Talk:List of militants fatality reports in Pakistan

Taliban casualties
There something wrong... in some battles the sources and the casualties sections agree on a number of taliban losses, but the battlebox have a different number, I have just fixed it. Just Check.--190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Taliban fatality reports in Pakistan. 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/20140215142834/http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm to http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140215142834/http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm to http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm

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) 14:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

List of statistics
I see this article has been classified as a list. The purpose of most list articles are to provide either an index of related articles, or information about related non-trivial matters that are not necessarily notable in their own right to warrant a separate article. However, this article appears to stray into being a copy of a list of statistics from a single official source. So I wonder why it is considered important enough to have a separate list article containing statistics about "Militants fatality reports in Pakistan" when Wikipedia does not have an overview article about the "Fatalities of militants in Pakistan", as far as I can ascertain. I am not saying this list should not exist, but I am questioning the need for having a stand alone article for a separate list. Is there not an article this list could be incorporated into, to put these statistics into a better context? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Use of "... can be found here:" or "This link is to ..."
This article would be more readable if the phrases "... can be found here:" and "This link is to ..." were omitted or substituted with some meaningful facts. The citation are present to verify the statements made in the article, not serve as an off-website link to more information that is not in the article. If it is not discussed in the article then there is no need to cite the source. If there is relevant further reading on a website then list it as an external link or as further reading, if it has not been cited for other reasons.

Both the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, as well many others concerned with website content best practice, advise against using phrases that advise users to "Click here" or take similar actions. In reality, the action of clicking on the citation number only takes the user to the citation. Users actually need to hover over the citation before they can obtain a link that they can then click on. While such a user interaction is going to be obvious to a user who has a mouse pointing device, it is meaningless to someone who does not, such as someone reading a printed page, using a audio screen reader, or a robotic search engine. While stating obvious facts may be a good idea, this is not required for an obvious user interaction with the website. I think one must assume that some degree of competence has been acquired by readers and they don't need to be told how to suck eggs. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)