Talk:Sark during the German occupation of the Channel Islands

Lead image size and position
This edit's summary was picture a big too large... reduced and moved right, so contents falls left of it.

Clearly (and apart from exceptions such as maps and other images with contained text that needs to be legible at the default base size) the display size of an image is largely a matter of subjective taste as long as relative file syntax rather than fixed pixel width syntax is used.

That said, when I first viewed this article, I was immediately impressed by the bold, full width use of a magnificent aerial view of Sark as the very first image.

Per se, there is no policy or Manual of Style advice that mandates that text must always be present to the left of an image. Depending on the width of the screen, at almost any displayed image width (set in pixels or relatively) there will almost always exist a reader's screen small enough to ensure that all article text appears above or below it and none flows around it if   or   is specified. That is why I deliberately set this image's position to  so that there would never be a narrow worm of text disfiguring the display of this wonderfully clear and evocative image on even the largest of our reader's screens.

Therefore, I politely and respectfully ask that someone reverts the highlighted edit. BushelCandle (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is not meant to be about aerial views of Sark, I posted it originally as I could not find anything better, relating to the war in Sark within wikipedia because at least it showed the uninformed it is not a big island. I don't much like the ancient map either and will try to find a better one. I have only recently found out about the newer style of setting the size, I agree it is better to use it and will try to remember in future. I had read somewhere that pictures should not be too big as they are hard to see on some devices. If you feel you prefer the bigger picture, fine, reverse the change I did. I try to create new articles that are easy to read and look attractive to users, but everyones view is subjective and wikipedia by its nature is a constantly changing beast. Regards Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 16:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please would you expand/clarify "I had read somewhere that pictures should not be too big as they are hard to see on some devices." If, after research, you find that quoted statement doesn't make much sense, I'd be grateful if you would revert your edit, since you have not commented on the positional issue with article text. Thanks for all your great work in great work in creating and beautifully expanding the article and good luck with finding more relevant images! BushelCandle (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Operation Basalt
The section of this article dealing with Operation Basalt has a number of inaccuracies which I have corrected. These included misspelling the name of Mrs Pittard (twice) and claiming that one of the British commandos was injured during the raid. Of greater concern is that whoever wrote some of this, there was a notably pro-German bias to some of the sentences which I have now corrected. For example, there was a sentence stating as fact that the tying of prisoners' hands was a violation of the Geneva convention. This was a German allegation, but disputed by the Allies who argued that on the battlefield, it was permissible to restrain prisoners, though of course once in POW camps, restraints would not be permitted. Far worse was the reference in an earlier draft to Hitler's Commando Order being about punishing terrorists and saboteurs, when in fact it was about punishing captured Allied commandos, including those in uniform -- a clear war crime, and one for which German officers were punished after the war. I also took the liberty of posting a link to my recent book on Operation Basalt, which is based on documents held in the National Archives in Kew, London, and which clarifies a number of the issues raised here.