Talk:British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

B class review
Please look into this. Djmaschek (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Please review this. Djmaschek (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC) More. Djmaschek (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC) I confirm the B class assessment. But please look at the paragraph 1 and 10 issues. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Operation Veritable, paragraph 6, last sentence: "for between 30,000 and 400,000 troops." (I suspect you mean 300,000, but I can't be sure.)
 * ✅ Should be 300,000. Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Operation Plunder, paragraph 1: "On the other hand, sufficient stocks of POL to accede to a request from Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) to allocate 73,000 long tons (74,000 t) of petrol for US use." (confusing sentence).
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Operation Plunder, paragraph 10: ""Sussex", took field field companies". (I'm guessing this should read: five field companies, but cannot be sure.)
 * ✅ Rewritten. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. This is uncontroversial, there's no objection, and it should take place immediately rather than waiting till tomorrow, as pages linked from the main page should conform to the MOS. Page views can be ascertained by adding together the two titles anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

British logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany → British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany – Invasion should be lower case per Article titles. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: to request this, just because of one capitalisation (and I read it three times not finding the difference), today when exposed on the Main page (so no move should happen), looks to me like an unwanted distraction from the content of the article. Can we discuss that later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster has a move discussion going on & it’s also on the main page, so I thought it’d be fine to initiate a move discussion. Discussing this a little later would probably be fine. I’d note that the capitalized “Invasion” on the main page is what initially drew my attention. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about suggesting a pipe to lower case for the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support The proposal seems reasonable for consistency with Western Allied invasion of Germany. But it's a very minor matter and doesn't warrant the undue distraction of a banner tag while the article on the main page, as Gerda says.  So, now that we have some discussion, we don't need the tag. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support of course. This could have been moved without discussion per WP:BOLD. Brandmeistertalk  10:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * no article should be moved while on the Main page, with all the connected templates that should not be redirects, and difficulty to tell the views for the things when it's under two names. Pipe on the Main page, as said above, - that would be the easiest solution. Move tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023
Add Oxford Comma to: "By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient". Making it: "By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional, and proficient". Mrlocochicken (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Oxford comma is optional in British English. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But this comma would eliminate ambiguity, no? It just seems awkward is all. Perhaps reordering it to: "Proficient, professional, and experienced" would be better. The comma here would allow the sentence to flow while emphasizing the experienced portion of the sentence, which is arguably the most important quality. Mrlocochicken (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes Mrlocochicken: a serial comma there would indeed remove ambiguity and it is therefore highly advisable. Let's see: "By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient." Apart from the meaning that is presumably intended (that the army had three listed attributes), the sentence could be construed as giving "professional and proficient" as a gloss to expand on "highly experienced". Those who prefer to avoid serial commas at all costs are typically less able to spot such ambiguities.


 * Another instance, among several that I could show, where a serial comma would make things immediately clear for readers, rather than the structure being revealed only when the end is reached:
 * The bivouac areas were provided with temporary billets, latrines, emergency rations and fuel, and medical teams and vehicle maintenance crews were on hand.
 * That reads at first as if "emergency" qualifies both "rations" and "fuel"; we are forced to review the whole sentence to disentangle its meaning.


 * In any case, WP:MOS calls for consistency in the deployment of the serial comma within any given article. The present text is obliged to conform to MOS (or is that no longer required?); but it fails to do so. There are many tone-deaf avoidances of the serial comma in it, but I find the following instances that demonstrate inconsistency (I've underlined relevant commas or absences of commas):
 * ... which carried stocks of spare parts for mechanical transport, small arms, armament, signal stores, and engineering equipment, as well as complete wireless sets and small arms.
 * In May 1945, the 21st Army Group had 25 BSDs, 81 DIDS, 35 field bakeries, and 14 field butcheries.
 * A third bridge, called "Westminster", was commenced by the 6th Army Troops Engineers on 26 March, completed at 18:00 on 29 March, and ceremoniously opened by Dempsey the next morning.
 * To compensate for this, to minimise casualties, and to maximise the combat effectiveness of what manpower they had, the British forces relied on machines, materiel and firepower.


 * Then there's this sentence: "It had a four store sections." Standards at WP are not what they were in my day. I see that Hawkeye7 is responsible for 99.4% of the text in this article, and is far and away its most prolific editor. The ill-advised punctuation choices of just one editor? An un-Wikipedian sense of ownership? ☺? 49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oxford commas added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Done? It still does not comply with MOS (as a featured article must). For example this two-sentence excerpt shows inconsistency, with one use of the serial comma where MOS wants either two or none at all:
 * This involved prodigious use of ammunition, fuel and equipment, which in turn demanded a first-class military logistics system. By this time, the British Army was highly experienced, professional, and proficient.
 * An illustration of the difficulties faced by anyone so old-fashioned (Boomer-like?) as to want minimal use of the serial comma, against a tide of good sense from the world's major style guides. Others, like the wretched and craven Australian Government Style Manual, are manifestly confused and vague on this point. Good God, AGSM even appeals to Truss L (2003) Eats, shoots and leaves for wisdom concerning commas! Surely WP can do better. ♥? 49.190.56.203 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a great book! Thanks for your help. I'll ping you next time I have an article at FAC and you can give it a squiz. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Top of the article
The very top of the lead section says:

However, this should not be used, as Template:Main says, This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful. So the above should be change into the following:

(Note: I did this because nobody seemed to change it in the more than 12 hours this has been a TFA.) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 14:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, they removed it. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@ 113.199.223.100 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Duck bill connectors
My sources refer to the duck bills as "connectors"  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So noted. Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong segments. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)