Talk:Siege of Giarabub

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Giarabub article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Africa: Libya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Siege of Giarabub is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / South Pacific / European / Italian / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force

Sources[edit]

Does anyone know of an isbn or oclc or other approved reference number for Richardson 2010? Worldcat's playing dead on it. Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Keith I tried to find that earlier today and also came up blank. Will keep looking though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, it's quite frustrating. I decided to add the strategic context to link the siege to the rest of the desert war. Having leant on Richardson so much, I realise that I forgot to look at the AOH.Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation[edit]

commas[edit]

While I'm not in the habit of starting a Talk about commas, this specific issue seems to keep coming up. In an edit to this page, as in comments elsewhere, Keith-264 has suggested or implied that a comma can never be next to a conjunction. Keith, do you believe this is a blanket rule of English grammar? Wikipedia's Manual of Style has no prohibition against it. And there are multiple well known Style guides which describe the appropriate use of commas for separating clauses, even when those clauses may be joined by a conjunction. - Zulu Kane (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You started a sentence with a conjunction; the style guide is neutral. What's the point in putting a comma next to "but" or "and"? I'm not the grammar police but I do prefer prose to be written in sentences which rhyme, scan and make sense. My way is no better than anyone else's but it's no worse either.Keith-264 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other side?[edit]

All the article is written from the Australian perspective of the battle. It would be interesting to read something from the Italian side. BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.33.53.147 (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible without sources and Italian texts on the subject are rarely translated.Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @Keith-264: that was yet another brunodam's (known long-term abuser) sockpuppet. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]