Talk:Operation Perch

message: This article has an extensive bibliography section but readers do not what source says what. I recommend startiing with the most controversial items, some of which someone has already tagged for citation needed, and source those. There is also multiple empty sections and it's not clear why they are there. Benjiboi 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The empty sections need to be filled in, they are all key parts of the Operation.  Up to now i just havnt had the time to make a start on them, although they will only be covered rather basicilly in some places while for instances the Lingevres section i can throw in quite a bit of info. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good then to at least put a summary sentence in each of those sections or delete them until content is also added. Benjiboi 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Great! Keep plugging away, I've updated the expert needed tag to the military histroy project as well. Benjiboi 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: Ive always felt that the list of books and external links should be above the foonotes as one tends to scroll down see the footnotes and make the assumption that is the end of the article.
Prehaps a change to the font size of the source and external link list so it appears smaller would justify it being above the footnotes?
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of articles the various sections often get messed up and WP:MOS, although extensive, is usually to goto spot on this. "See also", "Notes" and "References" should be in that order with "External links" following. In brief, the thinking is that all articles are on the path to being Feature Article status so we should treat them that way within reason. See also section is for wikilinks in the "waiting" room to get a spot in the text. As soon as a wikilink is in the article it can be removed from the See also's. Ideally you would either have a Notes or References section rather than both. Generally articles will want to cite what source says what so moving toward that end is in your best interest rather than a list of sources. Incidentally I was using "Bibliography" which I just saw should be reserved for an actual authors works, I've reverted myself on those titles. The "external links", again, with feature article in mind, are not really in wikipedia's domain so we cannot vouch for content and should only use them to supplement the article because they hold content the article cannot. I generally try to convert links into references or otherwise remove them. If in doubt you can move them to talk page if they seem controversial. Benjiboi 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout questions 

message: There are presently two citation errors, it looks liek it was just a formatting or source slip-up putting the page number where something else should go but it would good to correct these. Banjiboi 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob, good work on the article! Banjiboi 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation errors 

message: 2nd army
I Corps
51st Highlanders
XXX Corps
7 div
49 div
50 div
4 bde
8 bde
firesupport
HMS Nelson (28)|HMS Nelson]]Major Ellis, Official History, Pg 250
HMS Orion (85)|HMS Orion
HNMLS Flores
2nd Tactical Air Force
RAF Bomber Command|Bomber Command
V Corps   
- Artillery support 
-----
7th army
I SS corps
Panzer Lehr
101st
III Flak
XLVII Panzer corps
2nd panzer
LXXXIV Korps
352nd
716th
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed information from info box 

message: Perch had been planned prior to the invasion (Buckly, p. 23, Taylor, p. 9)
50th Div tasked to clear Gold and take Bayeux then clear the road to tilly (Forty, p. 36)
7th Armoured Division with 8th Armoured Brigade push through Tolly, VB and then capture Mt Pincon (Buckley, p. 23, Taylor, p. 9)
The objective of capturing this hill was to create the threat of a breakout by the British to the southeast of Caen (Trew, p. 22)
9 June Monty decided to take Caen by pincer attack (Stacey, p. 142)
While Stacey says Monty decided to take Caen by Pincer Buckley and Taylor state Dempsey was planning the pincer attack called Wild Oats.(Buckley, 24. Taylor, p.9)
WildOats described as follows:
51st Highlanders plus 4th Arm bde to attack out of 6th Abe Div bridgehead to take Cagny.
7th Arm to swing east, instead of advancing on Pincon, and capture Evercy.
1st Abe Div to land in between both units to complete encirclement.
(Buckley, Taylor, Forty and Ellis
Leigh-Mallory says no to the use of the 1st Airborne (Forty, Taylor, Buckley and Ellis)
The Highlanders attack regardless (Ellis) but minus the 4th Arm Bde (Fortin, who states there first major combat was during Epsom)
12 June Perch is altered, 7th Arm to initiate a hook around Pnz-Lehr and through the gap in the front line (Buckley, p. 23) The right hook was a revision of the Perch plan (Taylor, p. 10)  Hubert Meyer ties the right hook in with the Highland attack by stating one of the reasons for the failure of Perch: “the collapse of the attack by the 51st (Highland) Division eastward of the Orne river”(Meyer, p. 237) Meyer says in writing what the others hint at; Wildoats was scrapped in name only and thrown under the title of Perch – the operation already underway.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, I'll have another go at the planning section. I think we're going to need to add some of this into later sections as well. EyeSerenetalk 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I've tried to work in the above. I may have overdone the headings, but I thought it might help to make following the various changes and revisions to Perch easier? EyeSerenetalk 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Perch planning section notes 

message: Furthermore, the caption "A 4.5 Inch Medium gun of the 50th Infantry Division's 64th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery.[102]" is incorrect. 64th Mdm Regt belonged to 5 AGRA, not 50th Infantry Division, although it may well have been supportting 50 Inf Div on that day. I cannot edit the page myself - is it locked?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  image caption requires editting 

message: Was more like a corps when it went to France. It had four infantry brigades; 69th, 151st, 231st and 56th. It had five field regiments RA (three self-propelled) with 8th Armoured Brigade and 47 RM Commando under command. On 6th June the Division was nearly 38,000 strong (Clay p 236 [Clay, E.W.. The Path of the 50th.. Aldershot: Gale & Polden, 1950.]) in 50 DIV IN NORMANDY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRITISH 50th (NORTHUMBRIAN) DIVISION ON D-DAY AND IN THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY by ETHAN RAWLS WILLIAMS, LCDR, USN
B.S., United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1997. Keith-264 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  50th Infantry Div 

message: is there a logic explanation why alle involved german divisions are mentioned, but only one british? why are the other british units not listed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.142.82 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties 

message: I added the above section in last year after being asked about it at the FAC iirc; the section notes we do not have details on the casualties suffered, its a compromise and quite a bit of info is just not available. Am inclind to pull it as i do not believe it helps the article. Any opinions, pull it or keep it?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty section 

message: Despite Leigh-Mallory's objections (far from the only one to do so at the conference at Stanmore on June 11), the airborne operation was laid on because of the insistence of the ground commanders. The USAAF 52nd Troop Carrier Wing at Eastcote received its field order on June 12 and the groups were in the process of briefing their C-47 crews on June 13 when the drop was postponed because of Villers Bocage. But until then the drop of the paras was scheduled for 0420 the next day and the airlanding forces an hour later. This is documented in the official USAF historical study on its airborne operations and might be useful in making an adjustment to the existing text, which imo is misleading.--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a while since we wrote this, but as I recall we could find very little information on the abortive airborne plan at the time. If you can supply more info/references your suggestion might make a nice addition to the article. I'm not sure how we can reconcile it with Buckley's (?) assertion that the plan was dropped though... not that contradictory sources are anything new :) EyeSerenetalk 21:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it here (bottom right of p. 79 and p. 80) quite a while back while researching the American airborne landings in Normandy article, but had no use for it at the time. It was just one of those "did you know?"-type revelations for me. Then I came across it again while re-writing Lewis H. Brereton this week, and when I looked for a wikilink, came across the aforementioned section in Operation Perch. "Misleading" was perhaps too strong a word, and yes, I fully understand contradictory sources! :D.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Interesting source Reedmalloy, got any more?Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, no. But I'm going to see what else is out there and will post back here if I locate anything to corroborate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Wild Oats 

message: Tidied the prose, reorganised several sections and moved citations to sentence ends for flow.Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Why is there in sup "a" in the infobox with a hyperlink to a reference? --37.24.8.166 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A few years ago there was a lack of consensus so lots of sentences were cited individually and citations were added to the infobox. Since then the need to be this painstaking has diminished.Keith-264 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Perch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Did a cheeky little ce, converted cumbersome notes to notelist format, found that someone had added middle name letters to British personnel, full stops to US and other stylistic infelicities, added EngVar B on grounds of national ties and to help editors with consistency in Br usage, tidied some prose.Keith-264 (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: "While XXX Corps attacked Tilly-sur-Seulles, the landings of the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division and the 4th Armoured Brigade were delayed and their attack was postponed until 12 June.[18]"
:As far as I am aware, the 51st started landing on Juno during the afternoon of the 6th. Now, I conceded I do not know if they were available for operations that day or the next, but it seems that the above sentence could do with some extra clarity.66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that?Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

text: You were right about brigade group, apols; I think the variation re Poland and Ukraine is determined by the 1939 eastern border of Poland vs the Curzon Line and/or the post-war border. Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are correct. In addition, I think we have rectified the original issue of this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I remember that the data from Zetterling came from a website with copies of tables in his book. The site is defunct so now we need someone with the book (it costs a bomb) to add the page numbers. 
PS you need – not - for a page range 23–36 and it's 34, 37 if there are two or more pages but not a range; no need for "and". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Perch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420033652/http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/fichesvilles/tillysseulles.html to http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/fichesvilles/tillysseulles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified