Talk:List of German divisions in World War II

message: Please have a look at the new draft Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units), and drop some comments if you are interested in that sort of thing. — B.Bryant 00:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)]] 

message: Bob,
Many of the naming conventions you have used are totally inaccurate. i.e. there was never a formation called SS Division Wallonien, SS Division Landstorm Netherland or the 20th SS Division. 
Also, the disambiguation between SS divisions and Divisions of the ss (Division der SS) should be made. This was a major issue to the Waffen-SS.--Ansbachdragoner 23:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waffen SS Formations 

message: Should german units of 1934 to 1945 be refered to as Heer not German or as well as German. That would go someway to distinushing between German (WWII) and eg West German. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.86.83 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I prefer not to. There is not much need to distinguish between the periods, and when needed, use standard notation i.e. the year or time period in parantheses after the name. Also, Heer is still used as the name for the present day German Army. So for example a separate article on the current day 1. Panzer Division, I'd name it 1. Panzer Division (Bundeswehr) or similar. -- Elisson • Talk 10:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefix 

message: What is Division Edelweiss? mikka (t) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edelweiss

message: This list has a redlink for 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian). There is an article on the 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Belarussian), and the list of divisions at the end there gives both an entry for the 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Belarussian) and a redlink to 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian).
Are these actually references to the same unit, and if so which was the name it formally had? Shimgray | talk | 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  30th SS discrepancy 

message: Does anybody know where I can find some information about Luftvafe anti-aircraft and field Luftvafe field divisions. Please reply on my discussion page vojvoda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.150.84.52 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luftvafe divisions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of German divisions in World War II. 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/20071210165415/http://www.casematepublishing.com/cgi/titleinfo.pl?sku=9781932033809 to http://www.casematepublishing.com/cgi/titleinfo.pl?sku=9781932033809
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I know nothing about the military. I am watching "Band of Brothers" for the first time and am reading a lot of military articles. This article is one of the best at explaining non-standard English terms, particularly the untranslated German. But still, it had "PAK" and "Panzerjäger" neither of which were defined. I find this common throughout the military articles I read. The Wikipedia guidance for use of acronyms says "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation." Certainly most readers will not be familiar with the German acronym PAK. And the problem with Panzerjäger is that is a German word and this is the English Wikipedia. It is frustrating to read so many articles on a single topic, all of which are peppered with unexplained acronyms. Thanks for letting me rant. Very good article otherwise. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pak