Talk:Operation Epsom

Hart 2007 and 2007a

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

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

Jackson (2nd iteration)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's the MLRS location but on looking at the website, [1], "MLRS (Military Library Research Service Ltd), 6 Smalldale, Near Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 8EA." makes me wonder if Buxton would be better?

As for Jackson, the staff appears on the cover but not the title page inside. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

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

Recent edits

Parachuted in from User talk:143.58.173.57

Operation Epsom

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

Not original research at all. Historian given and the book. The extract is from the official Order.

ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0811705897

ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0811705899 143.58.173.57 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahem! put it back. Is "The intention in the Order was to seize Caen if possible on D-Day, but if resistance was high ensure that the enemy does not use it as a means of counter-attacking, giving the job to the RAF of eliminating the German occupiers. Caen was not a prime D-Day target. In the Overlord Operation possession".... a claim by a writer? It will need a cite too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

All after the ref is mine, interpreting the Order. The Order was inset to differentiate it. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't interpret, we must describe what RS contain. That bit will have to go unless you can cite it to RS. Regrets Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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