Is this kind of page necessary? As far as I know, Finland and Latvia never signed a peace treaty. Therefore Latvia's attack to Southern Finland shouldn't be considered a new war but just added to page Finland-Latvia War. Also, if this really was a new war, it would be called Latvia-Finland War as it was Latvia who attacked Finland this time. -- Kuhaa|sTalk
16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why do we need to have three pages for information that could be in one article? If nobody objects, I'm going to do following things next weekend:
- Move Finland-Latvia War I to Finland-Latvia War
- I'm going to make a new section where I'm going to explain the events of "Finland-Latvia War II". I'm going to leave battle details out as they never were significant attacks, their only purpose was to draw damage from elsewhere. The page also lacks information from later attacks.
- I'm obviously going to fix all the links pointing to these pages.
- I'm going to place deletion templates to pages Finland-Latvia Wars, Finland-Latvia War I and Finland-Latvia War II.
- I'm also going to move this message to the new talk page so these pages won't just be recreated.
Feel free to share opinions, but I doubt anyone has anything to say as this was a minor war and the current structure is too complicated for such a simple event. -- Kuhaa|sTalk
14:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- After over three months of planning and a month threatening, I've now completed things described above. No one objected so I decided to go for it, and in my opinion it was justified because in my opinion a setting such as that didn't accomplish anything. Links are all fixed, now we'll just wait for those to be deleted. It was a pain but I'm glad I got it done. -- Kuhaa|sTalk
tome! 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)