Talk:Air-raid shelter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Fortifications task force

Have apologised to David Levinson, he was not involved int the changes of 19Feb. I have a feeling the pages may be corrupted, well, it's either that or I have gone barmy, but certain things about don't seem my style. I am asking a developer to take a look at it, the article that is, not me. ;-) --Dieter Simon 23:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Umlauts in hoch as in hochbunker 2 Who designed the Anderson Shelter? 3 Interesting picture 4 Merger of "Fallout shelter" with "Air raid shelter" 5 Problem with this article

[edit] Umlauts in hoch as in hochbunker

The German adjective hoch in the positive form never has an umlaut. It is only when it changes to the comparative höher or the superlative höchst that it receives the umlaut. Dieter Simon 00:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who designed the Anderson Shelter?

Many seemingly reputable websites and Encarta say the shelter was named after its designer, Dr David A. Anderson

Although Dr David Anderson, one of the engineers from the Institute of Civil Engineers, was involved in the evaluation of the design it was named after Sir John Anderson, the Lord Privy Seal at the time, who initiated the development of the shelter. Dieter Simon 22:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem I find is that almost all of the sources citing him as the person after whom the shelter is named, call him the designer of the shelter. In fact, it was William Patterson and Oscar Karl Kerrison who were the designers. David A was really one of the civil engineering evaluation team, not a very likely eponym of the product. Dieter Simon

The BBC website and the Museum of London website both quote Sir John Anderson. Dieter Simon

[edit] Interesting picture

Here's an interesting picture of a "bomb shelter" (as captioned) I found while browsing through the Library of Congress OWI archive: [1]. It's essentially a ditch. Thought it might be good for this article, but there doesn't seem to be anything about ditches used for shelters in here. Maybe someone more familiar with the topic can use it better. howcheng {chat} 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The 'ditch' as you call it, is better known as a 'slit trench' and were very common. See: [2] --Aspro 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of "Fallout shelter" with "Air raid shelter"

If any merger is to be done at all it should be "fallout shelter" into "air raid shelter", and not the other way round. Fallout shelters are later a development of shelter after the creation of the atomic bomb, etc. My opinion is that they are totally different concepts, and therefore should not be merged at all. Fallout shelters are much more complicated in their conception, technology and the circumstances under which they were built. By all means, link the two articles but basically they are not really the same thing at all.

As regards to "Blast shelter", again all the original air raid shelters were created under entirely different circumstances, they came in assembly kits, or were built according to the sudden dire needs of an actual ongoing war, were the development of pre-existing structures such as cellars, basements, underground stations, etc. rather than according to pre-conceived ideas of a war that might or might not happen such as a nuclear war. It's almost like merging "cavalry" with "tanks". Dieter Simon 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. These are different classes of shelter and are better off as separate articles. All the different shelters are only a click away anyway.--Aspro 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. They are different types of shelters, and both articles stand on their own. AndyBQ (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge. Spot87 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not Merge. Even though they are somewhat alike they are two different types of shelters, as by the difference in names suggests. Fallout shelters protect from nuclear fallout as air-raid shelters protect from aerial attacks. If some distinctions that are in the article which there are major similarities then see WP:POV Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with this article

I seem to have lost the last sections of this article "air-raid shelter" while trying to correctly enter the sources of the various sections. I am trying to get some help to fix this Dieter Simon (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it, it was a missing > on a closing ref tag. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)