Jump to content

Talk:Operation Epsom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOperation Epsom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
October 31, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Hart 2007 and 2007a

[edit]

@Keith-264:: Having both "Hart 2007, p. 108." and "Hart 2007a, p. 108." looks like an error. You may want to double check. User-duck (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User-duck: I think that's it, thanks for putting Hart 2007b into further reading. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson (2nd iteration)

[edit]

@Keith-264:: This was the original cite:

  • Jackson, G. S.; Staff, 8 Corps (2006) [1945]. 8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic. Smalldale: MLRS Books. ISBN 978-1-905696-25-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

I changed |author2=Staff, 8 Corps to |last2=Staff |first2=8 Corps. Which renders the same but links with {{sfn}} easier.

  • Jackson, G. S.; Staff, 8 Corps (2006) [1945]. 8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic. Smalldale: MLRS Books. ISBN 978-1-905696-25-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Feel free to remove the second author from the cite and SFNs. I do not know what the actual book has.

PS: The book was not originally published in 1945. I removed |orig-year= from the current version of the article.

PPS: Is |location=Smalldale correct? User-duck (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the MLRS location but on looking at the website, [1], "MLRS (Military Library Research Service Ltd), 6 Smalldale, Near Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 8EA." makes me wonder if Buxton would be better?
As for Jackson, the staff appears on the cover but not the title page inside. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@Enderwigginau: Failure and "failure" are not the same; "failure" means that the editor is not endorsing the word....Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Parachuted in from User talk:143.58.173.57

Operation Epsom

[edit]

Greetings, I reverted your Epsom edit because you included a primary source which, while interesting, is original research and unWiki. You'll need to paraphrase it and associate it with a Reliable Source (if this is possible). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research at all. Historian given and the book. The extract is from the official Order.
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0811705897
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0811705899 143.58.173.57 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! put it back. Is "The intention in the Order was to seize Caen if possible on D-Day, but if resistance was high ensure that the enemy does not use it as a means of counter-attacking, giving the job to the RAF of eliminating the German occupiers. Caen was not a prime D-Day target. In the Overlord Operation possession".... a claim by a writer? It will need a cite too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All after the ref is mine, interpreting the Order. The Order was inset to differentiate it. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't interpret, we must describe what RS contain. That bit will have to go unless you can cite it to RS. Regrets Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses sfns so I have reinstated the format for the quote, sfn'd the citation and added Anderson to the bibliography. I can't find the page number though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]