Talk:Greco–Italian War/Archive 5

Campaign sections
The first section of the Campaign (Italian offensive) needs to be restructured. I believe a split in 2 sections is the best option: "Pindus" and "Epirus front", since the penetration attempt concerned two seperate sectors: 1. towards Ioannina and the coast (B. of Elaia Kalamas) & towards Pindus in order to cut the Greek forces of Western Macedonia (B. of Pindus).Alexikoua (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I thnk that's a good idea. Do you want to separate [all] the battles in the article so there's room for a couple of paragraphs for each one, along with a link to the main battle article (assuming you want to do it like that)?Keith-264 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know right now if all battles can have their own sections, but the Greek counteroffensive can be split into: 1st (Morava-Ivan-Korytsa) and 2nd phase (Himara-Kleisoura-Trebesina).Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't much I can do to help sadly, I don't have the sources but I think I can add the Enigma and RAF contributions and a bit on Naval operations. I think that separating Pindus, Epirus, Morava and Himara would be a very good development.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I also have some sources on the Greek home front and the Greek military administration in Albania that I have long intended to add here. I hope I'll find time for this. Constantine  ✍  22:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings, here's the information on the dodgy editor I mentioned; I think that the article has been weeded of the NPOV stuff that was interpolated but I suspect that the Further reading section has quite a bit of redundant material. I hadn't intended to do more than remove it but since there's a lively group of editors here I've tried to do something to improve the article and your suggestion about the home front and Albania would fill a gap. Enigma's been adding citations recently and I think all the recent changes bring the article close to fulfilling the B1 and B2 criteria.Keith-264 (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have begun adding stuff gradually, if I find the time I'll try a complete overhaul of the article, although I don't have many of my better sources here in Austria. Gedeon 2001 however should allow for a considerable expansion of the campaign phases (it is a brief but concise chapter in a popular history book, but Gedeon is a retired Major General and former long-time head of the Greek Army's History Directorate, so until I can get my hands on my old copy of the official army history, this will have to do). There's a ton of stuff on the Italian side in MacGregor Knox, though, so if anyone wants to work off that independently, I can send the book. I also just now noticed how dismal a state the Battle of Greece article is in, due to numerous well-intentioned (and less well-intentioned) additions. Prose problems, mixed reference style (with borderline plagiarism due to excessive use of source quotes), and rather too many errors in details, esp. regarding the Greek part of the fight. Certainly not FA-level any more. Anyhow, one thing at a time. Constantine  ✍  20:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's the dodgy editor again.Keith-264 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If we want to have a comprehensive article, there is also much that can be written on the diplomatic background, e.g. the German offers to mediate during the war, how serious they were, and their (alleged) impact on Metaxas' pursuit of the war. Fellow Greek editors with access to Heinz Richter's Η Ιταλο-γερμανική επίθεση εναντίον της Ελλάδος can help here. The article also completely lacks a mention of aerial warfare, including the RAF contingent. I have some info on Italian bombing of Greek cities that I can add. Anyone with more material please make yourselves known here to organize work a bit so we don't work at cross purposes. Constantine  ✍  21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go overboard about diplomacy in an article about a war, because it's the continuation of diplomacy by other means. See above for Raff and Enigma.Keith-264 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but there are suggestions that the German peace feelers were designed to a) delay any Greek acceptance of British help and b) perhaps induce Metaxas to "go easy" on the Italians in hopes of securing a German-mediated armistice. Certainly there is some debate in Greek military and historical circles ever since the war as to why the General Staff did not follow up the victory at Korçë with a concentrated full-scale breakthrough attempt in the direction of Vlorë, but instead pursued a broad front strategy and allowed the Italians time to regroup. There are many arguments here, from limited mobility of the Greek forces to Papagos' strategic over-prudence, but there are also suggestions, partly supported from Metaxas' diary IIRC, that it was also a deliberate decision so as not to create a situation where Germany would have to intervene just to save her partner's prestige. Not that it did much good, if so... Constantine  ✍  22:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath section appears out of place and unsatisfactory
Why does it go on about North Africa and the opinion of the German naval Staff? Can the Aftermath be somehow improved and focusing more on Greece? What about the terms of surrender to the Italians and Germans? That could be expanded more. There's a quote from Sadkovich, but no follow through. Far too general. Why tie in the loss of Libya that happened two years later and Taranto?

Also there is still this tendency to view the Italians through the eyes of the Germans as if Italy herself could do nothing without the "blessing" of Hitler. The Triple Occupation section doesn't quite add up and is unsatisfying.92.234.202.8 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a coda not an essay, you can find the details by following the link.Keith-264 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

People are making the war itself less than 10% of the article. Just my 2 cents. Bertdrunk (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The descriptions of the battles are in separate linked articles but are probably going to be slightly expanded in this article. The minutiae of the diplomatic poncing around before the war aren't really to my taste but there needs to be some context.Keith-264 (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's ok Keith. There needs to be context. But my fear and the fear of others, is that the article could end up becoming a soapbox for Greek revanchism and nationalist jingoism. The article is much improved from how it used to be, but please be on guard for creeping revanchism. History mustn't be a soap opera of assumed intentions, but relate the facts objectively, impartially and balance. This is difficult to do because for the Greeks, the Greco-Italian war is placed in their history as an heroic deed equal to the feats of their mythical gods and battles. Greek school children are taught that the war was an heroic effort equal to none. This approach has to be avoided.92.234.202.8 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Who are you?Keith-264 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it is AnnalesSchool, yet again.
 * As for the background, I would argue that one should remember it is now a much more cut down and organized version of what it was. Not to mention context is important. A war is a diplomatic event after all, and the fighting just takes all the limelight.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not AnnalesSchool, but someone who has been following the debate with growing interest and concern. It is interesting to see the horse-trading and give and take involved in writing Wiki articles like this one. History by committee!!! But I do agree with a lot that AnnalesSchool has written, including his observations and criticisms of the original article. He's obviously of the opinion that the war was not a defeat for Italy because his definition of victory is basically one of "who's left standing in the field?" "who got what they wanted - control of Greece." Whereas I'm of the opinion that it was neither a victory nor a defeat because of German intervention that allowed the Italians into Greece. So there's a difference of opinion between us. But we do tend to agree that the Greeks are going a little overboard by claiming it was a resounding victory for them. It certainly wasn't because while they used up all their resources to hold one wolf at bay, it allowed another through the back door. That is not a victory. 92.234.202.8 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears you share the very same obssesion with Annalles who was eager to overexpand the Aftermath section in order to show that this was in fact an Italian victory (such as the Italian parade argument).Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I smell a rat too. Sadly I don't have anything for the RHAF to go with the RAF section.Keith-264 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've got some info, but won't get around to it until the weekend, probably. Constantine  ✍  18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reverted an edit that stated "This was in stark contrast to the usual habit of Greek soldiers who were renowned looters." I would like to acknowledge my mistake in stating the author was from "from over the hill" (as in the other side of the hill, i.e. opposing force), since he is a Greek.
 * Regardless, the point still stands: a scholarly source is a much stronger to support the point rather than the war time diaries of one man. He cannot speak for the entire Greek army in Albania, despite his comments - "The Greek soldier is the consummate war looter. His courage triples when it comes to prime looting"- about personal experience from men he was in contact with: "A few days ago the Italians attacked one of the trenches of hte 13th and 6th units. It was a surprise attack, and many of our soldiers started running. Of of those was running..." proceeded to turn around under fire to loot a fallen Italian officer.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite right too, everyone knows that the Australians are the looters par excellence. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Italian air force incursions into Greek territory
I have temporarily removed mention of this from the background section as i am unable to locate a source that supports this. Any editors have a source that supports reinsertion? RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Casualties section
Added section and rm cites from infobox. 64 aircraft (another 24 claimed) is this a discrepancy between RHAF claims and Regia Aeronautica records and does it include RAF claims? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Article should contain more Italian images
I'll just throw in my two cents worth. Having scanned the article, it could do with a few more images of Italian troops or military in action, fighter planes or navy involved in the actual war. Just having a pic of a stern-faced Mussolini isn't enough. An image of an Italian military parade in front of the Acropolis would be ideal. I am ready to upload some images if requested.92.234.202.8 (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC) −		 −	Also, it's not "el Duce", but "il Duce". "El" is Spanish! Sorry Enigma.92.234.202.8 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC) −		 −	I'm afraid the article is already as Italian as it can be (map of the Italian dream-empire, entire section dedicated in the background etc). However, a picture of Musolini observing the performace of his Primavera initiative, which sent thousands of soldiers to death will be quite good.Alexikoua (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC) −	−	Ok, let's do it. You include a pic of Mussolini (two "ss") and I'll include Italian troops on parade in front of the Acropolis. Do we agree?92.234.202.8 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, you don't have to apologize for my poor use of Italian ;)
 * The only comment I would make about uploads is, can we ensure full details are provided as in dates, authors, source etc. The one I introduced yesterday of Mussolini, IMO the best of a poor selection on the commons, suffers - like most of him - of incomplete source information. Whenever this article reaches a point of being proposed for FA review, it will fail.
 * If you guys have better imagies of Mussolini etc (1930 politiian-esc one for the background perhaps), with full source information, by all means upload them the one currently used can be replaced as well and rule out prospective future headaches.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I will try to upload some better images of Mussolini and throw in some extra images of the Italians in the fighting. 92.234.202.8 (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can remember that in the past the article contained a couple of Italian pics (Alpini troops etc.) but they were deleted due to c-v issues.Alexikoua (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is a probable sock of AnnalesSchool and by An image of an Italian military parade in front of the Acropolis would be ideal. s/he means the now deleted file File:La Conquista di Atene.png which was uploaded by AnnalesSchool without valid permission. The file is still hosted at the website commandosupremo.com, which is associated with Annales. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RAF
Added section on RAF and air operations; I've nothing for the RHAF though.Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can find some piece of info about that: formations, operations etc.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good stuff - are we making the comparison of forces section redundant though?Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Combined the OOB section with comparison section and separated from the plans section. Needs citations though.Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Bertdrunk
Another impostor?Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see. A new account that displays knowledge of wikispeak in its edit summaries from the word go is always suspect, but so far it is not a WP:DUCK. If it is Annales, then we'll soon know. Constantine  ✍  12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You guys are getting very paranoid. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Paranoia is inevitable after a few years in Wikipedia ;). But if you have a look at the huge amount of drama this and other related articles have endured due to a specific person, you'll see why it is also sometimes a necessary trait... The only good thing out of all this is that at last people (including myself) seriously get involved with this article. Constantine  ✍  19:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's additions
I've decided to keep out of the way for now to avoid toe treading. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hah, thanks. I plan on finishing the expansion of the main campaign periods by tonight or tomorrow, then you can copyedit and trim around :). Constantine  ✍  12:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry babe, thought you'd finished.Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. But, as I said, if it regards major restructuring and moving material to other sections, please bring it here first. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd lose the headings about the end of the Greek counter-offensive and put the material under the counter-offensive heading and the Italian Spring Offensive heading to avoid duplication. I'd also try to avoid long-winded headings, if the trigger word needs explanation, it's the wrong one. The narrative additions are welcome but perhaps a little too detailed for the main page? I've made a start on the separate battle pages to get them ready for more narrative.Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I follow the periodization of the Greek Army's history office, which I added at the beginning of the campaign section. We can discuss about that, however, esp. if the Italians follow another schema. On the long headings, normally I agree, but not at the expense of accuracy (e.g. with respect to Valona). Otherwise feel free to reformulate them. On the narrative additions, they are detailed, but not as much as the main battle articles should be. Right now we have the (rather common in WP) situation where the main subject article has more info than the sub-articles; that should and hopefully will change, however. Also, a certain level of detail is necessary in the main article, we cannot cart off everything to sub-articles and leave it with huge "Background", "Plans", etc sections and minuscule sections on campaign phases that lasted for weeks if not months... In short, the reader should not be obliged to visit the sub-articles to gain a good overview of the subject. We can trim stuff if it is too detailed (e.g. I am not sure whether we want to retain the Lupi di Toscana example, but it is indeed a very good example to anyone wishing to understand the malaise of the Italian army at the time), but I don't feel I've gone into too much detail, except perhaps in the "Italian offensive" section. Later on we describe movements of divisions, here it is about battalions; perhaps this can be best summarized, but I'd like input from more of the people involved (Enigma, Dr. K, Alexikoua, etc.) as indeed the forces involved were of a different scale to later. At any rate, prose trimming and style issues can always be done later. The important thing is to build up the article with content and references first. Constantine  ✍  19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Valona is the subject, what it's about is in the narrative under the heading, especially if the concept of the headings is geographical. I think that since this is the main page, the background, prelude and aftermath should be the most detailed and the campaign section perfunctory, with links to the battle articles, which should be the other way round. With sub-pages detailing the military operations, the battle section here could be cut to "there was a war, see there" but you may have noticed that my additions have broken the two-paragraph rule ;O). That said, there's very little I can add to the battle articles for lack of sources, they really need work by an aficionado who has the Italian and Greek histories so I won't be too dogmatic.... some of it appears to be a difference in usage between English and American English. I agree that the other editors need to have a look and would like to thank you and the others, because I've not had the opportunity to work collaboratively like this since 2007 with Enigma et al. on Normandy 1944. Ploughing my lonely furrow on the Western Front 1915–1917 is apt to make me rather insular about getting my own way, so it's a refreshing change. Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, a lot of work has been done in the last day or so (I had a few ideas i was going to see about implementing, but they have became rather redundant now lol)! I could have swore i saw a comment that some of the CE resulted in sections that will need to be sourced. I don't think it would be a big issue to slap fact or verification tags in the places that need double checking or sourcing. That way, myself and others know where to look and work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about lonely editing, you should see the Byzantine and Arab stuff I usually edit :). On the length of the campaign sections, if a "battle" as such can be separated from the overall campaign, then by all means it should. But most of what is described is a rather on the strategic and operational level, and except for a few major operations of such a significance that some more detail is warranted (e.g. Italian Spring Offensive or initial Italian attack, although again I am quite open to suggestions as to compressing information there) I don't think that we descend to the "battle" level too much. Anyhow, I am mostly done with the expansion of the campaign sections now, perhaps I'll add a sentence here and there from other sources as I come across them. I feel the Greek side is rather well covered, but we really need a good Italian source to complement it. Knox offers some elucidating incidents and background machinations, but his focus is on the leadership around Mussolini, not so much on the operations themselves. February 1941 is also IMO a bit sparse, there should be a few more concrete dates of events. I will try to add stuff concerning the Italian bombings of urban centres tomorrow or in the next few days (work permitting), as well as stuff on the Greek home front, as I happen to have an excellent little book on that which came out last year (AFAIK it is the only work dealing with the subject). Constantine  ✍  21:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which Knox 1987 did you cite? The footers had red on them, should it be Knox 1986?


 * Talk about edit conflicts, I've had more on this article than the last fifty.... I've had a bit of a soft spot for the Byzantines since I read Psellus and Comnena as a youth ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Off-topic i know, but" Bizen-tines or By-zan-tines?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By-zan-tynes in my flat Midlands vowels, si thi. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats what i always thought. But i have heard a lot of the former recently, i guess thats American English for you. Anyhoo!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloody foreigners! ;O) ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Second level headers
separate third level ones so shouldn't have text under themKeith-264 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and given the criticism of Greek bias, I think we should be cautious about Greek period conventions. Conflating the Greek counter-offensive and Operation Primavera seems a mistake to me.Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that we should not rely only on Greek sources. But a) periodization in itself is not really a matter of bias (at least not the kind of bias Annales was harping about), b) a tripartite division of the war seems reasonable in itself (Italian attack-Greek counter-offensive-stalemate/Italian spring attack) and c) we must rely on sources and not our own opinion. This is analogous to the Soviet periodization of Eastern Front battles, which represents a distinctly Soviet view of the course of the war but is widely used as it is far more systematic than the German one. At any rate, it is not set in stone. Any suggestions are welcome. Constantine  ✍  12:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, to avoid edit frenzy, I've copied the article here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 to CE and experiment with, everyone's welcome to take a look. As I've been writing a lot this year about Italian army divisions I've tried various ways to refer to them and am tentatively settling on 69th Infantry Division Popinjay (Popinjay Division) for the first reference and then using the abbreviation for the rest of the article, any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Was Lupi di Toscana a division or the 78th Infantry Regiment Lupi di Toscana?Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Found itKeith-264 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what did I do?
I added some additional information to the article and several books. The text shows up in the article as well as the in-line cites. However, the books - despite showing up in edit view - do not appear on the actual page: Weinberg 1994, p. 210; Paoletti 2008, p. 174; and Duignan & Gann 1995. What the heck did I do?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You incurred the Curse of 264 for cramping the references sections. ;O) The references are alphabetical and grouped according to type, which only works if you can look down one margin. I can see them all and fixed the typo in Gann and Duignan (there's a blast from my undergrad past). Keith-264 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and I'd treat Weinberg with reserve, he's a bit Anglophobe and a bit soap opera in his analysis (blames Monty for the near debacle at Salerno).Keith-264 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Apropos Further reading, When I edit an article that's been dead for years and supersede the references, I put the defunct ones into FR, rather than lose the efforts of earlier writers. There's no reason why they all need to stay if the aficionados in this subject think some are rubbish, particularly if they are only there because of the mischief-maker.Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well dang blast, there I was thinking I was making things clearer ... Only to shoot myself in the foot!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Directors' cut
User:Keith-264/sandbox5 is there anything here which anyone else would accept nem con?Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well don't all shout at once ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll get me coat.Keith-264 (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll check it later today. Constantine  ✍  07:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I am sure I did not detect all your changes, and by and large your trimming is OK. I was struck however by a few cases where rephrasing and rearranging had a rather adverse impact. For instance:
 * "With Bulgarian neutrality assured—following the terms of the Balkan Pact of 1935, the Turks threatened to intervene on Greece's side if the Bulgarians attacked Greece—" became "Bulgarian neutrality had been assured by the Balkan Pact of 1935, in which Turkey would intervene if Bulgaria attacked Greece". These two phrases do not convey the same meaning. Pact or no Pact, Turkey could have decided to stay out, as indeed it did in 1941. But they did hint to the Bulgarians that they would intervene, thereby ensuring Bulgarian neutrality.
 * "Mussolini proposed a landing at Preveza on 3 November, to resume the advance" reads odd. What Mussolini wanted to do was what the Allies tried to do at Anzio in '44, i.e. flank the enemy, destroy his rear, and break open the main front. Summarizing it as "resuming the advance" is odd, esp. as the Italians were still advancing at that date.
 * I don't have the sources to go beyond ce so if you have a better succinct wording OK.Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "8th Division began launching local counterattacks" is also not quite the same as "the Greek 8th Division counter-attacked several times"; the Greeks launched small-scale attacks at a local level, with the division co-ordinating. It was never a full-scale divisional attack, as the division's forces were too dispersed. "8th Division was subordinated to it, while the coastal sector was placed under the independent Lioumbas Detachment." is also not the same as "command of the 8th Division and the coastal sector was placed under the independent Lioumbas Detachment.". The L. Detachment covered the extreme left flank of the Greek front, between the 8th Division and the sea.
 * Your reading is an inference but if your sources can stand it "made several local counter-attacks will do, I'm intent on avoiding cliche, like launch (infantry aren't rockets), agaion with the rest of the passage I'm constrained by what I can see not what I know.Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already registered my disapproval of plain "Valona" as a section title, as the Greek army came nowhere near the city; it is like heading the Battle of the Marne as "Paris". I am all for brevity, but not at the expense of clarity. Language is there to use it :).
 * I think you're wrong-headed if the intent was to capture the place. The fate of the advance belongs in the narrative, not the sign-post. The Battle of the Marne is a title established by the Battles Nomenclature Committee (!) after considering the question of naming. If anyone has an Italian source which gives a different title it will complicate things but long-winded titles get in the way.
 * The entire para beginning with "By January, the Italians had eleven infantry divisions..." has no place being in the Italian Spring Offensive section; it is chronologically and context-wise out of place. The part about Cavallero's "offensive to recapture Korçë in early February" belongs before the Greek capture of Klisura, not after, and is unrelated to the spring offensive.
 * There's some overlapping in that part of the narrative which needs removing.Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few other cases where trimming has left the sentence IMO a bit dry, and taken away some of the nuance that was intended. Anyhow, let me repeat my previous opinion: the main problem with the article is not to shave off a few sentences here and there and make prose more compact, it is that it is still incomplete in coverage and of uneven level of detail and quality of referencing. I think it premature and counterproductive to focus on prose when the article is still, in essence, under construction. Once it is done, and we can think of nothing else to add (within the spirit of WP:SS) then we can copyedit around to improve the prose. Constantine  ✍  20:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's easy to do both at the same time.Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nuance from the source is OK but not from the wikiwriter, that teeters on the brink of OR. It's like using non-descriptive terms for casualties when there are several contradictory sources, "A wrote" is descriptive and "B claimed" is a judgement (unless the sorce describes it as a claim), even though that does break the rule of not repeating word when synonyms are available.Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been absent, rather busy in real life and with other on-wiki activity. Well, I fear we'd be working at cross purposes if we did that. I intend to start incorporating some more info into the article next week (home front etc). Constantine  ✍  15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know, the article is in far better shape than three months ago.Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Headers
I think 2 and 3 should be combined as the Prelude.Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Italian article
La Campagna di Grecia e la fine della guerra parallela © Enrico G. Dapei Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Naval and air sections
Wouldn't be better if they have their own sections? They are not in chronological order after all. Vinukin (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but most of us don't speak Greek or Italian so are limited to what we can add to sources written in English.Keith-264 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Italian sources
Hi all! I've managed to secure a copy of Cervi's work in its original Italian version from 1965. I'll start (slowly) to introduce more stuff from it where necessary, but although I can usually understand Italian most of the time via French and Spanish, I'd like to know if anyone with an actual working knowledge of the language would be willing to help if (or rather when) I will encounter a problem Google Translate can't solve. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hallo Constantine! Just ask :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Grazie e obbligato :) Constantine  ✍  14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it has any detail to illuminate Italian invasion of Egypt and Operation Compass I'd be grateful for it, particularly for the Libyan armoured units' organisational details Maletti Group and Babini Group as I've gleaned too much from inferior online sources.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Keith-264! Unfortunately no, it covers only the Greek campaign. Constantine  ✍  17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Query
Is Thelematarios you know who?Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, I think this one is from the other side of the hill.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here I am, lets talk about it Thelematarios —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Template:Infobox military conflict Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, ok then, thanks mate Thelematarios —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing but the best for my public ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I Think it's time to request this page to be blocked by some time. Hong Tray (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AgreedKeith-264 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Result section
If the results is showing 'see aftermath', it's almost certainly controversial, hence this section. I would've expected to see some discussion if not on the talk page then at least in one of the archives for why the results is 'see aftermath'. I found that there is such a discussion, in archive 3, but two of the people in that discussion have since been blocked for abusively using multiple accounts, so I'm no longer sure that applies (besides it was 3 years ago).

I think this should be classified as a Greek victory because they did defeat the Italians. They would later be defeated by the Germans, but that has its own article, Battle of Greece. Notably the Germans are not mentioned at all as a belligerent in this article. The aftermath section also states that the Italians had suffered a serious setback.

It might be better to excise the later German intervention from this article and redirect the reader to Battle of Greece. The two phases of the war are clearly different, and if we are to include the German intervention into this article, then perhaps both articles can be merged to one, the Germans included as a belligerent, and the results listed as "Axis victory". All or nothing, not half-and-half. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestions. I agree with both your points. It's about time someone called a spade a spade. Athenean (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, provided that the result is described as a "tactical victory" or "major tactical victory" (like the Battle of Caporetto in WWI). The Italians wanted to arrive to Athens in a couple of weeks, but the Greeks resisted and almost threw them at sea: anyway they did not manage to do it, neither the Italians asked for an armistice. The situation when the Germans intervened was a stalemate but, if they had not intervened, the war would have continued: and, as long as the fight continues, there is no complete/strategic victory. P.S. BTW, I just noticed that today is the 28th: good Ohi Day to our Greek fellows! :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't do that because of this Template:Infobox military conflict

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

please read it. Earlier discussions are in the archive where this was gone into exhaustively. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware the template exists but I think it should not apply in this case, because Greece won a fairly clear-cut victory. There are two distinct phases in this war, and while the overall war went to the Axis powers (note 'Axis powers' - Italy alone did not win) the first phase was still won by the Greeks. This being an article on the first phase, we should therefore class it as a Greek victory, and remove mention of the second phase to its own article. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree this can be considered a Greek victory. The article is not about the battle of Albania or who push 10km the other around, it's about the entire conflict, the one which didn't end good for Greece. Hong Tray (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is about the entire conflict would you call the Battle of France a French victory? After all, France was victorious in WW2. This particular conflict with Italy did end well for Greece, just the later one against the Germans did not. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You either didn't understand what I said or are using my argument against yourself. The Battle of France was a specific encounter of the war that ended in a German victory, while the overall result wasn't. Of course both countries got surrender in the meantime and were later part of the final coalition victory.
 * You link the result of the Battle of Greece to this war, which is a "specific encounter" that ended with a Greek victory, while the overall result wasn't. Of course, technically the 'overall result' was also a Greek win, since WWII ended with an Axis defeat. More sensibly, if the Battle of Greece is part of the Greco-Italian war, then we should 1) delete that article and merge it to this one, and 2) include Germany as a belligerent in this article. If it isn't part of the Greco-Italian war, then we should 1) label this as a Greek victory or at least a Greek tactical victory, and 2) remove the overly-long mention of the Battle of Greece from this article with a redirect to that article. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, I did not know this template. If there is a template with an underlying guideline, of course this has to be followed. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Me neither, I'm only just getting the hang of it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were simple, such as the outcome of the First World War (Allied victory), then I would argue that the infobox should reflect that. As it is, the outcome of this conflict is not as simple (initial defeat of the Italian offensive, stalemate, German intervention, and ultimately complete defeat); focusing on one over the other is unbalanced, not NPOV, against sources, etc.) and linking to the aftermath section - per the infobox guidelines - should be followed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your explanation! Anyway, something is strange: for example, the First Battle of the Marne is classified as "Allied victory": but here the Frenchs were able to block the Germans, exactly as the Greeks blocked the Italians; on the other side, the Battle of Caporetto is classified as "Central powers victory", although the Italians were able to block the enemy along the Piave (both Frenchs and Italians at the end were the winner). The only explanation is that this parameter registers the prevalent opinion of the sources about winner and loser about each conflict, since otherwise I don't see any logic in those definitions. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC


 * I think the difficulty lies in it being a win-lose criterion being used in wars of exhaustion without decisive battles, so the dates of the battle act as periods even though the events were part of a series. Tactics, operations and strategy are affected but in different proportions, hence after the defeat at Caporetto the Italians had a revival, just like the Germans at Cambrai in November. I think that's why the criterion is questionable and the guide says put it in the Analysis section where the complications can be described. Sadly there isn't always a prevalent opinion. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Verstanden. :-) In the Italian literature, this war is often defined as "Campagna di Grecia": this definition helps possibly to put it in its right context, which is that of an episode of WWII. Defining it as "War", it is understandable that some people wants to share their opinion about who was the winner. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's enough of a lack of consensus here that I think I'll begin an RfC. Two options right now, one being to classify this as a Greek victory and remove mention of the Battle of Greece to its own article, and the other is to maintain the status quo. If anyone has more options to add, please share. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus among the RS? What seems to bedevil this criterion in the infobox is the definition of decisive. Not everyone uses the Clausewitzian sense of a battle which has political results. Does anyone treat the German arrival in Libya as a development in a war or a new one? Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not extensively searched the literature, but the articles I've seen on this war (searched for via Google) treat it separately from the later German invasion. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the RfC with three options: in addition to the two mentioned above, the third option would be to merge the Battle of Greece article with this one, and call it an Axis victory. 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since German war aims in the Balkans were different to the Italians', I want the articles to stay separate but both could do with more description of context and the overlapping of German and Italian interests. Italian belligerence in the Balkans was part of a generally aggressive policy in north and east Africa too, which was also going wrong at the same time. A line has to be drawn somewhere though and I'm broadly satisfied with the status quo. @ Banedon, you might have seen that before the extensive revision this year, the overlap with the German invasion was a much bigger section, which did unbalance the end of the article. I'd be inclined to put more effort into Military history of Italy during World War II as a hub where the strategic niceties are discussed in detail and linked to the various campaign articles. I don't think that there's a right answer to the conundrums being discussed but I'm sure that we can find a balance that's less unsatisfactory to all of us, than we've already achieved. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strength of Airforces
In the box it is stated that 77 aircraft on allied site were involved in the conflict? On what is this number based, considering that there were 4 to 5 RAF Squadrons and also greek aircraft! From this statement "At the outbreak of the war the operational combat fleet of the Greek Air Force counted 24 PZL P.24 and nine Bloch MB.151 fighters, as well as eleven Bristol Blenheim Mk IV, ten Fairey Battle B.1 and eight Potez 633 B2 bombers.[83]" the number of aircraft would be 62(?), so 15 fewer than the 77 mentioned above, or were the 15 the RAF aircraft from the 4 to 5 squadrons -- 151.136.147.179 (talk)
 * The infobox does not provide a date range (the initial strength, after British planes arrived etc). Now while I cant provide an answer about what figure is used, I have been able to dig up the following on the RAF:
 * The RAF brought about 80 aircraft with it to Greece, in March '41: source. The following source suggests the force was built up further in April, although a large proportion was not serviceable: source. Total losses (in the air, on the ground, abandoned, accidents, and blown up during the retreat) amount to 209: source, and source to name a few. Although it should be noted that this figure includes losses outside of the time span of this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shores, Cull and Malizia (which I just added to the refs), agrees with the serviceable Greek aircraft numbers given in the article now, except that it also includes the numbers of aircraft in 1–4 Mira (the ground support squadrons), and 11–13 Mira (the naval support squadrons). It also lists a bunch of biplanes which are mostly trainers, but some are obsolescent fighters. This article actually probably needs a complementary order of battle list (see Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia for what I mean), but in the meantime, I'm going to add in the additional operational aircraft, some of which were fairly potent in the naval/ground attack role. I'll also have a look at this ref for details of the RAF ORBAT on 28 October. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Battles
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Battle of Pindus
 * Battle of Elaia–Kalamas
 * Battle of Korcë
 * Battle of Morava-Ivan
 * Capture of Klisura Pass
 * Battle of Trebeshina
 * Italian Spring Offensive

RfC: The relation between Greco-Italian War and Battle of Greece
How should we proceed with this article?

Option 1: Write mostly about the Greece-Italy conflict, with a small mention in the aftermath section for the subsequent German invasion and a redirect to Battle of Greece. Label this war a Greek victory. Option 2: Treat the Greece-Italy war and the later German invasion as part of the same war. Merge the two articles, label it as an Axis victory, and include Germany as a belligerent. Option 3: Maintain the status quo. Option 4: Any other options?

Banedon (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 3 - Yes, the Greeks threw back the Italian offensive yet they did not win the conflict as it bogged down into a stalemate. Do any sources support going as far as to call the whole war an Italian victory?
 * Option 4, I would suggest, would be expanding the infobox to show the complicated nature of the conflict that the status quo has attempted to resolve (edits from both pro-Italians and pro-Greeks claiming victory in the infobox). My vote would be to maintain the status quo, link to the aftermath section and let it fully explain.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest it be renamed Italian invasion of Greece, as this defines it accurately and concisely, and limit it to the actions taken by the Italians against Greece from 28 October 1940 to 6 April 1941, as after that date it was an Axis invasion, which eliminated many of the difficulties Italy had suffered during its unilateral action that started in 1940. Anything that happened after 5 April 1941 was part of a completely different dynamic, as the Germans were attacking Greece right along their northern border. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Content-wise I agree with Peacemaker's analysis. However the naming is another issue, primarily determined by common use, and here it has become established to talk about the Italian–Greek conflict as a "war" in itself rather than as a phase of an Axis campaign or of a "Balkan front" of WW2. I think the whole "who won what" question has derailed the discussion in this article too much, and the lack of nuance that is inherent in infoboxes has exacerbated this. Greece "won" this war if "winning" is counted as repelling the enemy invasion, taking territory from him, and humbling his pride. It "lost", or better could never hope to win, when the conflict is viewed against the scope of Italy's alliance within the Axis with Germany. Unless Yugoslavia and Turkey entered the conflict in force (and with more success than actually displayed by Yugoslavia), Greece alone stood no chance. The country was close to exhaustion and scarcely capable of continuing the war in Albania by April 1941, let alone facing a two-front war against the world's most potent war machine. Italy "won" in so far as its troops in the end entered Athens and occupied two-thirds of the country. It "lost" in so far as the war displayed the military ineptitude of the Italian high command, destroyed the prestige of Fascism abroad and (more importantly) at home, and made Italy firmly into a client of Germany. Even Germany, who was perhaps the clearest "winner", "lost" in the sense that it had to open up another front and deploy forces where it had no interest in doing so. Even if Greece did not delay Barbarossa, the whole Balkan imbroglio throughout the war was something Hitler could have done without. This whole bruhaha has come about by insisting on narrow and self-serving views of "victory" and "defeat", which simply don't suffice to describe the complexity oft he conflict. Constantine  ✍  09:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Constantine. Best to avoid the use of terms like "victory" or "defeat". But one thing is clear: Greece and Britain were defeated in the end by a joint German and Italian Axis effort. However, to unilaterally say that the Greco-Italian war ended on the 5th April is not entirely true as the Greeks and Italians were fighting until the 20th April I believe.46.11.225.84 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the article should stay the Greco-Italian War if the RS call it that and because until it went wrong for Italy, it was part of an Italian policy of aggression that began long before 1939. In 1940-41 Italian aggression was subsumed by the German wars but that makes the war with Greece distinct enough for me to keep it separate. The Greco-Italian War had reached a stalemate by the time of the German invasion, neither side had won. Operation Marita was an invasion rather than an intervention in someone else's quarrel (that was the British contribution) but it made the Greco-Italian War irrelevant anyway. If this page needs more explicit linkage I think that it should be with Military history of Italy during World War II, where most of the history and strategic exposition should be. Perhaps a complication is that these days, the Italian place in WWII is being given more nuance (at least from 1935 or 1939 to early-1941) and shown to be more independent of the Germans than in earlier accounts. Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would observe that the forces in conflict in what are really two separate campaigns of WWII (not wars on their own) were massively different on the Axis side, both politically and militarily. The Italians (on their own) put in what they thought would be sufficient to defeat Greece via Albania, and they failed ignominiously. That failure resulted in the German-led Axis invasion, because of Germany's need to secure its southern flank for Barbarossa. The first campaign had descended into stalemate well before the second campaign began, even if the second followed the first as night follows day. I would also observe that, when a simple blunt Google Books search is conducted, there is a serious issue with common use. Firstly, Greco-Italian War gets 118 hits, but Italian invasion of Greece seems to get substantially more. I'll note that Google Books seems to be having a conniption in the latter example, but it certainly seems indicative? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The German invasion was for German reasons as far as its plans for eastern Europe were concerned but there was also a desire to stop the Mussolini regime from collapsing, hence the concurrent involvement in Libya, which had other motives as well. I would treat the Italian campaigns in Ethiopia, Spain, Greece and Egypt as distinct from the war that began further north in 1939. All too complicated for the infobox so relegating it to the Aftermath section seems inescapable. Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 3I agree totally with Constantine's analysis. Anyway, I disagree with "Italian invasion of Greece": this title is misleading: there was never an "Italian invasion of Greece" (except in the first week), but rather a "Greek invasion of Albany", and the campaign ended with an "Axis invasion of Greece", since without the Germans I strongly doubt that the Italians would had been ever able to arrive to Athens. Alex2006 (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To play devil's advocate, the Greeks appeared to have ran out of steam and unable to complelty defeat the Italians or drive them from the Balkans thus had no way of ending the war. That, is not winning a war either.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Beyond what Alessandro57 said, the war with Greece was build up from the concept of "parallel war" by Mussolini. This case is more like the Winter War and less like the Italian invasion of France. Hong Tray (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exact: this was the last attempt of Mussolini to lead a "Guerra parallela". The sad (for him) end of his attempt came from Hitler, who "struck his fingers with the ruler", as Ciano (Diari, 22 November 1940) effectively wrote. Alex2006 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, I don't know why Italian invasion of Greece can't be a article on it's on. And BTW, if someone expect to mess with the Battle of Greece, shouldn't this be discussed there too?Hong Tray (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do the RS say?Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's plenty of material if someone wish to write an article. Hong Tray (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 less the "victory" bit The scope of this article should be the fighting between 28 October 1940 and 5 April 1941, the Aftermath section should refer to the combined Axis invasion of Greece. I suggest the "Result" bit in the infobox should read "See Aftermath section" rather than try to explain the outcome with a couple of words. It is far more complex than a Greek victory, because this campaign directly resulted in the German-led invasion. I am not sure about the title, or the fact that it was a separate "war" any more than the Italian invasion of Albania was a separate "war". They are all just campaigns between different members of the Axis and Allies/Neutrals that were part of the overall World War. It was an Italian invasion of Greece that was unsuccessful and quickly developed into a stalemate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What would it be called? What sources treats the subject in this frame? Hong Tray (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * These, which show that (in raw Google Books hits, at least) "Italian attack on Greece" is at least as common as "Greco-Italian War". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to raw references of this conflict, as it's obvious that there's plenty, but of which one cut this timeframe and how they call it. Hong Tray (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you browse the results of "how (what) they call it", you will see how they "cut" it. There certainly is no justification for a third article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker, although I'm not impressed by quantitative analysis from Burgle (Google to you) which doesn't appear to be limited to RS. If the title is to be changed, then Italo-Greek War might be better, since the Italians started it. The German invasion seems coincidental to Italian aggression, rather than complementary. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore the RS, Keith. I'm just making the point that the raw Google Books results are fairly evenly matched. That usually means the RS are as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't infer that you were. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web we weave -

When first we tried to deceive!!!

My sincere advice: avoid binary all or nothing words like "victory" "defeat", win/lose etc, as they are unhelpful. Simply describe the course of events and let the reader work it out.46.11.225.78 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox military conflict
 * Exackery what I was suggesting. I've used a link to the Aftermath section in a couple of MilHist A-Class articles, the syntax is a simple piped link to the section concerned. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm experimenting with Template:Infobox military operation as an alternative but I really ought to read the instructions first. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to everyone here, can we leave the discussion to the sections above (or make a new one below) and leave only concise summaries of intent in this section? It's getting pretty formidable to read.

Support Option 1 It doesn't make sense to me how a clear Greek success (even if not outright victory) is diminished by the fact that the Germans - who aren't even listed as a belligerent in the war - intervened later. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 1 plus the redirect The Greek (or Greco-British) success was overtaken by events, hence the redirect to the aftermath section, since it ran out of steam, same as the Italian invasion. Our opinions are interesting but not definitive, that's a matter for the RS and Wiki procedure. Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the two votes for one, but with a redirect, are pretty much supports for maintaining the status quo...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A poorly formed RfC is responsible for that. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 1 is clearly not the same as option 3. Under option 1, the section "German invasion" in the article right now would be whittled down from 3 paragraphs to a few lines, and moved to the aftermath section. The aftermath section would also be rewritten, covering only events up to the German invasion. Option 3, of course, leaves the sections as they are. If you feel the statement in the RfC can be formulated better, feel free to amend it. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly not. Under Option 1, the Aftermath section will obviously be centred on the German-led Axis invasion on 6 April, as that happened in the immediate "aftermath" of this war. It certainly shouldn't only cover events up to the German invasion. That would be what the body was supposed to cover, would it not? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the aftermath should be centered on the German invasion. However, it will be brief. From the article we currently have, I envisage something like keeping the 'Analysis' and 'Casualties' section, removing the 'Triple occupation' section, and adding a few lines about Germany's decision to intervene along with a redirect to Battle of Greece. Banedon (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd still like the Triple Occupation mentioned but agree that it doesn't need a separate section, a sentence and this link Triple occupation will do for me. The Analysis might be trimmed because it's about Italian imperialism and its failure 1940-1941. Although relevant re: Italian war aims in Greece and the rest of the Balkans, the Greeks are rather skated over (lack of sources?) so it's a bit unbalanced.Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to clarify what is wrong with this RfC, as I have made that statement above, and deserves a full explanation. When it should be just about scope, two "options" have been skewed by reference to "victory". The RfC should have been strictly limited to defining the scope of the article. Once that RfC had closed, there could be discussion about how to portray the result. As a result, the RfC isn't neutrally worded, which undermines its own purpose, and means that editors who hold particular views are likely to vote in a particular way because of the accompanying description of the result. In my view, this RfC isn't likely to gain any consensus or attract wider input due to its poor wording, and it would be best to abandon it. A neutrally-worded RfC could then be formulated to determine the scope. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then perhaps we should close this RfC and begin another one with the question "what is the scope of this article", and options "ends on 5 April" vs. "ends on 23 April"? Banedon (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. This RfC is flawed by the victory/defeat parts of the options. To me, the new RfC should read:"The abortive Italian invasion of Greece (from Albania) which commenced on 28 October 1940 was quickly countered by the Greeks with some British air support, and ended in a stalemate inside Albanian territory. The German-led Axis invasion (over the Greek borders with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia) commenced on 6 April 1941 and led to the rapid defeat of Greek and British forces in Greece, and Greek forces in Albania. Greek forces surrendered on 23 April, and British forces began evacuating the same day. A separate article exists which focusses on the German-led Axis invasion. What should be the scope (ie the matters included in the main body) of this article be? Should it: Option 1: include the German-led Axis invasion of Greece that commenced on 6 April 1941, or Option 2: end at 5 April 1941 and reference the Axis invasion that commenced on 6 April 1941 only in its 'Aftermath' section."


 * Option 2 please, with a look at both articles to check that they sufficiently refer to each other in the Aftermath (Italo-Greek) and Background (Ger invasion) sections.Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting closing this one and posting a new RfC along those lines, advertising it widely in the Greek, Italian, British and Milhist WPs. As it stands, new editors coming in will be subjected to the TLDR stuff above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC v2
The abortive Italian invasion of Greece (from Albania) which commenced on 28 October 1940 was quickly countered by the Greeks with some British air support, and ended in a stalemate inside Albanian territory. The German-led Axis invasion (over the Greek borders with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia) commenced on 6 April 1941 and led to the rapid defeat of Greek and British forces in Greece, and Greek forces in Albania. Greek forces surrendered on 23 April, and British forces began evacuating the same day. A separate article exists which focuses on the German-led Axis invasion. What should be the scope (ie the matters included in the main body) of this article be? Should it: Option 1: include the German-led Axis invasion of Greece that commenced on 6 April 1941, or Option 2: end at 5 April 1941 and reference the Axis invasion that commenced on 6 April 1941 only in its "Aftermath" section.Banedon (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Paging all editors who commented on the previous RfC:, , , , , ,


 * Option 2. The German invasion is a separate conflict. Banedon (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 2. The German invasion was a different conflict with different combatants, on different battlefields, and with a different dynamic. Constantine  ✍  13:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 2. The German invasion is a separate conflict.Keith-264 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 2 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 2: I see we are all agreed on the status quo then...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The "German invasion" subsection will need to be condensed and moved from the narrative to the Aftermath section, and there will be some other consequential changes to the lead and elsewhere from adopting Option 2. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Wait a second, so this is just about in what section the German invasion belongs? I think the nominator should be clear abou what he intends with this. Red Rudy (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a little simplistic, and my response to Enigma was a little glib. The RfC is about what it says it is about, the scope of the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - Unless Italy made peace with Greece before the German invasion, the German invasion is the same as when the Americans joined WW1 (i.e. they aren't separate wars just because one belligerent entered late).  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be no question of omitting the Italian–Greek conflict that continued after 5 April. That belongs here. The Germans can be dealt with in a paragraph or two. This seems to be the status quo. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 1:' The Italians played a bit role after April 1941. Hitler pulled Mussolini's chestnuts out of the fire--Woogie10w (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 1. This seems a little bit of overkill to just move some lines down the article, so I'll hold onto the status quo until further qualification.
 * And BTW, I think this RfC is totally misleading. One thing is the german invasion of Greece, another thing is the Greco-Italian fight that continued after 5 April. One thing hasn't necessarily mess with the other. Red Rudy (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day . I actually think your comment is totally misleading. The deadlock on the Italo-Greek front was broken by the Germans, who threatened the flank of the Greek Epirus Army, who had to withdraw to avoid being cut-off. In detail, on 13 April, the Greeks started withdrawing because the LSSAH brigade was threatening their major line of supply and withdrawal via the Metsovon Pass. The "Greco-Italian fight" you refer to was a non-event, as the Italians were only tentatively following up the Greek withdrawal. The LSSAH brigade did all the fighting against major Greek resistance, capturing Kleisoura Pass on 14 April, then completely cutting-off the Epirus Army by capturing Ioannina on 21 April and received their surrender on 23 April. So, it would be good for anyone reading this supposedly "misleading" RfC if you could back-up your comment with details of the "Greco-Italian fight that continued "after" 5 April." Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Aftermath section needs an overhaul
The Aftermath section appears disjointed, rambling and lacking relevance in parts. Is there any way we can improve upon it. For example, this section appears entirely out of place:

"When Operation Compass, the British counter-attack in Egypt began in December 1940, the 10th Army was destroyed. On 14 November 1940, the German naval staff criticised Italian strategy, "Conditions for the Italian Libyan offensive against Egypt have deteriorated. The Naval Staff is of the opinion that Italy will never carry out the Egyptian offensive". Had the Egyptian offensive succeeded, it would have strengthened the Axis military position in North Africa with control of the Suez Canal.[187]"

German Naval Staff??? Egypt? Suez? North Africa? What exactly have they to do with the outcome and "analysis" of the Greek campaign. There are links, but they are superficial and tenuous. The analysis here is very skin-deep.90.174.2.100 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Italians has a Mediterranean strategy of which their Balkan ambitions were only a part so ignoring the context isn't good enough. If you think you can do better or have better sources, whip them out and stick them in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Orders of battle


Fill yer bootsKeith-264 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

CE
Hello everyone, It's been a while, I've got a copy of Cervi so used it for a bit of editing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith, hope the pains that were ailing you have cleared up. 'Greco-Italian War' is very well done, just needs a little work here and there. Tomseattle (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Impostor
rv ‎Jimmy200518, possibly our resident impostor. Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith-264, you have reverted my edits without an explanation and you have called me an Impostor. Am I missing something here!? I have reverted your edits, hoping that this is just an unintended misunderstanding of your part. But I will warn you to refrain from such behaviors in the future. Calling others as impostors is a serious offense and removing other people's edits without an explanation, go against Wikipedia's rules. Thank you and have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 22:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You jumped the gun, we were edit conflicted, see below.Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a banned editor who fabricates IDs then pursues various hobby horses in articles where the Italian army of 1940-1945 is involved. I thought your edit was characteristic of this editor's modus operandi which was one reason why I reverted it. The other reason is that this has been exhaustively discussed here because of


 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.


 * in Template:Infobox military conflict which makes it clear what criteria for result can be used. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Keith-264, my mistake I didn't see it sooner, I am now aware there was an ongoing dispute on Talk Page. No need to copy-paste it here, saw it already on the previous section. Nevermind, you can ignore my previous warning. But again please next time refrain from calling others as impostors and just redirect them here, ok? Thanks and have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 22:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your forbearance but possibly our resident impostor isn't calling you an impostor, although I can understand that it might look like that in the heat of the moment. I checked your edit history earlier and realised that it didn't look like the impostor's trail but got distracted and forgot to amend the comment here, apols. Keith-264 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Results
A user seems to conveniently forget how much drama there was before stablishing the current consensus, so I will refresh him, so look here, here , here , here and here  (read the results discussion).

Of course anyone is free to start it all over again, but at least pretend you're discussing it at least. Uspzor (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Was it the usual suspect? Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the linked discussions above about lack of consensus regarding the result. In fact only in the first linked discussion is there even any discussion of the result (the other 4 have nothing to with the result), and even there, the only objections are from a sock of a long-banned user, which can be ignored.  As far as I see it, "Greek military victory; German intervention" is fairly uncontroversial as a result.  Certainly preferable to the current bizarre "See Aftermath" (do any other milhist article have a "Result" like that?).  Athenean (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Only the ones with paradoxical results and which follow Template:Infobox military conflict regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Except that's not the case here. I think "Greek military victory; German intervention" is a no brainer.  18:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

how many more times? Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Read again: The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. The sources are fairly clear here.  Unless you can come up with some sources that show otherwise.  But I doubt it. Athenean (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The terms that reflect what the sources say are either inconclusive or See Aftermath section. The Greeks defeated the invasion but only to the extent of a stalemate that precipitated the German invasion. There was no Italian surrender, only an escalation of the war effort and more attacks; this isn't a victory. Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your own conclusions about the war are fascinating, but as you are not a reliable source, they are of very little interest to me. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And by the way, could you please properly indent your comments? Otherwise it makes it hard for others to follow the discussion. Athenean (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you speak for yourself.Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:INDENT. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Result field in infobox
It's really weird for a reader who's interested about this war to simply see a link to aftermath section, instead of a result on the correspondent infobox field. I assume there should be a good reason why the infobox should avoid to mention the fact that the Italian invasion was a defeat and "then" came the German intervention. What's also weird is that the aftermath section isn't focused about the results of this war, because the result is mentioned in the previous sections.

Thus, according to the former version, a reader who's interested to find out what's the result of this war needs to click the aftermath link (since ib sayd nothing) and then he needs to read 10k of analysis/quotes by various historians. Not to mention that this analysis takes for granded the historical stages of the battle: Italian defeat & German intervention.Alexikoua (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Click? Hardly 16 tons is it?

'''result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.'''

how many more times? Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Keith. The result of the war is much more complicated, and per guidelines (and, yes, such an approach is used in other articles) omit it from the infobox and let the reader read the aftermath section to gain a clear and full understanding.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't mention users in talkpage headings, per WP:TALKNEW
Please don't make things worse by restoring a contentious edit, when the accuracy of the edit has been questioned and the source has been questioned on grounds of validity and reliability. Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been observing the discussion for the moment. Please to all editors involved to do things and edits in good faith. If consensus cannot be reached there are also other forums and noticeboards on Wikipedia that can remedy the situation from third party input. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On a broader note, what bothers me is that having not looked at the article for some months while going back to the Somme, it seems further away from a B grade now than it did last year.


 * Q. How many graduates does it take to bugger up a Wikipedia article?


 * A. About five by the look of it. Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL ! Keith, there are articles out there in much worse shape on the Balkans. This one one is child's play! As long as everyone sticks to good wp:reliable and wp:secondary references things can be worked out. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Greek war aims
What were they? Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Greeks just wanted the repulsion of the Axis invaders from Greek soil. Why? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 14:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's one way of measuring success. Obviously both sides had them so it's more of an indication but it can help when conventional definitions of terms aren't good fits.Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. If you want to measure the tide of the war (under the scope of the sources always), then, I propose the measurement of both sides's situations and gains before and during the war - the success can be hinted by comparing these informations. The gains for each side during the war - more precisely, the situation of Italy before the war and the Italian gains during the war, and the situation of Greece before the war and its gains during the war, and how these gains are in accordance with the expectations and goals for each side about this war.
 * So, according to the historians and scholars (the sources are provided in the article itself in case you want to check them out, so no need to re-post them here - I am just summarizing the key events here): When the war started, the Italians had 100% of Italy and 100% of Albania under their control. Their aim in this war was to conquer Greece. However, according to the sources, by April, it turned out that Italy not only failed to capture Greece, which was the Italian goal in this war, but also lost 20%-30% of the territory of its protectorate (Albania) to the Greeks. For the Greek side, this translates to success in their goal in defending their homeland (the Greeks still had 100% control of Greece), and also, taking over Italian-held territories in neighboring countries. With simple words, according to the records, the one side gained more than it had when the war broke out, and the other side lost more than it had when the war broke out. But if that now was not helpful for you, or it was not what you were asking for, then I apologize and you can ignore my comment and I wish you find the answers you are looking for. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  23:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)