Talk:Strategic bombing during World War I

Military history: Aviation / Technology / World War I

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	World War I task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation 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 task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

What's wrong with R-planes?

Simple - it is slang, and informal, and to be avoided as per WP:MOS (as is the use of "planes" in general when it comes to aircraft), and the correct term is Riesenflugzeug/Riesenflugzeuge. The fact I didn't add italics is no reason to revert.NiD.29 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you are ready to do it right, I won't revert. But "Riesenflugzeug" is not plural and cannot be used as such. Nor is it an adjective, and to use it as such ("Riesenflugzeug bombers") is as slangy and informal as "R-planes". That's why I reverted you. Had you used the word properly without italics, I would have just added italics. But how does an untranslated German word—that you clearly didn't understand—help our readers? Srnec (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do understand it and you can drop the attitude problem, however you reverted me twice, first when I tried using directly (when all you had to do was add the "e" which I forgot, and second when I tried to work around your claim.NiD.29 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cities under bombing

Lisbon, Tokyo and Moscow were not bombed 83.58.45.146 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow wasn't a capital at the time. I have revised the wording in light of Lisbon and Tokyo, although arguable neither was a major belligerent. Srnec (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OgamD218: From the article: "In December 1916, two Zeppelins of the R Class took off from Wainoden in an attempt to bomb Saint Petersburg." The statement you removed said "targeted". I believe that both Saint Petersburg and Vienna were targeted. But I'm not going to edit war over it. As you can see above, all of this has been brought up before. Srnec (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Thank you for the initiative taking this to here. I apologize I missed this thread. I wouldn't exactly consider the above discussion as having resolved the issue. Should we simply re-word that part? It seems the way "targeted" is being used is confusing. I do not believe I am the only reader who would assume it means actually impacted by a strategic bombing attack-which is much more significant than merely being an intended or attempted target at any time during a 4 year long war. Separately, Lisbon never should have been included amongst the "major belligerents". OgamD218 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]