Talk:Unternehmen Rheinübung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unternehmen Rheinübung article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Against

There is certainly much duplication between the articles on Rheinübung and Bismarck. I don't agree that they should be merged, however. The usual practice seems to be that warship articles contain the history of that ship (admittedly short for Bismarck), its design and features and, in Bismarck's case, the search for the wreck.

Articles on operations detail the strategic background, order of battle, course of the operation and its aftermath, etc. When looking for info on an operation, I wouldn't necessarily expect a complete description of it under just one of the units involved.

I'd advocate extracting the operational detail from Bismarck and using it to improve the one on the operation, leaving a brief summary. Otherwise, there would be a precedent that might be difficult to resolve - under which ship's history would we place,eg, Cerberus or Berlin?

Folks at 137 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Folks. (I recently created Battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran to resolve similar issues.) There is also some duplication of this article and German battleship Bismarck at Battle of the Denmark Strait. Grant65 | Talk 03:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that, as it stands, this article is hardly worth keeping as it is incomplete. Operation Rheinuebung did not end with the sinking of the Bismarck: Prinz Eugen was still loose on the high seas, although by that stage the Germans' main, if not only, concern was to get her back to port safely. Patrick

Incompleteness is not an issue, since any of us can/ should expand it or tag it as a stub (if it were an issue, then many other pages would be up for deletion). The issue is: where is it most appropriate? I still think that Rheinubung rates its own article with a link to Battle of the Denmark Strait. I don't think that it should be absorbed into an article for just one of the participating ships, in fact I would argue for transferring much of the stuff from Bismarck. Folks at 137 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, The problem might be that "Operation Rheinuebung" is relatively unimportant in itself, i.e. it happens to be the name chosen for the commerce-raiding operation in which the Bismarck, probably the most famous warship of WWII, was sunk.
What would you think if someone (I could do it at some stage, maybe) was to update the article to give the general background to the operation, a summary of what happened during it, and its subsequent effect on the war at sea (given that the Germans never risked their big ships again on Atlantic convoy attacks). Patrick
Good idea!, but it's not for me to approve or disapprove.
On the "subsequent effects", it's more complex than the loss of the Bismarck. Brest was vulnerable to bombing, the Prinz Eugen class were unreliable with short range (PE's war diary constantly refers to this), U-boats were an effective alternative in the Atlantic, the Arctic convoys were a better target and there was a perceived invasion threat to Norway.
Looking at the Bismarck article shows different approaches. The current Rheinubung is more of a summary, with a link to the more detailed Battle of Denmark Strait. Bismarck is much more detailed and acts as a focus for editors, although it also links to the Battle of Denmark Strait (which is less detailed). The question, I suggest, is the purpose of each of the three articles. I think that there's >1 audience: those who look for fine detail (perhaps yourself?) and those who just want the bare bones. The detail on Bismarck seems vague on the ship itself. Folks at 137 11:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence was fair comment, so I have updated the "History" section near the start of that article. Note, however, the "General Characteristics" table to its right that covers much of the technical information you would expect to find. Patrick

I'm also against a merger. I would have thought the logical approach would be to have several articles (as Folks proposes):

  • Article about the ship.
  • This article about the German operational plans.
  • The battle of the Denmark Strait article about the action on the 24th May.
  • A new article about the Bismarck chase to complement the Denmark Strait article. There's currently too much detail in the article about the ship.

JimmyTheOne 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against a merger. Bismarck is a ship whose details are loved by all and sundry. And if important topics do not have separate articles, then personally, I consider it as an exaggeration of the integrity of Wikipedia. Plus, there is a clear difference between the sortie and its disruption by the British warships. Vikrant Phadkay 09:50 (IST), 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of "Bismarck Chase" and "Operation Rheinubung"

While I agree that we shouldn't merge this article with Bismarck, I don't agree with JimmyTheOne's view that there should be separate articles about the German operational plans (Operation Rheinübung) and their execution (Bismarck Chase). The case for a merger here appears to me self-evident.

Having said that, I dislike the title of this article, which is much too arcane; surely it is axiomatic that the significance of a article's title should be obvious to non-specialists? Although I am not enamoured of Bismarck Chase, I agree that we need a title in which the word Bismarck appears. The best I can suggest is Pursuit of the Bismarck. Sinking of the Bismarck would have popular appeal but would understate the scope of the article.

Comments? John Moore 309 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really too bothered what we call the article as long as there's a redirect: the current title does follow a precedent and the operation name is likely to be used - not arcane to everyone! I do agree that we should aim to be user-friendly and accessible. The problem is that there were several phases to the operation: break-out, Battle of the Denmark Strait (yet another current article!), pursuit and sinking. Another might be the subsequent activity of the Prinz Eugen (Rheinubung was not just the Bismarck).
The current Operation Rheinübung attempts to summarise all of these for a casual reader. As a summary, it does not attempt to cover the fine detail that separate articles on the phases can do. Some of this highly researched detail has been held in the Bismarck article (inappropriately, IMHO) and should continue to be presented separately. For this reason, I would tend to support JimmyTheOne's approach. Especially as he seems happy to do the work! We can then reassess. Folks at 137 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I've just read these articles as someone knew to the subject(and have no knowledge etc. to edit) and think they should be merged. There are so many main articles associated with the Bismarck that where two articles say basically the same thing it is confusing and unhelpful to have them both.213.106.165.10 12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)J

[edit] Danzig

Danzig is not Gdynia. German called Gdynia Gotenhafen. I edit this, ok?

[edit] Rescope this article and rename Bismarck Chase?

I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to revise the scope of this article and also rescope and rename the Bismarck Chase article. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template, and scoped as follows:

  • A description of the planning and objectives of the operation,
  • A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
  • An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
  • A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.

I am placing a similar post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck and "Operation Rheinubung"?

Readers of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck will be aware that there is a proposal to merge that article with with this one. I have placed my own comment below. Regards to all, John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Against

Against: This is a revival of a proposal that I made (above) when the Last battle ... was still the Bismarck Chase. However, the renaming and rescoping of the old Bismarck Chase has removed the rationale for a merge (see the Rescope this article and rename Bismarck Chase? section above). John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto: Op Rheinubung has a lot of material to cover and bring sections out into their own articles for the detail work makes the most sense.GraemeLeggett 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Against merging is appropriate; one is a specific battle, and is a legitimate daughter page. I'm boldly closing this merger as no-consensus, since there's been no movement in more than a month. Feel free to revert me. --Haemo 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For

As a lay person researching Bismarck topics it was confusing and rather irritating to read almost identical text in the "Last Battle Of..." page. The merge seems almost complete as things stand as no substantial additional info is provided on the seperate page that could not be incorporated here. Spoiltcat 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For

Merge them and rename Operation Rheinubung and the Sinking of the Bismarck. One directly lead to the other and Rheinubung doesn't resonate at all with an english speaking readership.--Lepeu1999 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)