This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 articles
Operation Rösselsprung (1944) is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Operation Rösselsprung (1944) is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
Peacemaker67, thanks for this revert, as I'm sure I haven't made things clear in my summary. I'm aware that many FAs have the "footnotes" and "references" schema; that's why I find them detrimental. Most of them are old ways of Wikipedia articles. "Notes" and "Footnotes" are definitively the same, and the thing below "Footnotes" are part of "Footnotes", so should be a subsection. It's something I commonly do with TFAs, if you look at my contribs. I also don't think a revert is mandated, as there is nothing wrong with my edit; if I were you I would just brush it off as long as it doesn't make things worse. Hope we can reach an agreement here. GeraldWL07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)(please ping me!)[reply]
G'day Gerald. I don't know why I would brush it off anymore than you would if I changed an FA you developed and which used your preferred schema. I also don't see how your schema is better than the one I have used. The one I have used is completely with the scope of MOS:REFERENCES, see note h on that page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, mine differs. This is the first time in over 50 TFAs and 65 FACs I've nominated that anyone has ever mentioned it to me, so I just don't see that confusion about this is common, or warrants a change. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, TFAs and FACs never determine perfection. Sometimes people just don't notice or don't care. That's what I get from my experience-- even in the most engaging discussion pages, there would be some small detail you miss and someone would bring it up. Anything below the body is something many people overlook. But even mildly confusing is confusing. I've seen other variations of the references section, but this is just confusing definitively, not opinionatedly. GeraldWL12:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, I'm just pointing out that each of those articles has been looked at by multiple reviewers, many of whom are highly experienced. That means dozens of reviewers (many of whom have commented on aspects of the references sections) have looked at these articles, and not one has raised it as an issue. And again, this is only your opinion, despite your claim that it is somehow objectively confusing. It isn't. The issue of layout and headings for the references sections is a perennial issue on Wikipedia that has never been interpreted rigidly, despite the attempts of some to impose their preferred schema. You are trying to impose your preferred model rather than accepting that others have a different view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, I am not making my own opinion and be unaccepting of others' opinion. But just because experienced reviewers reviewed your article, does not mean your article is perfect. How is it that the reviewers not managed to find the dead znaci links? Why do you think others still edit this article? I would normally not care if editors name the sections "Citations" or "Bibliography" etc, however this is DEFINITIVELY, not OPINIONATEDLY, a weird combination. I could have an article and name them "Citations" and "References" as they're allowed by the policy— but they mean the same thing, and is confusing, even if nobody seems to voice an opinion. What is wrong with disambiguating? GeraldWL04:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That is exactly what you are doing. It is your opinion, nothing more. Re: znaci, it became a dead link AFTER it was last reviewed. It is obvious to any reader from the content of the notes/footnotes under the two headings that they are different in nature. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
