Talk:Operation Cycle

Rewrite

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 tooKeith-264 (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

31st (Alpine) Division

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

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

'Highlanders'

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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