Talk:Siege of Malta (World War II)

message: Which other allies took part in this? Malta was part of the British Empire, so it should read, British victory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.253.223 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Always happy to put my nose where its really not wanted but in the West I can't think of a single battle to which the allies -including the Commonwealth and free European forces didn't contribute.  Wasp & Ohio were essential.  It was a decisive allied victory in that Malta wasn't challenged again and it stopped a southern attack on Russia though it definitely didn't end the war. FWIW my father spent 3 unpleasant years on Malta arriving as part of Operation Substance. JRPG (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What decisive are you using, big or war-determining? Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Allied victory"?

message: :Image:GeorgeCrossObv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GeorgeCrossObv.jpg

message: The article lacks some important information regarding the siege. It mentions, that the civilian casualties, but really, the Axis bombing was more directed towards Malta's military targets, so British (and maybe Axis too) military casualties (killed, wounded, missing) would be far more important, than the surprisingly low civilian casualties. Also, Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe are really very different quality opponents, I would think, that Luftwaffes effort must have been both more important, and with comparatively smaller casualties, I would prefer their casualties to be separated, instead of just giving compined figure. For the last point, article mentions that Malta had less than 4000 UK soldiers in the beginning, but I would prefer it to give also some mentions of troop increases? Surely, the troop numbers must have been maybe 10 times bigger at the more heated state of the siege? I would like the article to give answers to these questions too, since I see these as very important issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.158.217 (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About some critical facts 

message: I reverted Lee Carré’s move to a page title that didn’t reproduce properly in my browser. Using whatever font that was on this and every other WWII page would be absurd. I absolutely don’t agree with moving away from the traditional and established “double-eye” roman numeral 2. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not seem to have consensus for your proposals and certainly not for the arbitrary changes you are making. FWiW, the font used doesn't look very attractive to begin with and is decidedly less readable. Bzuk (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numeral in article title 

message: I removed a bit added by IP editor which mentioned Spitfire photo planes arriving at Malta in May 1942. The bit made it seem as if the Spitfires filled a void, however, there were other photo planes such as Martin Marylands flying from Malta a couple of years earlier, notably detecting the Italian fleet in harbor at Taranto to facilitate aerial torpedo attack.
Any mention of photo recon based on Malta should paint a more complete picture of the early and late efforts. A brief glimpse of May '42 is not satisfactory. Takers? Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo reconnaissance flights 

message: The infobox makes mention of Axis losses in the "MTO", but given they are sourced from British books in part is it not more likely thet refer to the general Meditteranean theatre rather than the specifically US operational definition of the Med. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTO 

message: In the paragraph "German air superiority" it refers to Bf 109F-4 and the profile of a Bf 109F-4 is pictured aside.  But at the time Jagdgeschwader 26 was involved in operation on Malta (January-June 1941) the version operated was Bf 109E-7. The picture and the description are wrong.  Bf 109F-4 arrived in Sicily only in December 1941 with the renewal of the offensive against Malta lead by Jagdgeschwader 53. I corrected only the description in text because all the profile pictures I've found depicting Bf109E-7 of 7./JG26 seems to be copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariusGermanicus (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messerschmitt version 

message: The casualties listing in the infobox/article ist very large, but has two problems: At first it gives the losses of Axis shipping, but not the Allied shipping losses (except of warships). Surely the Allies also lost some ships in resupplying Malta. As addition, even with the Allied shipping losses added, the comparison of Allied shipping losses at Malta against German/Italian total shipping losses in the whole Mediterranean is also somehow faulty. I suggest to add at least Allied shipping losses too and add the note that Axis shipping losses are for whole Mediterranean. StoneProphet (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: As written, the article says the Hitler/Mussolini summit conference of late April 1942, which saw discussion of Malta, as well as many other topics, was held at Berchtesgarten. It was in fact held at Salzburg, where Mussolini and Ciano were quartered in the famous Schloss Klessheim. See Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 1189-1190; Shirer himself gives the Ciano Diaries as the primary source for this information.
Will make the change in a few days if no one objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.9.13 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect location for Axis summit conference of April 29-30 1942 

message: I have restored (in better places, I hope) what User:Dapi89 had deleted with the summary "nothing to do with siege".
I think that it adds to the background to know that, while Malta was a British colony, it was claimed by Fascism and there was some proclivity towards Italy among the Maltese.
The Malta at War exhibition in Valetta mentions this.
I would also add that historically Malta has been dependent on imports for food and metals and as such the siege was more stressful for civilians, but I don't know where to insert this in the narrative.
--Error (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it still doesn't. Above all its unsourced. As one editor who has gone to great lengths to source all relevant information in this article I expect the same from others. Regards, Dapi89 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored background 

message: I believe the reference to "six .. Gloster Sea Gladiators" is incorrect.
The National War Museum of Malta cites a number of four. Three on active duty, Faith, Hope and Charity, and one kept for spares.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorich123 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Aircraft On the Island 

message: The section on Axis shipping losses appears to use units of weight (metric tons, long tons, and short tons) for all vessels, naval and merchant.  While displacement tons are used for naval vessels, merchant ships typically use tonnage, which is a measure of volume, not weight.  (For example, SS Ohio measured 9264 gross register tons but was carrying 11,500 tons of petroleum products on her final voyage.)  It is likely that the Axis merchant ships sunk we measured by register tons, and no weight conversion shouuld be given.  Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a dubious tag to the article in connection with the post above.  It was deleted, and I have put it back, as the text clearly measures shipping lossed in metric/long tonnes of displacement.  Merchant ships were not measured by displacement, and in most cases displacement figures are not available for merchant ships.  Before removing the tag the improper use of displacement figures for merchant vessels needs to be corrected.  Kablammo (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the displacement/weight figures as unsupported, and use instead tonnage/tons.  Kablammo (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis shipping losses-- tons and tonnage 

message: This article is a great accomplishment, very readable and interesting!  However I find one passage to be impossible for readers to understand, as written now, and some facts on Operation Tiger and Operation Slice are unclear, and the article might be improved by editing throughout regarding abbreviations for German air force groups.
The passage that I have trouble with is the following:
:
* 
* 
(Hmm, note Weal 1998 is used in the inline citations here (and perhaps throughout the entire article?), but the bibliography lists it as Weal 1997.  One should be fixed.)
Specifically:
*The second sentence runs on with a list of noun phrases but the last phrase is not a noun phrase and doesn't make sense within the sentence.  Would the following rewording (with strikeout and bolded wording substitution) be consistent with the actual facts?  If so, i would prefer:
:
*"They were completed on 12 May. I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort...." does not appear to make any sense.  
**What does "They" refer to?  If it is supposed to refer to the Malta Convoys, that is incorrect because the convoys kept going.  If it is supposed to refer to the list of noun phrases in the 2nd sentence of the paragraph, that is not clear (especially because the last phrase is not a noun phrase).  I am not sure whether Operation Slice is just about the delivery of 48 Hurricanes or if Operation Slice consisted of 3 elements (1. reinforcements for the Mediterranean Fleet, 2. two convoys to Malta from Egypt, 3. supply of 48 Hurricanes).  Either way, that should be clarified.  It the latter, and those elements of Slice are what "They" refers to, then it would be better to reword all as, say:
:
**The "I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort ..." looks at first like "I., II., and III." is a misplacement of some footnote/source information, followed by a proper sentence about StG 1.  I eventually see that earlier in the article there was introduction of German air force groups as:
:
::However in that it appears clear that henceforth "StG 3" will be the abbreviation used.  I don't understand there why "I./" and "II./" are used at all, particularly outside of the linking phrases that they precede.  If "I." and "II." are the names themselves, or are part of the names, they should have been included in the linked phrases.  E.g. perhaps as "I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 1 (StG 1)  and II./Sturzkampfgeschwader 2 (StG 2)".  And then why not include "III." with the introduction of Sturzkampfgeschwader 3 in the passage?  If "I." and "II." are just part of a Wikipedia editor's writing, in enumerating a list, which seems possible, then I think it would be best to drop that usage entirely.  Anyhow, much later in the article, referring to "I", "II", and "III" as if those are known terms doesn't work;  to me they seem never to have been defined fully and it is simply confusing.
::Wouldn't it better, throughout the article, to refer to the German air force groups as StG 1, StG 2, and StG 3, after introducing those abbreviations parenthetically with the first mentions of those groups?
::No matter what, I cannot see how "I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort..." makes sense.  What is meant is perhaps "StG 1, StG 2, and StG 3 made a determined effort...".  Or "I., II., and III. made a determined effort..." if the roman numerals followed by periods had been explicitly defined to mean the groups (which would not be best; I would prefer "StG 1" etc. instead).  There is no way that a stray "StG 1" should be there, without "StG 2" and "StG 3" also.
 
*Finally, perhaps due to the sequencing of sentences, it is confusing about how many tanks are getting to Egypt.  Is it 295 Matilda tanks plus some Crusaders delivered, or 295 M + some C less some mixture of losses?  The current passage is: 
:but, would it be correct to say, instead:
:which would imply that 295 Matilda tanks plus some Crusaders less 57 losses got delivered (which I suspect is correct).  Also I think some more precise information oughta be used in the related article Malta Convoys, where what is currently stated is:
I hope these comments are helpful.  Again, I really like the article. --doncram 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing needed on StG abbreviations and 1941 operations Tiger and Slice facts 

message: If you use sfn citations  you need to do the reference as below.
*  (without the nowiki bookends, obviously). If you have importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); like here User:Keith-264/common.js the failed links show up red so that you can put them right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I personally concur with Sadkovich's and Caravaggio's conclusions that the confrontation between the Royal Navy and the Regia Marina was a draw, at least at strategic level (the RN never achieved the command of the sea by itself), but I guess that there are other authors whose assessments are quite different. I just tagged the statement as undue weight, though I am for adding other sources without suppressing the current "draw" line.---Darius (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: I cannot parse this first sentence of the Allied Reinforcement section, "With the exception of coal, fodder, kerosene and essential civilian supplies were such that a reserve of 8–15 months was built up."
Is this saying kerosene and essential civilian supplies were built up but coal and fodder were not. The smallest edit that clarifies such a meaning could be "With the exception of coal and fodder, kerosene and essential civilian supplies were such that a reserve of 8–15 months was built up." Clarity would be further improved with "A reserve of 8–15 months was built up for kerosene and essential civilian supplies, but coal and fodder remained in short supply."
Another interpretation might be fodder, kerosene, and essential civilians supplies were built up but coal was not? This could be clarified as "While fodder, kerosene, and essential supplies were such that a reserve of 8-15 months were built up, coal was in short supply." Note I also added a serial comma between kerosene and essential supplies. Similarly to above, clarity would be further improved with "A reserve of 8–15 months was built up for fodder, kerosene, and essential civilian supplies, but coal remained in short supply."
FAbTtEn (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot parse this sentence