Talk:Operation Zitronella

German Losses

The Norwegian version of this article puts the total number of German deaths at 5 men, but the English version says 45. Which is correct?

Thanks, Lothar_von_Richthofen (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC) really want to know why there are 45 soldiers deah on german lose ? german reported only 5 mens ? where england did know about 45 . Yet again a miss information on manh ww2 articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia German deaths summing up to 7... well, differences in such lists are very common. --KnightMove (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Spelling dispute

In response to the spelling changes, summarized as “sp”, and “restore original original spelling per every other single article; the article in question is spelled Spitsbergen; why spell it otherwise?”
The original spelling (here), when the page was written, was Spitzbergen, with a “z”. "Spitzbergen" was, and is, a legitimate form in British English; WP:ENGVAR is clear that idiomatic spellings shouldn’t be changed from the way they were written merely to suit an editor’s national preferences.Xyl 54 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

When I edited the article I only noticed a single usage of the spelling "Spitzbergen" on the page. All the other times (3-4) it was spelled "Spitsbergen". So to smooth over the flow of the article, I changed it to "Spitsbergen". You appear to have been the one to change many of the spellings to "Spitzbergen". Thus, you are the one at fault here. With that, I believe I should be able to restore it to the way the article was originally styled when I had edited the spelling. Do you not agree? OldBabyBlue (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article, when it was first written, appears to have been unsourced and written by someone unaware of spelling conventions. "Spitsbergen" is the way it is spelled on the article itself, so I believe you should be using the correct spelling here as well, in spite of errors made by others. OldBabyBlue (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And where did you read that the "Spitzbergen" spelling was/is the standard spelling in British English? Is it spelled that way in British Dictionaries? OldBabyBlue (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As for my agreement, no, I don’t agree.

I can see how you might think it was all right to change it, but the original is how it was written, not how you found it. The original editor wrote this; it was changed here and here (which both breached ENGVAR) and then by yourself. So I've restored it.

So far, no-one is "at fault"; but I suggest your comments about the spelling not being "correct", or that "the original editor was unaware of spelling conventions" or that he/she was "in error", are heading that way. And I would point out the purpose of ENGVAR is to prevent futile arguments over differences in spelling; so, I don’t change 'color' to 'colour', or 'center' to 'centre', whenever I came across it, and I expect the same courtesy from others.

As to "where I read it", I learned it at school; As to the "standard spelling", I never said it was; I said it was "a legitimate spelling in British English". It was indeed the standard in the 19th century, but both spellings were used without distinction during the 20th. As to "the spelling in a British dictionary", it’s a place name; they don’t put those in British dictionaries. But if you want to know more about it, I suggest you check the (stultifyingly tedious) discussions at Talk:Spitsbergen, and the references there. IIRC the most recent was a BBC article, which used both spellings in the same piece. And I notice the external link that was here does the same.

I’ve added some references, as the article could do with some, in english anyway (and, before you ask, one uses z, the other uses s). And I don’t believe there is much more that needs to be said on the matter. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a American English/British English dispute, it is a "correct spelling vs. incorrect spelling" debate. With that, I will be changing it back to the correct form. Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. Kind regards, Old Blue. OldBabyBlue (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Correct spelling"? What are you talking about? Your preferred spelling is no more correct than mine or anyone else’s. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be the preferred spelling seeing as how the Spitsbergen article is spelled the correct way. You shouldn't be so POV. I'll be changing it back per WP:CORRECT SPELLING IS OBVIOUS. OldBabyBlue (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So now you are edit warring on the subject. What I have put is supported by guideline and source; what is your objection other than a personal preference for a particular spelling.

And I “shouldn’t be so POV”? I suggest you read Pot calling the kettle black! Xyl 54 (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

German victory?

If the Norwegian garrison remained on the island, the Germans left within 24 hours, and American and Norwegian forces easily revisited the island, why is this a German victory? The attacking Germans failed to dislodge the Norwegian garrison, and quickly left. Sounds more like a Norwegian victory. MayerG (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point; as a "victory" it was pretty qualified, but that is explained in more detail in the Aftermath section. As a one line comment in the infobox, though, it is probably adequate, especially as it is backed by a source (and a Norwegian one at that). Do you have a source that says different? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have a source; the problem is that the article itself seems to contradict the infobox. Both the body of the article and the infobox seem to rely primarily on Torkildsen (in Norwegian, which I can't read) as their source, yet the narrative in the main article sounds like a Norwegian victory, while the infobox says German victory. Is Torkildsen actually saying both things at once? (As I said, I can't tell, not knowing Norwegian.) MayerG (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the combat itself was a German victory, as they finished off the weapons fighting against them. But I would favor to qualifiy the victory as "tactical". Are there any objections? --KnightMove (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation appears to be nonsense

Two battleships and nine destroyers fought against coastal artillery, with three destroyers receiving a total of 50 hits (according to the German Wikipedia), suffering considerable damage and fatalties. A batallion had to be landed with support of naval gunfire and only then forced the Norwegians to withdraw. So, "One destroyer could easily have done the job" seems to be utter nonsense. --KnightMove (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties, POW

Sources give conflicting numbers Keith-264 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Lemon Flavour?

Are you sure Zitronella really means "Lemon Flavour"? AFAIK it is a lemon-scented grasslike plant, mostly used as a mosquito repellant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.17.62 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I got it off an online translator so I can't be sure. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The Citronella (I'm italian) has nothing to do with lemon. It's a herb. Scientific name: Cymbopogon. No idea why the Nazis called the operation this way. Ciao. Simoneschiaffino https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Simoneschiaffino. Simoneschiaffino (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sicily??

Why the Nazis called this operation "Citronella or Sicily"?? Our beloved island lies some 9.000 km... Ciao. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Simoneschiaffino Simoneschiaffino (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Mille grazie ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)