, Aeengath (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aeengath:I will help with whatever I can. However i can not agree that the infobox is crammed with information compared to other WW1 pages e.g. Battle of the Somme, Hundred Days Offensive, Brusilov Offensive etc. As for the the difference between the 156k men (ration strength) and 79k combatants it derives from the fact that all armies consist of a fighting part - infantry brigades/regiments, machine gun companies, artillery brigades/regiments that do the actual combat and troops that are tasked with support services. That is why the book specifically notes that while the AH 3rd Army had 156k men in its ranks only 79k were actual fighting troops and the Serbian Army was estimated to have around "150 000 rifles" (combatants). So the directly comparable figure is 150K Serbians to 79k Austro-Hunagarians combat troops.--Avidius (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Avidius:ok cool thanks for the explanation and the links maybe then just list combatants so that is easily compared? why having two references for Serbian Strength btw? for reference/MOS I am looking at good articles like Battle of Messines (1917) and Battle of Amiens (1918)... I tried translating the Bulgarian pdf but nothing came out unfortunately, I think having links that can be verified is best, I avoided Serbian and German sources for that reason focusing only on English books so readers can have immediate access. Aeengath (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aeengath: There is no need for the sources to be only in English because when it comes to matters like the Balkan campaigns of WW1 such sources are usually extremely limited. You can use German and Serbian sources too. And the references for the Serbian strength come from two different sources so they should be quoted with proper explanation.--Avidius (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Avidius:non-English sources are totally fine as long as they can be verified (and translated). English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, when available and of equal quality and relevance because this project is the English Wikipedia. it's all in here Verifiability#Non-English_sources anyway I have added a link to your reference so we're all good... Best Aeengath (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)