Talk:Operation Herbstnebel

Antwerp

I'm just wondering why it's called Operation Herbstnebel (Antwerp). If you look at the Wikisource article, it seems clear that Herbstnebel was not aimed at Antwerp, and Model shared Rundstedt's belief that Hitler's big solution was unrealistic. Neither Herbstnebel nor Martin aimed to cross the Meuse, although they differed in other respects. -- Hongooi 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference added

The book by Peter Elstob that I included as "Further reading" briefly mentions this operation. I'll add a citation probably later this week.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Added references. Removed tag {{Refimprove|date=November 2009}}. --AndersW 21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Operation Herbstnebel (Northwest Europe) → Operation Herbstnebel – No other article on wiki called Operation Herbstnebel, hence no need for unique title. At any rate the unique title does not identify what the article is about, thus if not moved to just "Operation Herbstnebel" then I would suggest either "Operation Herbstnebel (1944)" or "Operation Herbstnebel (Planned German Offensive)". 204.116.217.18 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would move the current Operation Herbstnebel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Operation Herbstnebel (WWII), to preserve its edit history, and convert it to a WP:SIA (set index), so that should someone want to create a Operation Herbstnebel (Italy) that was indicated on that page in 2003-2007 period that page existed indicating such, they'd have a starting point. And Set Indices are a good idea. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is all just speculation until there's something else to disambiguate against. For now, it's a simple case of unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support No disambiguation required at this time, and it's been six years since anyone even mentioned the Italian one. No need for pre-emptive disambiguation now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per BDD. No disambiguation needed at this time, and even if the other article is made, this is very probably the primary topic, so no disambiguation will be needed ever. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.