Talk:Band of Brothers (book)

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Books Stub‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Discussion[edit]

Since 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)[reply]

Why? What's notable about the book that warrants its own article? --Scottie_theNerd 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Gaarmyvet: You replied to a conversation from ten years ago. Enigma^msg 04:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citations which don't need accessdate[edit]

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]