This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This articles seems entirely redundant - "Battle of Belgium"? This doesn't seem to be an expression historians used. What little material this stub articles has currently It should be merged with the Battle of France article. Kurfürst ( talk) 10:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Even, Denmark, a 24hr battle has its own article. Your complaint is just a childish attempt at revenge. So, if you are not here to help, just go away. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The difference being that all of these expressions above (except the B. of Denmark, perhaps another wikipedia oddity) are commonly used by historians, and they are clearly definiable in terms of time and space. Did any historian, ever, used the expression of the 'Battle of Belgium'? 99.9% of them seem to discuss the May 1940 under the term the 'Battle of France'. And sorry, I am not to be blamed for your paranoia and non-ceasing willingness for seeking confrontation. This article simply has no reason to exist seperate from the Battle of France article, which already discusses the same content, it seems it was just created as a POV-fork. Kurfürst ( talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your points MWAK. Still, I believe the 'Battle of Belgium' title has to go - it would make it seem as a POV fork article to the BoF article. On the contrary, the 'Eighteen Day(s) Campaign' would be a good description, as its commonly used by (Belgian) historians, would be verifiable and not a title that some editors simply made up. Still, I do see problems with overlapping the the Battle of France article, so preferably this article should only contain description Belgian (and perhaps Dutch?) army etc., otherwise the birth of a POV fork article is guaranteed; German, French and British actions in the May-June 1940 campagign should be covered in the main BoF article, and keep this one distinctively concentrating for the events from the Belgian POV. Therefore, readers would enjoy and find all major information about the Western Campaign, as viewed in the tradiational sense, but find more details in this article for the Belgian role. Thoughts? Kurfürst ( talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep — I concur that this article has its right to existence. Clearly the German success in the Battle of France lies in breaching the Belgian defences at for instance Eben Emael, which happens to be in Belgium. Personally I like the name "Battle of Belgium (1940)". This article is evolving nicley. Keep at it Dapi89 MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep, of course, but shouldn't this be titled Battle of Belgium? Why the need for (1940)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the order of battles should be moved to a seperate page and a link provided here to it; like the way it is done on the Operation Epsom article for example. At the momment it seems to be cluttering up the page at the momment. Just my 2 cents-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the Belgium section should be renamed to 'Allied forces' as it does have info on British formations. I think it should also be expanded to talk about the French forces and from the infobox apparently Dutch and Polish formations took part to, maybe discuss them?
I feel there are few things that need to be sorted out in this section:
As requested i have had a look over the article and i have a few comments regarding it:
More to come as i work my why through the article.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Changed. 2. Bond says the Bay of Biscay ports were the main British supply ports - he does not explain why. Perhaps because of possible U-Boat and Luftwaffe threat? 3. Done. 4. Done. 5. Done. 6. I'll reword this part soon 7. To be done. Thnaks. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The Ardennes is a dense forest, "breakingthrough through" I get what you mean, but it is redundant. Cutting through the dense Ardennes is also a good modifier. So making a break through, etc. I'm not finished reading yet. Malke 2010 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on what type of English to use in this article. I've found "armour", but also "mobilize", so I'm not 100% sure. COnsistency in the variation of English is more-or-less required for GA status, for what it's worth. I would recommend British English, as the BEF was involved, but being British I've got something of a conflict of interest. Any suggestions or agreements? Lord Spongefrog , (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The subject contains no involvement by US forces, was in Europe, the British were involved (but by no means a major force), so I would agree it should all be UK English. This was how it was intended. Sorry for the mistakes. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is long enough now (if its going to pass GA). Dapi89 ( talk) 01:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This article looks pretty strong to me. Well-sourced, well-written and seemingly quite comprehensive. My comments are mainly minor grammatical issues or otherwise questions, which I'm sure can be addressed quickly. I've also made some minor copy editing changes myself, which can be seen in the history. Offline sources are accepted in good faith. Please address each comment line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go... — Hun ter Ka hn 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Lead
The Belgian place in Allied strategy
How about ading "while" inbetween French and the British?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Belgian military strategy
Belgian plans for defensive operations
German operational plans
10-11 May: The border battles "A full state alarm was given at 01:30 am." Am I wrong, or is this an unnecessary combination of military time and non-military time? Shouldn't it be either 01:30 or 1:30 am?
"Despite overwhelming numerical superiority of 1,375 aircraft, 957 serviceable, the counter-air campaign in Belgium had limited success overall, despite thorough photographic reconnaissance, and although it had a tremendous impact on the AeMI, which had only 179 aircraft on 10 May." This sentence is sort of choppy. Right now it reads like, "Despite this, that happened, despite this, and although this..."
12-14 May: The battles of the centarl Belgian plain
15–21 May: Counterattacks and retreat to the coast
Last defensive battles
Belgian surrender
German casualties
I'll place this article on hold for now until the comments above are addressed. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote this article I had no idea that it would ever make it to GA status!!!! Thanks to Coldplayexpert tenacity in editing for grammar and style its made it. Thanks all. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just spent four days copyediting this article, Dapi89 took seven minutes to put all the mistakes back in: e.g. "Whether this aggression was directly solely at Belgium", with the rather pompous edit summary: 'please don't change block quotes". Yes, I did add the odd word, in parentheses or square brackets, (to show they are not part of the original quote), to improve the flow. Why didn't you at least read through the article? I think it was a significant improvement on previous versions
By the way, a) did Hitler really suggest the type of assault on Fort Eben Eamel and did he 'reveal the tactical weapon' - the hollow charge? The article seems to claim these 'facts'.
And (b) are 'St Heribert, Malonne, Dave, Maizeret and Andoy' forts? Because if so, they are not written-up as such.
RASAM (
talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we use First World War or Second World War rather than the American created WW I or II etc? Dapi89 ( talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This articles seems entirely redundant - "Battle of Belgium"? This doesn't seem to be an expression historians used. What little material this stub articles has currently It should be merged with the Battle of France article. Kurfürst ( talk) 10:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Even, Denmark, a 24hr battle has its own article. Your complaint is just a childish attempt at revenge. So, if you are not here to help, just go away. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The difference being that all of these expressions above (except the B. of Denmark, perhaps another wikipedia oddity) are commonly used by historians, and they are clearly definiable in terms of time and space. Did any historian, ever, used the expression of the 'Battle of Belgium'? 99.9% of them seem to discuss the May 1940 under the term the 'Battle of France'. And sorry, I am not to be blamed for your paranoia and non-ceasing willingness for seeking confrontation. This article simply has no reason to exist seperate from the Battle of France article, which already discusses the same content, it seems it was just created as a POV-fork. Kurfürst ( talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your points MWAK. Still, I believe the 'Battle of Belgium' title has to go - it would make it seem as a POV fork article to the BoF article. On the contrary, the 'Eighteen Day(s) Campaign' would be a good description, as its commonly used by (Belgian) historians, would be verifiable and not a title that some editors simply made up. Still, I do see problems with overlapping the the Battle of France article, so preferably this article should only contain description Belgian (and perhaps Dutch?) army etc., otherwise the birth of a POV fork article is guaranteed; German, French and British actions in the May-June 1940 campagign should be covered in the main BoF article, and keep this one distinctively concentrating for the events from the Belgian POV. Therefore, readers would enjoy and find all major information about the Western Campaign, as viewed in the tradiational sense, but find more details in this article for the Belgian role. Thoughts? Kurfürst ( talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep — I concur that this article has its right to existence. Clearly the German success in the Battle of France lies in breaching the Belgian defences at for instance Eben Emael, which happens to be in Belgium. Personally I like the name "Battle of Belgium (1940)". This article is evolving nicley. Keep at it Dapi89 MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep, of course, but shouldn't this be titled Battle of Belgium? Why the need for (1940)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the order of battles should be moved to a seperate page and a link provided here to it; like the way it is done on the Operation Epsom article for example. At the momment it seems to be cluttering up the page at the momment. Just my 2 cents-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the Belgium section should be renamed to 'Allied forces' as it does have info on British formations. I think it should also be expanded to talk about the French forces and from the infobox apparently Dutch and Polish formations took part to, maybe discuss them?
I feel there are few things that need to be sorted out in this section:
As requested i have had a look over the article and i have a few comments regarding it:
More to come as i work my why through the article.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Changed. 2. Bond says the Bay of Biscay ports were the main British supply ports - he does not explain why. Perhaps because of possible U-Boat and Luftwaffe threat? 3. Done. 4. Done. 5. Done. 6. I'll reword this part soon 7. To be done. Thnaks. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The Ardennes is a dense forest, "breakingthrough through" I get what you mean, but it is redundant. Cutting through the dense Ardennes is also a good modifier. So making a break through, etc. I'm not finished reading yet. Malke 2010 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on what type of English to use in this article. I've found "armour", but also "mobilize", so I'm not 100% sure. COnsistency in the variation of English is more-or-less required for GA status, for what it's worth. I would recommend British English, as the BEF was involved, but being British I've got something of a conflict of interest. Any suggestions or agreements? Lord Spongefrog , (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The subject contains no involvement by US forces, was in Europe, the British were involved (but by no means a major force), so I would agree it should all be UK English. This was how it was intended. Sorry for the mistakes. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is long enough now (if its going to pass GA). Dapi89 ( talk) 01:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This article looks pretty strong to me. Well-sourced, well-written and seemingly quite comprehensive. My comments are mainly minor grammatical issues or otherwise questions, which I'm sure can be addressed quickly. I've also made some minor copy editing changes myself, which can be seen in the history. Offline sources are accepted in good faith. Please address each comment line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go... — Hun ter Ka hn 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Lead
The Belgian place in Allied strategy
How about ading "while" inbetween French and the British?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Belgian military strategy
Belgian plans for defensive operations
German operational plans
10-11 May: The border battles "A full state alarm was given at 01:30 am." Am I wrong, or is this an unnecessary combination of military time and non-military time? Shouldn't it be either 01:30 or 1:30 am?
"Despite overwhelming numerical superiority of 1,375 aircraft, 957 serviceable, the counter-air campaign in Belgium had limited success overall, despite thorough photographic reconnaissance, and although it had a tremendous impact on the AeMI, which had only 179 aircraft on 10 May." This sentence is sort of choppy. Right now it reads like, "Despite this, that happened, despite this, and although this..."
12-14 May: The battles of the centarl Belgian plain
15–21 May: Counterattacks and retreat to the coast
Last defensive battles
Belgian surrender
German casualties
I'll place this article on hold for now until the comments above are addressed. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote this article I had no idea that it would ever make it to GA status!!!! Thanks to Coldplayexpert tenacity in editing for grammar and style its made it. Thanks all. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just spent four days copyediting this article, Dapi89 took seven minutes to put all the mistakes back in: e.g. "Whether this aggression was directly solely at Belgium", with the rather pompous edit summary: 'please don't change block quotes". Yes, I did add the odd word, in parentheses or square brackets, (to show they are not part of the original quote), to improve the flow. Why didn't you at least read through the article? I think it was a significant improvement on previous versions
By the way, a) did Hitler really suggest the type of assault on Fort Eben Eamel and did he 'reveal the tactical weapon' - the hollow charge? The article seems to claim these 'facts'.
And (b) are 'St Heribert, Malonne, Dave, Maizeret and Andoy' forts? Because if so, they are not written-up as such.
RASAM (
talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we use First World War or Second World War rather than the American created WW I or II etc? Dapi89 ( talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)