Talk:Battle of Tornow

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / Nordic / Early Modern 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 Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Nordic military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Imonoz Looking at Kronoskaf reveals a wiki-style setup. It even says: "However, once created, articles (other than those classified as portals) can be freely edited by registered users". This is extremely concerning as far as sources go. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any discussion that has said that this website is indeed a completely valid and reliable source, then I could not find it. I would like to see if such a discussion has existed, however. As it stands, no matter what their vetting process is, it would still appear to be user-generated content. I would suggest seeing if their sources reflect what has been written (as often should be the case in most wikis). Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]