Talk:Operation Sonnenblume

Added material to prelude. Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Might this article (especially the Background..Afika Corp section) read a bit better were the English translations of German unit designations to be used--as is typical of most such articles? Giving the German designation parenthetically (if desired) would be more consistent. Juan Riley (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably but I'd put translations in parentheses on the first use of a German term like an abbreviation. I've experimented with permutations of using German/Italian/French terms about German/Italian/French units and code names etc, using them in parentheses as illumination and local colour, doing them first in German/Italian/French sections and other methods and never been really satisfied with the result. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not complaining...but things like this: "5. leichte-Division‍ '​s (mot)" don't scan well for me as an American English reader. I don't think I have run across such in other WWII articles. But who knows. I do like the extra info if added as parenthetical once. I will live with it one way or another. :) Juan Riley (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) PS. Damn..no prickly pear in that picture. Juan Riley (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. ;O) I only stumbled on this article when I was having a rest from the Western Front 1915-1917 and don't have that many sources for the technical details. Unfortunately, work has got in the way so I'm only bitting and bobbing. No cacti on the UiC allotments ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Does it read a little easier now?Keith-264 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Added more material but it needs a ce when it's finished, particularly the periodisation.Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Got most of the narrative done, need to do the Aftermath section.Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The background section needs some expansion. British victory over whom? When? How? Just a summary and perhaps a link to the appropriate article establishing why Directive 22 was created.
2. Formation of the Afrika Korps (change subheading?)
3. I cannot find Mersa Brega (and others) on your map.
4. distances between some of these locations? Part of the problem DAK faced was the distance, and how far their units were stretched.

The article is good, it just assumes too much information. You certainly haven't over linked this, either. auntieruth (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello auntie, thanks for replying. I don't think it's good, hence the C grade request but I can expand the background and add to the Directive easily enough.

• The Afrika Korps section was already there but I can adapt it accordingly
• I can look for a better map but am limited to what's in commons
• Distances: can do

Thanks, anything else? Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought that Skorpion was in far worse shape than this but I see what you mean about it still being a bit of a dog's dinner. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Added more detail lead and analysis next.Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Are Rommel's actions on the ground described in the "Battle" section really part of Sonnenblume? I thought that was merely the codename of the troop transfer. Srnec (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It was supposed to be but he exceeded his authority.Keith-264 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In this article it just says "British Empire". This is not the way commonwealth and Indian participation is called out in the infobox of other similar articles. E.g., second battle of El Alamein. Juan Riley (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it should be Commonwealth and empire troops (the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade was involved at Mechili).Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian troops also? Juan Riley (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

They're Commonwealth.Keith-264 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

In other similar articles Australians and Canadians etc are called out specifically in infoboxes. The issue is consistency. Juan Riley (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

So Keith-264 we should re-visit the infoboxes of all the other articles of WWII and replace UK with British empire and save a lot of ink by deleting Canada, Australia, .....? Juan Riley (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"103–107 German tanks were knocked out but many were recovered later and repaired.[50]"

Should this more accurate reflect they were damaged, largely through wear and tear; rather than knocked out. Jentz for example, notes that the German records show a mere 3 knocked out during the period, several more damaged. Other sources indicate the large mechanical losses from their dash through the desert.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to follow this up: Jentz, p.82: 1 or 2 tanks knokced out on mines; p.101: 3 knocked out from British action, and an unknown number damaged; pp. 101-102: 83 in the workshops from mechanical issues.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Got Jentz now so can amend accordingly.Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions that during the battle quote ‘A Squadron of the LRDG had appeared from the south, to harass Axis movements.’

Is this sentence referring to ‘a’ squadron of the LRDG or ‘A’ Squadron of the LRDG?

Also should the LRDG appear in the order of battle section? 2A02:C7E:2C10:4900:DC29:31C3:4D14:C5EE (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's A Squadron, it follows a semi-colon so would a lower-case 'a' if it wasn't its title. Thanks for the edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh and yes it should. Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Axis order of Battle is nearly done but I don't understand some order to the British order of Battle. Can someone name and highlight the main forces involved .(Apart from the British 2nd Armored Division ). Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I found it. The Order just lack the highlighting Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Case closed. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Why is the 10th Army is included here in infobox. Aren't they already destroyed since February 1941 and it was never reconstituted again? I think it should be removed. It's gonna have an impression to the readers that the 10th Army managed to survive and fought along with the DAK in the German and Italian offensive in April 1941. JohnnyContinuous (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't destroyed, some parts survived the disaster. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll have another look to see if it was ever disbanded. Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@Pencilceaser123: Dear Pencil, you might want to have a look at this

A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner.

Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article. As with a lead section, there is some discretion in citing information in an infobox. The same guidance should be applied to an infobox as given for citations in a lead section. Information in an infobox must conform with verifiability, point-of-view and other policies.

Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim.

Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What's this referring too? Everything in the wikibox is not a bold claim but is mentioned in the article Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If I've made a mistake, please tell me WHAT the mistake is. Anyway gtg Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You used "it's my policy..." in an edit summary, since you did the biggest edit here, it thought that it was the best place to comment. Line breaks in infoboxes are out, ubl and its derivatives are in. I wouldn't mention smaller national contingents unless they played a disproportionately significant part in the event (e.g. Free French) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh! I was meaning "it's my opinion" by that. Not "policy". Wrong word. However you reverted my edits which added free France to the combatant list, despite the fact they should be on there. They were a combatant Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No, minor contingents were only significant if they did something significant, like at Bir Hakeim, not just for being there,. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yet they should still be in the combatant box. All combatant nations apear in the combatant box, unless there would need to be ALOT of combatants. Thats pretty normal Pencilceaser123 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No, no, thrice no. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

PS no mention here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The Free French Contingent included an entire battalion. Besides you shouldnt cite the box showing free French campaigns. Thats a list that, as always, can be incomplete. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

An 'entire battalion'? Come off it, that's a token. As for the the box was for your information. You shouldn't change things during a discussion to reach consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from being rude and insulting. But the template page says that combatants go in the combatant box. It has no requirement for notability, although it says in battles with large amounts of combatants involved you should limit it too 3 or 4 combatants. There is not a lot of combatants in this box. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been rude but I can be if you want to keep misrepresenting me. I think you're being obtuse so I'm going to stop trying to reason with you. Good luck. Keith-264 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll add the content back onto the page. If you aren't going to refuse to discuss something than it's impossible to gain consensus. So you removing the content again would be clear disruptive editing Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sophistry. If you do, I'll take it out, subject to 3RR. Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

If you do that ill have to bring it to admins attention as you are refusing to discuss or cooperate. You have already been blocked from an article for this before, and gotten temp sitewide blocks for similar things. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, ive raised the issue on Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements Pencilceaser123 (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Since the body of the article has this sentence: "The Italians were opposed by British, Commonwealth, and Free French forces.", then the infobox should reflect that, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. TurboSuperA+[talk] 14:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what Keith think before readding it Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

While you are here, could you comment on if you think flags should be in said info box next to the commanders and units? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Relevant guideline: MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not really helpful. As it only says "may be used in military infoboxs". We also already discussed that policy. Could you give your opinion on if it's appropriate in this case? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Since there are several different participating countries, I think it is appropriate, because it can help discern at a glance which country each commander and unit is from. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Duplicating flags already in the infobox under belligerents is pointless. Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of flags in the info box is not to show they exist. I'm saying have them next to commanders so you can easily see to what nation the commanders and units belong Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Good place to ask for more opinions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there any research into whether anyone takes notice? Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey one question, why did you revert my edit at the infobox belligerents section. Operation Sonnenblume was a German-led operation despite its Italian subordination. Thanks PrimeNick (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There are good chances of getting an answer from several editors, as it is one of the most popular WikiProjects, TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the order of Axis involvement in the infobox, it's Italians first because it's an Italian colony under Italian administration. The German involvement was in support, de jure if not de facto. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not how the order in the info box is determined. It's the order based on the contribution size. Also I'm not sure you know what de jure and de facto mean? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Nvm I understand what you meant by defacto and de jure but that's still not what the policy is. You should read the template page for the war box! You keep citing things yet not reading what your citing Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Contributing a colony, civilian population, infrastructure and the larger military force seems conclusive. Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely not how it works. Them being a larger military force is fair enough as a reason for them coming first. Then being colonial rulers is not Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Piffle Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-consensus is a euphemism for no consensus. Please stop this. Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

well you did say you would refuse to collaborate or engage in discussions. Yet still revert edits. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

dummy edit. well then why is it on the unit list? Check the order of battle, several units are assigned to it. plus still doesn’t give reason to remove Indian motor brigade comments like this are for the talk page, not posturing in edit summaries. Keith-264 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Dummy edits are common for replies in which you dont have a whole conversation. Also im not sure you know what the word posturing means, you really should be less rude when someone tries to discuss with you. Plus considering you called me putting a message on your talk page "Graffiti" im not sure you're much better at talk pages.

For context the message above until the world "brigade" was an edit summary I did. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Trying to reason with you is pointless. Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The Third Indian Motor Brigade was an independent unit and was fairly sizable. It should be on the table. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ive raised this issue on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Operation Sonnenblume

Hopefuly we can end this dispute. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Which military units and/or flags should be included in the infobox? See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Operation Sonnenblume for more info.

Should flag icons be included in the infobox?

• Option 1 Yes
• Option 2 No

Which countries/flags should be included in the infobox?

• Option 1 Free France
• Option 2 Other countries - please list which country you are specifying and I will add them to the RfC list.

Which units should be included in the infobox?

• Option 1 Free French Battalion
• Option 2 Third Indian Motor Brigade
• Option 3 Any other unit - please list the unit you are specifying.

~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 02:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this. I think stuffing the Infobox is wrong, I think that only the most significant participants should go in the infobox, that answers question three as well. Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Questions 2 and 3 have more potentially more than two answers, but only two answers are provided for each. The answers for the second question do not make sense at all. Yue🌙 21:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yue: I have added this article to a question on the milhist talk page about the Lua error report as I don't know what to do either. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yue: My apologies, I was really tired and likely busy in real life that time when I wrote that rfc. I will fix the options. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 22:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

All good! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean for question one, obviously yes, but im assuming your meaning next to units and commanders ect. In which case yes.

Question two: 4 countries on allied side seems fine, same as how it is now

Question 3: Both, although I think its more important for the third indian motor brigade Pencilceaser123 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I think this RfC is a little too broad. Has there been a lot of dispute around these questions? One challenge is that the lead is too long in my opinion. It should be clear who the belligerents are in the opening paragraph, then the info box should follow that. Generally I think any country represented significantly in the order of battle should be in the info box. Thanks for your work on this. (Summoned by bot) Dw31415 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There has been a fair bit of debate on these questions between me and Keith Pencilceaser123 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Jentz, T. L. (1998). Tank combat In North Africa: The Opening Rounds, Operations Sonnenblume, Brevity, Skorpion and Battleaxe, February 1941 – June 1941. Atglen, PN: Schiffer. ISBN 978-0-7643-0226-8. LCCN 97-80326. What about this?

Does said source explicitly characterize Sonnenblume as a "tank battle"? If not, then it's OR. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Emiya1980: The clue is in the title and fn 22–27. Must I spell this out for you? Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

"Tank combat" does not necessarily translate to "Tank Battle". That being said, I may be willing to reconsider depending on what FN 22-27 states. Can you provide an excerpt? Emiya1980 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You're still failing to accept editorial equality, I don't answer to you. Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

In light of your unwillingness to cooperate in reaching a consensus, I cannot verify your claims and therefore am not inclined to revert my changes to suit your preferences. Sorry. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)