Talk:Baltic Fleet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Baltic Fleet is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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.

Contents

[edit] Partial list of commanders

[edit] Assessment

The article needs citations before it'll qualify as A-Class; they're a sine qua non for high-quality articles now. Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this article doesn't cite any sources for the facts about Imperial Russia. I've tagged it as unsourced, I'll try to find sources myself but obviously the original author is better placed to do this. Fysidiko 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't mention anything about the Imperial base in Libau/Liepāja. —PētersV (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Banner Baltic Fleet

I reckon the current fleet should eventually have a page called 'Red Banner Baltic Fleet' or better still 'Twice Red Banner Baltic Fleet' with lots of redirects at 'Soviet Baltic Fleet', 'Russian Baltic Fleet' etc. Question is, when was the Red Banner awarded? Would that untidily cut off somewhere in the 20s and 30s? Or could the rest be left to Baltic Fleet (Russian Empire)?
Touche on the German business by the way Mrg. Anything on the WW1 formations in the area? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The first award of the Order of Red Banner was on the 20 February 1928 after this was awarded to the cruiser Avrora [1]
Call me predictable (or even near-idiot), but I prefer a more consistent approach to data management (probably all those decades of working with databases). If there is already in use a state modifier applied to unit ID e.g. 15th Strategic Missile Command (Andorra), then this should be applied consistently, and not at the whim of individual editors. I guess in this I disagree with you strongly on lumping units and formations of the Imperial Russia, Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in one article. Have fun with the Baltic Fleet (and other fleets) where all the former Imperial Navy ships disappeared overnight and were 'recommissioned' under new Soviet names (except Avrora).
Are you now going to work on navies in the Baltic during First World War? My knowledge in this is rudimentary --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of the rule is that it's only necessary when there is going to be another military unit or formation under exactly the same name. That was the reason for all the discussion at the 3 Shock talk page. I'd prefer to stick with that rule. My current plans? Inserting what Erickson says, if I can find it, about the Sinavino (spelling error, sorry) operation for 2 Shock before the book is due back at the library. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In my experience when dealing with organisational data consistency its hard enough to keep, so the challenges in Wikipedia would be far greater. The approach needs to be one based on the KISS principle. There is not much difference between typing in Baltic Fleet (Soviet Union) and Red Banner Baltic Fleet other then the fact that you are following this rule yourself! How many Armies are there with honorific awards that are not included in the name of the unit? Is awarding one Order to one formation different to another? The "Red Banner" is not like the Guards status. Its just a formation award. The name of the formation remains the Baltic Fleet. This is where you start having a problem. The 20th Combined Arms Army which you have listed under the 4th Guards Tank, is also an Order of Red Banner. However the 4th Guards Tank Army was not. So why make an exception for the navy, and drop the honorific for the Army? BTW, I see now that the 20th in the article is not Order of Red Banner either. It seems to me that there should not be any exceptions. The syntax should be Unit or Formation name, Arm of Service, and nation on formation in brackets. In the case of the Shock Armies I just didn't want to continue the argument, but there is not difference there. For naming consistency the unit should be 3rd Shock Army (Soviet Union) If that was done, we would not have had an argument over Ukraine because it would have been self-evident.
I would suggest you keep going with Erickson due to time constraint. There is way too much information in Russian for me to start helping when you are under your own time constraint. When you are done with Erickson, tell me. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)