This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Rheinübung article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is certainly much duplication between the articles on Rheinübung and Bismarck. I don't agree that they should be merged, however. The usual practice seems to be that warship articles contain the history of that ship (admittedly short for Bismarck), its design and features and, in Bismarck's case, the search for the wreck.
Articles on operations detail the strategic background, order of battle, course of the operation and its aftermath, etc. When looking for info on an operation, I wouldn't necessarily expect a complete description of it under just one of the units involved.
I'd advocate extracting the operational detail from Bismarck and using it to improve the one on the operation, leaving a brief summary. Otherwise, there would be a precedent that might be difficult to resolve - under which ship's history would we place,eg, Cerberus or Berlin?
Folks at 137 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that, as it stands, this article is hardly worth keeping as it is incomplete. Operation Rheinuebung did not end with the sinking of the Bismarck: Prinz Eugen was still loose on the high seas, although by that stage the Germans' main, if not only, concern was to get her back to port safely. Patrick
Your last sentence was fair comment, so I have updated the "History" section near the start of that article. Note, however, the "General Characteristics" table to its right that covers much of the technical information you would expect to find. Patrick
I'm also against a merger. I would have thought the logical approach would be to have several articles (as Folks proposes):
JimmyTheOne 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm also against a merger. Bismarck is a ship whose details are loved by all and sundry. And if important topics do not have separate articles, then personally, I consider it as an exaggeration of the integrity of Wikipedia. Plus, there is a clear difference between the sortie and its disruption by the British warships. Vikrant Phadkay 09:50 (IST), 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have ended in 2006; Can we take it there was no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I agree that we shouldn't merge this article with Bismarck, I don't agree with JimmyTheOne's view that there should be separate articles about the German operational plans ( Operation Rheinübung) and their execution ( Bismarck Chase). The case for a merger here appears to me self-evident.
Having said that, I dislike the title of this article, which is much too arcane; surely it is axiomatic that the significance of a article's title should be obvious to non-specialists? Although I am not enamoured of Bismarck Chase, I agree that we need a title in which the word Bismarck appears. The best I can suggest is Pursuit of the Bismarck. Sinking of the Bismarck would have popular appeal but would understate the scope of the article.
Comments? John Moore 309 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just read these articles as someone knew to the subject(and have no knowledge etc. to edit) and think they should be merged. There are so many main articles associated with the Bismarck that where two articles say basically the same thing it is confusing and unhelpful to have them both.
213.106.165.10 12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)J
This discussion seems to have mostly ended in 2006; Can we take it there was no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed now? Xyl 54 ( talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Danzig is not Gdynia. German called Gdynia Gotenhafen. I edit this, ok?
I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to revise the scope of this article and also rescope and rename the Bismarck Chase article. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template, and scoped as follows:
I am placing a similar post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Readers of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck will be aware that there is a proposal to merge that article with with this one. I have placed my own comment below. Regards to all, John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As a lay person researching Bismarck topics it was confusing and rather irritating to read almost identical text in the "Last Battle Of..." page. The merge seems almost complete as things stand as no substantial additional info is provided on the seperate page that could not be incorporated here. Spoiltcat 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
For
This discussion seems to have ended in 2007; to stop it festering on, can we take it there is no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed now?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 12:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I’ve moved this back to Operation Rheinubung; there is absolutely no necessity in using the German word Unternehmen in preference to "Operation", and
WP:MOS dictates we don’t do it.
I’ve retained Rheinubung in preference to "Rhine Exercise" only because it is commonly used in English as a proper noun, with as little meaning as "Avalanche", or "Shingle".
The rationale for the change was that the title is neither of english and german; however that is the form most commonly found in books etc. If anyone wants to make a case for "Operation Rhine Exercise" as a title they can.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we are getting sidetracked here. There is no definitive WP policy and what Germans call the battle, in German or English, is irrelevant. The question is whether the anachronistic name OR is so well known that it should override UR or a descriptive title like Last mission of the battleship Bismarck. Grant | Talk 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added some detail about the operation itself; it shouldn't just be about Bismarck, or it overlaps too much with all the other pages on the subject. Xyl 54 ( talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A source was requested for this:
"On the other hand, the Atlantic U-boat campaign was disrupted; boats in the Atlantic sank just 2 ships in the last weeks of May, compared to 20 at the beginning of the month."(fact|date=July 2009)
(specifically, is the decreased number of sinkings directly related to Bismarck et. al. or just a coincidence? If not, this line needs to go, because it implies a direct relation.)
This is from Blair; I’ve put it in the article. And yes, that’s pretty much exactly what he suggests;
“The Bismarck affair brought the U boat war against shipping in the North Atlantic to a standstill in the last ten days of May. The twenty boats in that area sank only two ships ….”
He then lists them (2 freighters sunk by U-557 and U-147) and lists the totals for the rest of the month:
347 ships sailed eastbound , 13 sunk (9 from HX126 and 4 stragglers
no numbers for westbound (Hague gives 439 ships at sea in May),16 sunk (7 from OB 318 and 6 others) plus 1 in home waters, and 2 sunk by Italian boats further south (total 29: my figure of 20 was wrong, I’ve corrected it); a total for May of 31.
So yes, there is a direct relationship; taking U-boats off commerce raiding to set up submarine traps around Bismarck led to a drop in sinkings (which is logical enough) while failing to achieve anything in a fleet action role (which is also not surprising; there were hardly any occasions in either world war were submarines were used successfully in a fleet role).
Xyl 54 (
talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice from
this edit that about 22 Kb of material from the
Bismarck page have been duplicated to here.
This doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea, and there is no advantage that I can see in having such a huge overlap. I feel the material should be on one page only, with a summary on the other.
What does anyone else think? Does anyone feel it is better to have the same material on both pages? If not, which is the best place for it?
Up to now the edit history for the content has been on the Bismarck page, but the main article/subsidiary section split suggests it should be here. Would it be better to leave it here, and trim the section at Bismarck down to a summary? Or should we revert this page in total back to the way it was? Comments?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 22:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford ( talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Die Landkarte( The Map ): "Map of Operation "Rheinübung" and Royal Navy operations against the battleship Bismarck"
wrong border ( the map is not history boarder from 1939 - the border from the map is 1990-2000-2010 )
Ist voller Fehler, allein der Grenzverlauf ist von heutigen zeit aber nicht mit echten Historischen Grenzverlauf von 1941 versehen bzw identisch.
Oder Liegt Etwa San-Francisco und Los-Angeles in Mexiko ? Und Alaska zur Russland ?
Map = Germany = 1937 = Real History correctness vs political correctness Map https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich_in_den_Grenzen_vom_31._Dezember_1937
Japanese Map from Europa 1939 https://www.mapmania.org/map/65579/japanese_map_of_europe_from_1939
In the Map Danzig a Poland Protektorat, in Real History 1939 a Free City/Staate /info/en/?search=Free_City_of_Danzig
Free City Passport /info/en/?search=Free_City_of_Danzig#/media/File:Danzig_passport.jpg
Luxembourg = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1939 = 290.000 Population ) Danzig = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1938 = 388.195 Population )
Sory from my english ( /info/en/?search=Denglisch ) :-) - i am a German from Berlin :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C1A0:4889:4700:870:95E8:55BE:DDEB ( talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Rheinübung article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is certainly much duplication between the articles on Rheinübung and Bismarck. I don't agree that they should be merged, however. The usual practice seems to be that warship articles contain the history of that ship (admittedly short for Bismarck), its design and features and, in Bismarck's case, the search for the wreck.
Articles on operations detail the strategic background, order of battle, course of the operation and its aftermath, etc. When looking for info on an operation, I wouldn't necessarily expect a complete description of it under just one of the units involved.
I'd advocate extracting the operational detail from Bismarck and using it to improve the one on the operation, leaving a brief summary. Otherwise, there would be a precedent that might be difficult to resolve - under which ship's history would we place,eg, Cerberus or Berlin?
Folks at 137 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that, as it stands, this article is hardly worth keeping as it is incomplete. Operation Rheinuebung did not end with the sinking of the Bismarck: Prinz Eugen was still loose on the high seas, although by that stage the Germans' main, if not only, concern was to get her back to port safely. Patrick
Your last sentence was fair comment, so I have updated the "History" section near the start of that article. Note, however, the "General Characteristics" table to its right that covers much of the technical information you would expect to find. Patrick
I'm also against a merger. I would have thought the logical approach would be to have several articles (as Folks proposes):
JimmyTheOne 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm also against a merger. Bismarck is a ship whose details are loved by all and sundry. And if important topics do not have separate articles, then personally, I consider it as an exaggeration of the integrity of Wikipedia. Plus, there is a clear difference between the sortie and its disruption by the British warships. Vikrant Phadkay 09:50 (IST), 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have ended in 2006; Can we take it there was no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I agree that we shouldn't merge this article with Bismarck, I don't agree with JimmyTheOne's view that there should be separate articles about the German operational plans ( Operation Rheinübung) and their execution ( Bismarck Chase). The case for a merger here appears to me self-evident.
Having said that, I dislike the title of this article, which is much too arcane; surely it is axiomatic that the significance of a article's title should be obvious to non-specialists? Although I am not enamoured of Bismarck Chase, I agree that we need a title in which the word Bismarck appears. The best I can suggest is Pursuit of the Bismarck. Sinking of the Bismarck would have popular appeal but would understate the scope of the article.
Comments? John Moore 309 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just read these articles as someone knew to the subject(and have no knowledge etc. to edit) and think they should be merged. There are so many main articles associated with the Bismarck that where two articles say basically the same thing it is confusing and unhelpful to have them both.
213.106.165.10 12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)J
This discussion seems to have mostly ended in 2006; Can we take it there was no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed now? Xyl 54 ( talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Danzig is not Gdynia. German called Gdynia Gotenhafen. I edit this, ok?
I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to revise the scope of this article and also rescope and rename the Bismarck Chase article. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template, and scoped as follows:
I am placing a similar post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Readers of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck will be aware that there is a proposal to merge that article with with this one. I have placed my own comment below. Regards to all, John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As a lay person researching Bismarck topics it was confusing and rather irritating to read almost identical text in the "Last Battle Of..." page. The merge seems almost complete as things stand as no substantial additional info is provided on the seperate page that could not be incorporated here. Spoiltcat 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
For
This discussion seems to have ended in 2007; to stop it festering on, can we take it there is no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed now?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 12:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I’ve moved this back to Operation Rheinubung; there is absolutely no necessity in using the German word Unternehmen in preference to "Operation", and
WP:MOS dictates we don’t do it.
I’ve retained Rheinubung in preference to "Rhine Exercise" only because it is commonly used in English as a proper noun, with as little meaning as "Avalanche", or "Shingle".
The rationale for the change was that the title is neither of english and german; however that is the form most commonly found in books etc. If anyone wants to make a case for "Operation Rhine Exercise" as a title they can.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we are getting sidetracked here. There is no definitive WP policy and what Germans call the battle, in German or English, is irrelevant. The question is whether the anachronistic name OR is so well known that it should override UR or a descriptive title like Last mission of the battleship Bismarck. Grant | Talk 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added some detail about the operation itself; it shouldn't just be about Bismarck, or it overlaps too much with all the other pages on the subject. Xyl 54 ( talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A source was requested for this:
"On the other hand, the Atlantic U-boat campaign was disrupted; boats in the Atlantic sank just 2 ships in the last weeks of May, compared to 20 at the beginning of the month."(fact|date=July 2009)
(specifically, is the decreased number of sinkings directly related to Bismarck et. al. or just a coincidence? If not, this line needs to go, because it implies a direct relation.)
This is from Blair; I’ve put it in the article. And yes, that’s pretty much exactly what he suggests;
“The Bismarck affair brought the U boat war against shipping in the North Atlantic to a standstill in the last ten days of May. The twenty boats in that area sank only two ships ….”
He then lists them (2 freighters sunk by U-557 and U-147) and lists the totals for the rest of the month:
347 ships sailed eastbound , 13 sunk (9 from HX126 and 4 stragglers
no numbers for westbound (Hague gives 439 ships at sea in May),16 sunk (7 from OB 318 and 6 others) plus 1 in home waters, and 2 sunk by Italian boats further south (total 29: my figure of 20 was wrong, I’ve corrected it); a total for May of 31.
So yes, there is a direct relationship; taking U-boats off commerce raiding to set up submarine traps around Bismarck led to a drop in sinkings (which is logical enough) while failing to achieve anything in a fleet action role (which is also not surprising; there were hardly any occasions in either world war were submarines were used successfully in a fleet role).
Xyl 54 (
talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice from
this edit that about 22 Kb of material from the
Bismarck page have been duplicated to here.
This doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea, and there is no advantage that I can see in having such a huge overlap. I feel the material should be on one page only, with a summary on the other.
What does anyone else think? Does anyone feel it is better to have the same material on both pages? If not, which is the best place for it?
Up to now the edit history for the content has been on the Bismarck page, but the main article/subsidiary section split suggests it should be here. Would it be better to leave it here, and trim the section at Bismarck down to a summary? Or should we revert this page in total back to the way it was? Comments?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 22:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford ( talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Die Landkarte( The Map ): "Map of Operation "Rheinübung" and Royal Navy operations against the battleship Bismarck"
wrong border ( the map is not history boarder from 1939 - the border from the map is 1990-2000-2010 )
Ist voller Fehler, allein der Grenzverlauf ist von heutigen zeit aber nicht mit echten Historischen Grenzverlauf von 1941 versehen bzw identisch.
Oder Liegt Etwa San-Francisco und Los-Angeles in Mexiko ? Und Alaska zur Russland ?
Map = Germany = 1937 = Real History correctness vs political correctness Map https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich_in_den_Grenzen_vom_31._Dezember_1937
Japanese Map from Europa 1939 https://www.mapmania.org/map/65579/japanese_map_of_europe_from_1939
In the Map Danzig a Poland Protektorat, in Real History 1939 a Free City/Staate /info/en/?search=Free_City_of_Danzig
Free City Passport /info/en/?search=Free_City_of_Danzig#/media/File:Danzig_passport.jpg
Luxembourg = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1939 = 290.000 Population ) Danzig = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1938 = 388.195 Population )
Sory from my english ( /info/en/?search=Denglisch ) :-) - i am a German from Berlin :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C1A0:4889:4700:870:95E8:55BE:DDEB ( talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)