Talk:Western Desert campaign

message: No mention of the Rhodesians.  They were at least part of the LRDG.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.98.103 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodesians 

message: -    
- That map is flawed, Germany occuped the north and west of france , Vichy france was only in the south and not the whole country as the map seems to imply. Goldblooded (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I have just read an excellent academic treament of British Special Forces in the Desert War and believe this page could benefit from a citation/reference - particularly as regards the section on 'raids'. It is:
 
Hargreaves, Andrew L., ‘The Advent, Evolution and Value of British Specialist Formations in the Desert War, 1940-43’, in Global War Studies, Vol. 7, No.2, (2010), pp.7-62
 
From what I understand Dr. Hargreaves wrote a PhD on WWII Special Forces, but am not sure if he has written any books.
 
This could be useful to other pages dealing with similar units.
 
Best,
 
David Trill  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.118.20 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky; is it publicly available? Are you wanting to use it to support some statement here? If it isn’t readily accessible it can’t be verified. Does it have a lot to say about the Western Desert campaign or is it just broadly about special forces? If the former, and it is useful as background, you could always put it in the Further Reading section. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source about raids/special forces 

message: The sentence mentioning the USAAF build-up seems to be randomly dropped into the introductory section and an odd interjection in the summary of the strategic campaign. Perhaps it would be better placed at some point after the entry of Japan into the wider global conflict is raised, for instance in the section on Rommel's 2nd offensive? Bonza9683 03:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USAAF in intro 

message: The article states "After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Australian forces were withdrawn from the Western Desert to the Pacific theatre".  While it is correct, it creates the impression that the Australians (9th Division AIF) were withdrawn soon after the Japanese entered the war.  In fact they were not withdrawn until late January 1943, more than a year later, and after the Australians had made an important contribution in the El Alamein battles.
Baska436 (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian troops were retained until they could be spared without jeopardising the success of operations in North Africa. Churchill had earlier been obliged to send troops from North Africa to Greece in 1941 in an attempt at supporting Greece and this removal of troops from Egypt was one of the factors that allowed the Italians to survive in North Africa until Rommel's DAK arrived, thus throwing away an almost certain British victory, and prolonging the conflict in that theatre. Churchill didn't want that repeated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian withdrawal 

message: The term is never explained: why "Western"?
My best guess is a British-centric POV: the deserts west of Egypt, but that's just pure guesswork.
What is the origin of calling this desert campaign "Western"? Where did the - I assume - corresponding "Eastern Desert Campaign" take place? CapnZapp (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the campaign that was Western but the Desert. The Sahara Desert west of the Nile was known as the Western Desert (or sometimes Libyan Desert) and the Sahara Desert east of the Nile was known as the Eastern Desert. The campaign was named after the desert. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true. In addition, vast parts of the area were unsurveyed at the time, and the British found that one of the first things they had to do was to create reliable maps of the area. Indeed, up until the late 1960s the only accurate maps available of large parts of Libya, Tunisia etc., were those made by the LRDG.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western" Desert Campaign 

message: Gave the page a spring clean, shortened header titles, rm duplicate wikilinks, revised citations and references. Still needs citations for each paragraph at least.Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Have re-edited the first sections and hope to work down the page to make it ready for a B class review. All suggestions welcome. Regards, Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for this, looks great. Shire Lord 14:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the encouragement. I'm not sure about the headings yet though....Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: []I changed the pics to thumbnail to make more room and because they enlarge for people who want them to. Thumbnail is quite sufficient but I experimented with a big map to start since it's a campaign page, although it turned out to be a flop. The default for pics and maps is the right margin and I'd rather reduce the number than have a slalom.Keith-264 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If alternating right/left does not fit here then remove some images that are less needed.  Maps with text should be enlarged some so they can be read.  But do whatever, I won't bother. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I don't know, it looks better than it did. It seems pointless to enlarge things in the text when they enlarge for anyone who wants them to though. I suppose the long west-east distance doesn't help with scaling. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

text: As an experiment I've added a gallery at the bottom, to avoid crowding the narrative and will remove pics if it works. Grateful for advice and opinion. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we think images should not be placed on the left? Putting all the images on the right is not manual of style, nor is it a visually interesting choice. Images placed in a gallery should be there to provide further visual information, but if they are descriptive of what is discussed in the narrative than my view is the body of the text is the best place for them. A gallery should be used to further illustrate what has been discussed. Images in a gallery should not be repeats of what has already been placed in the body of the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already established that we differ and that the default setting is right margin. The pics in the gallery are a proposed place for some of the pics in the narrative section not a definitive selection. For a hub page like this 1-2 paragraph summaries and links to the main pages are sufficient; this makes adding pictures and maps difficult since there isn't much room. I'm undecided and trying out various things not trying to dictate to anyone.Keith-264 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I carefully picked images for the Tunisian Campaign (although the article needs copyediting), but alternating left & right with maps but majority on the right margin. See what you think?  Shire Lord 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It looks like an improvement but I've only glanced at the article previously. There's a difference between what I want (nothing on the left and only thumbnails on the right) and what I can have, which is what every other editor will agree to. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Took out several maps, most of which I'd put in, to see how it looks.Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: I've put some stray articles into the campaignbox as Associated articles and wonder if Operation Venezia this should be incorporated into Battle of Gazala and the page deleted? If anyone knows of other strays pls let me know regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Venezia 

message: Added material from Creveld (a bit long despite pruning) to the analysis and will look for an equivalent for British supply. Will put a paragraph or two of generic description of time, distance etc into the Prelude.Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Plodded on through the sections, to have 1–2 paragraph summaries under each heading. I'm by no means committed to the present form of the article and welcome suggestions. Eythenkew Keith-264 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creveld 

message: It's almost ready for a B class review despite being deficient of air power and intelligence sections.Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't done much as I'm plundering the generic sections for other articles but now I've got Creveld back can think about finishing the analysis section and putting it in for a B.Keith-264 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Lately, I have been translating (and expanding) some pages from the Italian wiki about battles involving Italian forces, such as Nibeiwa, Mechili and Bir el Gubi. One page is still left, "Scontro di Knightsbridge", part of the Battle of Gazala. I am not sure wheter to translate it or not, since I do not know if it was significant enough. Any opinions?--BaoBabbo49 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you've done, since the British sources are rather sketchy on the fighting and the 1940 articles are sadly lacking in the Italian perspective. I translated (sic) material from an Italian source (Santoro, G. (1957) [1950]. L'aeronautica italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale) that I enjoyed but it took ages to get two pages' worth. Having an Italian speaker filling in the gaps is invaluable. Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Engagement at Knightsbridge" 

message: There's something here about codenames not being italicised. Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation codenames 

message: The lead photo of the article - of British troops "advancing at Alamein" - is both well-known and well-known to be (and obviously) posed, is it not? I can't add that myself as I don't want to be hunting around for a cite which somebody will doubtless demand.Paulturtle (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would be easy to find the cite that they were Oz troops attacking their cookhouse but I was wrong. You will need a cite though. ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posed photo 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tunisian Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: In the section on the second battle of El Alamein, a sentence begins: "Having decided to retire, Hitler ordered...". I am unable to make sense of this. To my knowledge Hitler never decided to retire from the German government. Presumably something else is intended. Perhaps "retreat" rather than "retire"?Bill (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Retire is a synonym of withdraw or retreat, it means a retreat not necessarily forced on an army by the opponent. Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler retiring?

message: Hi this is a notice that I will be changing the caption of the New main article image that was put in by Tobby 72.This is because the caption for the new image says Australian infantry advancing at El Alemein (forgive me if I spell this wrong) despite the fact that the caption for the same image on wiki commons and the Imperial War museum where the image originally came from says the infantry are British not Australian. For the sake of historical accuracy I will correct the main article image caption for the western desert campaign to British infantry advancing as that is what the image source (Imperial War museum) says the image actually is. Tobby 72 if you wish to challenge my decision post here and I will try and get back to you Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing caption of new main article Image

message: Removed this red link. Some operations that never came to be are clearly notable and with plenty of reliable sources - for instance Operation Sealion would easily qualify as a red link - it would link to a very plausible article (and indeed one has existed for a long time already). But Buckshot? Highly doubtful. Since I cannot find any online sources discussing this operation, I removed the red link per WP:REDDEAL: "If the red link points to a target you feel reasonably certain would be deleted if an article were created, remove the red link."
Now I'm putting the onus on anyone believing there is reason to believe Operation Buckshot could sustain an article about a notable, sourced topic. But really, my advice would be to create the page Operation Buckshot as a redirect here - specifically, to Western Desert campaign#Battle of Gazala. I find it highly likely this section is the only place that Op will ever be discussed, let alone even mentioned. If you do, I've unlinked the red link for you already (the link would be a circular reference). You're welcome, CapnZapp (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a number of mentions on gbooks, but none of them look particularly substantial in snippet view.  I've created the redirect; I'm not quite sure why you didn't do that yourself.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation "Buckshot" 

message: I have questions. I will group them here if that works for everyone.
#, what is your objection to left-justifying photo captions? The centered text hurts me to the depths of my soul. Very very 1999. I would also prefer not to center photos with a portrait orientation, but the nature of the text is wrong for that.  Leaving it, pending your response. Elinruby (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example of an image with a centred caption,
.
In general if the content of the photo faces right it should be left-justified and if it faces left, right-justified. When you copy-edited them, you put left into the centring formula. Since images go to the right margin unless you specify left or centre, you should have done it like this,
 so that the left-justifying term would look like this |thumb|left|{{centre| (bolded for emphasis), which I would have reverted under the image content convention. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomenclature; if you read the article and wonder about some of the words, any of the page watchers would be interested in discussing them. Since I cut 'n' pasted much of this from the detailed articles on the campaign there is plenty of room for improvement. Would you like to discuss them one at a time? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: at some point would appreciate a cite for your image content convention, but ok, for now that’s an answer. FYI as I had it the image was centered with the caption left justified. Probably browser-dependent, Elinruby (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Tis here. Keith-264 (talk)
 Why do you want to add material about the Free/Fighting French? Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCD twinge 

message: The intro is pure non-sense. Trying to correct it but Keith-264, (talk), you keep re-adding this incorrect information. Why? It literally makes zero sense.
Operation Compass lasted for two months (9 december 1940-9 february 1941), not 5 days. The thing is that it was originally planned as a raid but was extended into a large counter-offensive because of its success. The British were still on Egypt on December 14 (Sollum was recaptured on December 16). At best you can say that the initial phase of Compass was a 5-days-raid in Egypt, then it became a general two-months-advance into Libya.
This sentence is the key problem here:
 Operation Compass, a five-day raid by the British was so successful that it led to the destruction of the Italian 10th Army (10ª Armata). 
Compass begun on December 9, the 10th army was destroyed at the Battle of Beda Fomm on February 7. 
If you look at the page of Operation Compass, it correctly says that Compass lasted up to February. 
So you are effectively writing that there are 5 days between December 9 and February 9. Like, what?
Barjimoa (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki isn't a source. Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that. I'm talking about the sources currently used in Wikipedia as bibliography. They all say Compass lasted from December 1940 to February 1941. There are book chapters mentioned in a book on Wavell literally titled "Compass, December 1940-February 1941" (https://books.google.com/books?id=Bob1Oq72K-EC&pg=PA96&dq=Compass+december+to+february&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS96GCutj6AhXLsKQKHRiQBRcQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Compass%20december%20to%20february&f=false). And let's use the timeline of Britannica for the destruction of the Italian 10th army:  Marsa Matruh captured on December 9, Sollum on December 16, Bardia on January 3, Tobruk on January 25, Benghazi on February 6, and Agheila on February 8. At this point Compass came to an end, Italian and German reinforcements arrived to defend Tripolitania, British reinforcements were sent to Greece. The key fact here is this: one thing is what Compass was orinally planned to be, another thing is what it actually ended up being.Barjimoa (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

text: You are conflating two things, see what the RS in the bibliography say about the raid. Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Compass

message: Removed about 20 dupe w/l. Keith-264 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE