Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 30 September 2005

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

An event mentioned in this article is a September 7 selected anniversary.

To anonymous deleter: I put back the text you deleted from this article because I could see no reason why it shold be removed. If you think there is a reason why it should be deleted, feel free to explain here. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Was it a single German bomber that accidentally dropped its load over London on Aug 24 1940 or were there several aircraft involved in this incident? I've seem to remember hearing that it was a single bomber, but http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1940/aug40/24aug40.htm suggests that there were several aircraft involved. Jooler 18:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the Blitz, The Blitz?

Isn't "the Blitz" the more common capitalisation, rather than "The Blitz"?

Who Won?

Firstly the title of this section is awful. I don't like seeing questions in encyclopaedia articles like this, and it is such a glib phrase. Secondly the analysis given in the whole section is a load of cobblers. Jooler 23:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1800 Megaton bombs??

"15th November 1940 - the Luftwaffe returns to London hitting almost every borough. It uses a new bomb nicknamed Satan - it was huge - 1800 megatons of high explosive and it was a delayed action bomb. " 1800 Megatons? I don't think so. I'll remove that information. Do "delayed action bombs" exist? If anybody believes to know more about the subject, please rectify.--Malbi 18:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There were such things as delayed action bombs. Obviously not of that size though. What they were nicknamed I've no idea. Shimbo 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

They were naval mines deliberatly dropped as city blockbusters. Clearly the number is an order of magnatude out, otherwise the Battle of the Atlantic would not have lasted as long as it did! A quick google returned too much noise, but a search with 23 November 1939 might lead to a page on them for this use. Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

the German word Blitzkrieg, doesn't mean "Lightning War", but "Fast War", suddenly and fast as a flash...

The Blitz

How ironic it seems that the London subway was a safe shelter during The Blitz and lately it proved to be the most risky place to be because of fanatics concealing explosives while they ride the tube.Musicwriter 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

The Battle of the Beams

There is a section in the Battle of Britain article about the German use of beams to guide their aircraft. I think this would be more apropriate as part of this article as they were mostly used at night during the blitz.Shimbo 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The Blitz → Blitz. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name --Philip Baird Shearer 11:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose: While I recognize and support the convention, this particular incident is almost always referred to (so far as I've experienced) as "The Blitz". Oberiko 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support: You can still write "The Blitz"; but as one word you can also link, without pipings to "the blitzing of London". This is precisely parallel to the cases listing in the Naming Convention cited above. Septentrionalis 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose . As you'd expect. The naming convention is not inclusive enough and needs to be refined to include cases such as this where the definitie article makes the subject something that it would not be if the definite article was excluded. Similar examples include The Ashes and The Holocaust, The closet, The Crown, The bends, The Last Supper, The Knowledge there's more I'm sure. - Jooler 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• • Comment. Some of these examples are more pressing and convincing than others. Personally I'd be in favour of the-inclusion in cases where "" and "The " refer to substantiatively different things (regardless of whether those things happen to both have separate articles on WP). See the Talk: page of the cited policy. Alai 22:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

While I recognize and support the convention, this particular incident is almost always referred to (so far as I've experienced) as "The Blitz". Oberiko 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What about cases like the London Blitz, the Coventry Blitz? (do a Google search to see how common this constructon is --Philip Baird Shearer 23:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Google proves nothing. You will find more hits for the The London Times (sic). Few people in the real world call it the London Blitz. It's almost always "The Blitz" (unqualifed) - and anyway this article is about the Blitz in Britain and not just London. cf. Re:Google cf "The holocaust" - "Nazi Holocaust" Jooler 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that Google proved anything, although 70,000 hits shows "London Blitz" is in common usage. What I was doing was showing you that "Blitz" can and is used without the definite article and will be about the German aerial bombardment of the UK. How about uses such as: "In 1944 there was a doodlebug blitz on London"?

As you'd expect. The naming convention is not inclusive enough and needs to be refined to include cases such as this where the definitie article makes the subject something that it would not be if the definite article was excluded. Similar examples include The Ashes and The Holocaust, The closet, The Crown, The bends, The Last Supper, The Knowledge there's more I'm sure. - Jooler 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In all the cases you give there is a common meaning for the words listed, so the use of a definative article helps define a specific case. Please explain to me another English language meaning for the word Blitz, because to date there are none listed on the disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The argument you are putting forward is that any phrase for example "United Kingdom" because it usually has "The" in front of it should have it included in the title. Are you realy suggesting that the title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be move to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" if not why not?