Talk:Actions of 5–6 May 1945

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Actions of 5/6 May 1945)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Action of 5/6 May 1945[edit]

These two actions should be sepetate, with more thorough research I'm sure the articles can be expanded. Or, they should be combined with the Actions of 7/8 May 1945 articles under the title of "Last naval actions of WW2" or something like that.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do they need to be separate? The purpose of the page was to record the last action by the USN in the Battle of the Atlantic, and it was done this way because there were two separate incidents in the same time frame. The sinking of U-881 wouldn’t normally rate an "Action of.." page, it would normally be covered in the “Fate” section of the boat's article. The U-853 action would qualify, but we already have the account, at Battle of Point Judith, so there’d be no merit in duplicating it.
And the last actions of all in the Battle of the Atlantic were two days later, so combining the pages would either mean not including this, or having to include a lot of other stuff. The focus here is on what happened in American waters; that would get lost if it was merged. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WTF?[edit]

This article is about the last actions of the USN in the Battle of the Atlantic. There were two separate actions, hundreds of miles apart, linked by only by time.
Now it has been substantially rewritten to be about just one of those actions and then moved to a different title, to reflect the re-write.
What was the point of that?
If you wanted an article about the Battle of Point Judith then why not simply write one at that title?
If you wish to change the scope of this article, then you should start a discussion thread and offer a good reason why it should be necessary.
If you are unhappy with the content of this one, there are various ways to tackle that; deleting it by stealth isn’t one of them.Xyl 54 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(moved from User talkpage. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC))
I will be reverting your edits to the Battle of Point Judith article. The sinking of U-853 was notable enough and was a named engagement and the sinking of the final U-boat was part of Operation Teardrop. I changed the article to focus solely on the Point Judith action because the Operation Teardrop article already has a description of the final U-boat action. Why have two articles about the same thing, especially one that is a stub, badly written, and has an inappropriate name. The "Action of (insert date)" articles are only titled that way because they were naval battles that were not named. So I solved the problem and intend to expand the Battle of Point Judith article some time in the future. In the mean time show some class.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So you have unilaterally decided to change the aim of this article, and intend to edit war to get your own way.
It is just your opinion the name is inappropriate; it matched the content, which is what it should do.
And on the subject of having two articles on the same subject, both actions are already described individually elsewhere, so you might want to explain why we need another BoPJ article.
But if you do want an expanded article on that subject, I suggest (again) that you write one at that title; don’t be hijacking this one.
If you dislike the title, then suggest an alternative, like I asked you before.
And if you disagree with the focus of this article, perhaps you’d like to say how the last actions of the USN in the Battle of the Atlantic are not notable.Xyl 54 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. Anyway, I'm requesting comments on this, otherwise we'll just carry on wrangling...Xyl 54 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
$1LENCE - I suggest you propose a move by following the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Controversial moves shouldn't be done unilaterally so I've move protected the article temporarily. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The loss of U-881 is best covered in Operation Teardrop. I doubt that the sinking of U-853 needs its own article - this could be adequately covered in the article on the U-boat. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets solve the problem
There is no reason to have two articles about the sinking of the final German u-boat in the war. The Operation Teardrop article already covers that subject so it not neccessary here. The so called Battle of Point Judith is clearly the main topic of this article so why not have it named accordingly? Using the "Action of...." standard for titling a naval battle is technically unacceptable by wiki's standards but because most naval battles were not named, it is used. Since this article primarily focuses on the Point Judith action, which was a named engagement, the article should be titled "Battle of Point Judith". Yes the last two sinkings of German U-boats by the US Navy in WW2 in notable but each event alone is notable enough for having it's own page. Also, I added two pictures taken during the battle off Point Judith but apparently user XYL 54 didn't feel they were relevant enough so they were removed. So what I think should happen, and what I think is best for this page, is that it should be renamed and reworded in accordance with wikipedia's standards to focus soley on the Point Judith action while the Operation Teardrop artcle focuses on the final engagement. What is wrong with that?--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I do intend to expand the text of this page about the Point Judith action sometime in the future, but only after this nonsense is figured out.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Well one way to solve the problem would be for you to write the article you want at the title you want, and stop buggering around with this one. Failing that, if you think re-writing this one to be about something else then moving it to a title that fits the rewrite is a reasonable thing to do, take it to WP:RM, as the protecting admin suggested.
But, to clear up some misconceptions:
The main topic is the "last actions (plural) of the Battle of the Atlantic in American waters"; It says so in the lead sentence. So this article does not "primarily focus on the Point Judith action" at all, less than half the article is devoted to that, and it doesn’t anywhere use the phrase "Battle of Point Judith".
We do not have two articles about this; Operation Teardrop doesn’t mention U-853, and the BoPJ section of U-853 doesn’t mention U-881.
The reason the article talks about two actions is because both have a claim to be the final sinking; U-881 was destroyed around daybreak on 6 May, U-853 sometime between just after midnight and 1225 on 6 May, so it could have been either of them.
As for the images you added, as part of your re-write, I did not remove them because I "didn’t feel they were relevant"; I reverted your change to the article as it was before, which is what WP:BRD requires.
also, the "Actions of..." format is not "technically unacceptable" at all (and you've been happy enough to use it). If it is "against WP standards" perhaps you’d care to say which?
And the remedy for the "nonsense", as you put it, is entirely in your hands. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
To try and cut the Gordian knot on this, I’ve moved the Point Judith information to here. If you have information to expand it, fine; otherwise I can do it. I’ve also clarified what this page is about. If you are not content with this, please be clear what the objection is. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I generally err in favour of creating articles, but the notability of this 'action' seems a bit questionable - does this really warrant an article? (rather than a section of the article on the submarine). Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Nick: I opened the BoPJ article to try and resolve the argument here; there is room for expansion there, but I'm hanging fire on that until I know if it is acceptable. The account here was only meant to be a summary. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
So now we have Actions of 5/6 May 1945 covering the same incidents as the re-established Battle of Point Judith article and the long-standing Operation Teardrop article? I'm getting a bit confused here! My suggestion for a solution to all of this is that the sinking of U-853 should be covered in the article on the submarine unless it is established that the action is notable in its own right (the current references cover the sinking of every German submarine in more or less the same level of detail, except for http://www.desausa.org/de_photo_library/battle_of_point_judith.htm which doesn't seem to be a reliable source) and the sinking of U-881 belongs in Operation Teardrop as it formed part of this battle rather than its own separate action. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I see your point...
the last (and first) actions in a conflict usually get mentioned in general works, even if they are sketchy about the ones in between, so the notability of this article would rest on that; and the reason for it being written in the first place was because there is some confusion in sources which actually was the last action; I’ve seen both the U-853 and U-881 sinkings described as such.
As far as the articles we have already, U-881’s sinking is described on the U-881 page, and mentioned at Operation Teardrop, and U-853 sinking is described on the U-853 page, (in the BoPJ section); so what is here is only meant to be a summary, with a main article link. But U-853’s sinking wasn’t part of Operation Teardrop, it was a separate incident, so I could see the value of a BoPJ article if it said substantially more than here or at U-853#BoPJ (otherwise it would just be a candidate for a merge there). But, (again) my only reason for opening the BoPJ article was to resolve $1LENCE D00600D's insistence on turning this article into one about Point Judith. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seperate Topic, Seperate Article[edit]

Comment: This is just my two cents. While the articles overlap on the coverage of an event (namely, the Battle of Point Judith), they discuss different subjects. The article for the Battle of Point Judith is more about the tactical aspects of the one encounter; the Actions of 5/6 May 1945 is about a group of events, linked together by similar circumstances, being two naval engagements after the surrender of Germany. I think two seperate articles is do-able and justifiable, they just have to maintain their seperate spheres of discussion. Therefore:

  • In the Actions of 5/6 May 1945 article, Point Judith engagement: The first line should notify the reader: See main article: Battle of Point Judith. The section should then confine discussion of a paragraph or so to how the engagement came about, comparison to other similar engagements, and perhaps the aftermath in the context of what it meant to the opposing sides to fight a post-war action.
  • If you don't tie together the meaning of these two post-war engagements, then you're just describing them, and then they should definitely be in completely seperate articles:
    • (1) Battle of Point Judith
    • (2) The "Actions of-" article would then be re-named to "Battle of Cape Race" or "Camp Race Engagement" or something, with the "Point Judith" section removed.
    • Each article should then list the other in its "See also" section.
  • Last note: * I would re-name the article to Post-war naval actions of World War II or Post-war naval actions (1945) or something. Seems those terms (or similar) are more likely to be typed in a search field than "Actions of..."
  • Finally, I have no vested interest in these articles. Just trying to help solve a dispute. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair comment; that makes good sense. I've expanded the background section, to try and tie the two actions and their significance together; I've also added main article links on the two summaries.
If a name change would clarify matters, then fair enough; though (to be clear) these actions weren’t after the surrender, they were the last actions of the USN before the surrender. How about "Last US actions of the Battle of the Atlantic", or somesuch? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)