Talk:Front (military)

Military history: World War I / World War II

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Proposed merge with Front line

The result of this discussion is no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Front line seems to just be an article on the same topic, that needs to be WP:GLOBALIZEed. And sourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Although neither article is very good, the topics are quite distinct. It doesn't help that Front (military) has some bits in it that are about Front Line. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopaedic: could you lead me in the right direction in trying to clarify how the two are distinct? Because at the moment, both are unsourced, and seem to describe essentially the same thing. The first sentence of one describes it as "a contested armed frontier between opposing forces", and the other says it's "the closest position(s) of an armed force's personnel and equipment...the forward-most friendly maritime or land forces on the battlefield..." I can't distinguish between the two enough to find sources that definitely refer to one or the other. If anything, I thought maybe one seems to refer to the space between opposing forces, and the other stub seems to just refer to the troops and equipment at that space, but each article goes on to obfuscate that point. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially the difference between "a front" (a technical term in strategy) and "the front" (common language for "front line" or "FEBA"). A front is either the whole contested boundary ( I don't much like "frontier") between two opposing armies, or a strategically-distinct part of it (the Western Front, or the Vosges Front). "The front" just means the actual line or point of contact with the enemy - where the fighting is. Wikipedia is about topics, not defining words, and the two are distinct topics.

The last two bullet points in Front (military), however, seem to refer to "front line" rather than "a front" and should be moved or deleted. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But...A "contested boundary" is the "point of contact with the enemy", right? If it wasn't, the boundary wouldn't be contested. I agree, as you say, that WP should be about topics rather than definitions, but in this case from what I've seen so far, there seems to be more difficulty distinguishing the topics than defining each term. Is it possible that Front line should be deleted as a WP:DICDEF? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression that perhaps "a front" refers to a large scale overview of a contested boundary, whereas "front line" (when not used as an adjective for particular materiel or personnel, e.g. "front line/frontline troops"), or "FEBA" refers to the forces on a particular battlefield/battlespace. If that's true, the question IMO is whether or not the two are actually distinct concepts, or the same concept at different scales. Or more to the point, are they concepts that are distinct enough that they should continue on as two stubs, or should they be combined, expanded, compared/contrasted, and WP:SPLIT once they reach an acceptably complete or at least coherent degree of coverage of their respective topics. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.