Template talk:Campaignbox Axis–Soviet War

message: I dropped Operation Blue from the template, since it merely redirects to Battle of Stalingrad. That change, though it does appear in the edit history, is not yet reflected on the template page, but the articles that make use of the template appear to have already gotten the message, as they are no longer showing Blue. Very strange. SS451 15:26, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Can't have that :-) , so I started a proper Operation Blue article and deleted the re-direct. Andreas 07:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Blue

message: How major does the battle have to be? Catalan 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd use the same criteria as is used to determine if the battle warrents an article. Oberiko 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. I'm planning some more episodes, as soon as I'll finish the corresponding articles (WIP) grafikm_fr 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Battles

message: This has gotten to be one of the largest campaignboxes at this point; maybe splitting it into several smaller ones would be worthwhile. —Kirill Lokshin 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been a proponent of that for awhile, but the Eastern Front's not my area of knowledge, so I don't really have a keen grasp on what the different "phases" of the war were. Oberiko 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no need to split. We should reserve the battlebox for significant battles like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, Berlin. The war consisted of hundreds if not thousands of operations on the scale of the Battle of Krasny Bor. Arbitrary inclusion of one minor engagement out of hundreds into a battlebox, as if it were of the same importance as Stalingrad or Moscow, is misleading at best. I consulted the 1000-page-long "Encyclopaedia of the Great Patriotic War: neither Targul nor Krasny Bor is mentioned here at all, although they enumerate and detail hundreds of military actions altogether. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they were battles that the Red Army lost, now would it?  Both battles happened, there is no doubt about it.  They were not invented by revisionists as you claim.  Andreas 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thoughts, we maay create a separate battlebox for the Siege of Leningrad. The breakthrough of the Siege of Leningrad alone consisted of dozen operations on the scale of Krasny Bor. It is not practicable to add all these operations into a single Great Patriotic War battlebox. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think it would be more profitable to split the battleboxes by level (strategic operation/regional operation/local battle), instead of splitting it by time period.  So the main battlebox should contain e.g. Operation Blue, the regional battlebox Battle for Stalingrad, and the local one Battle for Marmayev Kurgan, to give you an idea. Andreas 08:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the little battles (which seem to warrent articles) falling through the cracks.  What if they're not part of a major operation?  Oberiko 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name a few of that kind. :-)  I think most of the time it will be easy to assign them to a parent-article, and would prefer to cross that bridge when we get there.  For the moment I think there is a serious risk of overloading the battle box and it should be addressed. Andreas 13:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: I have now created those campaignboxes that easily have an article assigned to their title, and have cleaned up the main campaignbox accordingly. Andreas 08:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure on the names for these two, but great work on the other boxes.  Please don't forget to add them to the list, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Also cleaned up the Finnish boxes in the process. Until somebody comes up with something better, I'll name the Stalingrad box Operation Blue to 3rd Kharkov Andreas 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work; the boxes are rather more manageable now. Kirill Lokshin 12:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kirill! Andreas 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get cracking 

message: I'm a little confused where to put Fourth strategic offensive. I guess it could be categorized some of Siege of Leningrad, Continuation War and/or Finland 1941-1944 (Which should be 1941-1945, BTW). --Whiskey 08:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the Svir-Petrozvadovsk Offensive? Andreas 12:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever it is, it really needs to be moved to a more revealing name ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it covers two distinct Soviet operations with the same strategic goal, the Svir-Petrozavodsk Offensive(for which we do not have an article), and the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive. I propose to move it to the latter, and change the article text to reflect that the operations by the two fronts involved (Leningrad and Karelian) may have had slightly different names. Andreas 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge the two under "Petrozavodsk Offensives (1944)", maybe?  Or would that be entirely missing the point? Kirill Lokshin 14:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the best solution, I think. Andreas 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As an aside - for Russian students of the war, the name will make sense, since the 1944 offensives were also called the '10 strategic blows'. Of which the one in question was the fourth, apparently. :-) Andreas 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. And I don't think renaming it to Petrozavodsk Offensive the correct solution, as the main thrust was across Karelian Isthmus to Vyborg. The Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive is somewhat more correct one. As far as I have researched the issue, I haven't found a specific name to the offensive (like Bagration et.al.) --Whiskey 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive is the term used by Krivosheev in his listing of Red Army losses, for both Karelian and Leningrad Front.  So I guess that would also be a good name. Regarding the specific names, I believe Bagration was the last one to have one, at least the last one I found.  Thereafter they are just geographical. Andreas 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth strategic offensive

message: Can we add East Pomeranian Offensive and Silesian Offensives? I'd also think offensives are more notable then battles, thus Battle of Königsberg should be replaced by East Prussian Offensive. We also need to replace Battle of Budapest with Budapest Offensive, and Battle of Romania (1944) with Iassy-Kishinev Offensive (per naming in this academic work.).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for inclusion

message: Please see Talk:Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#List_of_major_operations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of operations to be added

message: This is intended as a campaign infobox, yet many items in it are clearly not campaigns220.238.43.188 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign box, or dumping ground? 

message: I have removed this from the box because the convoys were not part of the eastern front. This position is set out explicitly in the third paragraph of the Eastern Front (World War II) article. If these convoys are included because the ships supplied the eastern front then the Persian Corridor and the route to Vladivostok should be too (I don't propose that they should. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arctic convoys