This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I have created a section for tactics derived directly from the developments of electronic warfare equipment.
I removed "* Razzles - air-dropped incendiaries for starting crop and forest fires" because as Paul pointed out it is not fit either category. --
PBS (
talk)
12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Unknown German electronic device
I have found reference to a device with the designation FuG 240, but it doesn't include a word like "Neptun" or "Lichtenstein". Can somebody help me out?
Magus732 (
talk)
19:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)reply
FuG 240 "Berlin" was a very late-war german centrimetric airborne interception radar. Was only installed into some Ju 88G, almost all of them were later found in Denmark. A google search will help you find more infos. --
Denniss (
talk)
20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Revision as of 04:10, 25 June 2013 N2e (removed unsourced assertions that had been fact-tagged for over two months; please add back in if you have a reliable source citation you can add to support the claims)
I have not watched this page for may years and I am here by chance (so I will not look for a reply if you want me to reply then ping me or leave a message on my talk page). It took me minutes to find citations for all of these "citation needed" requests. However this is a list and I do not think that when the name of an entry links to another article it is reasonable to request a citation on this page unless there is a specific item on the line that the person asking for a citation wants to see. In which case they should either explain here on the talk page or add a supplementary hidden comment with the {{citation needed}} template. For this reason I have removed the {{Citation needed}} templates from lines like
Huff-Duff – Allied HF/DF High Frequency Direction Finding
As the linked article explains what it is and has references the challenge with "{{citation needed}}" on such a line is unreasonable (as the main subject on the line is clearly verifiable) without a further explanatory comment to explain why else the citation is required. Therefore I think placing such templates on lines with a linked subject, or deleting such a line because it does not carry a citation, is disruptive.
I am disappointed in several ways over these requests
N2e you do not seem to have made any effort to look for citations yourself. Remember that
WP:PROVEIT states "if you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." you do not seem to have made any effort yourself, and surly you did not think that "Airborne Cigar (A.B.C.)" was unverifiable when a simple Google book search returns a score of hits for
"ABC (airborne cigar)". So OK you may not have thought that one was easy to find, but it beggars belief that you could not find one source for any of the thirteen items you tagged and apparently intended to delete, and so IMHO such deletions are disruptive.
I am amazed that no other editor who looked at this page over the last few months can be bothered to look for citations when they are requested. The ones I have found are not the best (found by quick Google searches and selecting the first that coves the subject). A slower more methodical approach would probably turn up a much better source that covered many of the items in this list.