Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force/Archive 1

message: I've used  as the banner image to start off, since that seems a common enough symbol of "German" military things.  If anyone has a better idea—one of the German coats-of-arms, perhaps—please feel free to suggest it! Kirill Lokshin 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Main symbol of the Germanic military from the Teutonic Knigths all the way to the Bundeswehr. --Andrés C. 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support also. --ScreaminEagle 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK Wandalstouring 11:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner image 

message: I realize this is incredibly stupid, but do we have a userbox?  Everyone else has one, so we should, too, dang it.  Please note that I don't know how to make one or else I'd do it instead of whining about it.  --ScreaminEagle 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Enjoy! :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huzzah!  Many thanks, Kirill!--ScreaminEagle 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To dumb-down this discussion for a minute: Userboxes! 

message: For your information, I've nominated Colditz Castle for a review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Colditz Castle.  Please take a look! --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colditz Castle 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I'd like to create an article. Would anybody be interested if I made an article on German technology during WWII? Like German technology during WII or German military technology during WWII variations.
I'm really interested and also knowledgeable about german military technology so I'm planning to make one about it. 
For example, the article would discuss about how German tanks were advanced by 20 years ahead of their time, Germany was the first to develop ejection seats, the first jet plane, etc. Just wondering if anybody would be interested, thanks. Good friend100 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about anyone else, but that seems like an awfully broad subject for an article.  Even the titles are broad.  I would think narrowing the subject might be the way to go, and even get a few more articles out of it.  For example, the Germans having the first jet plane is an article in and of itself and Germany's contributions to the ejection seat would go in the article on ejection seats.  I see what you're getting at, but it seems like not only would it not be focused enough, but could also walk the line on NPOV.  --ScreaminEagle 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German military technology during WWII 

message: First War of Schleswig and Second War of Schleswig both could use some rewriting. Aside from largely being unreferenced, the descriptions of the wars are often in timeline format. The second war in particular is difficult to follow and goes into excessive detail about skirmishes. Any suggestions on the best way to start improving the articles? Olessi 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schleswig Wars 

message: User:52 Pickup/Maps is a gallery of maps of historic parts of 'Germany'. Wandalstouring 12:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  user who creates historical maps of Germany 

message: :Please see: Talk:Battle_of_Jutland#Self_Critiques_And_POV, where I've called for expansion of the post-battle analysis to include the take of the German Navy both immediately, and during the next two decades. As is, this article is currently too oriented on the British experience and virtually ignoring the German side. I've also suggested some of us research the lessons taught by other Battle ship navies leading up to WW-II, as Western biases tended to discount the Battle of Tsushima, making this event a critical opionion maker determining naval policies for the next two and a half decades. Besides, would be darned interesting to have all that summarized side by side so to speak. 
Cheers! // FrankB 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to cancel POV 

message: Volks-Sturm → do not translate, and take care not to spell it as Volkssturm (why? that is the correct German term) in some context this may refer to the migration period Wrong. Should be written as Volkssturm. It es never used referring to the migration period.--Tresckow 05:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely possible that some of the instructions aren't quite correct; please feel free to fix any that you spot. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In old German literature 'Volkssturm' is sometimes used in the context of the migration period. You are very unlikely to find it because most people here won't be able to read the old German alphabet used for these texts. Wandalstouring 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong 

message: I will try to expand this category and see what i can add since this is my special field of interest. I will also have a look on the existing pages of Warplanes used by the german forces in WWI. Any help would be welcome. --Panth 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German World War I flying aces 

message: For some reason I thought I saw kampfgruppe in the big list of terms, but I was mistaken. Would there be any guidelines on how this should be treated? I prefer to treat it as fully borrowed into English, like panzer and panzergrenadier (hence not italicized or capitalized, plural kampfgruppes). -- Hongooi 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Kampfgruppen' is the correct German plural. Like with Greek one should stick with the original language's grammar whenever possible. A possible translation would be battlegroups or joint forces (a more modern term for the concept). Wandalstouring 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realise that kampfgruppen is the German plural, but I disagree that you should stick with the original language grammar. If kampfgruppe is treated as an English loanword, then it should follow the usual English rules for grammar. (I also realise that "usual English rules for grammar" is a bit of an oxymoron.) -- Hongooi 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitelly not a grammar specialist, but generally one uses the original grammar with loan words, so indeed Kampfgruppen and not 'kampfgruppes in this case.--Caranorn 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kampfgruppe translation 

message: Perusing the stub and start class lists, and searching for various terms, I see numerous inconsistencies in the naming of German divisions. Thus, as of July 10: 7th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht), 10th Infantry Division (Germany), German 243rd Static Infantry Division.  Besides the inconsistency, there is also a bias issue: except for a few Panzer division articles, the default for "___ Division (Germany)" is the Wehrmacht version.  I recognize the bias toward World War II history among German military historians, and I am guilty of that myself.  But, properly, it is not accurate.  The Prussian/Imperial army 10th Infantry Division was just as much, if not more, a "10th Infantry Division (Germany)" as the Wehrmacht one. 
There do appear to be a few Imperial stubs like 2nd Division (German Empire), but (a) all that has is an order of battle, and (b) it is the pre-1914 mobilization name.  On mobilization, the cavalry brigades were detached and the regular divisions became Infantry Divisions. Additional infantry divisions raised in the war were designated Infantry Divisions; Reserve and Landwehr Divisions, though infantry in organization, left infantry out of their name. 
The history of the Bundeswehr is also in need of fleshing out; I don't think there are even pages for the Bundeswehr's divisions from the 1950s on.
So I would suggest we need an improved naming convention for German divisions of all eras, which are basically three. The divisions had a continuous history until 1918 (regimental traditions carried over to the Reichswehr, but not divisional), and then one again until 1945. Bundeswehr and NVA divisions did not have official connections to Wehrmacht or Imperial predecessors.  
I would suggest the following conventions: 
* "# Division (German Empire) for the divisions in existence prior to 1914, with the article explaining their 1914 renaming.
* "# Infantry Division (German Empire)", "# Reserve Division (German Empire)", "# Landwehr Division (German Empire)", "# Cavalry Division (German Empire)", "# Naval Division (German Empire)" for WWI-raised formations.  Bavarian divisions would have "Bavarian" as well.
* "# Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)", "# Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)", etc. for World War II Wehrmacht divisions (though this also includes the lower-numbered divisions which existed in the Reichswehr). I think Waffen SS divisions are already distinguished from others.
* "# Panzergrenadier Division (Bundeswehr)", "# Panzer Division (Bundeswehr)", etc. for Bundeswehr divisions (with the article explaining any name changes such as Grenadier to Panzergrenadier over the division's history).  
I'm not sure about the NVA. We don't want confusion with the North Vietnamese Army, but "(Nationale Volksarmee)" is somewhat long.  Does "# Division (East Germany)" work?
If this naming convention is OK, I can work on making articles for missing divisions and we can move articles to new names. Regards, Airbornelawyer 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problems with adopting a more systematic naming scheme for German units, and what you have proposed seems workable. As far as East Germany is concerned, (East Germany) seems logical - although, in this case, we might use (West Germany) instead of (Bundeswehr), mainly for the sake of consistency. Carom 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem with (West Germany) is that the Bundeswehr and most of its units existed post-reunification (although many soon disbanded as Germany rapidly cashed in its peace dividend).  It seems to me that Bundeswehr is a familiar enough term, at least to the typical person researching a Bundeswehr unit, just as Wehrmacht is sufficiently familiar to use for World War II units other than Waffen SS. Airbornelawyer 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, your initial proposal seems to cover all the bases. Carom 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of divisions

message: Hello.  Could anyone here provide me with any information on "Oasis Companies" in the Western Desert Campaign?  There's very little information about them on the web and in Google Books, here's what I have found:
Axis History Forum
* 0n 10.04.1941, a batch of Oasen companies were raised using men that had lived, or worked, in Africa. (Tessin lists the numbers 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, the numbers indicating the raising Wehrkreis, and that possibly 13 were raised, numbering 1 – 13.) Also on 10.04.41, the Bataillonstab z.b.V. 300 was raised. It was a small staff consisting of about 10 officers to provide control for the Oasis companies. It was dissolved in 1942.
* The Oasen companies occupied and guarded not only isolated oasis, but also wells, road junctions, etc., and were specially trained and equipped for water collection and treatment operations. Each infantry regiment in North Africa was supposed to have received one company in 1941. Five not so assigned were found directly under the DAK.
* "Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939 – 1945," by Georg Tessin. It's a set of 20 volumes listing short descriptions of all Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS forces, battalion sized and higher, created during WWII, using Feldpost numbers. There is errata (see Dr. Niehorter's site), and I believe the set is avaliable at http://www.militaria-biblio.de/ 
Anyone have any additional information on these units? Oberiko 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oasis companies

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battle of Britain. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this task force, along with the other relevant task forces to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further.  The article needs some more inline citations, and if added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Britain]] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: These two articles has been reviewed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the articles currently don't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the articles are well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the articles at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the articles' status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the articles can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of France]] and [[Battle of Britain]] [[WP:GAR|Good Article Reassessment]]