Talk:Würzburg radar

message: As there was no consensus for the initial move in November, and there is no agreed policy on  diacritics (WP:UE) I have moved it back. Philip Baird Shearer 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: consensus

message: Maury Markowitz you have added information to the article some of which differs from the quoted source. Eg:
* Before: The Wuerzburg went into service in 1940 and over 3,000 of all variants were built.
* Currently: The system entered service in 1940, and eventually over 5,500 were produced.
Please add to the References section the sources you are using for this new information. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no confusion, the numbers are stated in the article. There were 4000 of the 3m FuG 62's, and another 1000 of the big FuG 65's. 4000 + 1500 = 5500. Maury 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The numbers come from Electronics magazine's 1946 "War" issue.  Maury 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, wrong ref. . Note the numbers here agree with the ones seen in Greg's article and in Electronics Magzaine.
Where are you getting "eventually 4,000 of this basic layout were delivered." from? I can not see it in the reference you have supplied but I could have missed it. The second reference I have pt in the reference section of the article states that "By the end of the war, over 5,000 units of this and upgraded models (Wuerzburg D) had been in deployed in Europe." Which is closer to your figure but unfortunatly does not break the total down. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Even the RAF museum website uses the diacritic: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/british_military/1942_2.html as do the website of the Canadian Armed Forces: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol6/no3/PDF/08-History1_e.pdf and the website of the US Army: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97winter/win-essa.htm
From examining the first 10 or so pages of Google results it seems fairly clear that the diacritic version prevails in English.  And that would include Commonwealth English, as per the RAF site and lack of any clear evidence that there is a usage distinction between American English and Commonwealth English over this term.  There are various other UK sites that also use the diacritic, eg: http://www.luftwaffedata.co.uk/html/body_jun44.html
Though I very much dislike the idea of holding individual requested move votes over every single article, it may be time to do so for this article. -- Curps 07:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be moved without a vote. There is a clear general consensus to use diacritics on Wikipedia. Individual move votes should not be held unless someone makes a prima facie case that the particular case is somehow special. Otherwise someone like Philip Baird Shearer can completely sabotage things by asking for endless individual votes. We have seen him making trouble on Úbeda, and now here. This needs to be stopped at some point. Kolokol2 08:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritics 

message: The article has nothing about the commando Operation Biting , where an unit of this german device was captured by british commandos, in 1942, during World War II.Agre22 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Biting