Talk:Battle of Arras (1940)

Additional info from [1] here, but it's an article on the entire Western Front.

British tactical victory

...is nonsense. It failed to achieve anything. The ground taken was recovered in hours. I have added citations to cover the article, it was sadly lacking. Dapi89 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense on Rommel's 7th

The articles states under the heading 'battle' that Rommel's (7.PD) Panzer II and III were thrown in. Apparently the editor had no proper sources available. The 7th was equipped with 34 off Pz.I, 68 off Pz.II, 24 off Pz.IV and the balance T-35 and T-38 (ref: Jentz and KTB 7.PD). No Pz.III whatsoever. Grebbegoos (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CE

Tidied existing citations, added references and parachuted a section into the Aftermath on the halt orders.Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written

Large sections need rewriting. It is difficult to distinguish who is German, British or French in sections.90.195.174.161 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out where here so we can decide on remedies. I apologise for not indicating earlier that it's in Briteng but I've only just installed the script that does it.Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Pic additions

Moved some and cut others for space and relevance. Happy to discuss. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

3rd Panzer Division

Links to the 3rd SS Pz Div, is this a mistake? Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Caranorn: Use German terms by all means but remember to give the English translation in brackets after the first use of the term. Note also that putting the unit number at the back helps distinguish whose side they're on e.g. 7th Infantry Brigade (Br), Infanterie-Regiment 7 (Ger) and that German terms not in English as loanwords go in italics. Almost and about are BritEng and some is AmEng. Thanks for taking the trouble, at least someone reads it ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just came back to make a note about those long sentences. I really don't have the time to clean that up. But will go once more over my edits according to your suggestion regarding English translation in brackets on first use as well as italics. --Caranorn (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Think that's it. Thanks from a retired wikipedian who just can't keep from doing minor editing once in a while and dug a bit deeper than intended tonight. --Caranorn (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks babe, it's a bit habit forming isn't it. :O)Keith-264 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@JustinSmith: Greetings, thanks for your edits. Would you mind adding the source (Levine 2017) to the References section please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
It's ;the book "Dunkirk, by Joshua Levine, publ 2017.

Greetings is it "Forgotten Voices of Dunkirk? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's "Dunkirk" ISBN 978-0-00-822787-6 --JustinSmith (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks babe Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? The film isn't. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The book isn't the film it's the history of the Dunkirk evacuatio, well most of it is. --JustinSmith (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Air attacks

I have some details if required. Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

done, kept it brief. Dapi89 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

BRD on numeral of a military units name

In this edit, I made several changes that made the numerical part of military units italicized to match its name, e.g., changing

Fliegerkorps VIII (the roman numeral not in italics)

to

Fliegerkorps VIII (the roman numeral in italics)

This edit was reverted by Keith-264 with the edit summary VIII isn't German, it means the same in any language.

Per WP:BRD, it's time to discuss.

First, I don't see how the fact that a foreign language spells a term the same as English does is relevant. "Regiment" is spelled the same in German and English, but we don't leave out italicizing "Regiment" in German military unit names. English spelling doesn't somehow disallow what other languages can use for military unit names. The terms are pronounced differently in their respective languages, so aren't the same words anyway.

Second, even for numbers in military units, in this article, as with all others I know, the number is italicized if the name is, such as Panzerjägerabteilung 42, Panzer-Regiment 25, and Schützen-Regiment 7.

Third, to make correct link names, the numeral must be included in the link. Compare these two wikitext versions of the same link to 3rd Army Group (France):

{{lang|fr|[[3rd Army Group (France)|Groupe d'Armées 3]]}} renders as Groupe d'Armées 3

{{lang|fr|[[3rd Army Group (France)|Groupe d'Armées]]}} 3 renders as Groupe d'Armées 3

The first version has the "3" as part of the link text – appropriate as it links to the French 3rd Army Group. The second leaves the "3" out of the link, resulting in the link text appearing to be a generic link to any French Army Group, violating MOS:LINKCLARITY. This incorrect link text is the result of insisting that the "3" isn't somehow fully part of the name.

Lastly and most importantly, it's just confusing to reader. Having a "3" distinct from the rest of the name makes it appear unrelated to the name, as if it somehow applies to the next word in the sentence instead of the name. Imagine the text "Groupe d'Armées 3 tanks were..."; the un-italicized "3" seems to apply to "tanks" instead of the unit name. And for names like "1. Panzer Division" (the German term for that unit), leaving the "1." off of the italic name makes it look like a new sentence is being started.

I know of no policy or guideline that restricts italics only to foreign words that aren't spelled the same way in English. Even if there was a hard policy, IAR would apply here, as it does nothing but cause reader confusion. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent because I don't have as much time to edit but I'm on days off tomorrow so can give it some attention. I have been revising numbers attached to foreign names and piping to maintain links. If anyone finds this confusing, they can ask here; no-one has. I suggest we look at WP to see if there are rulings. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm strongly against doing this. If there's no known policy, guideline, or ruling to support this, we shouldn't do it. As I've outlined, it's confusing to the reader, and has no actual benefit, so doing this is harmful to the article. This needs consensus to persist in this. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like you to stop referring to hypothetical readers; you're the only person making a fuss. Regards Keith-264 (talk)

Readers are hypothetical? As editors, we should think about readers before anything else. Inventing new little rules for editors to follow that create extra work and have zero benefit to anyone, and can actually be detrimental to readers, is something we would all want to actively avoid, I would think. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Come on, intervening after complaints is one thing, using hypothetical readers to push a point of view isn't.Keith-264 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the benefit of not italicizing the numeric part of a military unit name? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"74 tanks destroyed"

This is surely wrong since the body-text does not show 100% loses of tanks. Deleting this until a better figure can be found. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@FOARP: Thanks for the edits, can you cite them please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)