Difference between revisions of "Talk:145th Jaguar Regulars (Clan Smoke Jaguar)"
(resp) |
(→Assumptions: more) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Question : Do the conclusions here take into account that the unit may have been folded into another unit, or possibly destroyed between Luthien and Tukayid? I think we need some references... [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] | Question : Do the conclusions here take into account that the unit may have been folded into another unit, or possibly destroyed between Luthien and Tukayid? I think we need some references... [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] | ||
− | :I agree with you. This was written by an Editor long ago, before some of our standards were promulgated. Normally, I'd say a '''<nowiki>{{Citation needed}}</nowiki>''' was appropriate, but in the way it is worded here, it doesn't leave much room for your scenarios, either. However, since it is in the ==Notes== section, it does give us some leeway to re-word.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | + | :I agree with you. This was written by an Editor long ago, before some of our standards were promulgated. Normally, I'd say a '''<nowiki>{{Citation needed}}</nowiki>''' was appropriate, but in the way it is worded here, it doesn't leave much room for your scenarios, either. However, since it is in the ==Notes== section, it does give us some leeway to re-word. Compare the two versions to see what I did. Will that work, until further research is conducted? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:10, 21 February 2010
Assumptions
Question : Do the conclusions here take into account that the unit may have been folded into another unit, or possibly destroyed between Luthien and Tukayid? I think we need some references... ClanWolverine101
- I agree with you. This was written by an Editor long ago, before some of our standards were promulgated. Normally, I'd say a {{Citation needed}} was appropriate, but in the way it is worded here, it doesn't leave much room for your scenarios, either. However, since it is in the ==Notes== section, it does give us some leeway to re-word. Compare the two versions to see what I did. Will that work, until further research is conducted? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)