Talk:Funkabwehr

1. Orpo units still to finish. scope_creep (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

In chapter Formation it's stated: Referat 12 was formed when Wilhelm Vauck, a mathematician was ordered to report to In 7/VI in the spring of 1942, to attend a cryptographic course (General der Nachrichtenaufklärung Training Referat). As far as I know, the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung (GdNA) was established not before 1944. How could then Vauck attend a course of GdNA in 1942? Best wishes --OS (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @OS: It is a naming problem. There is a rule which is not hard and fast that when your writing an article about an organisation that goes through a whole bunch of interactions, naming changes, organisational changes and so on, you tend to use the last name of that organisation when your are creating the article and provide descriptions of the name changes and so on within the body of the article. The information for that came from a document by Wilhelm Fenner who discussed setting up a crypto training organisation for the Wehrmacht in mid-41 but there is very little information about it as Inspectorate 7 organisation, it is all GDNA, it was secondary information, so that article took what was there, so there is not much to build on. Mainly the course itself. So in that rule, you would generally link from source into a section in the article, but there is nothing there. If you want to change it, go ahead. I would welcome any constructive changes that improve the quality of the article. scope_creep^Talk 14:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That article is still to be finished, there is a article on Vauck at the "Archival material relating to Hendrik MIERSEMANN". UK National Archives. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, Thank you for the explanations. Best wishes, --OS (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Article size

@Polonius: That article is 150k, which is a perfectly reasonable size. It is not getting split. Unless the article is above about 300-350k, which is a long been considered a long article by most of the community, then its a long article, then it can split. That policy is well understood. Don't put unnecessary tags on articles that dont need them. All it does is degrade it. You have barely done any work here and I don't think you understand what current consensus is. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What is your source for your definitions of "reasonable", and to which policy do you refer? WP:SIZE, which I mentioned in the edit summary, suggests less than 6,000 words as a good readable prose size, and more than 15,000 words as "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". The readable prose size of the article when I tagged it (as calculated by the built in prosesize gadget) is over 19,000 words.

As for "You have barely done any work here and I don't think you understand what current consensus is.", I refer you to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. You will note that your response to my tagging the page checks almost every box. There is no threshold of contributions to a particular article somebody is obliged to pass before their input counts. Polonius (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)