Talk:Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign)

Start of the RAF's 'Battle of Berlin'

While Harris's own 'I was right' book, Bomber Command, does indeed say that the RAF's Battle of Berlin began in November 1943, his then deputy's history, Air Bombardment, reckons the three raids starting in August were the start: they totalled over 1,650 sorties, with 125 aircraft lost.

Their results were generally poor, but had the first three raids been more successful, there probably would not have been a 'two moon' pause before the resumption... and you can bet Harris would have claimed them as the start. As it was, a fourth raid was planned but cancelled at the last moment because of the weather.

Even if you disagree with that date for the start of the campaign, in no sense was 22nd/23rd November the 'first' raid - the 440 Lancasters sent to Berlin on the 18th/19th may not have been an all-out raid - the Halifaxes and Sterlings were sent elsewhere that night - but it undoubtedly marked the (re)start of the battle.

If people want to have an argument about it, let's do it here. If no-one objects, I'll alter the day-by-day timetable in the main article to reflect these facts. Lovingboth 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert the changes. The battle started in November. Yes there were raids before then by they were not part of the battle (See for example this source: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/nov43.html Entry 18/19 November 1943 "The 'Battle of Berlin' begins"). Although sources may differ I think we should go with Harris which is the one which is used in most secondary sources and is I read also the one used in the official history. --PBS 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My father was a gunner on a Halifax, shot down over Berlin, Sept 1 1943. 172.251.242.40 (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Warcrime vs Battle

This was not a battle, this was generally a massmurder of civilians. one of a long list of british warcrimes in germany (it was not only dresden) during ww2. --131.173.252.9 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. It was a strategically successful (read Albert Speer's book where he confirms this fact at length - the author of this awful wiki article should read it too) and tragically necessary operation. Total war was unleashed with the bombing of London and many other British cities from 1940 onward, eventually resulting in 70,000+ fatalities. That is mass murder because it was unprovoked. If you think that the bombing of Germany was morally wrong, then you must also concede that the bombing of Britain was a 'war crime', and yet of that there is no recognition in your stupid comments, which suggests that you are pursuing a political rather than historical agenda. Try looking at it from the point of view of a nation attempting to win a desperate struggle forced upon it by a savage regime that enjoyed almost the full support of its population, instead of this retrospective, sentimental and inappropriate revisionism. Then you have a more credible answer: the bombing of Germany was not only justified in war, it was justly deserved.

JL 21.48 GMT, October 24th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.253.235 (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. --Nick Dowling 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

War Graves Commission cemetery in Charlottenburg

I am reverting the last change which added:

Most of the fallen RAF airmen are buried in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery in Charlottenburg. Many of the graves contain the remains of a seven-man bomber crew

Because it is unsorced and it breaks into a pragraph which is sourced. If a source was provided then we could add it in an appropriate place. --PBS 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The source is Martin Middlebrook's book 'The Berlin Raids' (Cassell 2004) Did you aso revert my text on RAF losses on March 24th 1944? Those facts are accurate and can be verified in any reputable publication about the bomber war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gloucester (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any facts like you added are (of course) welcome, but read Wikipedia:Footnotes. But please not not insert them where you will distance currently cited information from its citation (and/or fasly imply that the facts you are adding are covered by the current citation). Which edit are you talking about [1]? -- PBS 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin (air)

Forgive me for asking, but you are aware that Berlin was also attacked from the East by the Red Army Air Force? Since the title says nothing about the RAF, I see no reason that the article can't be expanded to include all air combat above Berlin.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the 'British bombing campaign on Berlin from November 1943 to March 1944' and not the earlier and later raids. I agree that there should be a Bombing of Berlin during World War II article, but this campaign was a discrete series of operations conducted by RAF bomber command, which is that the term 'Battle of Berlin' usually refers to when used to refer to air attacks. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is another article "Bombing of Berlin in World War II" (I've just create a redirect from Bombing of Berlin during World War II) and the Soviet strategic bombing of Berlin is discussed on the talk page unfortunately to date no reliable sources have been found (see Talk:Bombing of Berlin in World War II#1941 Soviet bombing of Berlin). There is also no reason why the tactical bombing of Berlin during the Battle of Berlin should not be included as well. --PBS (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just rename this article to reflect the contents?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is know as the "Battle of Berlin" in reliable English language sources. --PBS (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Its known as Battle of Berlin (air)?! I have never seen that. Just call it Allied bombing of Berlin, which is far more often seen. Even RAF bombing of Berlin to be specific. Eventually there ill be enough material for a parent article of Bombing of Berlin with three main article of RAF, USAAF and Red Air Force--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's commonly known as the 'Battle of Berlin' or 'Battle for Berlin' - see, for instance Max Hastings' book 'Bomber Command' (which is one of the standard books on Bomber Command). The British mounted a deliberate and prolonged offensive against Berlin during the winter of 1943-44 which is normally considered in isolation from the other, more episodic, raids on Berlin throughout the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"(air)" is included because there is also the better known Soviet attack on the city that is also know as the Battle of Berlin, so it was necessary to use "(disambiguation)" as this is the less well known battle. Please read the article, it is not about all the RAF bombing of Berlin during WWII, but about a specific campaign and it involved lots of other targets as well as Berlin (for example the last raid of the battle was against Nuremberg on a night when the RAF lost more service men than they lost during the entire Battle of Britain ([page 117)). The name in the official RAF history (see the quote in the article) and has been used in other sources as well, a Google search of ["Battle of Berlin" November RAF] returns lots of pages. --PBS (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

End of week joke: does that mean that Germany has to rename München to Munich or Köln to Cologne once google renders more hits on Munich or Cologne? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Table

I have recently spent some time on this new table, for a better layout. It does not alter information, but just turns into into a table format. Any notion that table does not differenciate between the major and minor raids and raids on other cities as is done with the bullet points, is nonsense. Its all in the "detail" section. Dapi89 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is not possible to see it at a glance. For example on what night did the 10th major raid take place? Further would it not be better to fill in the detail of the other raids before spending time on changing the format? I am not against putting in a table as my work on Bombing of Cologne in World War II testifies too, but in that case there is a real advantage because one may wish to view by date or by air force. In this battle there is only one attacking air force involved, so there seems little point in having columns that sort. --PBS (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There were no US losses during this battle because this was a British battle not an Allied battle. Just as there were no British losses in Big Week because that was a USAAF battle. Although of course both air foces lost planes during the same time period because the two battles overlapped. --PBS (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. And give editors a chance to complete their work before you revert it. Dapi89 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The USAAF did not take part in the Battle of Berlin it was an RAF campaign not a joint operation. I suggest that we talk about it here and that you do not spend more time on it until we have a consensus on the layout. --PBS (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip, this is not about who initiated or planned the operation. This is about who was involved. The USAAF supported the RAF, with systematic round the clock attacks. It was no coincidence, it was a deliberate collaboration. Dapi89 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that I never edit wikipedia without my "army" of reputable sources following. You will find that almost every operation carried out by the Western Allies was in collaboration, the USAAF and RAF were virtually joined at the hip. Dapi89 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed the format issue I mentioned above -- how does one tell easily from the the table format that you have put in place which was the 10th major raid on Berlin?

For most of the period that the Battle of Berlin took place the USAAF did not fly over Germany. What is your source for stating that the USAAF took part in the Battle of Berlin? For example if you assertion is true then you will be able to provide a number of sources that list USAAF losses along with RAF losses in the Battle of Berlin. --PBS (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply add another column! Citations: This has already been done. Dapi89 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry where citation that includes USAAF losses in the RAF campaign known as the "Battle of Berlin" I can not see it. The citation you have provided is one of Bomber Harris asking for support, but that is no more a citation stating that the USAAF was involved in the campaign than to say that the Western Allies were involved in the Eastern Front because Stalin asked for a Second Front. What reliable sources do you have that the Battle of Berlin was a joint campaign? As I said before if it is a common assertion then you will have reliable sources that include USAAF losses in the campaign statistics. --PBS (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Look again Philip. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked again and I can not see any citation or reference in the article that say that the USAAF was involved in the Battle of Berlin. Of course the USAAF bombed the city, and that usage should be recorded. But it should be recorded in the article Bombing of Berlin in World War II not in this article which is about an RAF campaign not an Allied campaign. --PBS (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shearer, once again you manage to miss the point. Involvement counts even if its indirect. So I will more citations (Harris' request was met with the March raids) when you add the table back in (and not before). Dapi89 (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the table and moved it into the Bombing of Berlin in World War II. This is an article about the British campaign, not an Allied campaign. It was Harris's last big throw of the dice, he lost and in the words of one US army air force general commenting on the failure of Harris's campaign "he is a busted flush". After this failure his concept of city busting became more and more of a minority point of view among senior officers in both air forces. If as you seem to be arguing this was a joint campaign then one would expect some sources to list US as well as RAF casualties when assessing the Battle, without such an example, I do not see how we can consider this idea that the US was directly involved in this campaign as anything more than WP:SYN. (The US bombed Berlin at the tail end of the RAF's campaign so they must have been part of the campaign). The US were following their own successful strategy of which Big Week was an example. But the RAF were not directly involved in Big Week any more than the USAAF were involved in the British campaign. By all means include a small section that mentions that the US also attacked Berlin during this period (as there is a section in Big Week on the RAF. But please don't mix the two together unless you have a source that specifically states that the USAAF was directly involved in the campaign. --PBS (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As some who contributes to these kind of articles I am stunned at your distinct lack of attention to detail. Of course the RAF were involved in Big week, it was part of Operation Point Blank. The US by day, the Brits by night. 131 RAF Bombers were lost on these missions, and these were in direct support. How do you not know this? Not only as it been cited by Donald Caldwell, who, as you should know, is one of the best aviation historians, you call this WP:SYN? Come on! As for Berlin the USAAF supressed the Luftwaffe and its aviation production to enable RAF Bomber command to not only gather its remaining strength, but also so it allocate forces to RAF Coastal Command. It would not have been able to deliver any attacks after February had it not been for the USAAF. Like I said, I have a citation to this effect, so and the table back, and the citation gets added too. Dapi89 (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the USAAF was directly involved in the campaign known as the Battle of Berlin, then produce a source that lists USAAF losses as part of the battle. That the British and Americans were taking part in POINT BLANK (combined bomber offensive) is not open to dispute, but the Casablanca directive was a compromise, it allowed the USAAF to go after its favoured targets and for Bomber Harris to continue to make the rubble bounce. The sources I have read although acknowledging that there were on occasions some joint targeting, by an large during this stage of the war the Allied air forces fought largely different campaigns. Over emphasising the US role in this battle/campaign is in my opinion a mistake unless there are reliable sources that can be cited which do the same. --PBS (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see you're not going to budge until a citation is added, so I have put one in. Now for the Reinstatement of the table...... Dapi89 (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading

I have reverted the recent changes because the battle includes the other raids as well as those directly against Berlin. So to alter the words from:

the RAF lost 1,047 bombers, with a further 1,682 damaged, and well over 7,000 aircrew, culminating in the raid on Nuremberg on March 30, 1944, when 94 bombers were shot down and 71 damaged, out of 795 aircraft.

to

the RAF lost 492 bombers, with a further 954 damaged and 95 written off. Including all targets of the operation, as well as Berlin, 1,047 bombers were destroyed and damaged. Over 7,000 aircrew, culminating in the raid on Nuremberg on March 30, 1944, when 94 bombers were shot down and 71 damaged, out of 795 aircraft.

is misleading, as raids on cities such as Nuremberg were an integral part of the campaign. --PBS (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sentence "Losses during the raids on Berlin were 492 bombers, with a further 954 damaged and 95 written off." But it is unclear to me if this number includes only those lost only in the 16 large raids or those such as on the night of 24 November / 25 November 1943: when a Mosquito was lost. --PBS (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Philip, the edits had taken other targets into account. Yes, it includes all losses. Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I went through the numbers in the RAF Bomber Command Campaign diary:

	Night	Losses
1	18/19 November 1943	9 Lancasters lost on Berlin raid. On a raid on Mannheim and Ludwigshafen the same night 23 aircraft lost - 12 Halifaxes, 9 Stirlings, 2 Lancasters
2	22/23 November	26 aircraft - 11 Lancasters, 10 Halifaxes, 5 Stirlings lost
3	23/24 November	20 aircraft - all Lancasters lost
4	26/27 November	28 Lancasters were lost. 14 more Lancasters crashed in England.
5	2/3 December	40 aircraft - 37 Lancasters, 2 Halifaxes, 1 Mosquito lost
6	16/17 December	25 Lancasters were lost. Many further aircraft were lost on returning to England. 29 Lancasters either crashed or were abandoned when their crews parachuted.
7	23/24 December	16 Lancasters were lost
8	28/29 December	20 aircraft - 11 Lancasters, 9 Halifaxes lost
9	1/2 January 1944	28 Lancasters lost
10	2/3 January	27 Lancasters lost
11	20/21 January	35 aircraft - 22 Halifaxes, 13 Lancasters lost
12	27/28 January	33 Lancasters lost
13	28/29 January	46 aircraft - 26 Halifaxes, 20 Lancasters lost
14	30/31 January	33 aircraft - 32 Lancasters and 1 Halifax lost
15	15/16 February	43 aircraft - 26 Lancasters, 17 Halifaxes lost
16	24/25 March	72 aircraft - 44 Lancasters, 28 Halifaxes lost

and it is not clear that this is so. Adding up the numbers I come to a total of 501 lost excluding a further 24 that crashed morning of Nov. 27th and 29 crashed on the morning of 17th Dec, which if included brings the total up to 554 lost during the raids. Some of the 24 and 29 may have been only damaged, but unless the source explicitly says all raids on Berlin and not just the large raids, I am not sure how one can tell from the source which raids go to make up the total. What are the exact words from the source you used on this? --PBS (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Philip, on a related subject, just before that "Battle Timeline" the article quotes an often-seen but never-referenced "Official History": 'in words of the official RAF history "in an operational sense the Battle of Berlin was more than a failure, it was a defeat".' I've been unable to find that in either the official military assessment (Webster and Frankland, "The Strategic Air Offensive against Germany", published in 1961) or the official history of the RAF in WWII (Richards and Saunders, "The Royal Air Force 1939-1945", published 1974). The quote in question appears to be one of these internet memes which take on a life of their own, and the reference is to a secondary source. Can you find the primary source? Sdoradus (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also say that the results at the top are quite mistaken too. Describing it as a "German victory" seems to be unsubstantiated by the citations. P (first time wiki "talk"er) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.20.244 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Google is out friend, a quick search of Google Books returns a number of books with the quote in it (so it is not an "internet memes which take on a life of their own" luckily it also returns the primary source:

• Webster, Sir Charles Kingsley; Frankland, Noble (1961). The strategic air offensive against Germany: 1939-1945. The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany: 1939-1945 (8 volumes). Vol. 2. H. M. Stationery Off. p. 193. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Moreover, in the operational sense, the Battle of Berlin was more than a failure. It was a defeat. The disastrous Nuremberg operation, in which the missing rate was no less than II -8 per cent, brought the Bomber Command tactics of ...

--PBS (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Harris Quote

The included quote from Harris "It will cost us between 400 and 500 aircraft. It will cost Germany the war." is misleading as it is incomplete. The full wording is something like: "if the USAAF comes in with us it will cost us between 400 and 500 aircraft. It will cost Germany the war." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.201.44 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the full quote:

"We can wreck Berlin from end to end if the USAAF come in with us. It will cost us between 400 and 500 aircraft. It will cost Germany the war". - from: "Technical and Military Imperatives: A Radar History of World War 2", by L. Brown, p 309, CRC Press, 1999

Revert of move

I have reverted the move made of this page first to Battle of Berlin (1944) then to Battle of Berlin (1943-1944) then by an other user to Battle of Berlin (1943–1944). I have done this because in my opinion the better dab extension is air. I think (air) is more appropriate for two reasons. Anyone looking for the RAF campaign is likely to include the word air in the search and are less likely to know the precise year of the battle. Those who do not realise that there was an air battle are likely to confuse Battle of Berlin (1943–1944) with the land battle of 45 which is probably what they would be looking for. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is quite farcical really. Articles should not be named on the basis of general ignorance or search expediency. In any case the Battle of Berlin (air) is a puerile title unbecoming of a serious military history article. At the very least "air" should be obliterated from the title. "(Aerial Battle or Campaign)" is more acceptable. Not good, but acceptable. I’m annoyed that you reverted on the grounds of controversy – I didn’t change the name, it will always be the Battle of Berlin. Adding the dates to the title is not controversial. Such a change will not ease the search either. There are only two articles on Wikipedia about battles in Berlin. Dapi89 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've met you half way. "Aerial Campaign" is better than "air". I won't mind if it is modified to "Air Campaign" if you prefer. Dapi89 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Articles should not be named on the basis of general ignorance or search expediency." That is what the descriptor in a disambiguation is all about. It should follow the usual WP:AT rules for a descriptive name. I am going to to revert your second move. Knowing that I had already objected to your change and explained my reasons here, you must realize that moving the article is controversial, so you should seek consensus before moving it. If you want to change the name then use a WP:RM and see if you can build a consensus for the change. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Phillip, you're pretending you have consensus for retaining it. You don't. I don't need to gain a consensus any more than you do. But since you've shown a blatant unwillingness to compromise on anything I would say that leaves me with far more of the morale high ground. You're objections are weak, so they do not act as a barrier. Modifiying, or actually, just clarifying the title is NOT controversial. I'm getting tired of you disrupting this articles progression. We've had this once before.

If you revert again, I'll have to get others involved. It is not a big change. You're being unreasonable. Dapi89 (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to get others involved if you wish to move the page then put the page up for a WP:RM. The name of this page has been stable since it was created in 2004. If you want to change it it is up to you to show that there is a consensus to do so that is what WP:RM is for. It is not up to me to show that there is no conensus for change as only two of us are debating the issue and I have told you that I think that "(air)" is a sufficient extension to the name for disambiguation purposes. The instructions are WP:RM on this issue are clear "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article." This I have done. Your persistent moves to different names without a consensus to do so is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Because you won't compromise. It shouldn't have to go anywhere. An understanding between two editors should reach compromise, particularly over such as simple issue. You won't and havn't. From the outset you've forced a fight over this. No it hasn't been stable. It has been contested before. WP:RM is not clear. It also says, "If a desired move is uncontroversial or technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself".

It is self evident who is being disruptive. Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Operational commander

What makes these men operational commanders of this battle?

• Ralph Cochrane
• Don Bennett
• Roderick Carr

-- PBS (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As I thought and said earlier; you're becoming a barrier to this articles progression...contesting everything and anything. Why do you think Shearer? Dapi89 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would help the development of the article if the question was answered without a personal attack. -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Its an observation. And you are. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide sources or I will revert the change under WP:PROVEIT -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Phillip, I'll add them when I'm ready to do so. It is disappointing you're opting to be difficult about everything. These people commanded the Groups and Jagdkorps/divisions that participated. Their units will appear on the orbat, so the aocs should follow. Dapi89 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Being in command of an RAF group does not make you a commander of this battle, any more than being a commander of a division in a land army made a man a commander of the Battle of Berlin in 1945. The only people who should be listed as commanders of this battle are those who were in operational command of the opposing forces not their superiors who gave directives and not their juniors who followed their orders. To do anything else is misleading as it implies that they all made decisions about how and where the battle should be fought. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

mmmm. The only people who should be listed as commanders of this battle are those who were in operational command of the opposing forces - er, yes Phillip. Group Commands are operational organisations, and those that command them are 'operational commanders'. Harris was not. He had so much influence on air strategy he was a de facto equal to Portal. You are also underestimating the influence Group Commanders had over the conduct of the battle. The decision to attack Berlin was Harris'. The methods of attack were adjusted throughout particularly in relation to NF support. With the Luftwaffe, devolved command pervaded. The operational commanders; that is the AOC of the organisation responsible for the air defence of Germany (Luftflotte Reich), and its subordinate units (a mixtured of Jagddivision—itslef an operational command; don't be misled by the word division) operated their commands as the situation demanded not as directed by a higher command. It was a form of aerial auftragstaktik. Dapi89 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If RAF group commanders are to be listed, then the commanders of 1, 3 and 6 Groups should be there, and they aren't. For some bizarre non-reason only the commanders of 4, 5 and 8 Groups are given. Bennett of 8 Group did have a special role, but the other group commanders simply did what they were told by Bomber Command, the only notable variation being in 1 Group, where a heavier bombload was specified, a fairly trivial factor. The list of obscure Nazi commanders is somewhat fetishistic and apparently intended to burnish the memory of the Third Reich. With Kammhuber out of the picture by that time, it would be more proper to say simply that the Allied commander was Harris and the enemy commander was Goering, who, after all, commanded the flak as well as the night fighters -- and the flak did have something to do with the matter. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move to Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign). There's clear consensus for a move, and this suggestion appears to be the best supported. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Battle of Berlin (air) → Battle of Berlin (aerial campaign or air campaign – Unfortunately I making this request because I have encountered resistance from a particular editor who seems to want to contest this issue rather than compromise; overtures to which he outright rejected. This article is supposed to be a serious one. Calling it Battle of Berlin (air) not only looks and sounds ridiculous, it does not help anyone navigate to this article any quicker. There are only two articles on wikipedia concerning battles in or over Berlin; the Battle of Berlin and the absurd Battle of Berlin (air). Now, a layman looking at this article will find it easier if the title offers greater clarity; Battle of Berlin (aerial campaign), or "air offensive", "air campaign". The subject will be immediately apparent and leave no ambiguity as well as looking like a competent piece. Essentially, "Battle of Berlin "(air)" does not overcome the ambiguity it is supposed to. The addition of campaign to the bracket would be far more professional. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Graham L. has suggested Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign). A better title. Propose a change to this. Dapi89 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Comment this article is specifically about the Battle of Berlin fought from November 1943 until March 1940, which included attacks on other cities as well the the primary target which was Berlin. There is another article about the general strategic bombardment of Berlin during World War II called Bombing of Berlin in World War II. -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The official RAF name for the battle is "Battle of Berlin". (air) is a sufficient disambiguation name to distinguish it from the better known 1945 Battle of Berlin. The name of this article has been stable since it was first created as stub back in 2004. -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has acknowledged it could be confused with air operations during the 1945 battle. The fact that is hasn't been changed since 2004 (twice challenged) is completely irrelevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am supportive of the rename. To what? I don't know. After reading the arguments presented below I am unsure what the best fit should be, but I do feel that the current name, "Battle of Berlin (air)", also does not capture the intend correctly. I do think that a better disambiguation from the bombing of Berlin article is required. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Do you mean "bombing of Berlin article" or did you mean "battle of Berlin article"? -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support In my view a "Battle" implies a specific event over a relatively short period of time. This seems more like a Aerial Campaign. Indeed, when I first saw this title, my first thought was of the Soviet capture of Berlin in April/May 1945. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Can I support my own initiative? Suggest changing it to Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign) as proposed by Graham L. Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Its explained like that: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move: Note: Nominators should usually not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion. If you feel the need to explicitly !vote (e.g. to add a personal observation that isn't part of the formal nomination rationale, or because you no longer agree with the nomination but it is already supported by other parties and can't really be retracted), do so with "as nominator", e.g.  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ... --Staberinde (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely Support to some new name. Battle of Berlin air? What? Srsrox (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support rename to Template:Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign) on basis of lead. CsDix (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I don't see how "Battle of Berlin (air)" is ambiguous - how can it mean anything other than an air battle? (Hohum ^@) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the official English term. In German, the most frequent term is Luftschlacht um Berlin—translating to something like "Air Battle of Berlin"—or Luftschlacht über Berlin—Air Battle over Berlin". If I had a choice, I would probably chose "Air Battle of Berlin". If I have to chose among the three options presented here, I am inclined to chose "Battle of Berlin (aerial campaign)" because it was a campaign, a sequence of multiple attacks or battles, not just one single battle. I think what Dapi means with ambiguity is that "Bombing of Berlin in World War II" and "Battle of Berlin (air)" are confusing. I think he has a point here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are there any possible alternatives which use natural disambiguation rather than parenthetical? Air battle of Berlin, perhaps? RAF bombing of Berlin? bobrayner (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Some of which you mention are much better than the present one. Dapi89 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dapi89 I have refactored you comment immediately proceeding this one ("Yes. Some of which ...") by inserting some indentation. In future please insert you comments at the end of a thread and not in the middle of it. If you feel that you absolutely have to insert a comment in the middle of a thread, then pleas insert it at the appropriate indentation depth. In this case without the indentation it appears as if User:Hohum was asking a question of you rather than bobrayner and the only way that is not apparent is by reading the time stamps on the postings which makes for very confusing threads. -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What do reliable sources use? (Hohum ^@) 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

They use the dates. I have an near infinite amount of sources that use "Battle of Berlin 1943-1944). PBS is trying to argue that "air" carries greater clarity that "air battle" or some such title. One could easily call this Battle of Berlin (Air Operation) or battle of Berlin 1943-1944. Dapi89 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be an odd article that did not include dates, all articles include the the date of the land battle that does not mean that it has to be used in the title. See my comment below: dates do not make good disambiguation descriptors. -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The official battle name is "Battle of Berlin" obviously there is a better known battle with the same name "Battle of Berlin (land)" although that is not its official name Soviet or German name. The name "RAF bombing of Berlin" is not suitable as the RAF bombed Berlin before and after the "Battle of Berlin (air)" most notably every night for over a month just before the start of the land battle (There is an article on the Allied bombing of Berlin called Bombing of Berlin in World War II). -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

MisterBee1966, it is a British World War II habit to call a campaign a battle, and once the name has stuck it is what is commonly used. Eg "Battle of France", "Battle of Britain", "Battle of the Atlantic" (the longest continual campaign of the war). Adding campaign to the title is unnecessary (unless you think that it is needed for other reasons than disambiguation) in which case you must presumably think that these other battles should have a descriptor tagged onto the end.It is in part to do with the British concept of Battle Honours, and a battle honour is considered more of a honour than a campaign medal. So naming it the Battle of Berlin is an honour for the squadrons and men in those squadrons, and the reason, apart from common usage, it is used in the official RAF history. -- PBS (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite possible to read current title and think that article is about air force participation during 1945 battle. Wouldn't date be better here, like Battle of Berlin (1943-1944)?--Staberinde (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I moved it to that veru one. It was reverted. Would you support a change to that? At present the only one who who is totally opposed is Shearer. So far we have two in favour of a change (I believe the other is Misterbee1966). So it would be useful for a decision sooner rather than later. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

dates do not make good disambiguation descriptors, because someone who does not know much about the air battle or the land battle, is likely to end up at the wrong article unless they know the dates before they search. Leaving it at "Battle of Berlin" and "Battle of Berlin (air)" reduces the likelihood of that happening. As to the likely confusion about "air force participation during 1945 battle" the hatnote and lead paragraph in both articles solves that problem, which will only occur in the first place if someone is specifically searching for air element of the "Battle of Berlin (land)". Currently a Google search for [Battle of Berlin air] or or [Battle of Berlin Royal Air Force] or [Battle of Berlin RAF] all return Battle of Berlin (air) a search on [Battle of Berlin] returns the Battle in 1945 (and the air article does not appear on the first page of results). If the title of this article were changed to a date disambiguation it is quite possible that a simple search on [Battle of Berlin] would return both Wikipedia articles which is less desirable than the current state of affairs. -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Air battle of South Korea has never run into any problems, so I would think "air battle" should be clear enough. —Ed!^(talk) 12:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The name of the battle is "Battle of Berlin" it is not a descriptive name (which I presume "Air battle of South Korea" is as the second word starts with a lowercase letter), the therefore as there is another battle with the same name it needs a bracketed disambiguate. A disambiguation of (air) is sufficient to disambiguate the name for the land battle. -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin (1944-1945) implies there might be other articles such as Battle of Berlin (1941-1943). [{Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign)]] at least identifies it as British - and that it is a more than a single action - and therefore unlikely to be confused with Soviets in 45.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Graham. I can see that, yes. I think your suggestion is much better. Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign) is the best suggestion yet. Dapi89 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a battle not a campaign, it was part of the campaign (see Air Crew Europe Star). Also there is a question of POV here it is commonly called the Battle of Berlin, so that is not an issue, but the dab should be neutral, so not only is "RAF campaign" inaccurate it is also not a neutral dab extension. -- PBS (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

the "Battle of Berlin was a British bombing campaign on Berlin from November 1943 – March 1944" - there are campaigns and Campaigns. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate? Do we have to go over the definition of "campaign" Phillip? It was a campaign alright. In fact it is distinct from all other coordinated efforts in that this was meant to be a war-winning effort, unlike other operations. RAF/campaign/operation or some such phrase is accurate. Dapi89 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The RAF referred to the whole effort by Bomber Command as the bombing campaign and actions such as this and the Battle of the Ruhr as battles. I do not see that discussing the "definition of 'campaign'" alters that fact. The Battle of Berlin was described by the Soviets as a "Strategic Offensive Operation" but we do not embed that in the title just because it may be more accurate and descriptive than the common name. As I said above disambiguation of (air) is neutral and sufficient, incorporating RAF into the title is superfluous and not neutral. A further complication is that the whole bombing effort of Berlin by the RAF (as described in Bombing of Berlin in World War II) can be seen as the "RAF campaign" so placing that into this title is confusing. -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Phillip, that is not true. Harris saw this as a campaign, distinct from previous operations and unconnected with the Americans. The Ruhr and Hamburg were battles fought to hone the weapon, in concert with official directives. This was the war winner. A knock out blow did not feature in any of the official RAF directives, or in any agreement between the Allied COS. It was Harris' porogative. That makes this his personal campaign, unconnected with the larger bombing of Germany. He was allowed to go ahead with it to see if it could be done. Besides the main title still is the Battle of Berlin! Disam' is just clarification of which one. It is not superfluous Phillip, come on. It provides a clear and instant message to the reader about what they are looking at without having to read any part of the article. "Air" is not sufficient. It is, rather ironically, far more ambiguous - at least relative to "RAF campaign". Its too abrupt. And how is this non-neutral? It is a statement of fact. I don't see it as a complication and certainly no more complicated than having two articles called Battle of Berlin (air) and Bombing of Berlin during World War II. What is to prevent confusion here? At least with a revision to campaign one can see that this is a sustained battle fought by the RAF, as part of Harris' campaign to win the war by the spring, distinct from other bombing undertaken by several powers throughout the war. Dapi89 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bishop refers to it as a campaign, just as there were campaigns against Hamburg, the Ruhr as the primary focus of the overall bombing of Germany shifted. Unfortunately I got Bishop (and Hastings) from the library so can't give chapter and verse now. The key point though is that the disambiguation makes it clearer for a reader to pick the article for the topic they are interested in. If they were after Soviet operations in 1945, then "RAF" or "British" helps make the distinction, "campaign" marks it out as more than one single incident unlike Battle of Barking Creek. Perhaps we should refactor the survey to list options and pose the issue as two questions 1) Does the disambiguation element need tobe changed for the purposes of clarity? 2) if so what should it be? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GL of course one can refer to the specific group of attacks with one objective as a campaign, but one can also refer to the overall campaign as a campaign. For example the British land forces fought a series of Battles between D-Day and Lunenburg Heath, and while one can break the invasion into septate campaigns, one can also do as the British Army did and refer to it as the North West Europe Campaign (1944-1945). so I do not think that using campaign as a descriptor brings the clarity you are attaching to the word.

The point of a disambiguation is to separate one title from another. It has long since been agreed on the talk pages of AT policy page that the dab extension should be sufficient to distinguish it from the other meaning but not verbose. In this case, with the extension as is, a Google search on [Berlin RAF campaign] returns this article first and the bombing of Berlin as the second one -- So (AFAICT) do other likely search combinations. -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you mean Lüneburger Heide? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry for asking I gew up there and so far I have never seen it so abused. I never stop learning MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Why not simply Battle of Berlin (air battle)? It's not as awkward as just "(air)", and whether it was a campaign or not seems too academic an issue for an article title. There are plenty of land battles that could be considered campaign as well. Peter ^Isotalo 18:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything is better than air. I would chose campaign, but air bettle is just as good. Dapi89 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment just thought as it was the name of an RAF operation could it not be Battle of Berlin (RAF Bomber Command). MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2013 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/sqn_hons_ww2_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Original page seems to have disappeared in the course of site reorganization, but archived version supports the claimed battle honour.—Odysseus1479 23:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign). 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/20070611025957/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112173933/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/feb44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611031914/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

CE

Tidied references and citations, added biblio details, isbn 13s etc. A few discrepancies to resolveKeith-264 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Expansion

Background and Prelude imported from Battle of the Ruhr; more to add to cover gap between Ruhr and Berlin. Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed reference for the Chronology from Middlebrook and Everitt 1996 to 1985 as this is a paper edition so no ambiguity about page numbers. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Lot of the commanders mentioned in infobox are not mentioned anywhere else. Perhaps a brief overview of the Reich defence organisation/forces? Or leave them out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The lede mentions RAF and Luftwaffe losses and says the campaign did not achieve its intent, but doesn't say how much damage it did cause. Nor the reasons it didn't succeed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, there's a long way to go to get it to B class. I started adding detail to the chronology but realised that much of it should go in the Battle section so stopped. My original copy of Middlebrook and Everitt was a scan and the pages were all over the place so I sorted that out yesterday. The Background needs to incorporate Hamburg and the longer-range raids in late summer and autumn as the nights got longer and the German reply to Window, Tame Boar and new radar equipment. The quick relegation of the Stirling squadrons then the early Halifax marks at the start of the battle needs noting, followed by the other tactical moves and counter-moves during the campaign. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

FlaK

The word "FlaK," with a capital K, should be explained somewhere. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Elrondil: Not sure what you're trying to achieve. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: A spit ‘n polish. I hadn’t decided on nor committed to “a wholesale” sweep through all articles in that class. I also didn’t notice that you had manually reverted my earlier changes, although I did pause when hitting déjà vu.

I boldly applied MOS:UNIT and MOS:CVT to this non-scientific article with strong ties to UK and Germany … and four other countries. Because of the multiple ties, I tilted towards SI units for distance, length and speed as well, because the SI units are comprehended by all AND the non-SI units will be right next to it. I also opted for unambiguous units … so “pound” instead of the ambiguous “ton” for US readers … but I wasn’t and still am not so sure about that one.

I also wasn’t so sure about changing language from British to Oxford, but in the end it felt right because there are six countries listed in the Belligerents section of the infobox, the difference between British and Oxford is … what … and Oxford is in England, so going Oxford seems like a reasonable middle ground. Personally I’d prefer Australian, but meh 😀, I can be bold.

The one thing I’ve noticed all these articles need is a sweep around citations. Headings could be more consistent, and commonly used literature could be moved into Wikidata to create consistency and make it easier to manage … to normalise it.

But, Wikipedia is big, really really big, so I can go play elsewhere if you’d rather I leave it be. Let me know. Elrondil (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that some bugger reads them ;O) but changing things like imperial to metric requires consensus and the national tie to Britain in an article in English Wiki is hard to rebut; I doubt that German wiki imposes imperial to metric. The trouble with Oxford English usage is that it is rare in English, full of mad commas and the normal sort is the majority usage. If you like OzEng you'd find it where Oz is the predominant national tie German attack on Lagnicourt if it wasn't subsumed in Commonwealth English. Usually if anyone wants a wholesale change they remark on it on the Milhist board Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see what effect it will have on consensus. Your comments about headings are interesting and I'm interested to know more and Wikidata is a closed book so I could probably learn a lot from you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The tie to the UK in that article is irrefutable, but so are the ties to the other belligerents. In that case, the MOS says the primary units chosen will be SI units. There also doesn’t currently seem to BE a consensus regarding units, given that non-SI and SI units are BOTH used as primary depending where you look. The unit is sometimes also wrong: yesterday I came across a number in tonnes but when I fact-checked it, it turned out it should have been long tons. It is a bit of a dog’s breakfast IMO, and making it consistently SI primarily would solve it.

I don’t think seeking consensus to change British to Oxford is worth the effort, given that Oxford principally [...] means the use of -ize instead of -ise endings, but otherwise traditional British spelling and vocabulary. Going Oxford just “internationalizes” it. I’m not totally sure what the German Wikipedia does 🤷‍♂️.

The reference sections in the articles here vary widely, and could benefit from a consistent application of MOS:REFERENCES. For the sake of simplicity, may I suggest a flat non-nested sequence of the following headings:

• Notes for explanatory footnotes and so on,
• References for inline citations,
• Bibliography (or whatever name, just be consistent) for any full citations to sources used by any short citations, and finally
• General references for anything consulted in writing the article but that is not explicitly cited.

Regarding Wikidata, I’m happy to share what I know. It’s not perfect yet, but IMO good enough to pass while already delivering important benefits. The downside is entering them in Wikidata: the tools aren’t that great (yet), but neither is editing a table in Wikipedia, right? But once they’re entered, you can just keep reusing them elsewhere ... and MAINTAIN them in a SINGLE place ... imagine rescuing the URL for something cited in 100 article by just updating the URL to the new value once instead of having to find and update them in all those articles ... hence my focus on “commonly used literature”, like Campaign Diary (Q131324214), The Bomber's Baedeker (2nd ed.) (Q131175942), The red Rooster over Brunswick (Q131286971) and The Army Air Forces in World War II (Q25338389). At their simplest they can be used like {{cite Q |Q5198924 |mode=cs1}} (the |mode=cs1 bit shouldn't be needed, but its the only way I found to ensure the terminating period is always there) for James Battye, ed. (1912). Cyclopedia of Western Australia. Adelaide: Hussey and Gillingham. OCLC 220346033. Wikidata Q5198924., or as complicated as {{cite Q |Q125962577 |chapter=State Institutions Governed by Boards |editor-first=James S. |editor-last=Battye |editor-link=James Battye |page=530 |chapter-url=https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-250451699/view?partId=nla.obj-250526216#page/n549/mode/1up |mode=cs2}} for Battye, James S., ed. (1912), "State Institutions Governed by Boards", Cyclopedia of Western Australia, vol. 1, Adelaide: Hussey and Gillingham, p. 530, OCLC 758407223, Wikidata Q125962577. I have built a cheat-sheet for myself, let me know and I can email it or something. Elrondil (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have your home page set to show article ratings? Most of the ones about the bombing of Germany you have edited are start class (Berlin is B-class). You can add these to your screen by going into preferences. With the scholarly apparatus, they tend to be notes, footnotes, references, with further reading for sources not cited. As it's EngWiki, that other countries are metric doesn't matter when the national tie is to Britain which uses hybrid weights and measures [so] its long tons→metric, mph→km/h, yet mm of rain etc. If I may ask, are you new to Wiki because you seem quite knowledgeable of its intricacies? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Apropos Oxford, it makes me cringe as well as being a minority usage. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not how I read the MOS. Totally agree for articles predominantly about the UK, but this article here isn't. Elrondil (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Br and US both use imperial, the other countries are either Commonwealth (same) or continental. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)