Talk:Western Desert Force

Western Desert Force / XIII Corps
It's getting a bit crazy and I think some reorganisation is called for - the XIII Corps section within the WDF article looks like an article within an article and the sudden appearance of WWI info doesn't sit well. I propose that rather than having a redirect from XIII Corps to Western Desert Force and then shoe-horning everything into this article, there should be separate pages for WDF and XIII Corps with appropriate cross links. Question is whether there should be separate pages for the WWI and WWII versions of the Corps. I think it's OK with one. Any comments? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, it's awkward. There were two formations and there are two pages, so it should be split in time - but when references turn up! What I was thinking of doing last night was rolling everything into a XIII Corps article - a reversal of the present arrangement - and then splitting out WDF when references appeared for the WDF. My justification for this would be that WDF existed for a few months only and that XIII Corps was active for years in both world wars. (Definitely one page for XIII Corps, as per all other British corps articles.) What do you think Kirrages? Good temporary solution? Buckshot06(prof) 11:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The question arises about what to do about the links to WDF/XIII Corps. At the moment some link to WDF, some link to WDF but read as XIII Corps using a pipe (to avoid the redirect) and others link to XIII Corps and redirect. My gut says we should not have a temporary arrangement but go for the final page structure (two articles, WDF and XIII), sort out the links and the citations will come in due course. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's now two references. Split away... I'll hold off editing the page for a couple of hours until you do so, unless you think something else should be done. Cheers and seasons' greetings, Buckshot06(prof) 11:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)