Talk:Battle of Rethymno

Rethymno
Some confusion here about the spelling of Rethymno / Retimo. Historically, within Australian Historical military history, it appears as Retimo.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Rethymno. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/retimo.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021022019/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/retimo.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/retimo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikilink
Hi. I note that you have linked 2nd Parachute Regiment to the 2nd Parachute Division (Germany), even though it was, as it says in the same sentence in the text part of the 7th Air Division. As soon as I try to promote it, someone is going to shout WP:EASTEREGG. I don't want to just revert, as you usually have a good reason for your edits; but I would like to know what it is in this case. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. I have reverted myself and apologies for the error. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries. We all make mistakes and you make fewer than most. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Central operational group
Hi Constantine, the last addition seems to me to be an unnecessary level of detail. Why do you feel that it is useful? (If it is decided to keep it, there are plenty of English language RSs to cite it to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog the Mild, I admit I hesitated, but came down in favour of adding it, as it gives some idea of its place in the overall operational scheme (a three-pronged attack in two waves), and should be there for completeness' sake. Feel free to replace the citation with an English analogue, I just had the Greek one open since I am looking over the Battle of Heraklion article. --Constantine  ✍  18:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except it wasn't a three-pronged attack, it was four-pronged, with four separate regimental groups. The middle two may have been linked for organisational purposes, but I don't see that mentioning to a reader that two attacks, 50 km apart, in different waves, with no tactical coordination, had some connection, when it is not followed up on, is helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most sources I've read contain this detail, which is usual when discussing military operations. But I agree it does not offer the reader much more info, and since you are the main article author, I defer to you; I will remove it. Constantine  ✍  20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)