Talk:Band of Brothers (book)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Onel5969 in topic citations which don't need accessdate
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussion
editSince this article and the Band of Brothers article are both pretty short, and overlap in their subject matter, it seems to make sense that they should be listed together, as is done with many books made into movies. Does anyone object? -R. fiend 18:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't. I'm going to merge and redirect to Band of Brothers --CDN99 22:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think the book should have its own article. --Bensin 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why? What's notable about the book that warrants its own article? --Scottie_theNerd 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's the original work that the TV-series later was based on. Why do you think it doesn't? --Bensin 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because without the TV series, few people would have known about the book. Additionally, since they cover the exact same topic and the same scope, there's little point in creating two articles about the same thing. If there's anything notable about the book, include it in its own section here. --Scottie_theNerd 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are too many differences between the the book (historical) and the series (historical fiction). Who participated in the POW capture patrol from Haguenau is an example.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Gaarmyvet: You replied to a conversation from ten years ago. Enigmamsg 04:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are too many differences between the the book (historical) and the series (historical fiction). Who participated in the POW capture patrol from Haguenau is an example.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Because without the TV series, few people would have known about the book. Additionally, since they cover the exact same topic and the same scope, there's little point in creating two articles about the same thing. If there's anything notable about the book, include it in its own section here. --Scottie_theNerd 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's the original work that the TV-series later was based on. Why do you think it doesn't? --Bensin 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why? What's notable about the book that warrants its own article? --Scottie_theNerd 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the book should have its own article. --Bensin 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
citations which don't need accessdate
editThe accessdate parameter is for references which have a url parameter (meaning they have an on-line link). If a citation does not have that online presence, like when you cite a book or magazine, which doesn't exist electronically, than there is no need for the accessdate. While not expressed very clearly by the AWB edit program, that's what Tom.Reding's edit was about. Onel5969 TT me 16:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's why the AWB program automatically removes them, they are unnecessary. Accessdates are necessary on url related citations for two reasons. First, to let researchers know when the information was available (which is satisfied by the publication date of the book); and second, to assist in recovering dead links if that ever occurs. Onel5969 TT me 16:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)