Talk:Würzburg radar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 May 2005 requested move discussion 1.1 Discussion 2 consensus 3 References 4 Diacritics 5 Requested move

[edit] May 2005 requested move discussion

Wuerzburg radar → Würzburg radar – There is currently a redirect in the opposite direction but the correct spelling is Würzburg — Yummifruitbat 00:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The radar is usually called "Wuerzburg" in English and it is the name of the Radar system and not the town which is under discussion. As "primary author" and the primary reference spelt it this way it should remain at Wuerzburg radar Philip Baird Shearer 09:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Google:

• 11,100 English pages for Wuerzburg radar -wikipedia
• about 8,780 English pages for Würzburg radar -wikipedia
• about 974 English pages for Wurzburg radar -wikipedia

But if one is looking at MOD sites in the UK then "Wurzburg" (umlout stripped) is the most common spelling!

• 5 English pages from mod.uk for Wurzburg radar

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not quite a fair test - a large number of the 11,100 English pages contain the spelling Würzburg, because google automatically includes this in the search for Wuerzburg. - Yummifruitbat 16:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are correct Google (UK) have changed their search algorythm since last time I tried it Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IMO, specific models (like "Wuerzburg A" and "Wuerzburg-Riese") should use the German Würzburg spelling, while references to the radar in general should refer to the English Wuerzburg. Olessi 22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Because it looks very odd to see "Wuerzburg-Riese." The quotations marks indicate to the reader it is a technical or foreign term, especially when they are followed by a translation in parentheses. What is the point of translating it into Giant Wuerzburg if the German phrase is not listed correctly? If the radar is known as Wuerzburg in English, that should be the common name for it. However, if we are mentioning a German phrase or term, that specific reference should be listed true to its German form. Olessi 01:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. www.google.co.uk search confirms what you are suggesting is the most common spelling found by google in English for Würzburg-Riese

about 99 English pages for Würzburg-Riese -wikipedia

about 12 English pages for Wuerzburg-Riese -wikipedia

So I have no objections to you changing it. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The reference most likely spelt it Wuerzburg since ue is to be used if you can not write ü. I'm not into this so I can't verify if it is "usually" called that way but I question it. The place I read about it first was in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and some hundred thousand if not million others have it read it there too and there it is spelt "Würzburg Radar".

Although that's really a questionable resource in itself, the makers are at least from the USofA. ;) -- Lightkey 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] consensus

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)

Look, the only reason we use "ue" is because we didn't have a "ü" key on typerwriters. That's it. I hate to have to point this out, but this is the 21st century, and we don't even use typewriters any more. Conforming to an outdated standard that was only used for an extremely brief period of history is dumb.

I don't give a hoot how you spelled it when it was ripped off from Greg's text. Greg uses *'s as section markers, so it's unlikely we want to use his typing preferences as gospel. In the meantime you are hurting the article, repeatedly getting your edits wrong and ruining the styling, as well as leaving half the spelling one way and half another.

Of the 60 or so edits on the article, yours consist solely of changing the naming. STOP If you don't like it, take it to arbitration.

Maury 12:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

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)

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)

I know it is in the article you introduced it in Revision as of 15:24, 29 January 2006 but you have not provided a reference for "and eventually 4,000 of this basic layout were delivered." and some other additions. As it is not in the current reference please provide a reference from a wikipedia:reliable source which contains this number. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It is not on the talk page that the References need to be added but into the article. As there is now information from at least 2 sources which differ slightly we need to footnote the facts and figures to the specific reference articles. This will be quite a tedious job but it is important if a Wikipedia article is to be credible. Please have a look at an artile like Bombing of Dresden in World War II to see what I mean. BTW I it seems to me that in the reference you supplied above the number of 4,000 seems to be for all of the systems produced not just the basic system. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong ref. [2]. 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)

[edit] Diacritics

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)

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)

As anyone who has followed the debate over the years knows, there is not a clear consensus to use or not use funny foreign squiggles on Wikipedia. I did not ask for this article to be moved (I initiated it under the name Wuerzburg radar) and I did not ask for Ubeda to moved either way. What I do like to see is all spellings appearing in the article. I am not going to get into a contest about which is the "correct" spelling because I think it is meaningless in English, that both are used is not in doubt as is indicated by the references used in this article. Philip Baird Shearer 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)