Talk:1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands

message: The numbers are listed as 1 killed and 3 wounded, but at another part of the article it says that two British snipers killed and wounded a number of Argentine soldiers. What's the story with this? Did the Argentinian government play down the number of men they lost?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.186.210 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some suggestions that this took place.  At KE hospital Dr Alison Bleaney recorded 2 dead and 1 critically injured removed by the Argentines.  However, wikipedia works based on sources, which all say 1 killed and 3 wounded.  I believe there is a new book coming out this year that tackles this. WCMemail 08:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text: , Whilst the book is an WP:SPS, this has been reported in the open press.  They can be used as sources.  I'll work up an edit later today. WCMemail 11:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of Argentine Casualties 

message: An editor has decided based on his own research to add the claim that only 90 Argentine soldiers engaged British forces.  This is a ridiculous claim to make, at any one time not all soldiers would be engaged in combat so it could have been a dozen soldiers at Governement House on the British side for example.  Its further ridiculous since the commander of the Argentine forces is well known for stating they thought if they came in great numbers it would deter the British from defending the islands.  The person responsible has since revert warred their changes into the article.  Would be grateful for a revert back to last stable consensus version.  WCMemail 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Number in Combat" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014125543/http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070908175426/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5874 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5874
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010080020/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted a number of recent changes that changed numbers and added a degree of precision I'm not sure is warranted.  Sources vary saying between 25-40 of the FIDF turned out, so the precise figure of 43 seems to not reflect the range of views in the literature.  Similarly the RFIP was added, an unarmed civilian police force that took no part in the fighting.  I don't think these changes were an improvement to the article. WCMemail 09:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in Numbers 

message: [url=https://postimg.cc/image/bnzbl0wrv/][img]https://s33.postimg.cc/bnzbl0wrv/5502920627e57eff15e6b.jpg[/img][/url]
The trio were briefly detained as POWs but then let go around midday. Any chance in finding out their ranks and full names? PS.--Vanberkel (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with identifying 3 Port Stanley Police POWs

message: I gave a pretty informative edit summary why I was removing the material recently added.  So I am rather unsure why  has simply reverted demanding I start a talk page discussion, when WP:BRD would suggest that he does so (and without reverting).  I'll expand on my edit summary by pointing out this is WP:FRINGE material in relation to the main subject, in that the FIDF did not take part in any offensive action and are little more than a footnote and as such the WP:DUE coverage would be limited.  Given recent edits by that editor, I'm rather suspicious that these edits seem designed to give a rather distorted picture of the battle implying that the 2,500 Argentine troops faced rather more than the 57 Royal Marines and 22 Royal Navy sailors they attacked.  WCMemail 01:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added material 

message: Roger 8 Roger In relation to the edits you disputed, I do not see how the information I added would've supplanted any of that which is still there. Simon Levchenko (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing any of the detail you added. What I disagreed with was that you were putting too much detail into the infobox where it does not belong. Infoboxes are for short summaries of what is below see here, as in the link I gave before. The infobox in this article is already too cluttered and in need of thinning out without adding any more detail. Why not put your information into the body of the article where it belongs? It would also be useful to explain any additions or changes, especially when changing numbers, so that other editors can see you are not vandalising the site. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you might be referring to the sentences in the infobox. I revise them to allow for a more succinct summary. Simon Levchenko (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Here  is a discussion about the over use of flag icons. Can anyone think of a valid reason for keeping flags in the infobox? If not I will remove them. I think there is also a good case to be made for removing much of the finer detail of the engagement. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox overload and flag icons

message: Can we have a section which sums up the number of people killed and wounded in this invasion? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killed and wounded 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion