Talk:Malta convoys

message: A beautiful start, lengthy, with a nice picture at the top. But overall this looks more like a list than a fully developed article. Is expansion possible? LordAmeth 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, expansion is possible, but the intention was to provide an overview with links to detailed articles. Folks at 137 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: Done by me. I was logged out automatically when I took a break and fell asleep.
As to the edit: the information is solid, though incomplete. (Ship detail is almost entirely for the British side.)
However, there were many style problems. Much of the narrative was in present tense, while some was in past tense. There were inconsistencies in format and usage, especially links. Also a few typographical errors. Some phrasing was clumsy or wordy.
--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last edit. 

message: I reverted some of the recent style changes, but not substance. Before I get thumped, here's my reasoning.
# Removed "garrison" from intro para. The supplies were needed to sustain the civilian Maltese population and naval base, not just the garrison. 
# Spellings: the article concerns an almost wholly British topic and it was originally written with British spellings - it seems appropriate that these should remain. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English)
# Alterations to the heading structure meant that nearly all the "action" was under "Background" - not sensible, IMO. The Background section is intended to set the scene, the years group together events.
#A number of links were removed. No problem, if there remains a link, somewhere.
Please discuss before reverting this. BTW, the grammatical fixes were long overdue. Thanks. Folks at 137 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I apologise. I should have stated my reasons for the changes and deletions that I did. No offence meant. My points:
# The background to Mussolini's declaration of war isn't relevant here, IMO - it's enough that war was declared. Since this article is intended as a summary for the Malta Convoys, I argue that detail that's not directly relevant is minimised.
# I fixed the link to the Carlo Bergamini article (which I think needs some expansion for an important person).
# I hadn't heard of the proposal to invade Malta at an early date but it is relevant. Is there a source for this?
# Most of the other changes are rephrasing to make the English more idiomatic and easier to read. (Not a criticism - my Italian is non-existant.)
Folks at 137 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanks for this. In response:
#I still disagree, but, since you make the point, I'll back off.
#Jolly good! I've done changes to allow for two more notable "Carlo Bergamini"s. Is this a common Italian name?!
#Interesting, not heard of this. If I'm doing changes, I might alter the format (but not the content) to conform.
#Interesting again. Two points: the text didn't read as American English (apart from the initially/ at first instance), but as translated foreign text. Secondly, I do try to standardise this article on British spellings, as it's about a European/ British topic. Certainly no disrespect intended. Folks at 137 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes (2)

message: The new map has possibilities, but a few thoughts:
# it lacks a key to the colours
# it seems a mixture of pre-war allegiances and mid-war boundaries, eg Greece is an ally but it was controlled by the axis, Vichy France and much of north Africa were effectively neutral
# during the period of the Malta Convoys, control of the littoral changed, it would be a big improvement if this were reflected in a sequence of maps, since this had an influence on the convoys
# there's no indication of where places are - the old map could be magnified.
Folks at 137 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New map

message: Can I suggest changing this article to a table based on all Mediterranean convoys?  It's likely something that we're going to want eventually regardless (instead of "list of Tripoli convoys", "list of Alexandria convoys", "list of Tobruk convoys" etc.).  I would suggest the following format.
Designation	Faction	Destination	Departure date      	Tonnes shipped                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                	Tonnes delivered                                                                                   	# of escorts	Notes
Pedestal   	Allied 	Malta      	1942-08-099 Aug 1942	128,000The Ohio carried 11,000 tons of oil and all other cargo was distributed evenly (The Maltese Cross: A Strategic History of Malta, pg. 200).  Since 47,000 tons made it to Malta on the Ohio and four other merchant ships, it can be assumed that each merchant ship carried 9,000 tons.	47,000Badsey, Stephen. The Hutchinson Atlas of World War II Battle Plans: Before and After, pg. 189	29          	An aircraft carrier and 2 cruisers were sunk, along with other losses
I'm not sure off-hand how to handle non-supply based deliveries (planes etc.) but I'm sure we could figure something out. Oberiko (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to table?

message: Should this be "Malta Convoys" or "Malta convoys"? A google book search seems to show more without the capitalized "c". 
76.66.193.119 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still tend to the former rather than the latter. The reason is that these convoys were so significant on their own, similarly I would write "Battle of Alamein" or "Baedeker Blitz", etc. "Malta Convoys" is Royal Navy battle honour. It's also worth noting that, in the five years that this article has been actively edited, this is the first suggestion of this type. Indeed, capitalisation of this article's name is widely used in Wiki. None of this is gospel (or Gospel?), but it does imply that a wider consensus should be sought for change. There is a caveat on simple counts of Google searches in that the context can affect the outcome. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Please see Talk:Operation_Tracer,_Gibraltar#Article name. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to disambiguation proposed 

message: I believe that these two articles cover very similar topics, and, as such, should be merged.
Cnd474747 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The aircraft resupply operations are a subset of the general re-supply of Malta during the war. The carriers may have sailed alongside/at the same time as convoys of merchantmen but are they actually "convoys"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure if they could be considered "convoys," per se, but the share a common goal, which was to supply Malta while it was under attack.  I think they should be merged into a new article, maybe, Support of Malta during World War II, but I'm open to suggestions.Cnd474747 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think it's a good idea either. There's hardly any Duplication or Overlap in these articles, and both cover discrete subjects warranting their own articles. And a general treatment of "support for Malta during WWII" permeates our Siege of Malta article; these provide expansion of particular facets, and  complete lists of operations, as adjuncts to that article. Let's leave well alone. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Many of the quoted tonnages are in short tons - 2,000lbs.
Unless these are originally sourced from a US publication and have been converted, then they are almost certainly mislabelled, as the only "ton" the UK and Empire used at the time was the "long ton" - 2,240lbs.
All "tons" quoted in British publications prior to Metrication in around 1971 will be long tons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ton" used 

message: Did a modest copy edit (operations aren't italicked) and added citations from Woodman where missing and changed some from online sources. There are still entries missing citations and the lead needs revision but I felt justified in deleting the banner. Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried a table and expanded a section. Since this article is a hub, is it necessary routinely to name ships? Keith-264 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malta Convoys. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311062547/http://members.fortunecity.com/rwbrown1942/Busterssite/id18.html to http://members.fortunecity.com/rwbrown1942/Busterssite/id18.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It redirects here but I think is should be a red link instead. Does anyone know how to delete the redirect? Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we write an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to stop sprawling my editing so I'll leave that to you. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: i'll see if I can't throw something together. It seems to have been an important resupply as far as the war in the desert was concerned. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I've been wondering if it might be better to go through the convoy articles and add missing ones (sources permitting) so that the amount of context suitable for this one is easier to judge. If you give it a go, I'll help with the references etc.Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't fret over standardizing headers, either name them such that header reflects content of the section or rearrange the section is arranged to fit the header. As this is a chronological recounting you could name should sections by month and fill them accordingly. Or you could name the sections by operations and put month in brackets after them. Or a mixture. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but if we use months it might be better to alter the TOC limit.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Tiger 

message: I added "battleship" in front of the first mention of Nelson. While in some circumstances the popup will appear if you hover over the link and preview what the article is, I actually get "HMS Nelson (pennant number 28) was one of two s built " (the wikilink to Nelson-class battleship not rendering in the popup) which I presume may happen to other readers. Secondly, the text may be reproduced without active links (eg in printed form) in which case relying on the link to provide context doesn't work.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OKKeith-264 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical aside 

message: Any better?Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers 

message: What's the difference?Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One is a technically correct usage, & one isn't? I suppose the fact I'm putting it in offends you.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Roskill uses "empty" so I didn't know if they meant different things.Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that your previous comment isn't that helpful. I beg you to WP:AGF, as Keith-264's request could interest other users and editors of this page. Lord Ics (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF? I did, right up to the point when an edit he disagreed with was called "vandalism". And considering every edit of mine since has been rv'd, I do continue to wonder about bad faith.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your frustration, but the question made by Keith-264 does not seem trivial, since from it started a minor edit skirmish. Maybe if you can explain it, this would be solved? Lord Ics (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty and in ballast 

message: There are 31 page watchers, perhaps they might care to venture their opinions about what the article should be for so we can get an idea of what should go in and what should stay out? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably better making an official WP:RFC request. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll try one.Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I should probably have mentioned it earlier, it's better wait until my third opinion tentative ends. Lord Ics (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: Greetings Cinders, no-one has objected to the edits you prompted, perhaps you'd like to nominate another section so we can repeat the process? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The para marked done and the tanks going to North Africa were the two en block I could identify from Treck's edits I will have a read through myself and get back to you if I find something of note but I am just as likely to make an edit. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was rather hoping to carry on as we were; if you make edits according to your views then I reserve the right to revert them for the reasons already given. Keith-264 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Such iussues are likely minor and easier to identify by edit. They will be section by section and naturally, BRD applies. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The value in mentioning Battle of the Tarigo Convoy is "demonstrating the value of Malta as an offensive base." This statement appears to have been lost in the washing? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't know if you need to mention Battle of Cape Spartivento in the main text. I could suggest a note where Battle of the Tarigo Convoy occurs or here or a briefer mention in the main text (without a heading).Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woodman includes Tiger in Malta Convoys Ch 10. Some of the questionable bits look like incomplete sections, when I refer to Woodman and the extra details make them more obviously relevant. Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinders and K-264  

message: "A continuous flow of new Spitfires had become necessary after the Axis air forces resorted to attacks by fighter-bombers" at Operation Train. This is attacks on Malta? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: YesKeith-264 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pls clarify

message: Suggest rename as Resupply of Malta or similar. Not all resupply by ships were convoys. It would obviate my concerns re Club Runs too. A redirect from Malta convoys could remain. I would gather that resupply by air (outside aircraft deploying to Malta) was nominal but might havea mention to this effect. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A Club Run was a military convoy (guarding the aircraft carriers) which sailed close enough to Malta for the cargo (fighters) to be delivered. Club Runs and merchant convoys were often combined. Treating Club Runs as separate to other convoys or not convoys is a mistake. The RS are clear that merchant ship convoys, covering forces, decoy operations and Club Runs were part of a whole as was the situation regarding control of airfields in Cyrenaica. I don't see any support in the RS for hair splitting. "Resupply" is an American illiteratism and I would reject it summarily. Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The title of the article is the same as Woodman's book, one of the RS and he includes Club Runs and through convoys. I'm sure that you would agree that the RS have precedence to us. I will not agree to a change of title.Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An author/publisher/editor can call a work whatever they like. It does not ipso facto constrain or define what they write about in their book. Nor does it alone define the "name" or the boundaries of a particular sequence of events. This is not like the "Battle of XYX". For a definitive name (including the boundaries to which this should apply), there should be a broad consensus on the naming. This could be "bragging rights" defined by a definitive source such as a campaign or battle honour. It could be general acceptance in multiple (more than one) reliable sources. I see neither. It is a somewhat loosely defined series of events. Without clear guidance per above, an encyclopedia must select a title which "best describes" the content of the article.  There are two ways to write an article - write the article to the limitations set by the title or write an article and then find the best title that suits the article that has been written.  In my experiences outside WP, the title is the last decision made in writing an article/essay/assignment.  If my case does not convince you, then I think we should sek at least a third opinion. I agree that RS have precedent to us ... but there is much context to be applied in making this statement, what it means and how it should be applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Can you find a source that doesn't treat club Runs etc as part and parcel of Malta Convoys? I think your suggestion is fundamentally misconceived and ought to be dropped. Perhaps you could add to the article instead?Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying I'm right. Asking for "a source that doesn't treat club Runs etc as part and parcel of Malta Convoys?" is something of a logical fallacy (respectively, just as one book title does not prove the scope of what are or are not "Malta convoys" - they are somewhat subjective).  There is certainly content in the article which are not convoys - moves by individual ships, fast mine-layers, and Magic Carpet runs, without mentioning Club Runs, which were convoys that fell well short of Malta. This is not about excluding material but finding a better title under which to include it. As I said, if you don't like this "suggestion", I would like to have a third opinion on it. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Why isn't it logical? I'm satisfied that the title reflects the RS and that the scope of the article does too; presumably the originator of the article did too. Your narrow definition of convoy ignores the fact that victualling Malta, supplying its defensive and offensive forces and the uses to which the supplies were put are treated as the same thing in the sources.Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest rename

message: Sorry, but I reverted your reversion of my edit. I realise that you are acting in good faith, and that redlinks are often used to encourage article creation, but hatnotes are navigational aids and must not contain redlinks.  See WP:REDHAT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I hadn't noticed that one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hid those in East African Campaign WWII but there are a few more lying around, I'll hide those when I see them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnotes 

message: Trek, you go too far, any more of this and I will ask for you to be barred from the article on the grounds of immaturity.Keith-264 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti, slurs and anachronisms 

message: Altered headers to avoid repetition. Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit