Talk:Regensburg subcamp

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Germany

	Germany portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bibilography

The current list of references isn't written properly as the resources cited are actually part of a bibliography. This version needs to change. Logoshimpo (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thank you for reaching out on my talk page; I'd made that change because there were some MediaWiki cite errors being generated in the previous layout (see this version before my edit, scroll to the bottom, and see that current footnotes AJ-AM are not displayed, and references 35-39 are being shown at the bottom of the page, one of them with a cite error of its own, rather than alongside the other references). This was the only sequence for those last three sections (resources, references, and notes) which resolved those errors without more substantial reworking of the content, allowing all current content to be displayed correctly. This appears to be because the "Resources" section currently includes both references and footnotes (displayed in the References and Notes sections, respectively), and MediaWiki seems to prefer that these be displayed after they are defined. I do agree though that having them in the order of Notes, then References, then Resources would be the better sequence for them if that sequence kept all content available and didn't generate reader-facing error messages. I feel like the best approach here would probably be to adjust the content so that the Resources section does not itself have additional references or footnotes defined in it, and then restore the sections to their original order. 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 00:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak Wikipedian, and you're talking way over my head. I don't see any problem with leaving things the way they are, and don't understand why you cannot leave well enough alone and find better uses for your time. That being said, if Wikipedia standards demand that changes be made, then I'm sure that there are others (perhaps you?) who are more qualified to make them than I am. (just try not to screw it up, please.) -- peace, and over and out. Danmen2 (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AFigureOfBlue is explaining that ==Resources== should be moved back to the bottom which I agree with. You are the principle author of the article. Do you agree that ==Resources== should be renamed ==Bibliography==? I also find "and don't understand why you cannot leave well enough alone and find better uses for your time" to be condescending. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree or disagree. Without going into my personal history relating to this article, I assure you that I care deeply about this article, and I put a great deal of time and effort into building it, without benefit of any training on how to do so. As far as I'm concerned, it was sufficiently perfect as it was after my last edit, and if I felt further changes were warranted, I would have made them myself. I don't see how the changes you suggest in any way improve the article, and I truly feel it is perfectly fine as it is. And seriously, don't you have better things to do than monkey with something that doesn't need fixing -- dude, get a life! Danmen2 (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You folks are welcome to revert the change I made, I don't have any big stake in this. All I was looking to do was resolve the red error messages shown on the page that were present in the version prior to my edit - I just figure that it's best not to have error messages being displayed to readers at the bottom of the article, and best also to ensure that the content of all the footnotes is visible. Whether that's done via the change I made or something else doesn't matter much to me. Or you can simply revert and let the errors be displayed; if you take that approach, I won't further tinker with it, but it's probable someone else will try to resolve the same error again in the future. 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 13:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any red error messages now, so it looks like your last edit corrected the red error messages caused by the careless edits of others, and I thank you for that -- cheers! Danmen2 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a further look into the references and noticed that you are repeating some of them and only changing the the page number. The usual citation style uses "ibid.". Maybe you can fix this. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that it would be good to not fully repeat sources if it can be avoided, I will mention that on Wikipedia the use of "ibid." is discouraged. You can take a look at WP:IBID for an explanation of why as well as a couple of alternate options that could work well instead while still resolving the repetitions. 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

There is a paragraph stating which tools were used for translation. I'm removing it as these aren't specific references and considered common knowledge. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Futher reading"

Is the "Further reading" section necessary? Bibliography sections are used for certain citation styles and this current citation style doesn't need it. Logoshimpo (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is necessary. Danmen2 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "External links"? Logoshimpo (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]