Talk:Battle of Abbeville

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Abbeville article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / European / French / German / 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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Health warning[edit]

I think the article is flawed, because the detail available about the BEF is much greater than that for the French and Germans; it's a constraint dictated by my sources and I'm not in a position to obtain the ones which would remedy it. MWAK has kindly added some details and citations and I've got a bit to add about RAF operations but Luftwaffe, armee de l'air and RN/Marine operations are missing. I'm not sure that all the stuff about BEF l-o-c and 2nd BEF is strictly necessary, either; until I hit an iceberg I was rewriting Operation Cycle simultaneously, where some of it belongs. Keith-264 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

section 5th June : not the right Feuquieres village[edit]

Dear all, i noticed a small and totally minor error in name of a village in section "5th June" : sentence "The 4th Black Watch in reserve, were ordered forward to relieve Franleu but were stopped by German troops at Feuquières". The link to Feuquieres points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuqui%C3%A8res which corresponds to a village in Oise department and it's not the good village. The one you should refer to is "Feuquières en Vimeu" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuqui%C3%A8res-en-Vimeu) which is in Somme department, about 50 km north from the other village - most of the area you are mentioning in this article is the Vimeu, between Bresle and Somme rivers, west of Ponthieu (Abbeville). Regards Fderue (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, amended.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS did you know that you can link places like this [[Feuquières-en-Vimeu]] ?Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

InfanterieRegiment 217, should there be a capital R if it's one word?Keith-264 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I found 1940 The Last Act: The Story of the British Forces in France after Dunkirk Karslake, Basil going cheap and hope to find a bit more about the French at least. Go Postie!)Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'repairs' reverts etc[edit]

As stated in previous revert, the original amendment simply expressed text in clearer prose than the existing phrase 'bigger ones,' with its hanging pronominal use of the word 'ones.' A simple enough change which seems to have cause you irritation; evidently it was not a circumlocution, as you put it.

Your second revertion refers to 'adding polysyllables' and 'not removing circumlocution.' As I have not made any further change to ths text this hardly makes sense, and as the ammended phrase adds one syllable to the text, the root of your objection is really not clear.

If your irritation stems from the fact that the original text, amended by me, was written by you, it is hardly a drastic amendment and the minor change was intended to improve not offend. Could I reccomend you leave it for the time being? If in a month or so you still feel ythe integrity of your text has been damaged, then perhaps you could improve it yourself. It just needs a tweek- which is all I have done JF42 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are facile, you changed plain English for a latinate polsyllable and called it removal of circumlocution. "Ones" adverts to the earlier part of the sentence, the subject being repairs. Please stop inferring my mental state, it adds to my loss of confidence in your judgement. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edits[edit]

@LaHire07: Thanks for finding that source but note its age and the strictures about putting too much emphasis on a source outside the consensus of RS. I'll have a look at DRZW to see if it has anything. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why that source is outside the consensus of RS, since I don't see anywhere a consensus of RS about the battle of Abbeville being a "German victory". Moreover, nothing in the guidelines for military infobox implies that "casualties and losses" should be given by precise numbers. LaHire07 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old source and the vagueness of the wording in the losses box isn't good enough. Clearly the article has much room for improvement so I'll look for other sources that refer to casualties. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaHire07: Hello again, I've amended the casualties section with data from Forczyk 2019. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]