Talk:Malta convoys

WPMILHIST Assessment

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)

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)

The last edit.

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)

Recent changes

I reverted some of the recent style changes, but not substance. Before I get thumped, here's my reasoning.

1. Removed "garrison" from intro para. The supplies were needed to sustain the civilian Maltese population and naval base, not just the garrison.
2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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)

Recent changes (2)

I apologise. I should have stated my reasons for the changes and deletions that I did. No offence meant. My points:

1. 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.
2. I fixed the link to the Carlo Bergamini article (which I think needs some expansion for an important person).
3. I hadn't heard of the proposal to invade Malta at an early date but it is relevant. Is there a source for this?
4. 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)

Hi, Folks at 137. Thanks for your explanations. Allow me these answers:

1. I believe the mistake of Mussolini is relevant. It is the initial reason of the entrance of Italy in WWII and without this mistake there would have not been "Malta Convoys". Anyway, it is not relevant to the article even the reference to the "routing" of the Italians in December 1940, don't you believe?
2. I agree with the second point.
3. Source: Di Cirella, Arturo. Per l'onore dei Savoia. 1943-1944: da un superstite della corazzata Roma Mursia Editore. Milano, 2003.
4. I appreciate your "cleaning service", but I believe that you use the English from Great Britain, while the one I use is from the USA (I live and work in Florida, where it is used - for example - "initially" instead of "at first"). Anyway, it is OK for me: I don't want problems...

Regards.--Brunodam 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanks for this. In response:

1. I still disagree, but, since you make the point, I'll back off.
2. Jolly good! I've done changes to allow for two more notable "Carlo Bergamini"s. Is this a common Italian name?!
3. Interesting, not heard of this. If I'm doing changes, I might alter the format (but not the content) to conform.
4. 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)

New map

The new map has possibilities, but a few thoughts:

1. it lacks a key to the colours
2. 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
3. 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
4. there's no indication of where places are - the old map could be magnified.

Folks at 137 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The current map at the start of the article is rubbish. It doesn't show the importance of malta during the key years discussed in the article.

New map please!

--94.194.237.87 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Change to table?

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	128,000	47,000	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)

---

Title

Should this be "Malta Convoys" or "Malta convoys"? A google book search seems to show more without the capitalized "c". [1]

76.66.193.119 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Changes to disambiguation proposed

Please see Talk:Operation_Tracer,_Gibraltar#Article name. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe that these two articles cover very similar topics, and, as such, should be merged. Cnd474747 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Ton" used

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)

CE

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A smorgasbord

To clarify some of my recent changes: saying "15h Cruiser Squadron with 2 cruisers" is unclear, suggesting there were two added: if it was only 2 of the squadron, say so; better still, name them & leave off the squadron. "At her moorings" is the term of art. If it was known Caio Duilio was a threat, surely this should be said first? 8 January, with Glengyle, I changed "destroyer escort" to "destroyer"; were they, in fact, destroyer escorts? And where did they accompany Breconshire to? 17 Jan, where did 15th Cruiser Squadron sortie from? (And unless they were joined by 3 CLs & 8 DDs, not "with", either.) I have no idea what "Force K from Malta with a cruiser and five destroyers" had to do with the 17 Jan operations; if somebody does, clarify & resto. Successes by RN &/or RAF from Malta, & Italian ops, are OT, as are the details of North African ops; put them on the "battle for Malta" page. "departing for Beirut" Which ship? All three subs? Pedastal was not just "escorted"; many of the 44 ships were part of a covering force, which is not a direct escort. If Arethusa suffered 155 killed, clearly they were casualties... I presume MW 13's escort was reduced to 10 DDs on 18 Nov; was it, in fact, augmented? The Hunts were DDs, not DEs... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:40 & 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:Civil You put a lot of effort into complaining.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You may take your opinion of my incivility & shove it. You will notice I said "clarifying". You'd rather I said nothing, so you'd have an excuse to simply rv as "nonsense", I suppose. Or that I put hidden comments on the page itself, so you can complain about those, instead. Evidently, some people are convinced I'm incapable of doing anything right. You'll also notice, if you bother to actually read the page you linked to, it says, "[U]se the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." Both applied here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:15 & 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agreed with some of your edits but I didn't agree with the comments above which I found captious, carping and unhelpful. Please don't infer my motives, I asked for civility, not a punch up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Serious? The Banner talk 15:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the "the" is being removed but I put them back. Perhaps anyone who thinks that they detract from the prose could explain why, case by case, preferably with civility, not a punch up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

♠Some of the "the"s might be arguable ("the Dutch freighter" or "Dutch freighter", yes); the others (re 15th Cruiser Squadron & in preference to "her crew"), no: 15th CruRon is a name, & IMO can be treated like a ship name. (I've seen it done.) It may be a stylistic issue.

♠If you weren't looking for a punch-up, you might start by not calling it incivil & complaining. I'm not seeing your problem with the tone, except for it being a bit abrupt. And you "put back" the "the"s with an rv calling the other, perfectly legitimate, edits "infelicitous". Who's being insulting, here? Or are you hoping to provoke an edit war? Or an ANI complaint? Go ahead, make one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You aren't "seeing my problem with the tone" except for it being a bit abrupt so you are "seeing my problem with the tone". If I maybe permitted an inference, I think you jumped the gun after I objected and have been getting your retaliation in first. Not always an unreasonable tactic but unnecessary this time.

• If you think that "the 15th Cruiser Squadron with 2 cruisers" is unclear then the 15th Cruiser Squadron, comprising two cruisers,.... or the cruisers A and B of the 15th Cruiser Squadron" or some such will suit me fine; obviously not all the squadron was operational all the time, especially when a cruiser was a bit sunk. I'm keeping an open mind about terms, because I'm not sure how much detail about individual ships is necessary. Uneventful voyages might be OK with "five merchant ships escorted by...." but the battles might be better with at least some ships named and tonnages given. Some convoys had a close escort and a covering force and again, I'm not sure how much detail about individual ships is necessary. Some convoys have their own article so again, how much detail do we really need here? If we name every ship, the article will get bogged down with detail. As far as I know, when service usage has been contradicted (especially US unbrief abbreviations) the decision has been to use normal prose, with the definite article. Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've made a modest edit with a civil edit note. Does anyone object? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

♠If you felt the tone was abrupt, you might simply have said so, rather than calling it uncivil, which implies an intent to be insulting, and calling it "complaining". Abrupt it might have been; neither of the others apply.

♠Naming the two cruisers, & saying "from 15th" or ("members of 15th"), if that can be cited, suits. I don't suggest each be named each time, only in cases of unclarity; if it's "2 members of 15th", I'm fine with that. In cases where they're joining a named ship, why name the one & not them? (Absent the named ship being "senior": so, PoW or KGV with 2 cruisers.) You're wrong about transitng; ships crossing another nation's territorial waters are said to be transiting them (as a term of art). I'm uneasy about tonnages as excessive detail for an overview page, but not opposed; absent pages for each operation, naming at minimum the ships that made it, & the escort, seems warranted. (Come to that, since most of these convoys are pretty small, naming losses, too, shouldn't lead to insane numbers of names.) On "the", IDK what else I can say; I really have no idea what you mean by "service usage has been contradicted", because AFAIK, "service usage" isn't in play, here, let alone "unbrief abbreviations". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In transit perhaps but I assume that BritEng has precedence. The point about detail is that I think it varies depending on how the convoy went and how desperate Malta was for its contents; if X tonnage was sent and Y arrived, that seems relevant but a standard form won't work because of all the other factors. What sources do you have? I'm working with the RN OH, RAF OH and Med OH at the mo but have Woodward and Greene & Massignani. The only Italian source I've got is an online Santoro (in Italian) and only the RAF staff history of the Luftwaffe I'm afraid. Keith-264 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If I might observe, it is easy to mistake brevity for tersity and for matters to quickly escalate. A long list can be confronting. It is important to assume good faith and I do not believe that either of you really intend otherwise. Pardon my observations. They are intended to be totally neutral. This little storm appears to have blown itself out but I am happy to help in any way I can as a neutral third party. Fair winds and following seas. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"I assume that BritEng has precedence." IDK if that's an Engvar issue or just specialist usage; I don't recall where I've seen it (a U.S. or Brit source), so...

♠You make a good point on tonnages delivered. IMO, there's a bigger one: lack of context. Frex, if 35000 tons of gasoline are delivered, how long was that expected to last? That's a level of detail this page seems to want, but doesn't have; since it doesn't, including the tonnages of ships (& cargoes) is a bit pointless. Moreover, it's fair to say the tonnages involved really don't belong here as much as they do on the Siege of Malta page, where usage & delivery is germane; that granular detail could fairly be put on either page, so IDK which is better.

♠As for my sources, I came here with no intention of doing anything but cleaning up a little unclarity, so... I'll conform to your facts, if you'll allow tuning of your language; this stuff can be finicky to "translate" to common English (as witness destroyer escort above). And if you can answer what questions arise... May I suggest you start with ones already raised?

♠On the squall between us, it appears I was battening hatches a bit prematurely, when it was just a bit of heavy wave action... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If it is any help, from my perspective of Au En, "transiting Vichy territorial waters" would appear to be an unusual construction. I would be more inclined to say "transiting through Vichy territorial waters" if I were to use "transiting" at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit quick to retort too, for which I apologise. I'll go back through your first edits and see what I can do. Not long ago I was criticised for archaic prose which I took for a compliment, because I try to write in sentences that scan. I can't agree to transit being used as a verb but I suppose I can always be outnumbered. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

♠Guys, my use of transiting as a verb may sound wrong, & in any other context I'd agree. Terms of art, or specialized usage, can seem odd. So, too, "stricken from the Naval Register", when you'd expect "struck" to be correct, or a sub that "dived" rather than "dove". If you feel so strongly against, we can try "on a passage through" or something, but I think exposing the reader to the technical terms, even when they feel odd or are a bit unclear, is a good thing: challenge them. I also think using the strictly correct term is never a bad thing; there's a reason the term was coined in the first place. Besides, they're liable to run into it eventually, why not here? At least here, there's a talk page to explain it. :D

♠As to "too quick to retort", no apology necessary so long as we're square now. Good on you for writing clear sentences. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New version

I added a bit more detail, which I hope makes the narrative clearer and used composed of and comprising to link the title of a force to its parts. Does it read better? Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is good; maybe a touch more detail than needed (which I'm removing). Which convoy's escort did 15th CruRon join 17-18 Jan (there are 2 mentioned)? Ditto Force K. (I deleted the composition, since that's established further up the page; the question is, where is Aurora, so I tagged it "still short") My only real beef is overuse of "escort" around the 26 Jan op, & IDK how to fix that... Also, I'm not sure we need to mention Vian, unless he plays a bigger part; he's a bit junior in context. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A couple of minor quibbles, now. IDK if we really needhat class the CLs belong to; I'd sooner link to each's page. (If they were in a fight with the Italians, it'd matter; on a convoy job where they aren't, it really isn't material.) And I'd delete "Dutch" from the DD; the page is linked, & the navy's prefix is included, so it's not really needed. That said, I'm not opposed to it all staying in, just a bit dubious. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't assume knowledge or ignorance in the hypothetical reader; I used the duplicate wikilinks tool to check if the Dido class had already been described and it hadn't. The significance of its main armament being AA as well as anti-ship was pertinent to their use. I added Netherlands (not Dutch) since its the first use of the name; the wikilink is a bonus, after this it should be Isaac Sweers or the destroyer Isaac Sweers. [2] this site seems fairly reliable but doesn't list sources and the RN OH and MedOH sometimes contradict it. I'm wondering now if ship names oughtn't go in so that the reader can see which destroyers etc were still operational. On the other hand, quite a few convoys have their own page so that might make it redundant in those cases. Might it be better to add everything so that we can decide if a common approach will work or if caveats need applying when the article is edited as a whole? Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

♠If you were saying "Netherlands destroyer Isaac Sweers", I'd be fine with it. (I'd prefer "Dutch", because I find "Netherlands" odd, but...) With the RNN prefix, I'd call nationality redundant, just as "American destroyer USS England" is: nationality or prefix, not both.

♠The AA armament (mission) of the Didos really only matters when (if) they come under attack, & this page is such a broad overview, details like that are getting way too granular. Do you mean to add the armament of every DD (since they generally had a main battery intended to be DP)? The diameter of the German & Italian torpedoes? I don't think that's what you mean to do, nor do I think going that direction is warranted. On the page for the Sirte encounter, yes; not here. Furthermore, in the context of that sentence, the AA armament is irrelevant; the subject is the bluff they pose.

♠Unless the individual DDs actually did something significant, they shouldn't be added; there's a kind of convention. Read Roskill or Morison, you'll see, the heavies & CCs get named, but only outstanding examples of the light forces (unless they're the subject under discussion). So, strictly speaking, neither Gurkha nor Sweers should be named, & U-133 merely credited with "one destroyer of the escort", or something, & "her crew rescued by an accompanying Royal Netherlands Navy [or Netherlands, or Dutch...] destroyer". The fate of Gurkha is on her page anyhow; just being sunk isn't perforce notable. (Piped links to the ships might work, except that's a bit easter eggish, & some might object.)

♠As for conflicts between sources, I tend to default to the official histories, unless you've got a really reliable, & more recent, scholarly source saying the OH got it wrong somewhere. For that, I"m honestly not sure if I'd include even the RN official website... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The main armament of the Didos is relevant here as the OH points out so I've noted it instead. Conventions outside wiki might be useful but aren't absolute, hence me putting the definite article back in. There have been occasions when Oz Rupert et al. have put them in on grounds that wiki is a prose encyclopaedia not a military report. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You go putting in every destroyer, sloop, & MTB, you end up with a laundry list of names of ships that did nothing of significance. There's a reason the heavies get named: they tend to be where the action is. Adding a name just because you can isn't necessarily a sign of completeness as much as lack of judgment about what is, or isn't, important or significant, & I've seen that tendency before; it can be hard to resist (& IMO it's contributed to adding time of action on the page, where it's not merited, either). I recognize WP is a collaboration, so my views don't govern; I'm hoping to achieve a standard of quality that would befit a scholarly work.

As for Dido's main battery, I'm not seeing the relevance--not to the passage in question, not to the "bluff" she & her squadron mates were intended to be. That it was significant to her Med service, yes, even to the Malta convoys broadly--but not there. Read that passage both ways, & then tell me AA has any importance to the bluff. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I know but in this article, it may be that in some convoy operations that the names of some or all of the ships do matter. I'm not sure that one approach works although I'd rather give the number of destroyers/cruisers etc in general. Really? Dual purpose means that they could engage aircraft. The bluff was in using the Didos in lieu of a larger number of bigger ships. Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, FWIIW, I see no problem with noting that all of the cruisers were of the Dido Class and even the footnote re DP guns since I percieve this was not necessarily the norm at the time (I can be corrected). A link to the class is inconsequential in respect to detail (size) but it does allow the reader to easily review the characteristics of all three. It would certainly be different if they were not all of the same class. I would tend to agree with Trekphiler that listing all of the lesser ships (DDs) in detail is probably unnecessary unless their individual action is particularly noteworthy. An alternative might be something akin to an order of battle page in which such detail would be more appropriate. I would probably prefer "Dutch" in this temporal context but I also suspect this would be incorrect. Having said that, it would be reasonable to note the fete of Gurkha and that most of her crew was saved, though perhaps not the detail leading to the mention of Isaac Sweers. Certainly, such detail would be appropriate in an article dealing with the particular convoy. On the conflict in sources ... Where both sources are of good standing, I tend to report the more authoritative but note the conflict in a footnote. I would be circumspect in citing this particular site [3] over an official history. It would very much depend on what was being claimed, noting that the creator appears to be a published author and his works might be better "reliable sources" if they could be cited (ie, somebody could access and cite them). I hope these observations are of help. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that they are; the last time I spent any time on the article, I used Woodman and Green & Massignani more then the OH on grounds of them being younger sources but sometimes all three gave different details. Notice that Isaac Sweers was originally a merchant ship? If a ship gets mentioned by name I would collect the details (whether its a destroyer or an aircraft carrier might matter) and blue links at the first mention and just use the name afterwards. Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

♠I don't think we can get away with an OOB; this isn't about a single op, it's about dozens. It looks like most of the ships involved are either attached to Force H or Force K, or TDY from Home Fleet; if so, a kind of "main article" link to those pages, with OOB by date there, might do it (but might need creating...). Also, I'm not really sure mentioning every DD sunk is warranted, either; did Maori do anything of note except get sunk at her moorings? If not...

♠If you haven't already noticed, I've been deleting anything that's not directly connected to Malta resupply, which is the page subject; the rest belongs on the siege page, or the respective battle pages. When you go back in & edit the page proper, will you take out the hidden cmts?

♠DP guns were standard in DDs (where they were notionally useful against a/c, but not really much in practise), but not in cruisers; the Didos were fitted with high angle (HA) mounts. And if you want to include caliber of her guns, why not also Carlisle, another AA cruiser? (Or Duilio, or Nelson, or Gurkha, for all that.) The bluff is, they're light cruisers, not that they've got AA capacity.

♠If Sweers is a converted merchantman, how in the world is she rated a destroyer when rescuing Gurkha's crew? I cannot believe Roskill makes a mistake like that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like an OOB by date which might be simplified if the "forces" were relatively stable - it is a germ of an idea and a solution which might satisfy both but would require work. Personally, I think that the sinking of any "ship" is probably of note and noteworthy if it affects the force available to complete the task over the fuller timeline. I can see the rationale in the deletions though I haven't followed the execution closely. As I said before, it is worth to note they are of the same class (Didos) but yes, the bluff is that they are light cruisers - as it reads. I looked at the Sweers page and I don't see how she could be described as a converted merchantman? Hope this helps. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

HNLMS Isaac Sweers

HNLMS Isaac Sweers

Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hidden comments, er I think they're Graeme's. I don't agree that all of the deletions are irrelevant, I think that some of the tactical details need to be mentioned to elucidate the operational and strategic relevance of Malta convoys per se although perhaps in less detail than before your somewhat swingeing cuts. Offensive operations from Malta were the point of the convoys, the actions of the striking forces affected Axis dispositions; Axis dispositions determined the fate of the striking forces and the timing of reinforcement convoys and the ability to send the two-month re-victualling convoys. Your recent cuts risk turning the article into a list, which is something we need consensus on. Didos: the bluff was that although they were light cruisers, they had DP guns so could defend themselves against air attack; that Carlisle was an AA cruiser makes its armament relevant too.Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Re Dido's bluff, I don't want to have an arguement about which version I read but this statement: "the bluff was that although they were light cruisers, they had DP guns so could defend themselves against air attack" is well made here but not in the article. I did look back through edits (a bit) to where the footnote was still in place. It is reasonable to make this more explicit but should be supported by a citation of course. Similarly on Carlisle. If it was a conscious decision to deploy AA cruisers (as it appears), then perhaps this is worth stating at some point - assuming it can be sourced. On the matter of the cuts, I noted my agreement in principle but not necessarily in detail. Can I suggest that you (Keith-264) might put back such detail as you think is "essential" in order to facilitate discussion and establish a consensus. This would require the consent of @User:Trekphiler and @User:GraemeLeggett so that this process is acknowledged as a process for building concensus and not misinterpreted as edit warring. Paragraph/section edits of material you think should be retained could be identified after being put back and discussed on a case-by-case basis. Does this sound reasonable? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"Offensive operations from Malta were the point of the convoys" No, they aren't. The point of the convoys is to supply the island. The offensive operations they support are part of the battle for the island, which is where discussion of them belongs. This page is expressly about supply convoys. As for discussion of what got cut, I did hidden cmt what I took out in my last edit on the page, so identifying what I think is OT shouldn't be too hard.

♠"the bluff was that although they were light cruisers, they had DP guns so could defend themselves against air attack" No, it's not. The bluff is, they're light AA cruisers, not battleships or heavy cruisers able to defend themselves against Italian heavies. That they could (notionally) defend against air attack is a side benefit. (The actual value of the 5.25" in an AA role is another matter.)

♠"If it was a conscious decision to deploy AA cruisers (as it appears)" It appears to me RN was scraping the bottom of the barrel, hence a bluff with CLAAs rather than CBs, precisely because there was nothing else available. RN didn't bluff when it didn't have to. So unless you've got Roskill saying the use of CLAAs was a deliberate choice...

♠On the OOB, I think they are relatively stable: Force H @Gib, Force K @Malta. (I seem to recall one @Alex, too, but maybe later.) They have their own pages, which is why I suggested linking to a "dated" OOB on them (or a new subpage).

♠On Sweers, agree, not a merchantman (or somebody's gone to a peck of trouble... ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:07 & 13:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

With the Didos Roskill has it the choice was deliberate because there was nothing bigger and the supply situation on Malta was desperate. The convoys were to supply the people on the island and that was necessary for Malta to be an offensive base, it's hair-splitting to ignore the consequences. Events on the island (subsistence and offensive operations) shouldn't be ignored in this article because they had reciprocal effects on convoy operations and on Axis priorities. That's unless you want to convert the article into a list of merchant convoys and escort operations with not context or strategic, operational and tactical detail at all? That there is a Malta article should limit the amount of detail here but not not leave it out; that's why I compromised and put some material in notes.Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of "the bluff" and AA etc, my comments were contingent on sources. On the subject of the edits, I can see merits in both positions (more and less) but am more concerned about keeping things on an even keel and facilitating discussion to reach a consensus without any party feeling aggrieved. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"With the Didos Roskill has it the choice was deliberate because there was nothing bigger" Which argues against the significance of their AA capability, doesn't it?

♠"Events on the island (subsistence and offensive operations) shouldn't be ignored" Actually, it should. There's already a page for it, & the supply operations are not the combat operations the supplies enabled. The convoys were (& should be) broken out because they are separate. There's enough on the subject of the supply missions to warrant a page, & it's not a mere list of their names. That many of the convoys were uneventful is, of itself, informative: the Germans & Italians couldn't prevent them getting through... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that they had AA armament made them less of a desperation measure. Events shouldn't be ignored because as I pointed out convoys, offensive operations from Malta and Axis operations against both were symbiotic. That there is an article going into detail affects the amount of material relevant here but doesn't invalidate mention. Keith-264 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"that they had AA armament made them less of a desperation measure" That they had HA batteries made no difference to why they were selected, so the caliber of their main battery (which was the issue) is irrelevant: your own source says that's not the reason.

And this leaves me not having any clue what, exactly, is being described. Is that about Tiger, MW7, Splice, or something else? I presume, based on them ending up in Alex, it's Tiger. If true, all this belongs on the Battle for North Africa page, or maybe Operation Crusader (which, IIRC, would use these tanks), but not here.

"doesn't invalidate mention" Okay, so tell me. Does mention of Convoy HS100 merit mention at Battle of El Alamein? Why not? Supplies being sent to Britain by HS100 would be used in North Africa (maybe; offhand, IDK when HS100 actually sailed). Nor should there be a mention of HS100 there. The connection is too tenuous. Convoys in support of operations in North Africa are off point. The actual combat operations supported by the Malta convoys are not the point of the page. If you want them on the page, petition for a merge. See who agrees with you. I'll wager not many do. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

These new light cruisers, though of only 5,450 tons displacement, had good dual-purpose main armaments. They had perforce to be used as the main escorts, the 'battle force' on which the smaller vessels could depend on for support in need, and they did a remarkable service in that capacity. But it was in reality something of a bluff, forced on us by the simple fact these were the most powerful ships on the station; and the enemy could, had he accepted the many challenges offered, have called the bluff by forcing close action.

— Roskill p. 44

Keith-264 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• My comment re choosing AA cruisers for the task is only relevant if the sources explicitly state that this was a criteria in making the choice. I am beginning to regret making the observation as it was not intended to be (this) controversial. Do the sources make such an explicit statement? If so, pls quote. If not, can we please forget I mentioned it.

• As I have been making this post Keith-264 has quoted the section from Roskill. I am not reading that the AA capability was an intrinsic part of the bluff or anything else relevant to their AA role except that they "had good dual-purpose main armaments". I believe that another source would be needed to elaborate more on the significance of their AA role. I have made an edit to the note that I suggest is more in keeping with what is said in Roskill, having also looked at the Dido-class article.

• The point re tanks is well made. Mentioning convoys destined elsewhere en route through Malta might generally be deprecated unless there is some specific reason for their mention: such as part of the convoy terminated at Malta, they diverted attention from a Malta convoy or such. I assume there is also some better place to pideon-hole these other convoys. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 per your edit on the note. Can I suggest putting back the link I had to AA cruisers. It is not great but it was the best I could find. Alternatively, it could be made a redlink but this gives no detail where some does exist. The third alternative is to create a stub from what is at the link I found. I could do this though it would be very "dirty" - just a quick cut and paste from what is in the section link I found. The last alternative might spawn further development? Not hung up on this. I hope this is the end to this :) Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No, because they weren't AA cruisers. As the edit points out they were designed for trade protection and operations in the Mediterranean. The link would be better with Carlisle or the first AA cruiser mentioned. I'll have a look, regards.Keith-264 (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've put the link next to Carlisle's first mention, OK? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What is your fascination with the CLAAs? You want their armament mentioned, but not for any other single ship. Why?

""They had perforce to be used as the main escorts,...and the enemy could...have called the bluff by forcing close action" Your own source is saying the caliber of the armament is not the issue. What is at issue is the bluff, & the fact the Italians never called them on it. That the Didos are light cruisers makes that clear enough; anybody who cares if they've got 5.25" main battery can use the link.

The same applies to when Carlisle was converted: this is not her page, so her history is even more trivial, &, again, anyone who cares can read her page.

Welshman claimed capable of "nearly 40 knots"? Really? I want to see the source for that, because that is well into DD territory, or mythical PT speeds. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh? When did I make a blanket claim about ships' armament? It seems to me that you are making assumptions about readers that I don't share so I suggest that we agree to disagree. Roskill Vol I, App D p. 579, Abdiel, Latona, Manxman, Welshman: disp 2,650 tn, 6 × 4-inch HA, 156 mines, 39 3⁄4 kn.Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

♠Why were the subs patrolling Axis ports, beyond routine? Is that part of Vigorous?

♠When did I make a blanket claim about ships' armament?" You've ignored the armament of every ship on the page except the CLAAs, especially the Didos, so I can only conclude you either have a fascination with them or actually want every single ship named to nave its armament included, despite links to their pages.

♠Re Welshman: is that her speed on trials, or an actual service speed? (And why don't you insist on mentioning her 6x4" HA?)

♠Re GM 1: is Manxman one of the CCs or not? And are the 1000 men Leinster mostly infantry, or mostly RAF? Breaking out the number of each, for clarity's sake, would be good.

♠Re Status I and Status II: "over 50 Hurricanes"? How many is that, 51? 90? And how many were delivered each?

♠Re Dunlop: where did the Blenheims & Beaus come from? (I presume Gib.)

♠Re Empire Guillemot: it's unclear if she's in any way connected with the four previous ships being described, since none have been named.

♠Re Julius: what battleship was it?

♠"Cairo and the small destroyers made smoke, the fleet destroyers attacked" "Small destroyers"? Which are what, exactly? Hunts? Something else?

♠Re Operation Chieftain: which corvette sank which U-boat? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 20:27, 20:35, & 21:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got a nerve Trek; do make an effort not to spoil everything.Keith-264 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)--TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been saying all along what I thought, & continue to think, is OT to this page. So far, I've seen no coherent argument how it isn't. So I removed what isn't about the subject of the page, which is, as the title & lead clearly state, supplying Malta, not fighting from Malta. As I've repeatedly said, & you've repeatedly ignored, there is already a page for that. If you want to add Upholder or the attacks on Italian convoys, put it there. If you want to mention the resupply convoys to Alex, put them on the Battle for North Africa page, or attach them to whatever operation is appropriate. Neither is about supplying Malta. Of course, I suppose you think this is incivil, too, because you happen to disagree with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Operation Tiger

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)

I think this would require deletion of the redirect page and an edit to the DAP page so that the link here is maintained as a see also. Needs an admin or somebody with move delete permissions. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Or we write an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Apropos this article, despite my preference for short headers, some had a month and convoy title/s and others have just the month. Does anyone have a view as to a standard header? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

Yes but if we use months it might be better to alter the TOC limit.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Technical aside

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)

OKKeith-264 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Headers

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

Edit skirmish

I would observe that this is about to get out of hand. I have proposed how this might be dealt with already - to which there was one reply by User:Keith-264. I think that User:Trekphiler has some valid points but there may be merits in retaining some of the material he has flagged. User:Keith-264 is prepared to discuss and reach a consensus on the subject material. In my view, broad cuts make this more difficult to achieve. Please consider this and the alternatives. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2017UTC)

I took out what IMO is off-point to the page (per BRD). That may be a lot, to some eyes. So be it. If there's a good argument for why it should be left in, let's see it. I haven seen one yet. (Was this intended to start an edit war? No, & kudos to Cinderella157 for playing ref before it becomes one.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Trekphiler, can we try this on a section by section basis? That way, things are easy to undo. There can be directed talk here with corresponding sections and it is less. @User:Keith-264 has already agreed to a process to discuss and establish consensus but I would ask if you would both indicate if you are agreeable to this process with me acting as a third opinion and hearing cases for and against? I am not a content expert but I have a modest grasp of the events. Can I also suggest that the lead is "out of bounds" in the first instance. There is a way of editing the lead without editing the whole document but I can't remember how it is done. This is my substantive reason for saying this. At this stage, the text is as preferred by User:Keith-264. If you both agree to this, then User:Trekphiler might start making edits section by section up to and including May 1942. I suggest this since most edits in sections are "minor" in nature except the last of these. If User:Keith-264 has an objection to an edit of any section, You can voice this by starting a discussion on the talk page with a section name corresponding to the section in the article. User:Trekphiler can then make a response for their reasoning. Please, focus on the issues and be objective. I will then make an observation and might invite further comments. Hopefully, consideration of these second comments will put the matter to rest or may require a wider consensus. I have to be out for an hour or so and I will check back then. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I really don't want to be doing edits that are just going to keep getting rv'd, without consensus on them first. That's a futile exercise. AFAICT, there's not even agreement in principle on what does & doesn't belong on the page, or my last edit wouldn't have been rv'd as "nutty" to start with. Absent that, we've got a recipe for edit war (or edit skirmish, given only section edits). That's also futile. I'd sooner see agreement on content, broadly, then argue about details, either here or on a by-section edit basis. IMO, if we can agree on a principle, the rest won't produce a lot of disagreement. (Tho the Dido issue may call that conclusion in question...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have had a look through the edits. Some of the edits are editorial POV/style. Some are likely uncontroversial. Some remove irrelevant material and some appear to be relevant detail. My observation is that your edit (TP) affects so much of the article, it makes it hard to sort the "wheat from the chaff" - by this, I mean the things that are contentions in Keith's opinion and that which is not. The process is pretty simple in that it is just a copy and paste from your existing edit to a section edit. The reason it could work is if you each agree to the process and recognise that the consensus overall (the collection of individual edits that makes the sum of your edit) lies somewhere in between the two versions. The process, as it progresses will help establish what should or shouldn't be in the article and establish "precedent" for subsequent discussion. As you know, consensus on WP is about strength of arguement. In other contexts, people talk of consensus and compromise as synonymous. I think it is about the parties achieving "something they can live with" without compromising something essential. I could start it off by making the edits myself if that helps - noting that by doing so, I would not be endorsing any position. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

♠If it's genuinely relevant, I'm not going to argue putting it back. It's "relevant" that's at issue IMO, everything from Upholder's ops to Dido's gun caliber being held up as relevant--&, AFAICT, no sign of bending on the other side. (Yes, I admit, I haven't bent much on it, either.) If the argument for keeping is good enough to persuade me--or, at the very least, to move me off, "Not a chance"... In any event, I'll listen to it.

♠With tho goal of trying to find middle ground, then, let me try & argue down (at least) the Didos' guns, as I'm seeing it. Roskill is saying they were selected as something of a last resort, to bluff the Italians: not for their AA capability, but because there really were no other ships at hand. That, plus the fact no other ship--including Nelson or Duilio, where it might matter--has the caliber of main battery mentioned, makes me wonder why the Didos are special. (We've since seen Carlisle's added, too; the same applies--& the history of her conversion even less belongs on this page than the caliber: that's why she has her own page.) There seems to be a fascination with the Didos' AA capability, but from what Roskill says, that isn't why they were chosen; indeed, he expressly says, they were a bluff to the Italian Navy. (Why the Italians would be fooled is another matter; was their intelligence so incompetent as to be unable to identify a cruiser class?) So I'm saying, either we mention the main battery of every single ship, or none; naturally, I favor none, because there are links to the ship pages for anyone who cares. (And unless you have a decent understanding of naval artillery already, it won't matter a bunch anyhow.)

♠In re the offensive ops, for me, it's a simple split: if it's about attacking Italian stuff, it belongs on the siege of Malta page; if it's about supplies to North Africa, the battle for North Africa (or the associated operation, like Crusader, where the relevant convoy will already be mentioned); & if it's about supply runs to Malta, here, per the page title & lead. I appreciate the supplies are being used for offensive ops, & if it was possible to say "Supplies from Convoy XX# went to replace losses from Operation Foo", I'd happily leave it in. That being so, IMO, the offensive ops & their losses have to govern: that is, the page on the battle has to say, "Malta was down to 3 Furies, until Club Run # flew in 31 Mark VII Seafires" (with Club Run # linked here). This page should not be reproducing what's on the main page(s) for the subject(s). If the details I've deleted aren't on the main subject page, either they should be or there's probably a good reason they aren't--& that is a discussion for the main subject page, not this one.

♠Any other changes I made are more a matter of clarity, or occasionally tradition (ships are "she" not "it"), or for lack of importance (Maori being sunk, but by appearances doing nothing else of note), which are a matter of small debate (what amounts to being significant enough to keep?). I expect those will be settled fairly easily.

♠One other thing comes to mind: the tonnages of supplies being delivered. IMO, that should also appear on the siege page, not just here, because it says something about how much the defenders were using, & how little they were living on--if the tonnages can be reliably sourced. So, too, a claim that says, frex, Ohio delivered 3mo's avgas--with a reliable source--could reasonably be added on both pages. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:34 & 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly Trek and Me are at opposite ends of the spectrum of what to include but last nights scorched earth edits was the opposite of consensus. I've put my view that the matter is amount not relevance and will continue to edit like that but Trek's editing is tending to WP:OWN. With all due respect Trek, you don't have a peremptory veto. An example of context is that Force K is relevant, because basing two cruisers and two destroyers made a big increase in oil consumption, ergo more fuel needed at Malta. Air cover for Malta convoys makes Club Runs relevant and the events en route advert to the value of Malta as an offensive base and the Axis reactions to it. Surely a modest overlap with associated articles is better than a gap? Unless everyone agrees to turn this article into a list like Club Run and put the detail into separate articles on each convoy? Even this will leave a gap over strategy; maintaining Malta included using a US carrier after all.Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Before Cinders' suggestion can work, we need to decide what the article is for and on that point I fear that we aren't going to agree.Keith-264 (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• An easy thing first. See WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. I believe the convention is that the first used style should hold unless reverted by consensus - and even then, it probably shouldn't be changed.

• On what is relevant, I tend to agree with you in principle but the devil is in the detail.

• On Didos, Keith's position on this has changed somewhat as a result of discussion. And the note is not that to which you originally objected. The note now more closely follows Roskill with additional info from Woodman. It clarifies that their relatively light guns (for a cruiser) were an element of the bluff - a total shift in focus from your previous objection. I also observe that this is in a note and to my perception, of different consequence to that if it were in the main prose. Your comments have had an impact.

• On the matter of the Carlisle, I initially lean your way until I read the ship's article. The info box there does not reflect the change in armament even though it is discussed. To that extent, I see that the note here clarifies a lack of clarity on the ship's page. If this were resolved on the ship's page (and in particular, in the info box). I would agree that there should be no mention here.

• I believe that the sinking of "any ship involved in the convoys" is of note and particularly a warship given the limited resources and the impact on further ops. Having said that, it is a matter of weight. As you suggest, in the case of Maori here, it is not particularly notable and IMHO it should be nothing but the briefest of mention. An OOB type page might see it consigned there. I guess it was part of Force H?

• Just so this doesn't "appear" one sided I believe your point on tanks going to Africa is well made. I even wonder about the Club Runs since they aren't actually convoys to Malta. There is even a page but it is essentially a list with no detail of individual ops. To that extent, I perceive that their detail has been "consigned" to here for the time being. Consequently, I believe that they should stay here until a better solution is put in place.

I hope that you appreciate that I have given some consideration to each of these points and my opinions are made without favour. I am happy to consider counter arguement. The was an edit conflict as I was posting this.

To reply to User:Keith-264, yes, I see that you are each coming at the problem from different perspectives. I will also observe that there is a degree of ownership on your part too. And as much as WP says there shouldn't, it is unavoidable to some degree - more or less. Please take this as a constructive observation (to reach a solution) and not a criticism. As a third party, I can see a middle ground where this may not be apparent to either of you. Don't get hung up on the little things but identify those things that are really important to each of you. We may not resolve everything (by ourselves) but I think we can go a long way. Cut each other a little slack. I know that ultimately, you both want a good article.

A suggestion. Do either of you have sources on Carlisle's conversion and the change of armament and conversion to an AA cruiser? An edit to the info box there would make the note here redundant. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"last nights scorched earth edits was the opposite of consensus" Which implies I need your permission to make edits I've said, repeatedly, on this page should be made: deletion of what's off-topic.

♠"you don't have a peremptory veto" Neither do you.

♠"Force K is relevant, because basing two cruisers and two destroyers made a big increase in oil consumption, ergo more fuel needed at Malta." And that is a fact that should be discussed on the siege page, because it deals with combat operations (or effectiveness), not with the supply missions (or, at a minimum, not directly). BTW, I don't recall deleting all mention of Force K, either. And there needs to be some clarification of its exact strength, for which a Force K page would be ideal.

♠"Air cover for Malta convoys makes Club Runs relevant" And, yet again, the air cover is a combat operation. It should be mentioned in reference to protecting inbound convoys (&, notice, when Hurricanes are protecting convoys, I left it in for that very reason); what more do you want?

♠"Surely a modest overlap with associated articles is better than a gap?" Agreed; the question is, how much overlap? We appear to disagree significantly.

♠"The note now more closely follows Roskill with additional info from Woodman." It still focuses on the 5.25", which is unwarranted; they're described as light cruisers, which are obviously (self-evidently) overmatched by Italian battleships, so the exact caliber of their guns is trivia (which is what I've been saying from the start), not to mention the spec can be read at the linked page.

♠"It clarifies that their relatively light guns (for a cruiser) were an element of the bluff" I disagree; "light cruiser" did that more than adequately. And I come back to the caliber issue: if the Didos' guns are specified, why not every other surface combatant? Surely the firepower of Nelson & Duilio & the other heavies is relevant, if the Didos' guns are? Even the Hunts, maybe. Or, as I've suggested from the start, none are, because this page is not a description of a naval battle. When, if, the Didos actually engage the enemy, the weight of fire becomes relevant, not before, & that will (probably) be covered on a battle page, not here, in any case. (Don't tell me it should be mentioned in the AA role, unless you want to mention the 20mm & 40mm AA & 4.7" DPs of every RN tincan in the Med...) I repeat, "Why just these 4 ships?" (the CLAAs); I have yet to see an answer.

♠"If this were resolved on the ship's page...I would agree that there should be no mention here." And that is where to resolve the issue; not in a footnote here, surely?

♠"any ship involved in the convoys" Actually involved, yes; sunk at her moorings without leaving harbor (AFAICT), which Maori was, no. (Unless I missed something.)

♠"I even wonder about the Club Runs since they aren't actually convoys to Malta." I don't. That's part of the supply operation; when (if) there's a Club Run page, no (because then, it's repeating the linked page, so there's no longer any need for it here...)

♠On tonnage landed (not raised yet): IMO, that should be included wherever possible. (I'm leery about including individual ship tonnages, but not opposed.)

♠On Carlisle: I've got a source dating the change for the class to 1938-9, so I can fn it on her page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

♠On Carlisle: this page makes very clear she was converted 1940 (which conflicts slightly with my source, but not substantially). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't be bothered wasting my time any more! Cinderella157 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that feelin'; I think we need a decision about what the page is for, rather than competing definitions and hair-splitting edits. As for the Didos, the RS are the point, not our individual interpretations, same goes for the rest of the content. I don't agree that because there's an article on something it can't be mentioned, history isn't like that. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the material I've added here might be better in the individual convoy pages either but they need finishing off before material here is moved. This always happens when someone happens along with more RS than earlier editors. Keith-264 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"wasting my time any more" Good to hear you're just so interested in discussion & actually arriving at something like agreement, rather than just shutting me up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you've got it kcab to front, WP:OWN with a vengeance; "I think we need a decision about what the page is for" remember this? Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A staccato of responses, some of which are not particularly clear overloading any process with even more points before the first are cleared! Continued sniping even after my observation. Responses to points that do not address what I have said - that is, they are off target. With regard to trying to build a consensus, I see no indication that what I have said has been heard nor do "I perceive" any willingness to work constructively in building a consensus. So yes, it appears to me that I am wasting my time - particularly when you respond with "shutting me up". So, if you want to wipe that particular slate clean (your baker's dozen of points) and try again, then we can proceed. These are my terms if you want my continued participation. My offer is to moderate the discussion and provide an objective neutral third opinion without fear or favour. No, this does not give me veto either but I hope that it will go a long way to reconciling the two positions - remembering my comment that there are those things you can live with and those things you can't live with. Quoting Wikipedia:Method for consensus building#Consensus is reached: "Everyone has in effect said they can at least live with it." Quoting from Wikipedia:Third opinion: "[The] process requires observance of good faith and civility ...". If everything you opinion is a "can't live without", then there is no point in proceeding. I don't need to bash my head against a brick wall nor am I obliged by WP or either of you to do so. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Escalated to an edit war while I was posting with both User:Trekphiler and User:Keith-264 contravening 3RR and incident notified at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#False accusations of incivility & vandalism by User:Trekphiler. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

From this point, it is clear that matters have progressed beyond my capacity to intervene between the two parties. I disclose that subsequent to this (and only), I have emailed Keith, in essence, urging him to be circumspect in his actions and responses and not escalate disruption (my intent). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There were 3RRs each and not more than 3 in the 24hr period, so this was not a contravention of 3RR. I was in error in this respect an apologise to each in respect to this. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"A staccato of responses" Perhaps you'd like to explain what, exactly, is wrong with addressing issues a point at a time?

♠"Responses to points that do not address what I have said - that is, they are off target" Really? Where?

♠"If everything you opinion is a 'can't live without'" It isn't. It is, however, currently unanswered by a better argument.

♠As for "shutting me up", it appears the notional "discussion" is designed to keep my edits off the page & preserve those of others. That amounts to an effort to do nothing more than shut me up on the issues at hand. Calling my edits "vandalism" does not encourage me to constructive engagement. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article and yet again you made a cut based on a definition of relevance that you have no consensus for. Yet again I ask you to desist until editorial differences have been conciliated.

...it is the history of the supply of the beleaguered island and of the naval operations and actions which this entailed. (my emphasis) Such battles were mainly running fights, often lacking the grand names of capes or seas, and are easy to overlook; yet the amount of material resources committed to them was enormous and much rested on their outcome.

— Woodman

Keith-264 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Woodman's definition is not the one at the top of this page, so the fact it's the definition you prefer is just one more example of your own desire to prevent me from having any say about what the page does, nor doesn't, contain. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't start the article, I'm working within the context of other editors' efforts.

But to deprive the Italians of the use of the short sea passages to Africa plainly depended on the work of out light surface forces, submarines and aircraft; all based on Malta. Unhappily the insecurity of that island base prevented surface forces being stationed there regularly; and even the few submarines which had been left there soon had to be withdrawn.

Keith-264 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Malta was of supreme importance to Admiral Cunningham as a base from which to operate against the Italian lines of communication to Libya....

— Playfair

• ...the security of Malta was the key to our Mediterranean strategy....He therefore urged on 22 August that the aim should be to make Malta fully usable by April 1941, when he would wish light forces and submarines to be able to operate from the island.

  — Playfair

References

So far, you haven't said word one about how notional invasions have a single thing to do with supplying Malta. I have never suggested holding Malta wasn't important; your quotes are about the siege or the battle, the importance of active operations, not about convoys to Malta. The importance of holding Malte is not in question, here or anywhere, not from me, so you're holding up a straw man, or trying to paint my position false. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You aren't a RS and wiki is not a source. All you've added to the article for the last fortnight are complaints.Keith-264 (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

♠You've gone out of your way to falsely characterize my edits as incivil or vandalism, & refuse to actually discuss points of contention. Like now: pray tell, how does that address my remarks?

♠More to the point, when did I ever suggest any add to the page based solely on my opinion? You seem to believe Woodman somehow governs what goes on the page. He doesn't: that is governed by the consensus of editors--the very consensus you demanded, yet you seem determined to prevent any edit of mine from remaining. Have you deleted my latest, yet? Called it vandalism, too? Or a "test edit"?

♠This appears to have started when I criticised your recent adds, & when I wanted to delete some of what you had put up. So who has a problem with WP:OWN, here?

♠"I ask you to desist until editorial differences have been conciliated" Since you seem to have no interest in "conciliating" anything, only keeping in what you want & keeping out any cuts of mine, when do you expect that to be? When, in frustration with the futility of it, I give up editing the page entirely?

♠"All you've added to the article for the last fortnight are complaints" Another falsehood: I have asked for clarification, hardly "complaining"--but you call anything remotely critical of your adds "incivil", don't you? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you're setting up a straw man by claiming (again) that I want the Dido class armament mentioned but no other. This is not true. As for your deletions, you scorched the earth and had I not objected to your method valuable material about the Malta convoys would have been lost. I have not claimed a veto on your edits but I have refused your attempt to veto my edits en masse according to your partial and un-consensual caprice about what is and isn't relevant. I have added three quotations from sources which show that three RS considered Malta, the convoys and the Mediterranean Campaign to be part of a whole. Have you any RS to quote here? You can look up the RN OH on Hyperwar if you haven't got one [4] vol I, [5] or the campaign history [6] and [7]. You are making cuts according to your view of what the article should contain despite my objections to the way you go about it and the views of a third party that they should be discussed piecemeal. The first time you did it I let it pass but the second time was too much, I wasn't willing for two days' work to be flushed down the pan without discussion or agreement. You've gone to ANI and now you've got another editor having a go at you. If I'm in bad faith, isn't there enough scrutiny of the article to smoke it out without you being in a minority of one? Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"I want the Dido class armament mentioned but no other" Really? Then, pray tell, why was my last edit, which added calibers of some of the light cruisers, rv'd as gaming the system? Exactly?

♠"they should be discussed piecemeal"? I don't see you discussing any of them. All I see is you trying to shut me up. It appears you want your view of what belongs on the page to govern without any reference to mine, so you're hauling out references to support positions which I have never said I opposed. That is the definition of a straw man argument.

♠I didn't start out with accusations of incivility & vandalism. You did. If that's not bad faith, I'm not sure what is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you're projecting, I suggest that you take a day off to reflect and then join me in trying to have fresh start. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"projecting"? Really? I make an edit that does what you allegedly find OK, in ref CL guns, & it's rv'd because I made it, & I'm "projecting"? Your first comment accuses me of incivility & I'm "projecting"? You accuse me of vandalism for an edit you disapprove of & I'm "projecting"? You claim I've done nothing but complain for "a fortnight", when my first really significant edit on this page was barely a week ago, & I'm "projecting"? So who's not assuming good faith, here?

♠"take a day"? You mean, "shut up & go away", don't you? Hoping I won't come back? Or hoping I'll get banned for calling you out? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:09 & 19:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What edit are you on about? I rv'd your massacre and that was it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the info about the Dido class because the RS had it; did you add armament information because your RS did? What RS do you have? Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You added the info about the Didos because it had something to do with the bluff, according to what you've said before, so which is it?

As for what source I rely on, what difference would it make? You call it "frivolous"; clearly, you're too fixated on having your own way to care. And the claim of "not opposing" adding other cruisers' guns is also clearly false. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh come off it Trek, this is beneath you. You can criticise me for a ham fisted rendering of what's in the RS but not what's in the RS. Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"not what's in the RS" Would you, just for a change, quit mischaracterizing what I said? When did I criticize what's in any RS? What bothers me, what has continued to bother me, is your insistence that, somehow, the 5.25s are key to why the Didos were selected, & that's self-evidently not the case. Your own source says they were selected because that's what RN could find, not because the 5.25" HA/LA was, in any way, key to the bluff they were supposed to be. And, as I said below about 8" cruisers, a Leander or Town would have been no less overmatched. Nor was the threat of the Italian air force the primary one, or Roskill wouldn't have said the Didos were meant to bluff: by 1942, nobody in his right mind believed aircraft could be "bluffed" by CLAAs. (IIRC, Roskill says the bluff was aimed at the navy in any event.) So, yet again, why is it so crucial? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You can criticise me for a ham fisted rendering of what's in the RS but not what's in the RS. Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264:@Trekphiler: I hope that none of you take any offense if I interfere. I think that the edits made by Keith-264 on 19 September and during following days created - and still create - a quite unpleasant situation on this talk page, mainly after interventions by Trekphiler. I'm offering you both a third party opinion, as previously did Cinderella, because I still hope that all these fightings should and could be avoided. I suggest a new discussion point by point, section to section in order to find a general consensus on topic and informations given. In my humble opinion, the vast majority of the last seven days comments should be amended or deleted for the clarity and usefullness of this talk page. I beg you to stop any further comments that do not help overall improvements. If you agree with my proposal, I will gladly open the discussion of amendments, starting from the first section. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to delve a little deeper; It was Trek's persistent blanket deletion of content as a means of resolving his disagreement with my edits that I would no longer tolerate. He has his reasons, which come down to a narrow view of the material the article should contain, against my broader view. Unless that is resolved or a solution imposed, I fear that Trek will resume mass deletes and I will rv on grounds of unreasonableness. I have never objected to a piecemeal discussion but it had not worked with Trek because of our fundamental disagreement. Some people have commented on the RFC about the scope of the article and I'm willing to accede to the majority view; I hope Trek will too. I expect that some of the material I've added will go and some will stay. Perhaps later, I'll restore the first mass delete I didn't rv so it can undergo the same process. Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Could I ask you to ping me, next time you answer to a direct call? It would make easier to follow the ongoing discussion. Besides this, I do not think that without your initial content adds all this mess would be started, so that's the meaning of my previous statement. I still hope that @Trekphiler: would agree to a renewed talk on the very issue of this article. In my personal opinion, both of you have responsabilities in what happened, let's try to solve this without further warring. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you calling my additions a mess and blaming me?Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm calling this talk page a mess, not your additions to the main page. Lord Ics (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lord Ics: Thank you, can't disagree with that.Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"You can criticise me for a ham fisted rendering of what's in the RS but not what's in the RS." Parroting yourself & completely ignoring my remarks is juvenile. Clearly, you have no arguments. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

• Background: 3rd Para: To me, it seems that most of this paragraph needs to be deleted as it is foreshadowing later sections of the article and repeating the lede.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• 1940, July: "British cruisers and destroyers covered convoys MF 1 (ME 1) with El Nil, Knight of Malta and Rodi and MS 1 (ME 1) with Kirkland, Masirah, Novasli, Tweed and Zeeland from Malta to Alexandria"

Personally, I find this very confusing. Why is MF 1 also called ME 1? What does MF and ME mean? Just to be clear, the ships are part of these two respected convoys right?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The lead is derived from the article not vice versa. MF=Malta Fast, ME = Malta East.Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand that the lede is suppose to summarize the article, but the paragraph in question appears to be a rehash of it. In the background section, it is providing detail on what is to come; followed by a section starting in July 1940. It seems that it needs to either be deleted, or disseminated throughout the rest of the article where appropriate.

Empty and in ballast

What's the difference?Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

Roskill uses "empty" so I didn't know if they meant different things.Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: 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)

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)

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)

Armament

Having taken a closer look, I rv this edit because there's no reason for it apart from making a rhetorical point, it isn't relevant because there's no context to make it so as there is for the Didos. Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

♠No context? Really? So the Didos being light cruisers, & therefore desperately overmatched against any 8" CA, let alone the 14" & 15" BBs, they were likely to face, has to have the caliber of gun, & the fact they're HA/LA, mentioned, but every other light cruiser mentioned doesn't? That's you wanting your adds in, & mine not.

♠Bottom line on the Didos, they'd have been just as overmatched had they been Leanders or Towns. The trouble is, you don't understand that. RN did. Roskill did, that's why he called it a bluff. You don't. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:31 & 00:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can relate your opinion to the material in the RS?Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

♠I don't even know what that means. Do you just not get that a 6" cruiser, let alone a 5.25" cruiser, is outgunned by an 8" cruiser? Evidently not, or you wouldn't be arguing the Didos were special: they were light cruisers, therefore likely to be nothing but bait for anything heavier, especially something like Duilio.

♠And that isn't "opinion", that's a fact of naval gunnery. 8" batteries outrange 6", & 14" & 15" outrange that. Had they actually encountered Duilio & been taken under fire, the Didos could easily have been shot to wreckage beyond their ability to respond. RN knew it. Roskill knew it. I know it. You evidently don't.

♠There is another matter, as it occurs to me: you want the 5.25 HA/LA included. You really do need a RS saying the Didos were selected because of the 5.25" HA/LA, & not just because they were what RN had at hand. Roskill appears not to support that contention, so I really am entitled to remove it as dubious & unsupported by a source. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:06 & 09:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264:, could you link the aforementioned edit, please? Overall, I think that Trekphiler has a point, although I would rather prefer a less sarcastic explanation. In my humble opinion, the armament of Dido class light cruiser should be mentioned only if there were significant changes for that particular operation. I fear that this was not the case, but, as I said, I would like to see the critical edit before making up my mind on it. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My sarcasm meter is pretty well pegged, given the resistance to any edit of mine so far. As for modifications "for this operation", there weren't, AIUI: it was about them being chosen for work out of Malta, because there were no other ships available, & not because of their particular armament. As said, had any Leanders (frex) been available, they'd have been no less (or not much less) a bluff. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This

These new light cruisers, though of only 5,450 tons displacement, had good dual-purpose main armaments. They had perforce to be used as the main escorts, the 'battle force' on which the smaller vessels could depend on for support in need, and they did a remarkable service in that capacity. But it was in reality something of a bluff, forced on us by the simple fact these were the most powerful ships on the station; and the enemy could, had he accepted the many challenges offered, have called the bluff by forcing close action.

—  Roskill p. 44

be the quotation. I think my edit was congruent with it but to save everyone's time and my boredom, I'll go with a majority verdict.Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And I believe that quote proves the point I've been trying to make all along: the HA/LA mount was not the point, & the bluff was the fact they were mere light cruisers. Which should have been obvious in the first instance from the fact they were only armed with 5.25" guns. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

My personal view is that, while noting the dual purpose armament, Roskill highlightened the fact that the R.N. choice was "something of a bluff, forced on us by the [...] fact these were the most powerful ship on station". As far as I can tell, this supports Trekphiler's point.

Besides this, I think that many of the edits and reversions made on the 25th September were pointless, as they focused on exactly the same issue beeing edited and reverted again and again and again. Maybe weshould try to reach an agreement on this problem first? Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 9:02, 27 September 2017

As I see things, The initial position of Keith-264 was that the DP guns were significant in that they allowed them to defend agaist air attack and thereby contributed to the bluff. User:Trekphiler point was well made that this was not the case. Keith-264 provided the quote from Roskill that clarified the nature of the bluff - the Didos were lightly armed for cruisers and even for light cruisers. It was then that I proposed an edit (and made it boldly) with the hope of resolving the issue with a solution that might satisfy both parties. Its purpose was to clarify the nature of the bluff and represents a quantum shift in the purpose of the note. I understand that, at this time, the classification of light cruiser referred to armament, not armor or displacement. This distinction may not be apparent to a casual reader. I note, in my understanding, that an article should not rely on links for clarity - except perhaps, where the reader is specifically directed to the link. For these reasons, I believe there is value in the modified link or such other ameendment that clarifies the bluff. My observation is that User:Trekphiler has continued to oppose the revised note on his original grounds even though there has been a significant shift in the nature of the note. My observation is that the nature of the bluff should be clarified and the note, while one way of doing this is not the only way.

On the matter of the Carlisle's armament, I again, agree with User:Trekphiler except for the lack of clarity on that ship's page - not wrt the date of its conversion to an AA cruiser but what this actually entailed. This is not reflected in the ship's info box and is ambiguous in the text. I have obtained clarification on the ship;s talk page and an undertaking by the editor to address these issues but not when. Clearly, clarifying the ship's page is the preferred course. I have indicated that clarification here by way of the note is appropriate as an interim measure.

In each case, armaments were mentioned in notes and serve a purpose to address specific issues. The notes are not the only way to address these issues but they should (in my opinion) be addressed one way or another. As these are specific cases, they do not support wider reporting of armaments and on in the main text. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, reading the current main page's version I can not tell where the problem is. Mentioning the guns' caliber in a side note does not make the text cumbersome, and the bluff is well reported in the main text. I would prefer a direct citation on the Didos main page, but as long as clarification [...] by [...] note is [...] an interim measure I gladly accept it. The whole lot of armaments' reportings seems to me somewhat odd, although I remain open to this possibility: it surely helps explaining the forces involved. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"The initial position of Keith-264 was that the DP guns were significant in that they allowed them to defend agaist air attack and thereby contributed to the bluff." If you see the RFC below, that's the position he continues to take, contrary to what Roskill, his own source, is saying. And since the source isn't saying the AA aspect was key, we shouldn't be putting more weight on it, which we now are.

♠"My observation is that User:Trekphiler has continued to oppose the revised note on his original grounds even though there has been a significant shift in the nature of the note." My opposition lies in the emphasis on the caliber of the main battery for a single class (or type) of ship, when none of the other ships, not the light cruisers nor battleships, have it mentioned. My own add of the calibers for the light cruisers was rv'd, tho IMO it offers some context of just how big the bluff the Didos were; I should, perhaps, have added the battery for the Italian heavies, instead.

♠I'll agree, for the casual reader, "light cruiser" might not be deeply informative; adding the caliber of the battery doesn't help, if there's no notion added of the caliber of battery faced by that light cruiser. So either we trust the reader understands a light cruiser is little more than target practise for a battleship, or we add the main battery for every ship mentioned on the page & hope the reader understands the significance of that. Which is it? Because doing it for a single class or type of ship puts an emphasis on them they simply do not deserve, given their relative insignificance in the scheme of things. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A quick add: Roskill is saying, in effect, the Didos weren't chosen because of the 5.25" HA/LA mounts, but in spite of them, because there was nothing else at hand--which is exactly the opposite of the spin Keith-264 is putting on it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what yo are saying per "despite". My note was a suggestion that invited you each to improve upon it. I believe that making your point clear is the purpose of the note and I make a further suggetion as follows:

The Dido-class cruisers were equipped with a main armament of the relatively light dual-purpose QF 5.25 inch gun. While they had been designed for convoy protection and service in the Mediterranean, they would have been no match for substantially more heavily armed cruisers and battleships of the Regia Marina.

References

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've been saying, I'd leave off mention of the 5.25" entirely, as irrelevant to the matter. If Roskill says something about why they were the only ships available, I'd mention it (as opposed to why the Leanders or Towns weren't used); otherwise... Maybe this:

"The Dido class light cruisers were chosen for basing at Malta [or "service with Force K"] because all more heavily-armed ships were otherwise committed; while designed for convoy protection and operations in the Mediterranean, they would have been no match for the battleships or cruisers [or "heavy fleet units"] of the Regia Marina, had the Italians pressed a surface action." (same sources as above, plus one for "reluctance").

I'd like to know why the Italians didn't realize the Didos were so poorly armed; I know they didn't want to hazard their fleet units, but in the face of such flimsy opposition... (With that in mind, if a source can be found, I'd add something like, "That the Didos succeeded in this was at least in part a result of Italian reticence to engage."; I know a source exists, because I've seen the claim, but IDK where.)

This add presupposes so much attention should be placed on the Didos to begin with; given their relative insignificance as fleet units, I'm not sure it's warranted. It's not like we're dealing with the sinking of Hood or the pursuit of Bismarck, here; let's keep perspective. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think your suggested edit is too far from the source. Roskill mentions that they had DP guns which were useful AA guns but that they weren't big enough against the ships that the RM could send against a convoy, that was the bluff but the bluff wasn't the only reason for using them. It isn't for us to interpret information in a source, only to describe it. He's referring to their use as a convoy and escort covering force. Keith-264 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See here p. 44 for the rest of the passage.Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To address your comments ... Roskill makes the specific comment WRT the Didos which leads to it being reported here. The proposal is in a note and not the main text. User talk:Lord Ics has observed the distinction between something in the main text and something in a note. You, yourself observe: "I'd like to know why the Italians didn't realize the Didos were so poorly armed ...". This is not immediately clear to a casual reader (per my above). Saying that they were particularly lightly armed [with only] 5.25 guns] joins the dots. One way to do this is to mention size though it is not the only way. In some ways, mentioning the size does make it a little easier to do. Your proposal does not make it clearer that light cruisers are lightly armed and not lead to an understanding of why they might be no match for Italian cruisers (to the uninformed per my above). Fleet units is even less helpful in this respect IMO. "... a main armament of the relatively light dual-purpose QF 5.25 inch gun ..." makes the point that for a cruiser (let alone a battleship), this was a light armament. I note that Roskill does indicate "That the Didos succeeded in this was at least in part a result of Italian reticence to engage." That they were DP is not an essential part of what is being said but is indicative of why they were chosen (two words) The other thing is about reaching a consensus, that with which everybody can live. Mentioning the size helps make the point that they were particularly light compared with the more conventional 6 in. The main text could be expanded along the lines you suggest but I tend to lean toward a note. The rationale for the inclusion of the note is certainly different from what has been argued before (by each of you). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me go straight to the point: would any of you oppose a note (and only a note, at this stage) reporting the caliber of the Didos main armament, without mentioning it in the article's text? I think that this is what we have to decide now: the "italian reluctance to engage" or even the bad functioning of their information service is actually out of the scope of this discussion, in my opinion. Lord Ics (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, as long as the note explains why their armament mattered, which Roskill explains. Because of British attacks from Malta, the Italians were busy with battleship convoys from 3 January and had a serious fuel shortage, which limited their offensive operations. An Italian battleship was part of the close escort and light cruisers provided a distant escort. A Kriegsmarine-Supermarina meeting (14–15 January 1942 at Garmisch) to set a joint strategy for the Mediterranean, it was agreed that Malta was the main issue and to neutralise it with air forces, mines and "stealth means", preparatory to invasion if a favourable situation arose. (Greene & Massignani, 2002, pp. 205–206) which I think is relevant but others might not. Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"the bluff wasn't the only reason for using them" I'm not saying it was. I would say the efficacy of the 5.25" HA/LA in an AA role is being vastly overrated, if you think that justifies sending them. And I don't think I'm so far from what Roskill says: he says they were the only ships available, so the fact they had HA/LA mounts is irrelevant to their selection.

♠"The proposal is in a note and not the main text." It remains in, & is drawing attention to the Didos & only the Didos. What, exactly, is so fascinating about these ships? Why do they, and they alone, merit having the caliber of their main battery included, note or not, & no other single ship does? I have yet to see that explained. If you want the 5.25s added, IMO it is incumbent on us to include the main battery of every surface combatant, for the sake of context.

♠"Your proposal does not make it clearer that light cruisers are lightly armed" Admitted. I'm relying on readers to have a clue, or follow the links if they don't. Your proposal to clarify the Didos were lightly armed comes back to my question, "Why them & not the others?" Indeed, saying "cruiser" & not "light cruiser" (as the page now does in a number of cases) is misleading, but in no case is the main battery mentioned. Why shouldn't it be, for any of them? And, indeed, for the likes of Nelson & Duilio. "Saying that they were particularly lightly armed [with only] 5.25 guns] joins the dots." And opens another can of worms...

♠"That they were DP is not an essential part of what is being said" It is, however, a key part of Keith-264's rationale for keeping it in: the claim they were essential for AA defense of convoys. This is obviously wrong, since air attacks on convoys would not be stopped (or, indeed, discouraged much) by the slow-firing 5.25s. So...

♠"particularly light compared with the more conventional 6 in" Make no mistake: the 6" cruisers were undergunned against the opposition they were likely to face, too. And, I repeat: why mention the Didos' battery, & not the Leanders', Towns', Hunts', & others? If it's so important in one case, surely it's important for them, too? (Notice, I'm not in favor of adding all; I merely mean, choose one or the other.)

♠"would any of you oppose a note (and only a note, at this stage) reporting the caliber of the Didos main armament" As said, I would, for the reasons stated: that's undue weight on the Didos, for no reason I can see.

♠"the 'italian reluctance to engage' or even the bad functioning of their information service is actually out of the scope" If we're going to have the 5.25s in, it begs the question why the bluff worked & why the Italians remained ignorant. I don't think the answer is on point for this page, so maybe we should avoid drawing more attention to it than necessary.

♠"as long as the note explains why their armament mattered" That seems to be drawing this page farther & farther into issues around the conduct of the siege, & Axis operations, which are, as I've said, OT here. That's one more reason to omit. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet again Trek offers a personal definition of what the article is about and adds a personal comment about Dido crusiers' guns not related to the RS. That they were DP is what Roskill wrote.Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would try to answer to Trekphiler's comments in sequence. In my opinion:

1)I think that Roskill give much more weight to the fact that there were no other ships available on station, so the "bluff" simply followed the decision to reinforce the naval surface force in Malta.

2)Without mentioning the armament, the difference between "normal" light cruiser and the Didos would not be clear; once we have to mention it, mentioning the DP fact seems to me a simple matter of information completeness. No further emphasis should be put on the DP matter.

3)The standard (as far as I could tell) main armament of a light cruiser during the Second World War was composed by 6 inches guns. The fact that the Royal navy stationed those 5.25" armed light cruiser seems not trivial.

5)Agreed.

6)As long as the note simply states that the armament was inferior to common standard at the time, I think that we should accept it.

Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Responing to User:Trekphiler and the 8 points.

1. I am making no statement about their AA role, the efficacy of their guns in that role and the main text states "absence of bigger ships" and so, confirms your point to this effect.
2. Roskill makes specific mention of the Didos and the bluff and hence the rationale wrt mention of the Didos (but not others). I have also given a rationale for mentioning their calibre.
3. Why them and not the others. Already covered. "I'm relying on readers to have a clue, or follow the links if they don't." per my previous, already covered. This is not quite how WP works. If you want somebody to follow the link for further detail you need to be explicit. Further, a collection of links does not join the dots.
4. "That they were DP is not an essential part of what is being said" It is, however, a key part of Keith-264's rationale for keeping it in". Please get past this. We are no longer talking about the same thing. What Keith was saying (in the past) is not relevant to the current note or my rationale.
5. I make no mistake. And I have already mentioned multiple time why the Didos and not the others.
6. The reasons have been stated in a cogent, consistent arguement which appears evident to User:Lord Ics. Myself, I have listened to the case that has been made by the two parties and have tried to arrive at a solution that serves the article. I have indicated that there may be ways of improving it. My mother use to say, if you have a criticism, bring a solution to the table. How might you improve the note. I have indicated why I don't think your edit is particularly useful but thankyou for that try.
7. "the 'italian reluctance to engage' or even the bad functioning of their information service is actually out of the scope". It is pertinent to the article but I read User:Lord Ics intention that it is out of scope wrt this particular note - at least, atm.
8. Mentioning their armament in this specific context for the reasons given does not draw "this page farther & farther into issues around the conduct of the siege, & Axis operations".

I have acknowledged your concerns and tried to give voice to some of these. The rational I have given appear reasonable to User:Lord Ics as a third opinion per his response. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"I think that Roskill..." I think we're agreed: that the reinforcement was the weakly-armed light cruisers, in essence a bluff.

♠"Without mentioning the armament..." Nor need there be any further distinction. They're rated light cruisers; the fact they were designed as CLAAs, & are instead being used for surface warfare, doesn't change their rating, nor entitle them to special consideration. If they deserve it, surely the Leanders & Towns do. And if they do, surely the heavies do, because the distinction between a 14"- & 15"-gunned BB is no less significant than the difference between a 5.25"- & 6"-gunned CL. If you do mean that distinction merits mention, merits clarification, surely it does for all the other surface combatants. I suggest, yet again, it makes no matter, & therefore need not be said for any of them.

♠"If you want somebody to follow the link for further detail you need to be explicit. Further, a collection of links does not join the dots." Fine. Then every single surface combatant should have the main battery mentioned, because it's relevant in every case. I really, really don't see why the Didos deserve special treatment. If the reader isn't expected to follow a link for them, why in the world do they have to for all the other surface combatants named?

♠"How might you improve the note" As I've repeatedly said, I wouldn't. I'd take it out.

♠"Mentioning their armament..." It does if reasons the bluff succeeded are an issue, & if we're talking about the Didos being a bluff, somebody is bound to ask.

♠"I have already mentioned multiple time why the Didos and not the others." And as far as I can tell, it amounts to the Didos, in some way, being special. So exactly how are they special? How is the difference between a 5.25"-gunned CL & a 6"-gunned CL more important than the difference between a 14"-gunned & 15"-gunned BB? Or an 8" gunned CA & a 12" CB? Because I just do not see the rationale.

♠"What Keith was saying (in the past)" No, what he continues to say:

"Yet again Trek offers a personal definition of what the article is about and adds a personal comment about Dido crusiers' guns not related to the RS. That they were DP is what Roskill wrote."

And, yet again, fails to grasp the argument. The HA/LA mount was of exactly zero value against surface combatants with heavier main battery. What part of that do you not understand? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Didos are in some particular way special - asked and answered numerous times. It is because of the "particular reference" in Roskill - a matter which you (User:Trekphiler)continue to ignore and respond as if this point had not been made. You have provided no effective counter to this and all your other responses are made as if this reason were non-existent. While you continue to resuse to acknowledge that the point has been made, let alone offer any effective reason why it is not a consideration, this discussion will not progress beyond repeated statements by you that you don't like it. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"The Didos are in some particular way special" No, they aren't. They are light cruisers. They happen to have been designed as AA cruisers. They happen to have 5.25" guns. And they happen to have been assigned to Malta. Beyond that, there is nothing in their use on convoy escort that makes then in any fashion different. Roskill expressly says they were "all that was available"--& that is the single thing he says about them being special. Yet you keep treating them as if they are somehow entitled to consideration no other ship or class on the page is. Why?

♠"You have provided no effective counter to this" What do you want? You've made repeated reference to the 5.25" guns, as if this miraculously qualifies Didos for special treatment, defending that position by comparison to the 6" cruisers, but completely ignore the equivalent issue for every other ship mentioned. What do you want? Beyond getting your own way & keeping any edit of mine off the page, I mean.

♠"asked and answered numerous times" Asked, yes. Never answered. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Very well; it seems that we can not reach consensus on this. I would like to leave partial and provisional solution of my previous question (on the Didos' main armament mentioned only in a side note) to the WP:RfC section below, on a dedicated survey. I hope that all of you would agree with this measure. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict as I was posting this with @User:Lord Ics User:Trekphiler, Roskill states that the Didos were the only ships available and that their particularly light armament was a bluff. Asked and answered. I have supported your opinion in a number of respects. "Beyond getting your own way & keeping any edit of mine off the page, I mean."... I have attempted to weight the opinions offered by you and Keith, in concert with the sources, objectively. I suggest that this is not an appropriate comment by you nor are many others you have made that have been specifically directed at me - I have not responded to these so as not to contribute to the disruption of WP. Do you wish to reconsider your most recent comment? I have made one allegation against you, of WP:GAMING. I stand by this, in that IMO, the edit summary in that case makes it self evident. I suggest that (your most recent) comments might appear as WP:IDHT and WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. You have been offered a third and now a fourth opinion. There comes a point at which you may wish to consider whether to stop flogging a dead horse and WP:Drop the stick. With the exception of WP:GAMING, already mentioned, these are not allegations and reflect my perceptions. You are, of course, free to ignore these. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"I have made one allegation against you, of WP:GAMING. I stand by this" Of course you do. Being accused of vandalism for making an edit somebody else disagrees with can't possibly be wrong, can it?

♠Your inability to see the Didos are light cruisers, & only light cruisers, whatever the armament is, is obviously something I will never be able to change. That being so, & given your evident bias, any further discussion of anything to do with this page is clearly a waste of my time, since I expect my views on what is, & isn't, OT to produce more accusations of it being mere "I don't like it".

♠So, you've gotten your wish. You're now rid of me. Congratulations. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked Cinders to suggest a section to review and took out a paragraph at his suggestion; did you agree that the edit had merit? If you're retired from editing the page, perhaps you could watch the process and compare that with your view that you have been shut out arbitrarily. Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

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)

It's probably better making an official WP:RFC request. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try one.Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

RFC

The consensus is summarized by Cinderella157's comment that said "a certain amount of context is appropriate; however, I would observe that some detail in this article may be excessive." Editors agreed to delete the second paragraph of the section "Operations Chieftain and Landmark". There is no consensus to delete anything else. There is no prejudice against further discussion about what else specifically could be removed.

Cunard (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article list Malta convoys or go into a certain amount of detail about the context, even if this overlaps slightly with other articles?Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Context it always good. Without context, it's just a glorified list. I support adding context to the Malta convoys so that the reader can understand without needing prior knowledge of the subject. Llammakey (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"Without context, it's just a glorified list." There is already a page for the actual combat operations, & for the strategic importance of Malta to the MTO. That being so, they don't belong on this page. Nor do convoys to North Africa or elsewhere. The description of Malta's strategic significance, on the page now, is OT, IMO, for that reason; mention of the notional Axis invasion is absurdly OT to this page, for that reason. Did the Axis want to silence Malta? Yes. Did they want to end its use as a base? Yes. Both of those things are about the siege, not the supply operations, & therefore OT here. And since there is already a page for the Club Runs, IMO, they should be deleted, too. If you want to mention attacks on the convoys, OTOH...

♠"Context" IMO should be limited to explaining how the convoys kept the island supplied, so active ops could continue, & not to description of those ops. Beyond mention of how many fighter & bomber squadrons, how many subs (or, better, link to Force K, where an OOB can be had), were supported, nothing: the rest is for the page on the actual siege. If it's any other way, IMO, it might as well merge to the siege page, because that's what it's covering, & not the supply ops anymore: break the two out, or don't. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Basing more ships and aircraft at Malta increased consumption of fuel and oil, making more convoys necessary and provoked more bombing, which increased consumption of AA ammunition, which made more convoys necessary. Ignoring the symbiotic relationship between maintaining Malta, using it to attack the Axis link to Africa and protect it from Axis retaliation is a mistake and this can't be left only to an afterthought. A few lines on Force K and some detail in a note can't be that bad, can it? A big success against Axis convoys made the next few more important so suppressive attacks on Malta increased so more AA ammunition was used so more needed to be brought in.... Surely we need to record (however briefly) the demand pull as well as the supply push?Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree Keith. The "why" is as important as the "what". Otherwise it's just a glorified list of convoys. Llammakey (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that a certain amount of context is appropriate; however, I would observe that some detail in this article may be excessive. I believe that there is an appropriate middle ground. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So do I, it's the slashing of everything that I object to. As for Didos, the quote makes it clear that the DP guns on them was a consideration for air defence of convoys and escorts but their ability to stand up to bigger Italian ships was the bluff; the bluff wasn't everything they were involved in. Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If public opinion prefers a list article I won't object. Cinders, why don't you pick a section where you think it needs trimming and let's discuss it and see how it goes? Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"Basing more ships and aircraft at Malta increased consumption of fuel and oil..." I believe that's what I just said, isn't it? The issue is how those additional forces are being used & whether that is OT. IMO, it is. Which I've been saying from the beginning. And the Axis response to that use, their attacks & notional invasion, are even less on point to supplying the additional Allied forces, & so even less on point here.

♠"A big success against Axis convoys made the next few more important" And that synergy belongs on the siege page, because that is where the conflict between Allied success & Axis response plays out, not here. That synergy is the heart of the battle, & putting it on the logistics page makes as little sense as putting the composition of a convoy's cargo on the siege page. If you can reliably source Convoy FM666 was bringing in more AA ammo as a result of heavier Axis air attacks, add it; otherwise, it's OT. And convoys to Alexandria in support of Eighth Army are absurdly OT.

♠"the quote makes it clear that the DP guns on them was a consideration for air defence of convoys and escorts" It was never the central issue, or Roskill would have said so, nor would he have made the point about it being a bluff. Any cruiser's weapons would have been a consideration for AA def. The Didos were not chosen for their AA, they were chosen because there was no other option available. What part of that do you find so hard to grasp? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Keith-264 off the top of my head, I would refer to the tanks going to north Africa. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Which convoy?Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Operations Tiger and Splice. I think you found it. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The second para in the section "Operations Chieftain and Landmark" is probably not that relevant. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

•  DoneKeith-264 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that material relating to the Club Runs really belong here but I acknowledge that it is a legacy. There is a Club Run Article but it is essentially a list of runs, with no detail of the individual runs. Any move of material should only be subsequent to finding a better repository for that material.

I do believe that the subject of Malta convoys equally applies to returning convoys. I am also comfortable with bogus convoys, though this becomes a matter of weight. I looked through the diffs to User:Trekphiler edits and these were the issues I identified en block. It does not mean that there may not be some refinement wrt to weight elsewhere on detail. Hope that helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the Club Runs are fundamental but that's just like my opinion, man.Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cinders and K-264

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps a little less detail in the para mentioning Battle of the Tarigo Convoy. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Operation Tiger appears to be a North Africa convoy and not a Malta convoy. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done 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)

Pls clarify

"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)

YesKeith-264 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest rename

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)

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)

A convoy is a collection of ships moving togeather (to Malta [and back]). Many of the missions covered were neither a "collection" of ships moving togeather nor were they moving to arrive at Malta and back (as in the Club Runs), though they were part of the resupply of Malta. Club Runs (and particularly the latter ones) were not all that close. A change in title would better encapsulate the missions to resupply Malta (without excluding their return trips either). With a change in title, I can easily reconcile the inclusion of the Club Runs and even missions to Gib that were preliminary to the Club Runs, moving planes from the UK. "Malta convoys" constrains the subject of the article while "Resupply of Malta" (or similar) is broader and better reflects the content of the article - IMO. Secondary sources can define their own parameters as to what they mean or what they encapsulate. To this extent, I make no mistake as to what they might "mean" or define as their scope. On the otherhand, an encyclopedia is more constrained to usual meanings or definitions to identify and categorise their material. It is for this reason, I think that an alternative title might be appropriate. This is something that occurred to me as something of a "light bulb" moment, thinking on the broader issues of what should be included. Please think on this. I would rather have you with me than against me. "Malta convoys" would remain as a redirect. I feel fairly strongly that this is the better way to go and put it up for broader comment. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hatnotes

@Keith-264: 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)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

Major edit?

Since Keith-264 thinks this is vandalism, & appears to belive only edits he approves of belong on the page, he's going to say the same about my latest. So I'll save him the trouble. Block me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you feeling all right? Keith-264 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the matter, short memory? Especially since you just rv'd the very edit I made the last time I even looked at this page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to remove so much material with a blanket claim about irrelevance, rather than a discussion here on each point, you're bound to be reverted. Since so many of the convoys have their own articles and the rest are being written, the purpose of this article is open to question from many points of view. I suggest, with respect, that excising material should be at the end of that process, not at the beginning. I think that a long view of the strategy of holding Malta and its consequences (i.e. from 1940 to 1943) should be the main thing, with a paragraph of narrative for each convoy and the context of associated naval operations as they pertain to Malta. Events on shore matter because they advert to the strategy of holding the island, an ambitious offensive choice by the British, from which flowed many things in the Mediterranean and beyond. If your objection to my reversion of your slash and burn editing is the label I gave it I will happily withdraw the term vandalism, if you will discuss the passages you object to here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

♠"you're bound to be reverted" I was perfectly prepared to discuss it the last time, but you were too busy calling it vandalism & ignoring me.

♠Your view the strategy of holding Malta is for this page is mistaken, IMO. As I said before, that belongs on the Siege of Malta page, which is designed to deal with the military aspects, & may reasonably deal with the broader implications. (I might still disagree with some of it, in ref North Africa; that seems to belong on a broader-still Battle of the Mediterranean of World War Two in the Mediterranean page.)

♠I don't (unless you want to) propose to discuss every single delete, because my overriding view, in (nearly) all cases, is the same.

♠There are a few semantic or formatting matters that may need clarifying on my part, but those are, in the main, a matter of proper usage, & not really up to debate: "sorties" v "sailings", "sunk at berths", Oued-Kroum mined, the Tribal link, "fleet at Alexandria" (it's a task force, tho perhaps RN usage varies on that), sailing in ballast (not "empty"), the Firth of Forth, "astern" (not "behind"), "bigger" v "heavier-armed", freight "in" (not "on") & the convoy tonnage, & the repetition of Furious & "aircraft carrier" (to no apparent need). This is a matter of giving the reader the most technically-correct usage without sacrificing clarity, & IMO that can be done, with linkouts as needed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:50 & 17:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Reiteration of your objections doesn't get us any further but when you get to specifics there is something real to discuss. Do you want to turn the article into a list? Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I'm damned if I know what you expect to discuss, since you offer no counter position for why any of it should stay it, except you want it that way. What, exactly, is your defense for keeping things not directly related to the convoys themselves, which is the pagename? How do you defend bombarding Benghazi, or convoys to Alexandria from Gibralter, as on point? So far, I've seen no rationale except you dislike my approach. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We aren't beholden to each other and I have nothing to defend.Keith-264 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you gone bonkers? I've been waiting for you to reply. Keith-264 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this edit except that it clearly isn't vandalism. Any objection to the edit will need to have an actual reasoning why it makes the article worse. Although likewise any support for the edit will need to have an actual reason why it makes the article better and not just that it isn't vandalism. BTW, may I suggest that both of you cut out the personal stuff and concentrate on working towards consensus of what's best for the article. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly it is once you know the context; I fear that your intervention is retrograde and not to be encouraged. Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"I've been waiting for you to reply." To what? Your claim you have nothing to defend & aren't "beholden"? What would you have me say to that? Since you offered no comment whatever on the edit at large? Oh, wait, you're not "beholden" to me. Neither am I.

"Clearly it is once you know the context" And what "context" would that be? That you dislike the edit? That it's deleting your precious text? That it doesn't conform to your narrow view of what belongs on the page? So only you get to have a view of what's right, is that it? And what you put up is inviolate, right?

I feel like I'm back in 2017. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You're behaving like you are, it's like deja vu. I think you're sulking because you've got your own way. If you have no insight into the blatantly unequal approach to editing the article ask on the Milhist page for opinion. Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And you're showing the same jackass behavior as last time. Which should surprise me not in the slightest. So what, exactly, was your "suggestion" to improve the page? That I go fuck myself? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You've already done that, now I want you to stop digging and take it to Milhist. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

1. OK I will ask, why should this material be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

♠And I've answered that. IMO, it's all off-point for the subject of the article, which is, you'll notice, Malta convoys, not Alexandria convoys, Gibralter convoys, Siege of Malta, naval battles with the Regia Marina, or Campaign in North Africa, all of which have been included as if they are on-point.

♠That's aside the simple minor edits, as mentioned, I consider simple wrong usage.

♠And why am I, yet again, defending the removal? Where is Keith-264's defense of including any of it? Which he's refused to do since September 2017, too busy calling me a vandal. So why should any of the major deletes stay in? How are they on point? Or is this another case where I have to justify taking it out, contrary to WP's usual policy, which demands a defense for inclusion, not removal? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You were advised to open a RFC and failed to do it, you were also told that the consensus was against you, yet insisted on arbitrary slash and burn removals of material, despite other editors' willingness to discuss them one at a time. As for wrong usage, please remember that US usage is not BritEng and some of your facts are wrong.Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Because I am not aware of your arguments in then past. So I am now aware of your arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Malta was a base from which British sea and air forces could attack Italian ships carrying supplies from Italy to Italian Libya for Italian civilian colonists and the Axis armies in North Africa, which fought the Western Desert Campaign (1940–1943) against the British Eighth Army. The war in the desert was fought for control of Libya and Egypt, the Suez Canal and British controlled oilfields in the Middle East. The strategic value of Malta was so great that the British risked many merchant vessels and warships to supply the island and the Axis made determined efforts to starve out the population. The destruction of the Italian 10th Army, in Egypt and Libya during Operation Compass (9 December 1940 – 9 February 1941) and defeat in the Italo-Greek War (28 October 1940 – 23 April 1941) led to German intervention in the Mediterranean. German bombers and submarines joined the effort to neutralise Malta and preparations were made to invade the island.

was edited to

Malta was a base from which British sea and air forces could attack Italian ships carrying supplies from Italy to Italian Libya for Italian civilian colonists and the Axis armies in North Africa, which fought the Western Desert Campaign. The strategic value of Malta was so great the British risked many merchant vessels and warships to supply the island and the Axis made determined efforts to starve out the population. German bombers and submarines joined the effort to neutralise Malta and preparations were made to invade the island, the proposed Operation Hercules.

which removed all context, from the lead, the scene-setting section of all places.Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure we need that much detail in the lead, the body yes, but not the lead. The lead is there to summarize important parts of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I know but that's the point, the context needs mentioning in the lead. The detail could go in the Background section. Keith-264 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Could?, you mean its not there already?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, the article was being fleshed out piecemeal for a couple of years. There is a Background section with a potted history of the war in the Med up to June 1942 and then nothing and no Prelude. Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added material from Operation Pedestal to fill out the Background and Prelude with a rough cut. Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

♠"you were also told that the consensus was against you" Oh, really? When was this? The last time you accused me of vandalism? And if you actually had consensus, you wouldn't need to, would you?

♠"which removed all context, from the lead" Nonsense. The "context" is the value of the island in connection with the Western Desert Campaign, not the destruction of 10th Army, the Italo-Greek War (which doesn't even involve Britain!), or the German intervention (which is a product of the Italian failures in the desert, not the Malta convoys). Yet again, garbage not on point.

♠Compare this & this. Explain how anything you added is about the supply convoys to Malta, which is the subject of the page. Any of it. And don't tell me I don't have "consensus". You want it in, defend it.

♠Let me be extremely clear. If any of this was being added to Siege of Malta or Battle of the Mediterranean or even Western Desert Campaign, I would have no objection, because there, it would actually be directly relevant to the subject of the page. Here, it's not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:58 & 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Same old refusal to see context; you might as well write "ditto". You emphasise "what" and reject the "why", which is what makes sense of everything. The importance of the front in the Western Desert to the ability of both sides to ship supplies is crucial to an understanding of the Malta Convoys. As for the rest of your comments, I refer you to your own complaint here [8]. Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I see the context perfectly. You refuse to see the subject of the page is not "combat operations from Malta". That page is called Siege of Malta or Battle of the Mediterranean. By all appearances, this is you putting in junk & then denying anybody else can even have a valid POV of what belongs on the page. What's that called? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:10 & 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You aren't AGF, you've been gently warned on another board and you aren't constructive, I noted that the additions were a rough cut, not that you were welcome to indulge your idee fixe.Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

AGF? You start from the position that I'm vandalizing the page & engaging in "sabotage", & accuse me of lacking good faith? What nerve. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't start from there, I ended there because of your misconduct. 3RR is waiting for you. Keith-264 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"I didn't start from there" I make an edit you disagreed with & you call it "vandalism" & "sabotage". Who didn't sasume good faith? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You know that isn't true, you resurrected a dead issue and have been making hyperbolic claims ever since. Keith-264 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"You know that isn't true" I know that's perfectly true, & your own edit summary from September 2017 backs me up. And your own remarks at the ANI page calling it "sabotage" do, too. So who didn't assume good faith on this, from the outset? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary was an accurate description of your conduct when you barged into a discussion and overrode consensus, as was the term "sabotage" when you suddenly did your Grendel impression. I notice that you don't apply your adverse judgements to your self-serving, passive-aggressive, hyperbolic declaiming, despite you gaining a tacit veto over article edits from the admins. Why don't you try? Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

All of you lay of the talking about other edds.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As to the content. If it is not in the body it does not go in the lead, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Please always add content to the body first. Or make sure you do both at the same time. It's very annoying to read something in the lead and then try and find if there are more details in the body (and sources that aren't in the lead) only to find it's completely missing from the body. I can sort of understand this when inexperienced editors are adding late breaking details to articles, especially were things are changing all the time, but it's silly for it to happen in articles of this sort. If someone else is removing content from the body, but not the same stuff in the lead, this is also a problem. If there is dispute over what belongs in the body, it seems to me this probably should be sorted out before adding it to the lead. (BTW, again I have no other comment on the issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite agree but fatuous criticism that isn't rebutted tends to stick. Some of the material I added yesterday was removed (again) so the lead is being isolated. I have in mind a summary at the end of each yearly section and a round up for the aftermath section with a survey of the views of the RS, rather than trying to squeeze it into the Background and Prelude, thoughts? Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Easy to write when you aren't being reverted every five minutes.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Once it was reverted for the lead you should have added it to the body before adding back into the lead. Or better still stopped adding it back and followed BRD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I did that.Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I can only see (in essence) the same material you added to the lead. The lead should be a summery of important points, a one sentence mention (of say) operation compass is not a salient point (and certainly not one that gets as much mention in the lead as it does in the body). Although the pair of you have made so many edits here it is hard to see who added (or subtracted) what and when.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"I did that" Yes, except for the "discuss" part. So far, you've offered no reason why your version is perforce better, nor why anything I deleted is essential for understanding the subject of the page, beyond your dislike of my deleting it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• [content should be limited to that] essential for understanding the subject of the page

Interesting. Is that a requirement? It's not one I've ever considered before, certainly not seen it written in any policy or guideline.

As the obvious counter-example, we can include (and this would seem to be the question here) also material that has no direct relation to the subject of the page, but represents further material that is related to the immediate subject, and to which readers should usefully be pointed.

As an example, the proposed Operation Hercules. isn't part of the Malta convoys (wrong combatant, for starters). Readers can fully understand the convoys without. Yet it's a fair point that the overall context of the history of Malta would require knowledge of it (and a title and link isn't UNDUE). So I'm seeing more of a case to be inclusive here than to prune down to some bare minimum of "only if essential for the narrow subject". Andy Dingley (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Keith-264 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Graffiti, slurs and anachronisms

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)

Recent edit

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