Talk:History of the United Kingdom during the First World War

Further Reading added

I just found this article today, so I didn't want to disrupt any conventions in adding another book that I thought worth noting (Arthur Marwick's The Deluge:British Society and the First World War, 1965). Since it wasn't apparently a source for the existing article, I wasn't sure if "References" was the appropriate place, so I added a "Further reading" section, which is common in many other articles for useful but secondary material. (However, "References" in most other articles usually means "footnotes", rather than a list of works consulted.)

I have no strong feelings as to whether "Further reading" (at normal or small size) should be kept (and increased with other works that weren't specific sources for the article) or merged into "References". I recorded as much bibliographic information as possible so that it could be fit into whatever citation style's appropriate.

————Shakescene (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 September 2009‎

References

With this edit I corrected a misattribution of a source. Sadly, the incorrect attribution had stood since the reference was introduced in 2015. Could I ask editors to 1) take care when citing sources, to use the actual name of the author and not something made up, and 2) to check references introduced by others? Two years is far too long for this sort of error to be kept in an article. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Useless ref

The reference "The War Office (1992), p. 339", used several times in the article has no work defined. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference was added in May 2009, and I think 1992 might be a typo for 1922 as the section where the reference is most used mentions a report. In which case the full reference is The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920 (Report). The War Office.

@DuncanHill: If that conclusion sounds reasonable, I'd be happy to update the page. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Looks good, thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And done! Richard Nevell (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed move undone

The recent undiscussed move has been undone. There was no consensus for the move in the 2017 discussion, and no discussion since. Any move should be the result of discussion and consensus. Please see WP:RM#CM and follow the guideline there for how to list this page for a move to your desired title. Thanks, Mathglot (talk)