Talk:Brummbär

message: I think the WW2 picture should be put back as it is of an early model vehicle. That way, there's a picture of one of each. Catsmeat 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The translation is not correct, "Brummbär" means "grumbler", not "grizzly bear" (brummen = to grumble).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.126.105.15 (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: At least untill a reliable source can be found for the name "Brummbär", doesn't it make sense that the article should be given a more verifiable name? I would do it myself, but I can't figure out how...
That seems a reasonable thing to do. You use the 'Move' link at the top of the page. You'll need to create a redirect page called Brummbar that points to Sturmpanzer IV. Check all the current redirects pointing here are edited to point to the new name. If you want to be really good, check the 'what links here' to be sure all the articles that reference Brummbar also point to the new page. Catsmeat (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Brummbar is now the most common name, which I suspect it is, then it should still be used. See Hetzer for another example. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as there's a redirect I don't see why we should perpetuate popular misconceptions. Especially since I've cited the Allied report that created the myth. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article's name be changed to "Sturmpanzer IV"? 

message: Since ,the article's combat history section talks very little about the performance of the guns ,armour or mobility in combat . Would it not be more appropriate to rename the section to 'Operational History'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Akilesh (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat History or Operational history? 

message: Why is 'Stupa' used over 'Sturmpanzer' in the article's text? It seems more appropriate to use the proper name, rather than some nickname. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be? The Tiger II article doesn't use the full and proper name of Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B, does it? No, it uses the nickname. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tiger II' was one of the official designations. See page 16 in Germany's Tiger Tanks : VK 45.02 to Tiger II. The designation you gave was never an official one, on the other hand. You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the convention is to use the current most commonly used/recognisable name, even if it isn't the official contemporaneous one. Brummbär, while possibly incorrect, is certainly widely used in English circles. Hohum (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brummbär is certainly incorrect, but is indeed the mostly widely known name in English, which is why I've never pushed to have the article properly renamed. But, personally, I'll never use it. As for Stupa vs. Sturmpanzer IV, I see no issues with using the unofficial nickname so long as it's clearly spelled out what it is and documented. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I haven't moved the article from Brummbär to Sturmpanzer (it's Sturmpanzer, not Sturmpanzer IV, see above). Stupa is not a well-known nickname in English, however. I've seen books which (erroneously) use Brummbär and Sturmpanzer IV, as well as books which use Sturmpanzer, but I've never seen a book which use Stupa beyond a brief reference to the nickname. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unofficial nicknames are usually quite difficult to find unless you dig deep into German memoirs and most people, including technical historians, don't bother. The only other one that I can think of is the Stuka zu Fuß. Everything I have shows Brummbär or Sturmpanzer IV. I have most of Jentz's other stuff and wish that he'd update that old PanzerTracts volume that you reference above as I'd sure like to see more contemporary reports and the like that he's been adding when updating his earlier volumes. I wonder if the name changed over time? That might account for all the references to both names. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Waffen Revue W 127 use Sturmpanzer as well. I can't remember which name, if any, the Adolf Hitler Panzerprogram use (I'll have to remember to look it up). My point is (as you somewhat agree yourself ;-)) that we shouldn't use a nickname (Stupa) which is not generally known. Rather, I propose to use either Sturmpanzer (which is well-known and accurate) or (if we must) Brummbär. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupa or Sturmpanzer? 

message: Is it necessary to include the fact that Brummbar does not mean grizzly bear? -B-) (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because a number of English-language books give that definition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of being mentioned in the lead, but not adequately explained (which would too lengthy for the lead), perhaps it should have an explanatory reflink to a notes section? (Hohum @) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not grizzly bear?