Talk:Battle of Bardia

	Battle of Bardia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 3, 2012.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 3, 2009 WikiProject A-class review Approved December 16, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 19, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 5, 2011, January 5, 2014, January 5, 2016, January 5, 2018, January 5, 2021, and January 5, 2023. Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: African / South Pacific / British / European / Italian / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Australia: Military history Mid‑importance Battle of Bardia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Africa: Libya Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

"Fortunately, these World War I-era small arms, the Lee-Enfield rifle, Bren light machine gun " - the Bren is not WWI error but a mid-30s design (froma mid-20s one) that entered service with the British in 1938. Was the Lewis gun meant? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme, I spotted that too and have amended it. I don't know of any WW2 ground usage of Lewis guns incidentally. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were used during the campaign in Malaya. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with the bold volumes in the reference section?

It's the citation style. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should "escorted by increasingly fewer guards whom the rifle companies could afford to detach" actually read "escorted by increasingly fewer guards whom the rifle companies could ill afford to detach"?

The former implies that the rifle companies were sending back large numbers of prisoners unescorted (yes I know this did happen when the volume of Italian surrenders got sufficient), but I think at this relatively early point it's more likely to be the latter? --

The Italian casualty figures appear to be cited to the wrong source. Stockings gives 36,000 captured (along with those killed and wounded). The OH does not go into that detail, and basically states overall numbers are unknown. Anyone with a bit more knowledge of the subject and article want to take a look at the citation?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stockings (2009), p. 276 might be a more appropriate citation (states 1000 killed, 3000 wounded and 36,000 taken prisoner). Long, p. 199 only seems to give part of the picture as far as I can see (it suggests 1000 killed and gives a total casualty figure, but doesn't break it down into any real detail). Figures for equipment captured is supported by the Long ref though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change on the basis of this. Does that work? Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I think your edit your works very nicely. :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hawkeye; was that me? Keith-264 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source/reference for File:WesternDesertBattle Area1941 en.svg? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]