Talk:Operation Haudegen

Language

I explained that Haudegen means “swashbuckler” in German; just to make sure people don't think it doesn't mean “swashbuckler” in Norwegian. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

This text say:

The group of men were the last German troops to surrender after the Second World War.

Make sure, at least, as far as the Western front is concerned. About the Eastern front, we know nothing.

Last Date

According to the 2010 Spiegel article, the arrival of the Norwegian vessel and the surrender took place on the 3rd -- not 4th -- of September. Perhaps the evacuation took place the next day -- or not? Kdammers (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Expansion

Added material from Fritham et al. but ran out of material for the actual article.....Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Cut extraneous material from the expansion and added a little from Dege. Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is crap

The actual operation that this article is named after is covered in four lines at the end of the article, the rest of the article has nothing to do with the title of this article.81.141.39.235 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Do better, crapper. Keith-264 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How very grown up of you? If you can't take criticism, I don't think WP is the place for you. It's blunt but the IP can't be more clear, this article is almost entirely unrelated material about similar but unrelated German weather operations in Svalbard during WII. Putting it all in a section entitled "Background" and saying it has no where else to go is dubious and wrong.146.199.128.197 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to look, this is a stub class article Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. The summary of earlier operations fills it out because no other editor has been able to add more about Haudegen which is why it doesn't have a higher rating. If anyone ever digs up a better source then the balance of the article can be altered. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Enquiry: Article should be rewritten

This article should be rewritten. Reason is that majority of the content provided does not have much relevance towards the Operation Haudegen. Other pages should be made, for the other operations in the article if they are not made yet. -LordAwalon (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment moved to the footer. @LordAwalon: moved your comment to the bottom of the page where new comments go. As you can see, the articles has its flaws because of a lack of material. Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The usual complaint from editors who have nothing to add but complaints. Find some sources. Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just realised that the source I've got by Dege is the one we've all been looking for. Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is fine, but it needs moving to "Svalbard during World War II". There doesn't seem to be an article on this and this article would form an admirable basis. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Content

@Peacemaker67: You're right of course but until I get round to finding sources it isn't going to get any better. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the scope/title should be changed? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly but having been reminded of the article, I have the the source I need (Dege) but not the time so I'll leave it to others. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Came across this article, so why hasn't it been improved?

I was just watching a youtube video by Mark Felton Production about the WWII Arctic weather war and so I eventually ended up here. I have to say I agree with the other IP above complaining about this article being all about other events on Svalbard during the war and just a couple of lines about the actual events which are the subject of the article's title. As an IP editor myself, I have to say the reaction from the Keith-264 character is par for the course this site. He smacks of arrogance, conceit and self importance. The IP is correct. I just watched a video but article's title is the "whole" year of the war? And no one sees fit to correct this error? Should I go over to the Waterloo page and use that as the whole title for the "Napoleonic Wars"? It should be for the best of all to be renamed in accordance with what another editor said "Svalbard in WWII". Not difficult? Won't be the first time hubris stops common sense on Wikipedia though.146.199.128.197 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you're an editor why aren't you AGF? There is context but no article because no-one has sources and the interest to do it. Do you fancy a go? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)