Template talk:Campaignbox Axis–Soviet War

Renaming

I renamed it from "Axis-Soviet War" for two reasons.

• Soviet-German war is much more common
• It's misleading to call it an "Axis" war as Japan had a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union Oberiko 10:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

axis refers to all german allies, not just japan, so the romanians and italians the were fighting in these battles would be part of the axis.

It's not a big deal because eventually there will be enough articles that we'll have to split this list into campaigns. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

It seems to have migrated back to Axis-Soviet War. This is clearly the least used name, and is self contradictory in that if you click on it it redirects to the Eastern Front article. Consistency would seem to demand that it share the same name. Cripipper 13:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Blue

I dropped Operation Blue from the template, since it merely redirects to Battle of Stalingrad. That change, though it does appear in the edit history, is not yet reflected on the template page, but the articles that make use of the template appear to have already gotten the message, as they are no longer showing Blue. Very strange. SS451 15:26, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Can't have that :-) , so I started a proper Operation Blue article and deleted the re-direct. Andreas 07:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding Battles

How major does the battle have to be? Catalan 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd use the same criteria as is used to determine if the battle warrents an article. Oberiko 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm planning some more episodes, as soon as I'll finish the corresponding articles (WIP) grafikm_fr 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

This has gotten to be one of the largest campaignboxes at this point; maybe splitting it into several smaller ones would be worthwhile. —Kirill Lokshin 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been a proponent of that for awhile, but the Eastern Front's not my area of knowledge, so I don't really have a keen grasp on what the different "phases" of the war were. Oberiko 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to split. We should reserve the battlebox for significant battles like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, Berlin. The war consisted of hundreds if not thousands of operations on the scale of the Battle of Krasny Bor. Arbitrary inclusion of one minor engagement out of hundreds into a battlebox, as if it were of the same importance as Stalingrad or Moscow, is misleading at best. I consulted the 1000-page-long "Encyclopaedia of the Great Patriotic War: neither Targul nor Krasny Bor is mentioned here at all, although they enumerate and detail hundreds of military actions altogether. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they were battles that the Red Army lost, now would it? Both battles happened, there is no doubt about it. They were not invented by revisionists as you claim. Andreas 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, we maay create a separate battlebox for the Siege of Leningrad. The breakthrough of the Siege of Leningrad alone consisted of dozen operations on the scale of Krasny Bor. It is not practicable to add all these operations into a single Great Patriotic War battlebox. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be more profitable to split the battleboxes by level (strategic operation/regional operation/local battle), instead of splitting it by time period. So the main battlebox should contain e.g. Operation Blue, the regional battlebox Battle for Stalingrad, and the local one Battle for Marmayev Kurgan, to give you an idea. Andreas 08:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the little battles (which seem to warrent articles) falling through the cracks. What if they're not part of a major operation? Oberiko 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Name a few of that kind. :-) I think most of the time it will be easy to assign them to a parent-article, and would prefer to cross that bridge when we get there. For the moment I think there is a serious risk of overloading the battle box and it should be addressed. Andreas 13:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are we with this idea now? Andreas 14:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate the split

There are major operations/battles during the war (and this list is not inclusive!!!!):

• Operation Barbarossa
  • Battle of Bialystok-Minsk
  • Battle of Kiev (1941)
  • Battle of the Baltics (1941)
  • Battle of Uman
  • Operation Silver Fox

• Siege of Leningrad
  • • Oranienbaum Pocket
  • German Tikhvin Offensive
  • Soviet Counter-Offensive
  • Volkhov Battles
    • Battle of Demyansk
    • Battle of Kholm
  • Battles for Mga (1942)
  • Operation Spark
  • Operation Polar Star
    • Battle of Krasny Bor
    • 4th Ssinyavino Offensive

• Battle of Moscow
  • Operation Typhoon
  • Soviet Counteroffensive

No parent

• • Battle of Kharkov (1942)
    • Soviet Offensive
    • Operation Fridericus

• Operation Blue
  • Battle for Stalingrad
  • Battle for the Caucasus (or something)

• Operation Saturn
  • Tatsinskaya Raid
  • Stalingrad Airlift
  • Operation Winter Storm
  • 3rd Kharkov
  • Destruction of Axis Allied Armies

• Operation Zitadelle
  • German Offensive
    • Battle of Prokhorovka
  • Soviet Orel Offensive
  • Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev
    • 4th Kharkov
    • Battle for the Dnepr
    • Battle of Zhitomir

• Mud Offensive
  • Battle of Korsun
  • Battle of Tarnopol
  • Battle of Brody (1)
  • Hube's Pocket

• Dnestr Operation
  • Battle of Nikopol
  • Battle of Targul Frumos

• Battle of Crimea (1944)

• Operation Bagration
  • Battle for Vitebsk
  • Battle for Minsk
  • Warsaw Uprising (just a suggestion)

• Operation L'vov Sandomierz
  • Brody Encirlement
  • Baranov Bridgehead
  • Koltov Corridor

• Battle for Romania (1944)

• Battle of the Baltic (1944)
  • Baltic Operation
  • Pskov Operation
  • Battle of Narva
    • Battle of the Kinderheimhöhe
  • Operation Doppelkopf and Cäsar
  • Siege of Memel/Klaipeda

• Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation

• Battle for Hungary (1944/5)
  • Battle for Debrecen
  • Siege of Budapest
  • Lake Balaton Offensive

• Vistula Oder Operation
  • Battle for Breslau
  • Battle for Danzig
  • Battle for Küstrin
  • Battle for Posen

• Upper Silesian Operation

• East Prussian Operation
  • Battle for Königsberg

• Battle for Berlin
  • Battle of Halbe
  • Battle of the Seelow Heights

• Prague Operation

Just to give you an idea of the structure I am thinking of. Andreas 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of the subject is insufficient, as you may guess, yet I feel the structure you propose is somewhat whimsical. For instance, Russophone sources speak about Uman-Botosani operation which was followed by Chisinau-Iasi operation. I can't image what is your source for "Dnestr Operation". Other titles - such as Operation Polar Star - are also quite unorthodox. Definitely nomenclature should be standardized. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am away from my sources, hence the getting the names wrong (and Dnestr Operation was a placeholder), and this is a proposal on the structure, not the content - I am aware that Russian language sources use different names for some of these operations, and it is my assumption that the operation name should be taken from whoever planned the operation. Therefore Operation Typhoon instead of Moscow Defensive, and Korsun-Shevchenovsky Operation instead of Cherkassy Encirclement, and (you guessed it) Chisinau-Iasi Operation instead of Battle of Targul Frumos. In any case, naming is something to worry about if we agree to implement such a structure. If not, there is no need to consider it. Andreas 14:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A correction: Chisinau-Iasi Operation was in August, while the obscure engagement known as Battle of Targul Frumos in Wikipedia, happened in May. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because you do not know it does not mean it is obscure. Now, having said that, in that case I know the operation as the Iasi-Kishinev Operation, and that is the name and order used by Mazulenko (not Samsonov) in his book Die Zerschlagung der Heeresgruppe Ukraine - it is not my fault if Soviet historiography can not agree on which of the two places to name first. You can read the article Battle of Romania (1944) to see that I have correctly identified it there. As for Targul Frumos - the battle was a case study for mobile defense in NATO for many years. So I would submit that it maybe obscure in Russia, but it is not so in western armies. Andreas 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fairly good layout, in my opinion. A few general points I think we might consider:

• Every battle article, no matter how minor, should be listed on some campaignbox.
• Campaignboxes with only one battle should be avoided. I don't know how big of a problem this is.
• Presumably we should keep the main campaignbox with links to the top-level articles in the scheme.

Other than that, the general idea is a good one. All we really want is for readers to be able to navigate to any battle article by following links in campaignboxes; they aren't meant to present the "most important" battles. —Kirill Lokshin 14:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that no battle should be orphaned. I am less certain on the best way to achieve this. Regarding the campaign box with just one article, e.g. for the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation, you just link from the Highest Level straight to the article, and place the highest level campaignbox there. Andreas 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO you are way too overentusiastic about boxes. Don't forget there is such thing as lists and categories. Wikipedia is not putting everything into boxes. they are just one of many navigation tools, convenient when there are a few major things. Creating a hierarchy of boxes will make articles from major campaings ugly, with long columns of stacked boxes and narrow main text space. mikka (t) 19:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I pefer the boxes over categories and lists because they allow me to see similarity on the same page as the one I am reading, and they can be ordered by time, instead of alphabetically, which I think is a bit pointless. I think we should also remember that we are dealing with the largest and most complex land war ever in human history. It is not surprising that trying to order it is tricky, and that any possible result will be less than perfect. My suggestion is simply a suggestion on how to improve the existing battlebox. I am not saying that it is the best thing since sliced bread to have a battle-box. Andreas 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be a problem, as I really can't see an aricle having more than two boxes: one listing same-level battles (e.g. "Barbarossa - Stalingrad - Berlin") and one listing component battles (e.g. "Bialystok-Minsk - Kiev - Uman" for Barbarossa). Lists are a somewhat worse option, in my opinion, since they don't provide navigation links on the article itself (which is the whole reason why series boxes were devised in the first place. Kirill Lokshin 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at eg, Battle of Romania (1944), the infobox is already a full screen tall. You want to make it evene longer. The edit field is narrow. If people start adding pictures, the page will become ugly.

On the other hand, I think I know a solution: you may place navboxes horizontally, at the bottom of the page (like, eg template:World War II is being placed now), keeping infoboxes top-right. By the way, please comment on my suggestion Template talk:World War II#WWII Portal mikka (t) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka that long and unwieldy templates are better be avoided. The Military Project worked out a number of these, so that frequently the articles consists of little text but a number of battleboxes. If you want to use battleboxes, put them at the end of the text. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you mean moving the main infobox itself to the end, that rather misses the point of having a summary box in the first place, which is to present a brief overview to the reader before getting into the meat of the article. You may have noticed that all infoboxes are placed at the top.

If you mean moving the campaignbox down, you're free to do that as you see fit, on a per-article basis. For longer articles, I suspect it will make no difference; and for stubs, there's not really any place to move it in any case. (We really can't make the templates fully-horizontal footer bars, incidentally, because that would break the per-section use on articles like Western Theater of the American Civil War.)

Finally, if the problem you're referring to is that many important articles are too short, I agree with you completely; but this won't be fixed by moving templates around. What we need are simply more people to expand these articles. Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Battle of Romania (1944), the reorganization would actually reduce the size, since the two campaignboxes together should be shorter than the single long one. (As an aside, infoboxes throughout Wikipedia are commonly this size, so we're not really doing anything unexpected.) Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an awesome idea. This way it would give equal coverage to the tactical engagements (no matter how obscure they might be to our Russian friend Ghirla) while maintaining a nice crisp layout. These things should be streamlined for easy navigation. Ksenon 09:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Ghirlandajo's edit

Ghirlandajo - I am happy to consider a split as outlined above. But just to delete newly added operations because you do not consider them 'big enough' or whatever your criterion is, while leaving other, much less significant operations in (e.g. Hube's Pocket), does not help the matter. The Toropets-Kholm Operation was not a smaller operation than some of those already in the box - have a look at the map. The same goes for the Demyansk Pocket. Let's consider what needs to happen with this box calmly, instead of just deleting things on a whim. Thanks Andreas 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo - what I would like to know is why you are incapable of engaging in discussion before editing, when there is a discussion on the topic going on here. Care to explain? Andreas 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not again...

I would suggest drawing up a proposed split in more detail so we can work out any remaining issues, and then going ahead and implementing it. We'll try to resolve any concerns Ghirlandajo has insofar as he is willing to discuss them; but he is not the sole guardian of this template, and we are not obligated to have his approval for any changes. Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal trial

This is the test template, I have implemented it at the bottom of the Toropets-Kholm Operation article. Please let me know what you think. One would basically use two of these for every article. Always the Soviet-German War, and then depending on the article the secondary one (e.g. Operation Blue in the Battle of Voronezh article. Andreas 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! This should solve the problem quite neatly.

A few minor points to fix, though:

• Am I just not seeing them, or are we missing a few operations (most obviously Silberfuchs and its ilk)?

This is not a complete set of boxes or operations. If you think it is worthwhile going ahead with it I will make sure that the final version is complete, including battles that are currently not in the campaignbox. Andreas 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• The main article of each of the sub-campaignboxes should ideally be linked from the main one, in my opinion; so we should add Operation Blue and the Battle of Hungary (we don't have an article on that?), and possibly change the Kursk link to the one for the entire offensive (although I'm less sure about this last one).

That is a bit of a problem - we don't have quick overview articles, and I am not sure whether it is worth creating them, or whether it should just be the main battle for each of the boxes. Some campaigns (e.g. Spring 1942) really don't have a unifying theme. Andreas 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with just using the main battle, in my opinion. On the other hand, we may want to write articles like Spring 1942 campaign at some point. So long as it's possible to navigate to each battle by (somehow) following links in campaignboxes, it's fine. Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Space permitting, the campaignboxes should be kept underneath the main infobox rather than moved to the bottom.

They are not yet proper boxes, they only exist here. I wanted to gauge the reaction first before creating pages that then may have to be deleted because nobody thinks they add much. Andreas 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget to list the new campaignboxes on the main list once you create them, incidentally; otherwise, we'll never be able to keep track of them all ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Andreas 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is quite strange that the greatest battle in history - Stalingrad - is not linked from the main campaignbox. Ditto about the greatest tank battle of the war - Prokhorovka. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what is strange about that? In both cases the operations covering the battle are now in the main box (corrected the oversight for Operation Blue). Stalingrad I can see the argument, but then what is going to be the level of battle that warrants inclusion in the main box? Prokhorovka is overhyped by mythology on both sides. It was a two-day tank battle involving some divisions on one side, and a tank army on the other, so Corps size forces. It was far less important than the Toropets-Kholm Operation that you were editing out twice yesterday. Andreas 12:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention that it is your personal opinion (POV) which battle is important and which is not. As I have seen from your previous edits, battles won by the Germans are important for you and those which they lost are typically discarded as "overhyped" and not important enough. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course Ghirla. It is well known that you are the only one here who is impartial. Riddle me this though - if I am such a Nazifanboy, then why did we have an edit conflict yesterday where you were editing out a Red Army victory from the box (Toropets-Kholm Operation)? Or why do you think I just started an article on the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation? I know you are beyond help, so this response is addressed at other editors, and simply a defense against your slander. Andreas 12:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, the idea is to break down the complicated operations into some sort of hierarchy (that is, Battle X is a part of Offensive Y, and so forth); it is not to select the "most important" battles, or the "greatest" battles, or even the most significant (strategically) battles. The omission of Stalingrad (which I had already noted) was clearly an oversight. If you feel that a different breakdown would be better, please feel free to suggest it; but attacking the other editors won't really be productive. Kirill Lokshin 13:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had changed the proposal; my apologies. Is there a better name than Soviet liberation of Europe, though? We don't seem to have an article on that, and it's not-quite-neutral; maybe something like "Soviet 1944-1945 offensives" would be better? Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article on this either. I think that only the most adamant russophobes would deny the fact that the large Auschwitz that was Eastern Europe in 1944 was liberated by the Red Army. Also, I still can't understand why the largest tank battle in history doesn't figure in *any* of the suggested campaignboxes. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you did not edit it in. Andreas 13:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we even have an article on it yet? I recall seeing it as a redlink some time ago. In any case, there are probably a number of battles that have slipped through the cracks here and will need to be added before the campaignboxes are complete.

On another point, I'm unconvinced that we need to use hidden links (e.g. [[Battle of X|Y Campaign]]) quite so widely. If the campaign articles don't exist yet, wouldn't it be better to leave them as redlinks? Kirill Lokshin 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added it into the box, hoping against hope that I can redeem myself by doing so, in Ghirla's eyes. Regarding the hidden links - not sure what to do there, I welcome suggestions. If we go for campaign articles, then these would be relatively brief, with just a quick intro to the campaign, I should think. I would also like to point out that at the moment not all battles are in the right place. It will need a bit of time to get it all correct. Andreas 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe link to the overview battles, but simply as "Battle of X"? Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems fine to start with. Now we should check for the accuracy of red-linked names. I've never heard about Battles for Courland, for instance. In Russophone literature, they use different nomenclature. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since we'll be going through them anyways, we might as well create stubs for the ones we can confirm, giving at least the dates and different names, to reduce confusion in the future. (And all of the redlinked "Battle of X" should be linked as [[Battle of X|X]] in the campaignboxes.) Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. Good job on the template. Loksl iek some lines have been drawn. I'm also in complete agreement on the titles being in the planners' terms. As for Ghirla ^-трёп- as with all wars some (in in cases much) of the information that is passed down has a bias or taken a legendary proportion. These changes do not always reflect the true value or outcome of the conflict. As wikipedians we discuss any finding we may disagree with and attempt to find the truth, as best we can, from as many sources as we can discover and comprehend. As an exemple prior to my reseaches in Byzantine lore, my knowledge of them was restricted to the poitns of view of the Frankish crusaders. Years later I have gained a very diffrent perspective on the remains of the Eastern Roman empire, as gained from reading their works and those of their rivals.Dryzen 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the template looks pretty good. As far as the question of Soviet liberation of Europe goes, "liberation" is always a suspect term. Admittedly, there are some cases where the term has become a de facto standard, e.g. Liberation of Paris, but in this case half the operations were in Germany proper and in some other cases they were in Poland or the Baltic States where competing governments existed. Something like Soviet operations in Europe would be much safer.

Re: "find[ing] the truth, as best we can, from as many sources as we can discover and comprehend". That sounds awfully ambitious for a mere encyclopedia. Encyclopedia editors are typically in no position to "find the truth", the best they can hope for is document what peer reviewed sources say on the subject. If these sources disagree or if there are otherwise notable minority opinions, then you can present and cite all sides of the story and let the reader take it from there. Ahasuerus 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite true about the truth part, and sorry for this pun. I would note that by attempting to put an objective and detailled source of information is akin to trying to discover what really happened, therefore the truth. It was an over simplification on my part and one that could present a problematic meaning. I apologize.Dryzen 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Off to the Eastern Front with you! :) Ahasuerus 13:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful to come up with a solid way of dividing the campaign boxes into recognisable periods. at the moment it is an impracticable mix of time periods, locations, and operations. I am not very keen on it this way, and would welcome different suggestions. Certainly needs to be improved before it goes live. Andreas 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would add Battle of Königsberg too, even if it's technically part of East Prussian Operation. grafikm_fr 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try to move away from a pure breakdown by dates and focus more on geography as a dividing feature between campaignboxes. Kirill Lokshin 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The name "Soviet operations in Europe" for one campaignbox is misleading, as all the war took place on this continent. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm not sure what the best name for that would be, since some of the Romanian battles have drifted to other campaignboxes; maybe we should decide what the campaignbox will contain first and pick the best name for it after that. Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: why not combine the small campaignboxes from "Operation Blue" to "1944 Spring Campaign" into a single "Southern Sector operations" (or some similar title) campaignbox? That way, we can avoid trying to split it by date and having to deal with overlaps. Kirill Lokshin 15:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Like this? Andreas 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much; but what should the actual sector articles be called? "Southern Sector" is obviously ambiguous; maybe something like "Southern sector of the Eastern Front (World War II)"? Did the Soviet command have a particular name for the area? Kirill Lokshin 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they called them "Napravlenie" (usually translated as "Direction" or, confusingly, "Axis") in 1941-1942 (see John Erickson's The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History, 1918-1941). They were roghly analogous to German Army Groups, but proved unwieldy and were abolished in 1942 (see Zhukov's memoirs). In 1942-1944 the Soviet High Command frequently put its top generals in charge of overseeing multiple Fronts, but there was no special term for the arrangment, at least none that I know of. Ahasuerus 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy with North/Central/South either, since it is clearly derived from the German nomenclature. The Soviet 'directions' suffer from the same problem. The neutral way would be to use geographical monikers. Baltics/Northern Russia, Central Russia, Ukraine, Balkans, Central Europe/Germany. Andreas 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem there is that you then have things like "Central Russia & Belarus", "Ukraine, Southern Russia, & Caucasus", "Balkans & Southeastern Europe", and so forth. I'm not sure that specifying country names explicitly will be of any help, given the geographic scope of the conflict. Kirill Lokshin 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill ^_^ grafikm_fr 12:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We could just put the countrynames in, and then link to the relevant articles directly, e.g. Belarus. I can so far not see a perfect solution~, and not even one I am happy with. Suggestions welcome. Andreas 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So, where are we with this then - can I assume that absence of further comments implies agreement to changing the battlebox as outlined above? What sort of titles should we choose for the smaller boxes? Andreas 10:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any major problems with what we have now. As far as box titles go, maybe we can use dates in cases where the geographic title is ambiguous? "Soviet operations in the Balkans (1944-1945)" rather than just "Soviet operations in the Balkans", for example? Kirill Lokshin 11:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's get cracking

I have now created those campaignboxes that easily have an article assigned to their title, and have cleaned up the main campaignbox accordingly. Andreas 08:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Crimea_and_Caucasus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Battle_of_Berlin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Leningrad_and_Baltics_1941-1944

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Barbarossa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Arctic_1941-1944

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Balkans_1944

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Finland_1941-1944

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Kursk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Operation_Blue_to_3rd_Kharkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Battle_of_Moscow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Hungary_1944-1945

What is particularly necessary is a way to name the Fall Blau/Uranus/Saturn box, and the Central Europe box. Any ideas? Andreas 09:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure on the names for these two, but great work on the other boxes. Please don't forget to add them to the list, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Also cleaned up the Finnish boxes in the process. Until somebody comes up with something better, I'll name the Stalingrad box Operation Blue to 3rd Kharkov Andreas 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work; the boxes are rather more manageable now. Kirill Lokshin 12:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! Andreas 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fourth strategic offensive

I'm a little confused where to put Fourth strategic offensive. I guess it could be categorized some of Siege of Leningrad, Continuation War and/or Finland 1941-1944 (Which should be 1941-1945, BTW). --Whiskey 08:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that the Svir-Petrozvadovsk Offensive? Andreas 12:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it really needs to be moved to a more revealing name ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it covers two distinct Soviet operations with the same strategic goal, the Svir-Petrozavodsk Offensive(for which we do not have an article), and the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive. I propose to move it to the latter, and change the article text to reflect that the operations by the two fronts involved (Leningrad and Karelian) may have had slightly different names. Andreas 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge the two under "Petrozavodsk Offensives (1944)", maybe? Or would that be entirely missing the point? Kirill Lokshin 14:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be the best solution, I think. Andreas 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As an aside - for Russian students of the war, the name will make sense, since the 1944 offensives were also called the '10 strategic blows'. Of which the one in question was the fourth, apparently. :-) Andreas 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. And I don't think renaming it to Petrozavodsk Offensive the correct solution, as the main thrust was across Karelian Isthmus to Vyborg. The Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive is somewhat more correct one. As far as I have researched the issue, I haven't found a specific name to the offensive (like Bagration et.al.) --Whiskey 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive is the term used by Krivosheev in his listing of Red Army losses, for both Karelian and Leningrad Front. So I guess that would also be a good name. Regarding the specific names, I believe Bagration was the last one to have one, at least the last one I found. Thereafter they are just geographical. Andreas 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding Manchuria?

If Manchuria's in the box, shouldn't there be a section for it in the Eastern Front article?--4.232.222.215 03:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No and I am replacing it with the Prague Offensive. Including Manchuria makes a much sense as including the North African Campaign, or the Burma Campaign in a template on the Western Front! --Philip Baird Shearer 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree - this is the 'Axis-Soviet' war box. Japan was a member of the Axis Powers, so it definitely makes more sense than adding the Burma campaign to a Western Front box. Please check your facts. Where it gets more dicey is that the Axis can be said to not have existed anymore after the fall of Germany, but this was clearly still the same war. So I think it is okay to include it because there is a certain logic to it. Obvious that I think it is, since I did include it. I'll re-add it. Before removing it again, please come up with stronger arguments than flawed analogies. Andreas 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a section about it if it is to be in the box.

I have removed it. It makes no sense to have it in here, particularly as 'Axis-Soviet War' redirects to 'Eastern Front'. Cripipper 13:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Can we add East Pomeranian Offensive and Silesian Offensives? I'd also think offensives are more notable then battles, thus Battle of Königsberg should be replaced by East Prussian Offensive. We also need to replace Battle of Budapest with Budapest Offensive, and Battle of Romania (1944) with Iassy-Kishinev Offensive (per naming in this academic work.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

List of operations to be added

Please see Talk:Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#List_of_major_operations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaign box, or dumping ground?

This is intended as a campaign infobox, yet many items in it are clearly not campaigns220.238.43.188 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Arctic convoys

I have removed this from the box because the convoys were not part of the eastern front. This position is set out explicitly in the third paragraph of the Eastern Front (World War II) article. If these convoys are included because the ships supplied the eastern front then the Persian Corridor and the route to Vladivostok should be too (I don't propose that they should. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)