User talk:Pdfpdf: Difference between revisions
→Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: Reorganise a little and reply to some questions. |
EconomistBR (talk | contribs) →Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: Why are we mentioning SOOs? |
||
Line 341: | Line 341: | ||
:At the moment, my "hypothesis" is that if we determine a structure for the "War" article, then these issues will "find their home" within that structure - the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles, which is where the volume of the "meat" will be. |
:At the moment, my "hypothesis" is that if we determine a structure for the "War" article, then these issues will "find their home" within that structure - the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles, which is where the volume of the "meat" will be. |
||
:Your thoughts? [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf#top|talk]]) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
:Your thoughts? [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf#top|talk]]) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I am changing my position on this SOO issue. |
|||
::Because of this lack of sources I am starting to doubt the notability of all SOOs. Why are we mentioning them? |
|||
::IMO unless proper definition is given the option of deleting all mentions of SOOs on Soviet related article becomes a real one. In this case IMO we would only keep the [[Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II]] article. |
|||
::Instead of hunting for the definition of this terminology that was presented to us, we should have only included it once it had been precisely defined. |
|||
::I am not doubting the existence of the MSOO but IMO it's reasonable to question its notability. |
|||
::''"the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles"'' - I agree 100%, that's what I believe is the definition of "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars". IMO the [[Pacific War]] article follows this structure. <span style="background-color:green">[[User:EconomistBR|<font color="yellow">EconomistBR</font>]]</span> 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Manchuria continued== |
==Manchuria continued== |
Revision as of 19:02, 17 September 2009
![]() | Despite initial disbelief, Pdfpdf has discovered that there is life outside of Wikipedia. Response to your communication may not be immediate. |
Archives:
Jan-Feb07 Mar-Apr07
May-Jun07
Jul-Aug07
Sep-Oct07
Nov-Dec07
Jan-Feb08
Mar-Apr08
May-Jun08
Jul-Aug08
Sep-Oct08
Nov-Dec08
Jan-Feb09
Mar-Apr09
May-Jun09
Jul-Aug09
Sep-Oct09
Nov-Dec09
/shortcuts
/Tools and references
WP:AIV
Most recent archive: User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive14
Manchuria
Extended content
|
---|
"Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from the Soviet General Staff. it is the operation name. If you wish, unlike other Wikipedians, you can contact Mr. Glantz himself and ask the questions. --124.183.146.14 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|
- An article about a war, any war, includes sections
- 1 Background
- 2 Chronology (preceding diplomatic relationships)
- 3 Pre-war events (economic aspects of going to war and sustaining it)
- 4 Course of the war (deployment of forces)
- 5 Aftermath
- 6 Impact of the war
Extended content
|
---|
Hmmmm. Well, I may not be any wiser, but I am certainly much better informed! Thanks for that. Interesting. Very interesting. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
Back to the subject of the article
Whom do you refer to when you say that they offer a different picture to that of Glantz?
- (I just want to clarify my use of "different" here. In these circumstances when I say "different", I mean "overlapping but also containing other information" rather that "completely different" or opposite or conflicting.)
- At one level, you could say all authors offer a different picture. My comment was attempting to point out that, to me, Glantz's summaries often seem to "miss" things that add colour and depth to the picture. I'm not trying to infer that the information Glantz presents is inaccurate or "wrong", just that often there are bits of the picture missing, and when I see those bits elsewhere, it gives me greater depth of understanding.
- I guess I'm saying that I don't like to restrict my information to just one source.
- However, being specific, and refering to Soviet-Japanese War (1945)#Further reading and also the references, "different pictures" I enjoyed looking at were Butow, the Bart Whaley section in Despres, Slavinskii, Drea and Hayashi (Vol.13 of the special studies).
All the references I would offer to the full name are from Russian language sources.
Glantz, as a Russian Academy of Sciences fellow, now has unprecedented access to Russian and Soviet archives, and I think is the only one among specialists in the field to actually speak the language.
- The Anglo-Australian who translated Slavinskii probably deserves an "honourable mention". (Geoffrey Jukes). I find Slavinskii's work very interesting. It's a shame he died "young" (In his 50s I think.)
Of course the Japanese side has to be reflected also, but I never had a chance to get there. I was going to work with other editors in Wikipedia working in the Japanese area, but that was never pursued. This would have been possible if the companion paper [1] was read by anyone other than me Mrg3105--58.165.187.31 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've read it, but as you've probably already determined, my interests tend to be in the strategic level - I'm not so interested in the tactical. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- So how can I help improve the article? Mrg3105 --124.176.95.71 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have a number of ideas, and I imagine EconomistBR might have some too. As a first step, perhaps you can comment on the ideas?
- Background: It would seem to me that there are now a number of articles and/or possible articles. E.g.
- Soviet-Japanese Border Wars
- Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact
- Japanese attempts to end WWII while Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact still active
- Soviet-Japanese War (1945)
- Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)
- [[Khingan-Mukden Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945)
- [[Harbin-Kirin Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945)
- [[Sungari Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945)
- The Japanese surrender:
- a) Internal Japanese wrangling;
- b) Japanese attempts to avoid unconditional surrender;
- c) American "manouvres":
- i) whether to drop 0, 1, 2 or 3 bombs;
- ii) justifying dropping bombs;
- iii) whether to insist on unconditional surrender;
- iv) "dealing" with the Soviets; the Chinese; the British; others;
- d) Soviet "manouvres";
- e) etc.
- South Sakhalin Army Group Offensive Operation (August 11, 1945 - August 25, 1945)
- Seisin Landing Operation (August 13, 1945 - August 16, 1945)
- Kuril Landing Operation (August 18, 1945 - September 1, 1945)
- Operation Downfall and similar
- End of World War II in the Pacific
- "Aftermath" articles: e.g. Evacuation of Manchukuo, Japanese POWs in the Soviet Union, etc.
- Ideas
- 1) I think that, either, there needs to be a certain amount of rationalisation, or, some sort of structure/framework is required. (Or both!) What do you think?
- 2) What's missing from the above list?
- 3) I quickly roughed out a proposed structure for the Soviet-Japanese War (1945) article - see Talk:Soviet-Japanese War (1945)#Article about the war. Perhaps you can comment on that structure?
- It was done in haste. It doesn't quite match:
- 1 Background
- 2 Chronology (preceding diplomatic relationships)
- 3 Pre-war events (economic aspects of going to war and sustaining it)
- 4 Course of the war (deployment of forces)
- 5 Aftermath
- 6 Impact of the war
- I think it should. Your suggestions would be appreciated.
- Also: "All the references I would offer to the full name are from Russian language sources." - Well, some of those would be better than the no-references-at-all that we currently have ...
- Unrelated: Some time in the next month I need to do the family's income tax returns. Hence, if I go quiet for a period, it's because I'm doing "unpaid work for the Australian Tax Office". i.e. Nothing personal!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Likewise I may disappear for a month or so around late September or early October.
Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation
- I live in Brazil so this is the best definition of Strategic Offensive Operation I found:
- Book: Colossus reborn: the Red Army at war : 1941-1943
- Author: David M. Glantz page 82
- ""a system of offensive operations unified by a single Stavka concept and conducted to achieve the military-political aims of a campaign"."
- So the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is a system of offensive operations designed to achieve military-political goals. Such article should define this system and define its goals.
- IMO the conduction of the operation falls outside of the scope of such article. So the article Soviet invasion of Manchuria or Battle of Manchuria should inform that the Soviet plans and objectives are detailed in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation article. EconomistBR 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused here. Yes, I agree that "Such article should define this system and define its goals.", but I'm not sure why you're saying the actual execution of the
operationplan falls outside the scope. The word "Operation" is in the title - if the plan is not executed, then it's just a plan, not an operation. Also, as you say, it's a system of operations, not just a system of plans. So, I guess that means I disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused here. Yes, I agree that "Such article should define this system and define its goals.", but I'm not sure why you're saying the actual execution of the
IMO the actual execution is the scope of the Battle that the Strategic Offensive Operation generated. Also given that a SOO is complex one would need a plan in order to conduct it.
What's the subject of an article entitled Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation?
IMO MSOO is a system of offensive operations in the planning phase. So an article describing Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation would have to also detail Soviet plans for the Hokkaido Landing Operation, even though that didn't happen: Which units would land where? Estimated strength of the defenders, objectives and so on. EconomistBR 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- You have raised several points here.
- Before I address them, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I use "plan", "execution" and "Operation". Maybe I've had too much exposure to Australian doctrine and this is biasing my POV? I'm not quite sure what it is we are disgreeing on - choices include: conflicting definitions of words; semantics of the English language; "implicit" assumptions which are "obvious" to one of us but obscure non-sequiturs to the other; some-thing else ...
- In Australian doctrine, the planning phase and the execution phase are two sub-phases of "the operation".
- Hence, when you ask me "What's the subject of an article entitled ... ", my answer is "the operation" - the other words in the title are adjectives - and to me, that means "the whole shooting match", including both planning and execution.
- "IMO the actual execution is the scope of the Battle that the Strategic Offensive Operation generated." - Well yes, but to me, the battle is part of the operation, not separate from the operation.
- And yes, I agree that all the other things you mention are part of the planning phase (which to me, is part of the operation.)
- I'm not sure if that gets us any closer to a solution or not! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am not sure that this conjecturing is helping us either.
- The article Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II doesn't help us, it has mostly empty links or redirects and it has only 1 source citation. Also there isn't a proper definition of SOO, let alone an article about it. I believe that these two facts will make it harder for us to reach a definitive conclusion about this issue. Unless sources are found I am afraid that this will remain an open case. EconomistBR 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, let's clarify the definition of "the problem":
- You are saying a Strategic Offensive Operation is a plan (group of plans) that leads to, but does not include, a battle (group of battles).
- I'm saying a Strategic Offensive Operation is an operation (group of operations) which involves a number of phases, one of which is a planning phase, (which leads to a plan / group of plans).
- Or is there more to this discussion than that? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you want a reference to support my POV, there's the Australian Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP), which is probably derived from some piece of US Military doctine. I don't think it's classified. If so, the US doctrine almost certainly is not classified. I'll see if I can find a URL. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Glantz 2003
-
- You may want to see Note 1 to Preface of Glantz's book on the operation. I added it as a source in the above article since this one is locked.
- Also thanks. BTW: Which Glantz book? No7(1983); No8(1983); (1995); (2003) or one of his other works? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- 2003 Mrg3105--124.187.144.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- JMAP
-
- Australian Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP) refers to "operational level planning doctrine", not strategic (http://www.dodccrp.org/events/5th_ICCRTS/papers/Track2/017.pdf) Mrg3105 --138.130.104.119 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- True.
- OK. So what is a "Strategic Operation"?
- Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II
- The Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II were major military events on the Eastern Front during the Second World War, commonly conducted by at least one Front or major part of its forces. The operations could be either defensive, offensive, a withdrawal, an encirclement, or a siege, always conducted by at least two Services of the armed forces, the ground forces and the air forces, and often included the naval forces. In most cases the strategic operations were divided into operational phases which were large operations in their own right. In very few cases the phases were tactical, such as those requiring amphibious landings.
- So a "Strategic Operation" is an "Operation".
- I interpret that as supporting evidence for my POV. (But then, I would, wouldn't I ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, you are right the MSOO includes both the planning and the execution. But if the MSOO article includes both the planning and the execution, it risks repeating the "battle" article which is devoted to the execution.
- Yes. I agree ... Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- My idea was to split this, leave the planning to the MSOO and the excution to the "battle" article, so that "would attack " section on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would go in the MSOO article.
- I agree that splitting has its advantages. But you have jumped a couple of steps ahead of me here. I'm still back at the "What the heck is a SOO?" step, which I think we have now answered to our mutual understanding. (Yes?)
- To me, there is a missing step which involves where a MSOO article fits in the "grand scheme" of things.
- I think we agree the "MSOO Planning phase" is a (sub)-"entity" by itself. (Yes?) Is it worthy of an article by itself, or is it part of another article? If so, which article? If the latter, I would suggest the "Soviet-Japanese war" article. I think while saying the above, I have convinced myself that it's probably worthy of a separate article. The way I interpret your comments, I think that is probably your preference too?
- Note, however, MSOOPp is a bit of a clumsy title. But MSOO is a "bad" title for an article about the MSOOPp. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure a MSOO article could have both, but I don't know how that is going to work.
- Neither do I. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I went looking for an example article on Wikipedia but there isn't one at the Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II article.
- Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to say that a Strategic Offensive Operation is essentially a top-secret plan but I can't prove this nor I can be proven wrong, because there aren't any sources or a proper definition about this.
- Agreed. Yes, it's a "Catch-22" type of situation, isn't it. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fear that we are stuck.
- EconomistBR 18:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more optomistic. I'm fairly confident that if we can define what the problem is that we want to solve, we can work out a way to solve it.
- At the moment, my "hypothesis" is that if we determine a structure for the "War" article, then these issues will "find their home" within that structure - the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles, which is where the volume of the "meat" will be.
- Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am changing my position on this SOO issue.
- Because of this lack of sources I am starting to doubt the notability of all SOOs. Why are we mentioning them?
- IMO unless proper definition is given the option of deleting all mentions of SOOs on Soviet related article becomes a real one. In this case IMO we would only keep the Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II article.
- Instead of hunting for the definition of this terminology that was presented to us, we should have only included it once it had been precisely defined.
- I am not doubting the existence of the MSOO but IMO it's reasonable to question its notability.
- "the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles" - I agree 100%, that's what I believe is the definition of "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars". IMO the Pacific War article follows this structure. EconomistBR 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Manchuria continued
- What does IMO Nick-D's suggestion of making this conflict comply with the "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars" is very good and it should have been the guiding principle since the beginning. mean? What is the "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars"?
- Suggestions: Does it really matter what it means? It's just a distraction - "let is pass through to the keeper". Let's concentrate on something useful and enjoyable, rather than get hot & bothered about red herrings. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did create a separate article for SOOs, but it was eventually merged here.
- A war is not solely military affair. This may come as a shock to some participants in the MHP, but wars are conflicts that can be rooted in, and ultimately encompass environments, cultures, societies, politicised populations, economic infrastructures, and only finally conflicting militaries. The largest of them all, and one that was contributed to by seemingly everyone and his dog, however has
- 1 Background
- 2 Chronology
- 3 Pre-war events
- 3.1 War in China
- 3.2 European occupations and agreements
- 4 Course of the war
- 4.1 War breaks out in Europe
- 4.2 Axis advances
- 4.3 The war becomes global
- 4.4 The tide turns
- 4.5 Allies gain momentum
- 4.6 Allies close in
- 4.7 Axis collapse, Allied victory
- 5 Aftermath
- 6 Impact of the war
- 6.1 Casualties and war crimes
- 6.2 Concentration camps and slave work
- 6.3 Home fronts and production
- 6.4 War time occupation
- 6.5 Advances in technology and warfare
- Aside from not giving equal time to some of the four other aspects of the conflict (if we consider environment as not significant consideration at the time), it still manages to neglect some very obvious aspects like the leadership personalities that were involved, and their politics, as a separate and significant cause of the war in its own right. See for example Masters and Commanders by Roberts
- Given the weight of numbers in Wikipedia English readership we can compare above to the following
|
|
- Do you see a consistent and "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars"? Mrg3105 --124.187.144.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Glantz 2003
-
- You may want to see Note 1 to Preface of Glantz's book on the operation. I added it as a source in the above article since this one is locked.
- Also thanks. BTW: Which Glantz book? No7(1983); No8(1983); (1995); (2003) or one of his other works? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- 2003 Mrg3105--124.187.144.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- JMAP
-
- Australian Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP) refers to "operational level planning doctrine", not strategic (http://www.dodccrp.org/events/5th_ICCRTS/papers/Track2/017.pdf) Mrg3105 --138.130.104.119 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- True.
- Strategic Operation
- OK. So what is a "Strategic Operation"?
- Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II
- The Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II were major military events on the Eastern Front during the Second World War, commonly conducted by at least one Front or major part of its forces. The operations could be either defensive, offensive, a withdrawal, an encirclement, or a siege, always conducted by at least two Services of the armed forces, the ground forces and the air forces, and often included the naval forces. In most cases the strategic operations were divided into operational phases which were large operations in their own right. In very few cases the phases were tactical, such as those requiring amphibious landings.
- So a "Strategic Operation" is an "Operation".
- I interpret that as supporting evidence for my POV. (But then, I would, wouldn't I ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Operation
-
- Words fascinate me in as much as people use them often with no understanding :) In important articles I often tried to include a section on etymology that not only attempted to convey what the word mean originally, but also how that meaning changed over time, sometimes dramatically.
operation c.1386, "action, performance, work," also "the performance of some science or art," from O.Fr. (i.e. after c.750CE) operacion, from L. (i.e. before 450CE) operationem (nom. operatio) "a working, operation," from operari "to work, labor" (in L.L. i.e. during 450-850CE "to have effect, be active, cause"), from opera "work, effort," related to opus (gen. operis) "a work" (see opus). The surgical sense is first attested 1597. Military sense of "series of movements and acts" is from 1749. Operational attested from 1922.
- In English there are several etymologically related words that in military science are not related. To this end I edited an article Military operation, and someone else split a part fo it off into the Operations (military staff). I did commit a sin of pandering to populism by including the section Operational level of war although there is no such thing. It simply reflects the confusion and misunderstanding of operational mobility, another article I edited.
- However, in the West people just like catchy names :) And so the list of operations covered by Wikipedia before I started the list of strategic operation by the Red Army is fairly unchanged here Wikipedia's solution was just to ignore the 'operation' unless it came with a code word that was meaningless, as intended. :) As soon as I started offering operation names that stated where, scope and posture, the entire MHP was up in arms !!! By the way Buckshot06 added a quip at that article about the "Names of other operations have not been recorded and these have become known by their regional objective." citing Glantz, but of course as usual he was only thinking from his Anglophobic POV, and the operations were not forgotten at all, but simply not known because of the dearth of serious research before Erickson took the pains to learn Russian and go to USSR for his research, paving the way since the 1970s. However, Buckshot06 has a liking for displaying his ignorance in public, and Wikipedia is his best outlet for such activity. Glants of course makes the very prominent point on page 16 of that document in bold that “NO-ONE IS FORGETTEN, NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN”, a translation from Russian. Had Buckshot06 read the document he cited? I don't know. Where does he think Glantz got the names of the operations from, that "...have become known by their regional objective"? Has it ever occurred to him that this is how the Stavka named them? It doesn't fit into Buckshot06's, or seemingly other's, mentality that the Stavka could have operations named for their codenames and their strategic and operation objectives. On the other hand the US Army had the Lorraine Campaign, and that has no codename, and has an article so named though it was only a campaign of a single Army, and therefore was an operation, i.e. smaller than a strategically important Northern France and Rhineland Campaign, but larger than the assaults across the Moselle and Sauer Rivers, the battles of Metz and Nancy, and etc. No fuss over that. Mrg3105 --124.184.187.121 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (go for it Woody, I'm off to shopping)
Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II
- BTW: Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II only mentions the Great Patriotic war and stops in May 1945 - no mention of the Far East. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Manchurian operation was intended to be a part of the Strategic operations list article, which is not finished. The reason it has so many redlinks is of course because no one is working on them. I thought that the name Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II was already long enough, and having a "List" in the list title is not obligatory.
- The reason "Operation" is added to the Soviet name is technical, and perhaps hardly required for the English reader though it was a part of the official name. In Russian 'operatziya' means something planned; it is also used in medicine for 'surgery'. It is unrelated to the "operational manoeuvre" that may be carried out as part of the planning. I assure you, I am not playing with words. Most of 1941 was spent by the Red Army conducting non-operational manipulation of forces. One has to realise this before applying the word "operation" to a plan.
- A strategic operation is a planned change in the strategic situation within a given theatre. At the start of the war the Red Army briefly had three such theatres in its European part called strategic directions. Buckshot06 redirected that article to Formations of the Soviet Army because his mind is incapable of accepting concepts, as opposed to subjects and objects. It is not of course a 'formation' any more than a theatre is.
- I had at one stage tried to get the Military History Project participants to think structurally given encyclopaedic articles are usually part of a structured knowledge base. To this end I suggested, to no avail, that articles need to be either named, or at least defined in the introductory leading sentence in terms of the scope and scale of combat being described. There is a propensity in English military history to overuse words like campaign, battle and invasion. In fact not every campaign is a campaign, and many battles are anything but.
- Alongside this there needs to be a fairly standardised article structure that woudl offer consistent look to all articles across the project range. To this end my proposals at different time and in different places included the following:
SCOPE AND SCALE
|
STRUCTURE
Background has to be literary (narrative, so wikilinked), while the rest is literal i.e. factual, so fully referenced
(Phases of combat)
|
- The big problem with this is that it renders many articles substandard in one swift acceptance of the above. The discussions were not well participated and eventually went nowhere. Mrg3105--138.130.104.119 (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- "The big problem with this is that it renders many articles substandard in one swift acceptance of the above." - I could attempt to be humourous and say, "How would you distinguish those substandard articles from the thousands of other substandard articles on WP?" (No, it's not funny. Sorry.)
- "The discussions were not well participated and eventually went nowhere." - Yes, that's not unusual for WP ...
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot
The trouble with the lifetime template is that the information in it is partially hidden, so it gets duplicated - see for example Herbert Winslow, or any of a couple of thousand other examples where there is (or was) a lifetime and one of the categories it generates or a DEFAULTSORT. This in turn leads to articles with inconsistent categories and conflicting DEFAULTSORTs. The benefit is that it is quicker to type, for setting up new articles, especially many of them. There is a subst only version "ltm" that can be used for this, {{subst:ltm|1909|1999|Bloggs, Fred}} of course it is one keystroke longer! Best regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC).