Could we reorganize this list by series rather than by superficial type? It would make things more comprehensible in several ways, but especially for cases where divisions evolved through a series of types and are shown here multiple times. — B.Bryant 18:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Done for the Luftwaffe divisions; check it out before I get too carried away... — B.Bryant 01:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In case it isn't clear to onlookers, what I'm trying to do is show the unit "aliases", e.g. the 16 mot., 16 PzG, and 116 Pz are in some sense "the same division", and should eventually be described in a single article. (See e.g. Hermann Göring Division.) However, people may want to look them up by any of the various names, and it will be useful to show the associations here. (We may need REDIRECT pages as well... if we ever get any actual articles.) OTOH, I'm not trying to cover unit histories here, other than explaining the aliases. — B.Bryant 14:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would like to remove the FLAK divisions, since (as I understand it) there were just headquarters controlling the assets in an area rather than divisions as commonly conceived. If we do include them, are we going to include searchlight divisions, etc? OTOH there's still going to be a question as to where to draw the line, e.g. the named fortress divisions were somewhat ad hoc as well. I favor including the fortress divisions, but excluding the FLAK. Is there a principled rule we can follow on this? — B.Bryant 01:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any harm in having them in, and many of them did have the same subordinated regiments for a long time. Elisson 09:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Two notes though,
- I don't know where you got the litteral meaning of Lehr from, but according to what I know and all dictionaries I've looked in, Lehr simply translates as learning-, teaching-, as used in for example Lehrer, teacher.
- From the dictionary. It's all the same word. I went with "Demonstration" and the indicated literal meanings to emphasize that they weren't ordinary training units. — B.Bryant 00:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we understand each other here. I agree that Lehr units should be explained as demonstrational units, but your literal meanings ("literally 'pattern' or 'model'") make no sense at all. Lehr does not mean pattern or model, and isn't anywhere near the meaning of these two words. That's what I'm wondering about. "Pattern" or "model" is usually translated to "Munster", "model" is also translated to "Ausführung" when talking equipment. Elisson 02:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I got it from Cassell's German-English/English-German Dictionary, which gives it as "pattern, model, guage. See Lehre." I certainly don't mind if someone changes it; since my skills with German are very minimal, I didn't want to give a translation that I couldn't support from a dictionary. — B.Bryant 02:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we understand each other here. I agree that Lehr units should be explained as demonstrational units, but your literal meanings ("literally 'pattern' or 'model'") make no sense at all. Lehr does not mean pattern or model, and isn't anywhere near the meaning of these two words. That's what I'm wondering about. "Pattern" or "model" is usually translated to "Munster", "model" is also translated to "Ausführung" when talking equipment. Elisson 02:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- From the dictionary. It's all the same word. I went with "Demonstration" and the indicated literal meanings to emphasize that they weren't ordinary training units. — B.Bryant 00:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Motorized infantry and panzergrenadier was the same thing, the latter only a morale-boosting name change. There were often no real organizational changes when units changed name.
- Yeah, a lot of this stuff does not appear to be correct in detail. I visualize several passes over the list, something like:
- integrate all the variant listings for a division into a single entry (i.e., what I've been doing)
- verify the resulting data
- perhaps best done when writing individual articles
- add missing divisions
- decide which of a unit's names should be the actual articles
- or maybe just unlink everything that doesn't have an article, since most will probably never be written
- add articles with the details, and redirects for the unit's variant names
- Yeah, a lot of this stuff does not appear to be correct in detail. I visualize several passes over the list, something like:
Otherwise, great job! Elisson 09:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! — B.Bryant 00:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Any reason for removing the original unit names? I added them as reference and also to make searching for units easier. Someone searching for the German unit name will at least find one page if they are included here, but there is no article about the unit. Elisson 13:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)