Talk:Cold-weather warfare

Untitled

the phrasing "The Falklands War in the 1980s had to end in June" has to be changed: according to whom did it have to end?

Unreferenced

This article is so unreferenced that it is not even clear that the term is defined correctly in the article! On the face of it, Arctic Warfare would be a term used to describe warfare taking place in the Arctic, with a possible stretch to include the Antarctic. I could find no references to indicate that it applies to warfare in the cold.

It is untrue that the Germans had only one ski division and that the Soviets had several. The Germans had the 1st through6th Gebirgs Divsions, !st Ski Division, the 6th SS Gebirgsjaeger and 13th(?) SS Karstjaeger Division, as well as other divisions, trained in ski, snowshoe and mountain combat. The Soviets did not have a single dedicated ski or mountain division, although they did use ski troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.14.163 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if it did, India/Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia certainly don't count. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Cold-weather warfare. User:HopsonRoad 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Arctic warfare → Winter warfare – The article is primarily about winter warfare with some references to combat that actually took place in the arctic. A name change gives the correct emphasis. Arctic warfare should redirect to this page, not the other way around. User:HopsonRoad 22:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment Do you have some sources to suggest that "Winter warfare" is the more common name for this? Bear in mind that some places are cold all year round, and not just in winter. (Hohum ^@) 02:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in, Hohum. The US Army has a Northern Warfare Training Center at Fort Wainwright, Alaska and Mountain Warfare School in Jericho, Vermont, both of which emphasize winter operations. There is no universally accepted term. The article is clearly about winter operations, which take place primarily in the north or in mountains. Very little of it pertains to the Arctic. User:HopsonRoad 04:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So far, it seems to me that British/Commonwealth sources tend to use "Arctic Warfare" and American ones "Winter Warfare" and "Northern Warfare", I don't know if there is more global variety. If there is no universally accepted term, what's the basis of changing it? WP:COMMONNAME prefers the most common name used in reliable sources; if it's unclear which is most common, we use the one the article originally has and provide redirects. (Hohum ^@) 04:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back, Hohum. I'm not sure what sources you have in mind for British uses of the word. However, it's hard to apply the word, "Arctic", to the majority of the battles described in the article, cf: Battle on the Ice, Battle of Bogesund, the Dano-Swedish wars, Great Northern War, Finnish War, French invasion of Russia, Winter War, most winter operations in World War II, even the Aleutian Islands Campaign was not in the Arctic, winter conflict in this century has been in the Himalayas, e.g. Siachen conflict. So, it's on a common-sense basis that this article is about winter warfare and only incidentally mentions conflict in the Arctic. User:HopsonRoad 13:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The following British sources use the term, "cold-weather": Royal Navy and Royal Marines. User:HopsonRoad 13:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The US Army uses "Mountain Warfare and Cold Weather Operations" in its ATP on the subject. Nonetheless, this article is primarily about conflict in winter, when cold is prevalent. However, I'd be content to rename the article "Cold-weather warfare", if that worked for others. User:HopsonRoad 13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Cold-weather warfare would seem to cover it - I think it would be a good idea to announce this RFC at WT:MILHIST to get more opinions than mine though. (Hohum ^@) 14:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. User:HopsonRoad 14:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support alternative: Cold-weather warfare: arctic warfare is an oft-used description but as noted is not perfect, however winter warfare is at best no better and at worst much much poorer a title. Spain has a winter and has had wars during said winter but such conflicts would not fall under the remit of this article. Cold-weather warfare is a term used in the literature and avoids both the problems associated with winter and arctic. Ebonelm (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Day/night effects

Do the sources being used mention changes in warfare due to the longer nights in winter, and also the effect of polar night and/or midnight sun on operations conducted close to the poles? (Hohum ^@) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I added "During winter night operations are the norm, since higher latitudes have longer periods of darkness." under Tactics. User:HopsonRoad 03:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Night operations in the event of 24 hour sunlight would seem unlikely ;), so that probably needs some expansion. (Hohum ^@) 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Just paraphrasing the manual! User:HopsonRoad 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cold-weather warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724184522/http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=53&kategori=2&underkategori=1 to http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=53&kategori=2&underkategori=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

User:Gaioa has twice removed the infobox, suggesting in the first instance, "Infobox military conflict?? its enough with just the picture", which I reverted with "Please discuss to obtain consensus before removing this content", which he reverted with "Reverted good faith edits by HopsonRoad: Consensus for removing a irrelevant template? Infobox conflict on an article about tactics is "fairly" uncontroversial. Please have a good look at the article you're patrolling." Please note that as the primary editor of the article, I did "have a good look". This is to ask others for a consensus on removing the infobox, as Gaioa suggests. Would others involved in Military history please comment, e.g. User:Hohum and User:Stephen.bennett876. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, let's talk this through then. Explain to me: why do we use Template:Infobox Military Conflict for an article that does not in any way discuss any specific conflict, but rather a military doctorine? Are Wikipedia really that scarse with templates that we do an anything goes-policy?
And please don't make this an issue of "military history". It's wiki formatting and wiki practice, nothing more. Gaioa (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, you are clearly OWNing this article imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaioa (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict says, "A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner." The justification for its use here is that the cited wars are "related" by cold weather. User:HopsonRoad 11:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about my "owning" this article. To avoid that problem, I have asked for guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Use of infobox at Cold-Weather warfare I hope that my tone remains dispassionate on the topic. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents (responding to MilHist talk page request) is that the infobox is not appropriate - the infobox is intended for an actual conflict or battle, not military concepts. It does not exist on Maneuver warfare or Desert warfare for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh please! Are you alerting the cavalry(no pun intended) at your WikiProject? Can you at least stop pretending that you and your wikiproject own this article? Can we discuss this man on man?
Back on topic, the article is not a conflict and does not need a warbox. That's like saying that Siege, Scorched earth and Nuclear weapon needs warboxes about the conflicts they were involved with. You are more than welcome to create a different box like Template:Infobox military practice or Template:Military doctorine used in, but we need to keep the warbox for articles about actual wars and battles. Don't use the template documentation agaisnt me, that's on par with playing lawyer to control your personal article. Gaioa (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Look man. Sorry for my incivility. I just got a bit frustrated at you. I get the impression that you are making this excessive, creating much ado about nothing. Please forgive my hostile tone.
But I still rest my case, and believe you are owning and lawyering without realizing it to defend your hard-earned contributions. Hopefully, we can get some more people into this before we go too far. Gaioa (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat ambivalent. It does no harm, but provides little use. Complaining that it's "using the wrong template" seems a bit disingenuous - if there was an "infobox doctrine" template which showed the same information, or if a table was used, it would suddenly be fine? More relevant, in my opinion - is there useful information to be put into some kind of infobox/table in the lead? Something linking to various types of warfare? Incorporating them into the {{history of war}} template?

Please abide by WP:CIVIL. (Hohum ^@) 12:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, alerting a relevant wikiproject is a normal step in gaining wider consensus. (Hohum ^@) 12:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would "suddenly" be fine. Differing templates are no only for visual consistency, but also to ease the use of bots (both current and future ones) and scripts to know what the article are about. That's why I found this to be a minor issue, since it hardly affect the reader's article at all. Just a small twitch in the honor of consistency. Gaioa (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gaioa, please let's not make this discussion about me—whether I have any pride in my contributions (which I do)—or even whether this pride translates into defensive behavior (ownership). Let's make this about whether the article is improved with a given change—inclusion or exclusion of an infobox.

If we review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox, it says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." I feel that the infobox, as currently used in this article, shapes the geographic scope of the topic and summarizes the progress made in this aspect of warfare. I do appreciate your potential surprise that the infobox may have been used this way, since that is not its main purpose.

Please note that my edit comment upon reverting was to request a discussion so that a consensus could be developed. I feel that this is consistent with the ethos of Wikipedia and does not by itself reflect "ownership". Help:Infobox says that, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That's what we're doing now and I very much appreciate your participation.

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not hating on your use of infobox. I'm just saying that using the warbox is confusing. Maybe not for readers, but indeed for editors and bots.
Have an infobox. Have a hundred if you want. But don't use one which is meant for a different purpose. There is no point in using Template:Infobox film on the page of Academy Awards, even if it is deemed practical. Filmsboxes are used for films, personboxes are used for persons, and warboxes are used for wars. A policy of "anybox goes" is just unnessecary. We need appropriate infoboxes.
And please don't only talk about the policies and infopages. WP:COMMONSENSE always applies. And since our ultimate goal is not to follow rules but to write WP, also consider WP:IAR. Gaioa (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you make a good point. Why not create a new infobox for this very purpose! If I knew how to make templates, I'd create Template:Infobox military tactic at once. Or maybe Template:Infobox military doctrine is better. Come back in a while :) Gaioa (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, for your kind reply, Gaioa. You express a concern that I am not familiar with—that an edge-of-the-envelope use of an infobox would confuse a bot. Please tell me more. I understand that stretching the envelope in using a particular infobox could cause another editor to scratch his/her head—a legitimate reaction. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear that we are on par again, buddy! And great to see that you understand my point, how infoboxes goes where they are supposed to.
I hope you understand my psoition now. To recap: Remove the warbox and replace it with the picture and caption only, or until a proper topic-specific infobox exists. Gaioa (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. What does edge of the envelope mean?

Actually, I personally maintain that the infobox, as presented, provides value to the reader (whom we are trying to serve in writing articles). My suggestion is to await further input from interested editors and then in a few days, summarize that input and encourage those, who have reported here to support retain or remove. It shouldn't be up to us to make a side agreement.

The idea of creating an infobox for military doctrine or tactics should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history.

Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. by "edge of the envelope", I was referring to a flight envelope, the limits within which an airplane may fly. I was suggesting that my use of this template is within bounds, but at the edge. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I still don't understand the problem that you raise, regarding the use of this template causing confusion for bots. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Compromise?

This is not an Infobox
Part of War
Navy SEALs training for winter operations
Locations: Aleutian Islands, Alps, Arctic Ocean, Korean Peninsula, Himalayas, Northern Europe, Russia
Result: Improved military doctrine on the effects of cold, snow, ice, and thaw on military operations. Increased training in cold conditions.

Hi Gaioa,

Would the mocked-up table shown here, which is not a template or infobox, work for you? If the idea is OK with you, then I would tweak it to resemble what's there now.

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Let me clarify again, that I was never against the mere existence of an infobox. I was only concerned with you using a irrelevant infobox. I'll explain what I meant with bots:

“ A category maintanence bot is told to make sure that all articles about wars and battles are in a subcategory of Category:Wars. But how would a bot know which articles to check? Well, its author thinks "What does all WP articles on wars and battles have in common? I know, they all have the warbox." Therefore, the bot is programmed to go through all articles which transcludes the warbox template, as documented at this special page. The bot arrives to this article and decides "It has a warbox, so it must be about a certain military battle." The bot is wrong - the article are about a warfare diciplin - but a bot cannot know that. Thus, Cold-weather warfare is added to the war category although it is not about a war. ”

Of course, this is only a theoretical situation, and I cannot give names of a bot which would do this. But there may be one, or one may be created. And when it does, it could easily see this page as something it is not. This page belongs in Category:Warfare or its subcategories, not Category:Wars or its subcategories.

I still recommend creating a specialized infobox for warfare doctorines, but as a mere patroller, I will leave that to the spec-ops. Gaioa (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked the presentation slightly to avoid the wasted framing that "thumbnail" creates. (Hohum ^@) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights and assistance, Gaioa and Hohum. I'll plan on implementing this workaround, next week. I need to upgrade my skill set in the process. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• IMO, the infobox (with Locations and Result fields) is inappropriate for a topic like this and is not normal on Wikipedia articles (e.g. it's inconsistent with similar articles such as Mountain warfare and Psychological warfare). It should be removed - leaving just the picture (and caption). DexDor ^(talk) 08:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in here, DexDor. I'll be substituting something else in place of the infobox, which is a marginal fit. All the examples of types of warfare that have been cited as not having an inbox—maneuver, desert, mountain and psychological warfare—are sub-par (often with too few references) and in my opinion don't constitute paragons of what a military article should be. As I quoted, above, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". I would appreciate more time to develop a solution, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 19:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Mountain warfare – WWI

Hi ‎Chiswick Chap, thank you for your addition of an informative and well-sourced section on camouflage to this article. In your edit comment, you suggested bringing across a bit on WWI mountain warfare. I looked at Mountain warfare#World War I and found it to be among many sections in that article without any citations. Perhaps that could be fixed in that article, before it is brought across here. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen that article. I merely mentioned that the topic deserved coverage, and I've at least illustrated it in the snow cam section. There is material at Italian Front (World War I), not of my making. You may find The Smithsonian's report a useful starting-point. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Choice of images

Manelolo replaced an image, with the following comment, "replace bad quality pic with featured pic". Here are the two images:

New: A Finnish soldier with a reindeer in Lapland during the Continuation War in 1944. Reindeer were used to pull supply sleighs along the snow.

Old: Finnish ski troops during the Winter War.

I don't concur with the assessment that the new one is superior for illustrating the article, except for having a higher degree of artistic merit.

The Old image shows camouflaged troops in position with the skis that they used to travel there. The caption doesn't have to do very much to explain the significance of their tactics, nor is there any doubt that it depicts warfighting.

The New image relies entirely on the caption to tell its significance. The person depicted is not in a warfighting posture and is not wearing winter camouflage. Therefore, what we might be looking at could be a reindeer herder or hunter. The image may also give undue weight to the role of draft animals in the conflict.

What is the assessment of other editors? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

c:Commons:Featured pictures should not be confused with Wikipedia:Featured pictures -- a major distinction between the two is that the Wikipedia version emphasizes the encyclopedic value (i.e. ability to illustrate the subject matter) of an image. Having spent some years at the latter, I agree that the previous image has more encyclopedic value for the reasons you state. MER-C 22:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The old image is of far more use. (Hohum ^@) 23:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, my bad. Manelolo (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the old image is apposite, relevant, and encyclopedic, enhances the article, and gives an idea of what was involved in fighting in such conditions. The new one looks as if someone is joking about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, to be fair, it's not a joke. At that time and age, reindeer were as important to cold-weather/arctic warfare as horses were to more "temperate-climate" warfare. :-D Although not a sexy topic, true. But as the saying goes, "amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about supply." Nevertheless, the old pic is better suited for the article and the fuss can be closed (since I switched the pic). Manelolo (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Manelolo, for your considerate replies here and for your good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I too prefer the old, self-explanatory, image, because I don't like the way the new one needs so much explanation in the caption. For me, technical quality is a lesser consideration. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC).

Winter warfare

This article is about winter warfare. During the Raid on Kirkenes in July is was about 17° C outside. Thats recreational weather. Nothing to do with main topic of this article.