Talk:Battles of Narvik

message: I've applied some changes - according to the first line, it is about naval battles, so I excluded non-British allies out of infoboxes. Maybe there should be added also events of April 9 - a combat of Norwegian coastal battleships HNoMS Norge and HNoMS Eidsvold? And maybe it should be split in two articles, on naval and land operations? (as is on Polish wiki). There weren't 5 German destroyers seriously damaged in the first battle, but barely one. Pibwl talk 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if these battles got one article each. Now it is a bit confusing.Inge 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In Norway, (and probably Germany too) the "Battle of Narvik" usually refer to the land campaign as well.  To refer to the battle as a naval operation is to narrow down the subject from a two month battle to a two day event. Epecially the invasion of the city of Narwik the 28th of May by the French Foreign legion and a batallion from the Norwegian 15th Regiment is more famous than the two naval battles. Haraldgroven 14:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Harald. Inge 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: First of all as noted above the TWO MONTH land battle is of more importance to several of the countries involved and deserves better covarage. Even better than the two days of naval battles. In Norway the battle Oberiko has forced me to call "The naval battle before the one known as the first naval battle of Narvik" is known as the first naval battle of Narvik. I understand that in the "British world" the only events worth mentioning are the ones were the British played a central role. Of course it is known as the first battle of Narvik in British naval records and history, it was the first one they participated in. I just want to point out that one should use a great deal of sensitivity when dealing whith a countrys war history and that the english language wikipedia is not a wikipedia written spesifically for the British and Americans but is an international encyclopedia written in the english language. So it seems a bit silly to call a battle the first battle when 343 men lost their lives in a different one just the day before. Inge 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should probably be split up into three (four?) separate articles and turned into a disambiguation.  As it is, it's rather messy. Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I agree, but the issue of whether the first or the second battle should have the article title The first naval battle of Narvik should be resolved before a move. Inge 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just go with Battle of Narvik (9 April 1940) and Battle of Narvik (10 April 1940)? Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good suggestion to me. I just want to avoid an editfight when someone still tries to push the POV that 10 April was before the 9 April. Inge 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs some serious work 

message: First of all in order to remove British POV It should be one article called "Battle of Narvik" with overview of the whole campaign. Then links to sub sections called (IMHO):
* German invasion of Narvik
* Figthing at Bjørnfjell
* First Naval Battle of Narvik
* Second Naval Battle of Narvik 
* Battle of Gratangen
* Narvik's campaign northern front (better name)? 
* Polish expeditionary force at Ankenes May-June 
* Bjerkvik bombardment May 16 
* Allied reconquest of Narvik May 28th
* German Bombing of Narvik, june 1940
H@r@ld 08:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe these could be subsections in the article itself first. Then moved to separate articles when the content in each of them merits it. Inge 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a nore encompassing article title like "Battle for Narvik" then the first and second Battles can retain their titles without confusion. GraemeLeggett 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that "the Norway Campaign" is an encompassing title for the British activities.GraemeLeggett 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian Campaign is our name for the entire conflict in Norway at the start of WWII though.  From the UK's point of view, there are two distinct actions in Narvik.  The naval battles where they defeated the ten German destroyers, and the later land campaign in Northern Norway (which is also quite lacking in the parent article). Oberiko 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new structure

message: What are the points that stick the most out as needing improvement? 
*IMHO:
**The sections on the land battle.
**The background and reasons why Narvik became a major battle scene.
**Reaching agreement over what to call the different naval battles.
Inge 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The worst faults in this article 

message: Nice article.  Coming along nicely.  Two major issues: serious lack of references (maybe only three were used?), no inline references, and :Image:Narvik.jpg needs its image tag updated. Some spellcheck and grammar checks wouldn't hurt either.  (FYI - The Google toolbar has a spellchecker)--Esprit15d 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs footnotes. Renominate it when you have footnotes. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attemted to convert the references to footnotes, but it would be apreciated if someone else could look over them and maybe add some. Inge 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nominee

message: Although this article has improved since its last GA nomination, it still has a serious shortage of line citations.  Current footnotes are not in standard format and fail to provide site access dates.  Some line citations to dead-tree-type references would certainly help.  Too many one line paragraphs.  Currently a b-class article that could definitely get better, but I suggest two or three months of work before renominating again.  Please take this as encouragement: the page reflects a lot of work so far. Durova 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA nomination 

message: Reports I've seen state that U-64 was bombed and sunk after the destroyers had been dealt with, not before as the article states. I'll make the alteration unless there's evidence to the contrary. Uboat.com dosn't specify the sequence. Folks at 137 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U-64

message: There is one mistake: Hermann Kunne is listed twice in a section about landings on 9 April. probably the first mention is correct, while the second should be Thiele or Schmitt, but I don't know which one. Pibwl ←« 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found in a Russian book on German destroyers, that it was Schmitt. Pibwl ←« 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermann Kunne

message: :Image:Eidsvold class costal defence cruiser photo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Eidsvold class costal defence cruiser photo.jpg

message: The account of the naval battle between German and Norwegian forces seem POV to me. Spcifically I'm referring to the lines "At the same time, the gun crews of both the 21 cm guns and the 15 cm guns aboard Eidsvold kept the German destroyer in their sights, at point-blank range" and "The Germans, afraid that Eidsvold might ram the destroyer, fired two or four torpedoes..."
These lines make it seem that the Norwegians provoked an unecessary battle. In Norway a common view is that the German flare was a signal to fire, while the Norwegians were still keeping the truce while waiting for the negotiator to reach his ship.
Both these views are POV hoewever, so my suggestion is that the article simply state the facts of the battle, without ascribing motives to either side.
--MaxMad (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in section on German Invasion 

message: The image :Image:Podhalan POWs.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Podhalan POWs.jpg

message: First naval battle of Narvik - British victory
Second naval battle of Narvik - British victory
Battle of Narvik - Eventual Allied withdrawal ending in the German recapturing of Narvik
Why isn't it called a German victory? It was a German victory!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.65.184 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, a German victory following the Allied withdrawal, which the info box now says. Please calm down. Manxruler (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Boxes 

message: Is it just me, or does anyone else get a massive info-box at the land battle section? Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it too. The infobox picture tag lacked a width argument, so I set it to 300 px. Looks better now. TorW (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That was it. Good catch. Manxruler (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land battle info-box size 

message: My late father was on the edges of the Warburton-Lee attack and he disgustedly told me that the Admiralty had taken their information from the "Daily Sketch", eventually leading to considerable British Casualties.
Since then the Ultra decrypts have been released to the Public Archive and it seems that Ultra informed the Admiralty and in turn Warburton-Lee that there was likely to be considerable German forces in the area of Narvik. Which may mean that the "Daily Sketch" story was probably a simple cover for concealing the existance of Ultra.
The Admiralty file describes Warburton-Lee as "impetuous" and it seems that he launched the raid despite the Ultra warnings. AT Kunene (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like useful inforation. What's the source? Manxruler (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra 

message: Wasn't a ship carrying the politicians and Gestapo who were to take over the running of Norway following a successful Narvik campaign sunk by a Norwegian shore battery?AT Kunene (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the German cruiser Blücher. It was part of the Oslo part of the German invasion of Norway, and was sunk by Oscarsborg Fortress. Narvik was only one part of the German invasion, even though its the best known part internationally. Manxruler (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians and Gestapo 

message: For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. Also, structure is poor, there are very long sections in need of subsections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The article needs much work. Manxruler (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review: failed

message: In the second paragraph it says "against German and Austrian mountain troops". Being Austrian myself, I have no trouble admitting on which side my countrymen fought, and I do know that the Gebirgsjäger were used in campaigns in polar regions, and most of these probably were of Austrian origin (because that's where the mountains are). But obviously they were integral part of the Wehrmacht, and I would doubt that there wasn't at least one man from the pre '38-borders per unit, just for political reasons. So is this consistent Wikipedia style to speak of Austrian forces in 1940? Instead, you could link to Gebirgsjäger, where the section on WW II needs quite some attention also, by the way. Seattle Jörg (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Someone added the Austrian bit years ago. It should probably be removed. Manxruler (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian? 

message: It is likely that the figures given here for the sizes of merchant steamers are incorrect.  The article uses long tons as the size of those steamers, but units of mass such as long tons are not used as the size measure of merchant vessels. (They are used for the displacement of naval vessels, but rarely for civilian ships.) When  "tonnage" is found in the sources, tonnage is meant, that is, gross register or net register tons, which have nothing to do with weight, but instead are measures of enclosed volume.  (For tankers, deadweight tons may used, but that is not the measure of the overall size of tankers.)  Other merchant steamers use grt and nrt, which have nothing to do with displacement. In short, every long ton conversion template for merchant ships should be deleted.  Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of long tons and tonnage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battles of Narvik. 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/20110724044508/http://www.royalnavy-history.net/xDKWW2-4004-13APR01.htm to http://www.royalnavy-history.net/xDKWW2-4004-13APR01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906135021/http://kristiansten-festning.no:80/narvik_landkrigen.htm to http://kristiansten-festning.no/narvik_landkrigen.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 2024,May 24. Article at Sagat.no. Link, Sagat.no/debatt/krigsmuseet-i-narvik-60-ar/19.44441.--Looks like that source has (somewhat) notable claims.--The title (of the source) gives little hint about how it relates to "Battles of Narvik".--My plan is to get back to the wiki-article soon. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources