This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / 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: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force French military history task force World War II task force France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It isn't finished yet but it's better than the previous edit. The narrative after 5 June needs doing, the lead is inadequate and Karslake and Roskill have more to say. The German side needs more detail too Keith-264 ( talk) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Is this a British or French unit? The text is unclear and there is no xref. Mztourist ( talk) 06:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

French, thought it was obvious, apols. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The insertion of this informal label, while allowing a degree of brevity in the text, has the disadvantage of not being strictly accurate. It might be a contraction too far to refer to elements of the 51st (H) Division as a whole as 'Highlanders'.

It is more customary to refer only to soldiers of Highland regiments as 'Highlanders.' While the infantry brigades of the 51st Highland Division were made up of battalions drawn from the Highland regiments, in addition to several support units from the Corps there were units serving in the division that were not Highland- notably the Lothian and Borders Horse- or even Scottish, for example the machine gunners from the Middlesex Regiment and Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, as well as pioneer battalions of the Royal Norfolk Regiment and Royal Scots Fusiliers. These all fought or were captured at St Valery.

I suggest it would be more accurate, and do proper justice to the other troops mentioned (proud though they might be at the association), to find another portmanteau term to referring to undifferentiated portions of the division. JF42 ( talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I think that it's far too much detail, unless equivalent information can be added for French and German units which will be far too long.

PS you shouldn't revert talk page comment. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand. The generalisation although convenient, is inaccurate. I am not suggesting you itemise the information which I provided to indicate why it is accurate. I am reccommending that you find a more fitting expression. It is not a major point but it deprives the article of authority.

JF42 ( talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

There's nothing to misunderstand; it's a difference of opinion. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

That reply and your previous reference to "far too much detail" indicate that you do indeed misunderstand both my original comment and my clarification. I am suggesting re-phrasing, not insertion of additional information. You may disagree with the suggestion. That would be a difference of opinion. JF42 ( talk) 17:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Have another look. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply