Talk:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge yet. Klbrain (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45, a merged article probably titled North-West Europe (battle honour) can be made from the this article and the other two North-West Europe battle honour stubs at North-West Europe campaign of 1940 and North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour). That is, these are all the same battle honour with different year suffixes, as this article pretty much says. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark, Peterkingiron, and GraemeLeggett: – who commented at the AfD discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom – Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should be hasty here. The AfD is still ongoing, and a wider ranging discussion is developing at the WikiProject which may have some bearing on what should be done. It will take some time to knock the 44-45 list into shape. Merging in other stuff at the same time could get messy. SpinningSpark 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's yet possible that the content goes elsewhere but this article ends up redirected or deleted. Outside the context of a (British Commonwealth) battle honour, a reader might expect the content is on the "Second Front" of WWII in general.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all the battle honour articles into North West Europe campaign, which should be an article on the battle honour(s) like it basically is right now. It should not be an account of the campaigns, which are covered in their own articles and in the overview article Western Front (World War II). Srnec (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've placed a "merge from" tag on North West Europe campaign in case anyone watching that one wants to comment. Seems like an OK alternative to me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark, Peterkingiron, Srnec, GraemeLeggett, and Szzuk: Now that the AfD closed as Keep, please say if you support merging these to North-West Europe (battle honour) or North West Europe campaign or otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge all to either of the proposed names. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off for now. It was stated in the discussion at the Wikiproject (@Cinderella157:) that there is an official report on battlefield nomenclature for WW2. We should first establish whether these three campaigns are officially considered the same honour before merging. They may be, but I can see a case for keeping them separate. The three campaigns have entirely different natures and are different periods of the war. It was also suggested that there is a distinction made between theatre honours and battle honours. This could affect the naming of the merged article. SpinningSpark 18:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • See ref 55 at Battle honours of the British and Imperial Armies - reports of the Battles Nomenclature Committee.[1] I don't have access to this. These are not (I believe) battle honours but theatre honours - there is a distinction. And, while I cannot confirm this beyond the link provided, the two noted there would be quite separate honours (as is likely the third) - ie, an entitled unit would show each separately on their colours (or like). While this does not preclude a merge as proposed here, the article should clearly note that they are separate. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off. I think the articles should be left alone to grow organically. At some point in the future somebody will rename, merge or turn them into lists without any fuss. I really have no solution and could only off Wikipedia:NORUSH. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to leave this alone and let others work it out over time. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, consider a more parallel naming scheme for these articles, probably with "campaign" removed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I think we should find out what the official nomenclature is before deciding on titles. I don't have access to the official report, but he Baker source which was added to the article seems to be held in an Enfield library which I will be quite close to tomorrow. I'll try to find time to take a look. SpinningSpark 22:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to note that shortly after this discussion I tried to get hold of this report in three different libraries whose online index said they held it. It was missing in all three so seems to be a popular item to steal. I gave up at that point, but perhaps WP:RX can help with this. SpinningSpark 14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe the Crown Copyright on this document has expired so I'm hassling google to make it available online in the UK at least. Previous requests I've made to google to make books available in full view have mostly been successful, so I'm hopeful. SpinningSpark 14:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got access to the report. The relevant text for this discussion is as follows,

We think that some provision must be made for troops taking part in the campaign who were not present at any of the battles, actions or engagements named in the list. Accordingly, for battle honour purposes we have shown the title of the campaign or theatre which be claimed as a "battle honour". Such a title is shown as a heading across the centre of the page at the beginning of the section containing the operations listed for that campaign or theatre.

There are three titles shown relevant to this discussion,
  • Norway 1940–41
  • North-West Europe, 1940–42
  • North-West Europe, 1944–45
If we want to follow the official designations in our article titles, I come to the following conclusions;
I suggest that the article titles should be North-West Europe, 1940–42 (battle honour) and North-West Europe, 1944–45 (battle honour). Using "(theatre honour)" as a disambiguator is less clear and could be mistaken for something else. We can make clear in the article lead that this is a theatre honour. SpinningSpark 17:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that Norway 1941 (Battle honour) exists. To follow the official documnent this should be renamed Norway 1940–1941 (Battle honour). There does not appear to be an existing article for 1940. SpinningSpark 23:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Norway 1941 is different to Norway 1940? And "1940-1941" looks like it's referring to something continuing from 40 into 41. It could be Norway (battle honour) with sections for 1940 and 1941. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the theatre honour title is "Norway 1940–1941". Although I've noticed that many regimental websites reduce theatre honour titles that cover multiple years to just the year(s) the regiment participated. There are four phases listed entitling participants to this honour;
  • Operations based on Namsos
  • Operations based on Aadalsnes
  • Operations leading to the capture of Narvik
  • Raid on fish-oil factories and shipping
They are all in 1940 except the last one which lists only one engagement on 27 December 1941 at Vaagso. As I said, if we are following the official nomenclature we should use the official name. The article can be sectioned by year for clarity though. SpinningSpark 10:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North-West_Europe_campaign_of_1944–45&oldid=1216283827"