Talk:Operation Brevity

message: The biggest reason I rated this as a Start class article is its like of footnotes and references. It needs a lot more footnotes to even be considered for B-class or higher.Cromdog 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start class 

message: The only bit of the article which i can see which now needs to be improved is the above.
Ive exhausted all publihsed material that i have, as well as nosing all over the net for the casualties substained by the Scots Guard and Rifle Brigade not to mention the Italians.  The Commando Supermo website puts the Italian losses at around 500 and the Germans the same iirc so they appear to be inaccurate.
Am unsure what to do in this respect so for the moment i have listed the Scots and Rifle Brigade in the Casualties section and stuck some question marks next to them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I see that in a couple of places British and German flags have been replaced with a cross and the British Army flag. This is not the convention used in any of the other WWII articles and I wondered if there had been an agreed change in convention? If not, I suggest the current form is confusing and should be changed back. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flags are denoting branch of service, i have seen this in other articles with Waffen-SS icon replacing the Heer cross etc It at the time seemed appropriate since for example the Afrika Korp was not Nazi's they were Heer soldiers.
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Please!! And Rommel was a liberal democrat! These flags are supposed to indicate national allegiance (i.e. tie up with the flags in the combatatant section of the box) not indicate political preference (which we have no idea of anyway). In this way we can identify a general or unit as coming from a particular country  by comparing the flags by each. In the current format you have to know already for instance what the British Army flag is. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "Oh Please!! And Rommel was a liberal democrat"
Lol, i wasnt suggesting that, i was suggesting that not all German troops were part of the Nazi party but point taken.
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: I went ahead and award B-class status to the article, although I would recommend expanding the lead a little to better cover the topic, one paragraph is sort of slim in this respect. Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: Cheers for the copyedit, ive been meaning to change the intro and move bits of it into the main article in fact i did write up a draft in work last (yea i have that much to do lol) and emailed myself but looks like i deleleted it so never got around to it. Oh well.never mind found it.
As for the Aussies, they did take part in the battle so i will be reverting a few things you deleted sorry.  There divisional cavalry regiment as well as some AT companies/battalions took part - some out on the desert flank and some accompanying the Rifle Brigade.
Dont worry i plan on expanding portions of the article so this will all be added in.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of things 

message: I know i wrote this and during all the edits noone really changed the wording however am not too sure on this sentance:
"the Australian 6th Infantry Division was sent to join in the Battle of Greece"
Its not grammatically correct is it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's a bit inelegant. What about "...was withdrawn from the Western Desert to join the Commonwealth expeditionary force commanded by Lieutenant-General Wilson being shipped to Greece." Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: Other then an update which needs to be made to the info box i was thinking should we also do something like this, so that the strength and losses for both operations are covered but at the time seperated so to avoid confusion. A little something like so:--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that strongly but it seems a bit anal - way too much detail, especially when quite a lot of the detail is at present not available. I'd be happier if we could find referenced overall casualty figures for each side. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I would just keep it as the summary figures (x casualties, y tanks etc.) and then, if this much detail is available, put the actual figures into the aftermath or analysis section. Oberiko (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: As per requests here is what i understand to be the complete order of battle for each side and the information surrounding the losses incurred during the operation.
===Order of battle===
Order of Battle has been transferred to Operation Brevity order of battle.
The below order of battle contains a few errors which i have removed in the one on the above page as well as translating all German and Italian unit names into English.
Axis Forces
On the border
*Italian Forces
**2 companies, V Battaglione bersagliere autoportato (motorised inantry Battalion)
**75/27 Field Gun Battery
**47/32 AT Battery
**a sezione c.a. 2cm (Anti Air gun??)
**12 105/28 Field Guns, II Gruppo 24 reggimento artiglieria
*Gruppe Herff
**Aufklaerung-Abteilung 3 (Recon Battalion)
**Aufklaerung-Abteilung 33 (Recon Battalion) positioned near Bardia?
**2.Kompanie, Kradschuetzen-Bataillon 15 (motorcycle Battalion) - source is a little confusing and it might be the entire battalion was in the border area for Brevity
**1x Battalion from the Trento Division, presumably another Bersaglieri battalion
**Panzer-Abteilung Hohmann (II. Abteiling Panzer Regiment 5 (Tank Company))-
**1 88mm Flak Battery
**platoon of 2cm AA Guns
**platoon of 2CM AT guns
**2 105mm le FH Howitzer
**4.7cm Pak Sfl (whatever that is :S)
*Defending Bardia
**II Battaglione 62 regimento fanterie, minus one company (Infantry Regiment)
**47/32 AT Battery
**batteria c.a. 2cm (AT or AA guns??)
Reinforcements
*Lt-Col Krammer's forces which were ordered to reinforce the border
**I.Abteilung, Panzer Regiment 8 (Tank Company)
**Flak battery (presumably 88's)
*Kampfgrppe von Esebeck, Jentz notes this Kampgruppe was ordered late on the 15th to move to the border to assist the above forces. Currently am guessing that did not engage anyone.
**a Schuetzen Battalion
**a Mittlere Panzer Kompanie (minus one platoon) (light tank companie if i remember correctly, presumably MKIIs etc)
**I.Abteilung, Panzer Regiment 5
**A Panzer Jaeger Kompanie (anti tank Coy, presumably SPAT guns)
**Artillerie Abteilng (minus one battery)
Out of all of them, what was engaged or who engaged the British forces is a different story. The above, as far as i can tell from several sources is the correct order of battle for the Axis forces on the border.
British Forces
*Coast Group
**2nd Rifle Brigade (minus one company)
**Mortar Company, 3rd Coldstream Guards
**5th Australian Anti-tank Battery, 2/2nd Australian Anti-Tank Rgt
**8th Field Regiment, RA
*Centre
**1st Durham Light Infantry
**2nd Battalion Scots Guards
**4th Royal Tank Regiment
**3rd Coldstream Guards (Follow up force to take up positions in Halfaya Pass once it was captured, did not take any other part in Brevity)
**1 troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Rgt
*Desert Flank
**2nd Royal Tank Regiment
**A Company, 2nd Rifle Brigade
**6th Australian Divisional Cavalry 
**11th Hussars (way out on the flank and according to there history sort of behind the Axis positions, mostly in a recon role and did not engage anything - covered the withdrawal)
**1 troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Rgt
At the moment, no other information is available that i am aware of which indicates any of the other units were invovled. As far as i can tell, this is the correct order of battle for British units which actually attacked.
The 3rd Hussars history glosses over this battle, but its possible that there D Squadron actually did take part.
The 8th Field Regt, RA may infact be only D Battery, 3rd Royal Horse Arty.
===Lossses===
Durham Light Infantry
Playfair claims 160 losses
Faithful: the Story of the Durham Light Infantry what the DLI website calls an excellent comprehensive history of Regiment, places there losses at 196 (11 officers and 185 Other ranks).
Scots Guards
Only book which i have seen information regarding losses given is Erksines book which places them at 1 dead and 4 wounded. He was also the one which mentioned the damaged carrier which i will remove in a moment.
Rifle Brigade
The book by Major Hasting lists no losses in it for this operation, however i guess the losses would most likely be mentioned in "The Rifle Brigade, 1939-1945: volume 1 & 2" by the Rifle Brigade Club, 1946. Although thats pretty hard to come by.
2RTR
no losses to tanks or personnal, two tanks abandoned due to brakedown but later recovered - Jentz
Other units
Bar the loss of planes and tanks as already cited from Playfair, the manpower losses from those regiments are not mentioned.
German losses
Latimer (and i think Playfair) claim losses as 12 dead, 61 wounded and 185 missing (captured).
Jentz states these figures come from the war diary of the DAK.
The Italian official history also confirms 258 losses (never read the book or know what its called, the figures were provided to me when requested on a forum)
Seems all sources seem to agree it was only 3 tanks which were complete right offs.
Italian losses
Italian offical history claims 395 losses, however Andreas the guy over on Axis History forum who told me, states the history also contains errors on Brevity so it may not be 100% accurate.
Scots Guards claim 320 prisoners, half of which were Italians from one camp and a "few other prisoners taken later on". Rifle Brigade claim 130 prisoners, have not seen the claim by the DLI which would bring us a total of at least 265 Italian prisoners taken.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Battle and Losses 

message: Durham Light Infantry
Playfair claims 160 losses
Faithful: the Story of the Durham Light Infantry what the DLI website calls an excellent comprehensive history of Regiment, places there losses at 196 (11 officers and 185 Other ranks).
Scots Guards
Only book which i have seen information regarding losses given is Erksines book which places them at 1 dead and 4 wounded. He was also the one which mentioned the damaged carrier which i will remove in a moment.
Rifle Brigade
The book by Major Hasting lists no losses in it for this operation, however i guess the losses would most likely be mentioned in "The Rifle Brigade, 1939-1945: volume 1 & 2" by the Rifle Brigade Club, 1946. Although thats pretty hard to come by.
2RTR
no losses to tanks or personnal, two tanks abandoned due to brakedown but later recovered - Jentz
Other units
Bar the loss of planes and tanks as already cited from Playfair, the manpower losses from those regiments are not mentioned.
German losses
Latimer (and i think Playfair) claim losses as 12 dead, 61 wounded and 185 missing (captured).
Jentz states these figures come from the war diary of the DAK.
The Italian official history also confirms 258 losses (never read the book or know what its called, the figures were provided to me when requested on a forum)
Seems all sources seem to agree it was only 3 tanks which were complete right offs.
Italian losses
Italian offical history claims 395 losses, however Andreas the guy over on Axis History forum who told me, states the history also contains errors on Brevity so it may not be 100% accurate.
Scots Guards claim 320 prisoners, half of which were Italians from one camp and a "few other prisoners taken later on". Rifle Brigade claim 130 prisoners, have not seen the claim by the DLI which would bring us a total of at least 265 Italian prisoners taken.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lossses

message: Just checking, what is the best way to show citation.
For example, is it more correct to have one citation per page ala the top few sections so you have a several citations at the end of paragraphs etc
For like the way i have done them for the recently edited sections, where each citation contains several different books etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation question 

message: The 2nd para of the "Opening moves" section is a tad confusing...
"The remainder of the battalion and C Squadron pushed on towards their second objective..." Presumably the battalion referred to here is the Scots Guards. Correct?
"Soon after, the men of the Scots Guards were back in there trucks and heading for there objective. The battalion was able to rapidly capture these two positions..." What was the objective? What were the two positions?
"Although, two men were wounded when ‘F’ Company ran into eight German tanks but these soon withdrew." Small point, but does this level of detail really need to be included? --FactotEm (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No apologies necessary - I know how difficult it can be to step back from one's own work and try and see it with uneducated eyes. All perfectly clear now, thanks. I hope this is now reflected in the copyedits I made to these sections. One other thing though, the use of inverted commas to quote the source exactly probably needs those quotes to be referenced. --FactotEm (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Nice article. I've done all the copyediting I feel is necessary now. Is there any chance of getting more images to illustrate the narrative? You might be able to pick some up in Commons. Also, I know that the separate OOB looks comprehensive, but this article explains well the British forces involved, but tends to leave one guessing as to the opposing forces involved. Is it worth adding a short para to the plans section summarising the Axis forces to balance out the detail given for the British? --FactotEm (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Hope my efforts do the article justice. Not sure what information is available in the sources about the Axis side, but there is a fairly obvious weight given in the article to the level of detail provided for the British side that is not evident when it comes to the Axis side. For example, the types of tanks operated by the British regiments is really quite detailed. Compare this with the information provided in the article about the German tank units. It tends I think to lead to subtle POV traps which makes the article come across as the British view of events, instead of a more balanced narrative which lends equal weight to all protagonists. Not at all easy to handle I realise, but worth pursuing to make a promising article one of the very best. --FactotEm (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One way to handle this might be to re-organise the "Afternoon" section. Insert a new section there called "German reactions", comprising the 1st and 3rd para's of the current "Afternoon" section. The remaining para's would remain in the "Afternoon" section which would follow the "German reactions" section. What do you think? --FactotEm (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Re: structure - yes. The main change would be the German reactions section. I have thought that "Plans" might be better named, but I don't think it's that bad as a section title now. I wonder what similar articles use. The Luftwaffe thing is largely semantics - trying to come up with elegant prose that does not introduce a factual inaccuracy. I am also wondering whether the Tiger convoy and Skorpion information actually need their own sections. Currently they are short sections and I don't think anything would be lost by removing the section headers and having a single homogenous aftermath section. What do you think? --FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hang fire on removing the Skorpian section just for now, there is several sources i need to consult and am hoping to expand that section. The Tiger convoy, the section is currently there as the convoy is referanced but there is no information available on the wiki at the moment on it. If it could be reworded into the aftermath section proper then yes i would agree to removing the section header.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear - I am not talking about removing the information. I'm only suggesting that the section headers go. You OK with me implementing the "German reactions" section now, or do you have any reservations about this change? --FactotEm (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok i understood what you meant regarding the aftermath section. Yes, implementing the new section is fine with me and makes sence :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The arrival at Alexandria on the 12 May of this convoy reinforced the British XIII Corps ... etc
To me it doesnt seem to read right. Am also not in the right frame of mind to make it make sence, any help?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a little oddly phrased, but perfectly acceptable to me. Nevertheless, I've re-jigged it slightly. Better? --FactotEm (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a little drunk last night :p Yea it does fine look but i it better the way you done it now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  problomatic sentance? 

message: "...the 22nd Guards Brigade Group, along with the 4RTR and presumably the Coast Group, had completed their retreat to the pass..." (my italics) Is this presumption taken from the sources? The last we hear of the Coast Group prior to this statement is their capture of the lower pass the previous evening. If they were already at the pass they surely cannot have retreated there? --FactotEm (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed presumption. --FactotEm (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawal of the Coast Group? 

message: The peer review as stated that the lead is an area, which is paticularly weak, as its currently too detailed but at the same time doesnt provide enough.
These is a quick mess about with the lead i have made in work, anyone have any input on it - better, worse?
Operation Brevity was a limited attack launched during the Western Desert Campaign of World War II. It was conducted by elements of the British XIII Corps against elements of the German Afrika Korps and small Italian infantry formations between 15-16 May 1941.
Following the successful advance of the Afrika Korps during March and April 1941, which recaptured all territory gained during Operation Compass excluding the town of Tobuk now under siege, the British launched Operation Brevity as a limited attack to dislodge the Axis forces from the area around the towns of Bardia, Sollum and Capuzzo to secure more ground from which a major attack could later be launched. A secondary objective was to exploit a breakthrough towards Tobruk as far as supply would allow, again without risking the force committed.Playfair, p. 116
The operation started with mixed results, encountering pockets of stiff resistance from German and Italian forces, which were not overcome until the afternoon. Following the arrival of German armoured reinforcements, allied forces were ordered to retire and the operation was called off the next day.Playfair, p. 159 
The operation failed to meet any of its objectives other than the capture of the Halfaya Pass, which in turn was lost to a German counterattack on 27 May during Operation Skorpion.
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leads are simple in theory, and surprisingly difficult in practise. I've had a go at User:Factotem/Sandbox. --FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: After reading through Rommels diary (The Rommel Papers) again, it looks like this process only started once Halfaya Pass had been recaptured thus anything to do with this subject should be in an aftermath section of the Skorpian article not this one.
With that said, am now putting the article forth for reevaluation since i believe it is now compelete.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German fortifications on the frontier 

message: Hi all,
A fact tag has been added to the lead following this sentance:
The attack was launched on May 15 and proceeded against stiff resistance, with mixed results.
Well am not sure if it is relevent as the rest of the paragraph expands on what this sentance states and has approbirate citations.
Any advice on what to do?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the lead should briefly summarise the article's contents, it should need no references at all (assuming the main body of the article is suitably referenced). However, it should be a brief statement of the facts and so I would argue that " and proceeded against stiff resistance, with mixed results" is superfluous. Take it out and leave in "The attack was launched on May 15." It reads fine like that. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that input, i have made the change as dicussed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Tend to disagree. The sentence is now very short and the beginning of the paragraph does not flow well, especially as there are now two sentences beginning with "The...". To a certain extent, I think you have made rod for your own back here. As pointed out above, the lead should summarise the article and, unless there is a strong challenge, does not require referencing at all. If it were me, I would re-instate the rest of the sentence and remove all referencing from the lead. I don't see how anyone can challenge that statement, given the main, fully referenced content.--FactotEm (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like short sentences. If you dislike the the's then replace the first with "Gott's". The words taken out add nothing that is not already in the rest of the paragraph. The lead is too long already and has too much detail for a summary. Actually I wouldn't mind adding back the deleted words because then it would be appropriate to delete the rest of the paragraph except "By late on 16 May the operation had been called off. Halfaya Pass, the only gain arising from it was recaptured by a German counterattack eleven days later."! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:LEAD, the lead should briefly summarise an article "...in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and "...must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." I think the lead before the citation tag remedy was fine, and good enough to pass ACR without comment. Doesn't sound like we'll be agreeing on this one. I see that EnigmaMcmxc is planning on taking this to FAC at some stage, so I'm sure it will get dissected during the pre-FAC copyedit the article needs, or failing that during FAC itself, if not before. --FactotEm (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't feel strongly enough about it to argue! As you say; it'll all get picked up in the process. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request in lead 

message: 4RTR is mentioned supporting 1DLI but by German reactions section they are not present and no reason why is given - need to add what happened to them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for self 

message: What exactly is wrong with stating "... kampfgruppe..." without explaining what one is, thats what the link is for isnt it?  I mean by the same logic wouldnt we then have to explain what practically everything else is - will a layman of military history know what a division, company, battalion, Middle East Command, siege, counterattack, Afrika Korps, Panzer, Luftwaffe, Bersaglieri, hull down etc etc etc 
I could go on.  I just dont get it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the short answer is, if it gets challenged, it needs to be explained. This one was challenged. To challenge part of your statement, if this article was aimed at the 'layman of military history', then we might be more able to assume some knowledge of military terminology, but it needs to appeal to the lay reader, who does not necessarily have a grasp of miltary terms. Further, terms like division, battalion, company etc are common throughout most armies, so can get by with just a link (not to mention the sheer impracticality, as you allude to, of having to explain every individual term). Kampfgruppe is a foreign term, specific to the German army, and thus I can see why it warrants some explanation if it is not to trip up the lay reader. At the end of the day, it's a case of balance, which is not always going to be obvious to the likes of you and me. I am still surprised by the challenges to 'exploit' and 'invest', but I've read military histories and understand these terms. It takes a lay reader to point out to us that these trip up the narrative. Don't fully understand it myself, but that's wikipedia for you. --FactotEm (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Easter Egg" Links 

message: :Just to take on a bit of an advisory role during the copyediting stage: the pass was called both Strategically and Tactically important by whatever source you look at.  I guess it’s a case of picking whatever one fits the context.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though you are the expert here, so I'll follow your advice. I chose tactical because 'strategic' didn't seem to fit the scale of operations at this stage of the campaign. --FactotEm (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example if it was in the aftermath section where we havea  quote of Rommel talking about it needed for logistics that would be strategic.  However in the section were you made the edit i think you have made the right choice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halfaya Pass 

message: This FA is quite good. But I note that in the article only one mention of the Luftwaffe, RA is made while the RAF DAF is not mentioned at all. It explains that repeated requests were made for air support, by the Axis land forces, yet it does not describe the help it got at all or how it may or may not have helped. Does anyone mind if insert this into this article? Dapi89 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air battles 

message: Which sources? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For lowercase siege of Tobruk, see e.g. the cited sources Clarke The Eleventh at War: Being the Story of the XIth Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) Through the Years 1934-1945 p. 179, or Latimer Tobruk 1941: Rommel's Opening Move p.63.  But there are many. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: En Grams again? Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Whats the difference between sfn and sfnref? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You use :Template:SfnRef in the ref= section of the citation template to generate a landing point for :Template:Sfn used in the text, when the citation template (eg :Template:Cite book) doesn't automatically generate one. So in this article we use  |ref= to generate a landing point for . We could also use |ref= to generate a landing point for . Either will work, the only difference in appearance is that the first appears as "11thH 1941, War diary, 15 May 1941" in the numbered list of references, the second as "11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) 1941, War diary entry for 15 May 1941". DuncanHill (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I see it occasionally but never thought to ask. Nice to see you around. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it risk the paradox of a long 'short' reference? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations