Talk:IX SS Mountain Corps

National usage
The syntax is that the brackets contain the nation the formation was established by, and in this case this is Germany. The Article title therefore needs to reflect this because currently it looks like the Corps was a part of the Croatian Waffen-SS subordinated to Croatian government.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced History content
It appears that this topic is not notable since no sources or citations have been added in the past 3 years, since the article was tagged "unreferenced". Are there any editors willing to improve the article? Otherwise, per WP:V, I plan to remove this material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. A corps-sized formation is automatically going to be notable. I think you misunderstand notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that the unit itself is notable (I renamed the topic accordingly). My concern is the narrative (in the section History) may be constructed of inaccurate or biased information, as none of the material there is cited. The article has been tagged "unreferenced" since 2013. Who knows why Balck said what he said (if he indeed did) or how many panzers they had left, especially "barely".


 * Re: photo, I've not seen other Corps articles have a photo, see for example L Army Corps (Wehrmacht), III Army Corps (Wehrmacht) or XX Army Corps (Wehrmacht). Some have insignias, some none at all. Most appear to be short articles, with infoboxes and lists of commanders. But if there's a preference to keep the photo in this case, then it's not a big deal.


 * The article should have the infobox, list of commanders, OOB, perhaps add a list of subordinate units, etc. But WP:V applies to the History, no?


 * Or if the Corps is mostly notable for its role in the siege of Budapest, then perhaps the references there can be improved, but there's not been any interest in the article since I took out the most obviously POV and dubious statements back in Dec 2015. If no future improvements are forthcoming to the History section, then I suggest removing it. What are your thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea is pure deletionism. Little of this material is in the least bit controversial, and there is no reason to delete it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)