This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Arras (1940) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional info from [1] here, but it's an article on the entire Western Front.
...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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Moved some and cut others for space and relevance. Happy to discuss. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Links to the 3rd SS Pz Div, is this a mistake? Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
It's ;the book "Dunkirk, by Joshua Levine, publ 2017.
No, it's "Dunkirk" ISBN 978-0-00-822787-6 --JustinSmith (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
I have some details if required. Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Inthis 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 revertedbyKeith-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]]}} 3renders as Groupe d'Armées3
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)Reply
Comments? --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply