Talk:Battle of Passchendaele

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Move suggestion

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Calm down, mates. QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Passchendaele → Third Battle of YpresThird Battle of Ypres – Anyone mind if I move the title to The Third Battle of Ypres or The Battles of Ypres, 1917? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Replies moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Passchendaele Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

I would move it to the Third Battle of Ypres personally. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Passchendaele" is the widely used name in Commonwealth countries, see Battle of Passchendaele (Third Ypres) from the Australian War Memorial, also Passchendaele from the Canadian War Museum, Passchendaele: fighting for Belgium from the Research and Publishing Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, The Battle of Passchendaele from the Auckland War Memorial Museum, THE BATTLE OF PASSCHENDAELE, JULY-NOVEMBER 1917 from the Imperial War Museum in London. Finally, there is the Passchendaele Society in NZ and the Memorial Museum Passchendaele 1917 in Belgium. There are also any number of books about the battle with "Passchendaele" in the title, a quick Google search will show you several pages. I think we should leave well alone. Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Battles Nomenclature Committee named it The Battles of Ypres, 1917, which is followed by the Official History. Are we really to set that aside for facile quantitative analysis and cherry picking, surely there's a difference between RS and pop-history? Notice that there are two Battles of Passschendaele within the Third Battle of Ypres. This isn't pointless, it's history.Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to parrot the Official History. Wikipedia uses Common Names for most subjects, and as Passchendaele seems to be the name most commonly used, not least amongst those who fought in it, we should stick to that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J. P Harris, no parrot, uses the proper name in Douglas Haig and the First World War Cambridge Military Histories 2008; is Passchendaele common or ignorant? I'll leave the question open for a bit longer but I fear it's turning into another beauty contest.Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are all aware of how you are the only enlightened man watching this article. Passing yourself off as intellectually superior is rather ironic given all of your intellectualism fails to realize that you have not made a policy-winning argument in favour of getting your way. Resolute 18:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm? How sad, how lonely. Can we have a grown-up discussion please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, you don't get to make snide remarks about "pop history" and "another beauty contest" and then complain when people call you out. And please indent properly, instead of abusing indents to make it look like you own the conversation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, my retort removed with no notice. Can we get back to the point; this article should be called the Third Battle of Ypres.Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have policy-winning argument in favour of this? Please, in your response, avoid making personal comments such as "are you mad", "how sad, how lonely", or the like. I will revert any further personal attacks by you, whoever they are aimed at. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am be happy to be reverted on an even handed basis but I fear that you will not revert yourself. I will not agree to one-sided abuse so I suggest that you acknowledge a conflict of interest. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have policy-winning argument in favour of changing the article name? DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a conflict of interest? Keith-264 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no pecuniary or professional interest in the name of this article. It's hard to imagine how anybody could. Do you have a policy-winning argument in favour of changing the article name? DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a conflict of interest and who will judge the "argument"?Keith-264 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, and try reading WP:CONSENSUS. Now, what policy-based argument do you have to support your proposal to change the name of the article? I will not be responding to any more of your sidetracks. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think you've set yourself up as a judge and shown bias by not censoring anyone else. I suggest respectfully that you recuse yourself. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please report this discussion to ANI if you are unhappy with my participation. Do you have a policy-based argument for moving this article? DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone mind if I move the title to The Third Battle of Ypres or The Battles of Ypres, 1917? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has already been objected to above. Do you have a policy-based reason to support your proposal? DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As noted above, Passchendaele or the Battle of Passchendaele is a more commonly used name and how people are likely to search for it. Yet another example is this BBC history page, which, while acknowledging the "official name," refers to it as "Battle of Passchendaele." BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:move see here Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further, WP:commonname Battle of Ypres disambig page has three numbered battles.
  • "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"; with 99 years of writing this might be difficult because of the schools of thought, polemics and apologetics on the campaign. I would be happy to join anyone who wants to devise a list of "independent, reliable English-language sources".
  • Battle of Passchendaele (21 letters) Third Battle of Ypres (18 letters), proposal meets the concision criterion
  • Confusion with two of the battles that really are battles of Passchendaele. Various commentators had also pointed out that TBoY is the official name.
Is it the common name? Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think so; see my post above where I have linked to its use by every national war museum of the participating English-speaking nations, plus the name of the museum on the actual battlefield. Also we have: Passchendaele: The Sacrificial Ground by Nigel Steel and Peter Hart, Passchendaele: The Story of the Third Battle of Ypres 1917 by Lyn MacDonald, The Prairie To Passchendaele: Man of Kent - Soldier of the 10th Canadian Infantry by Fred Knight and Joy Lennick, Passchendaele: The Hollow Victory by Martin Evans, Passchendaele: A New History by Nick Lloyd, Passchendaele: The Untold Story by Robin Prior, Passchendaele: The Anatomy Of A Tragedy by Andrew Macdonald, Passchendaele: The Day-by-Day Account by Chris McCarthy and Passchendaele 1917: The Story of the Fallen and Tyne Cot Cemetry by Frank Bostyn and Jan Van Der Fraenen. There are many more but my lunch hour is running out. Oh and by the way, I Oppose. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble, I didn't think that the museum references were all that convincing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble, I didn't think that the museum references were all that convincing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more [1] some using both terms. Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but using the search term "Passchendaele" on the same site produces at least ten times as many results (that's a guess - I can count them all if you like). Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No because First Battle of Passchendaele is official, same as Third Battle of Ypres or Battle of the Somme. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Third Battle of Ypres

[edit]

I missed the discussion last year on this issue but I would strongly suggest this article is misnamed Passchendaele. If I was writing a book on the whole campaign I would select Passchendaele for its emotional resonance but the two battles of Passchendaele (12 October 1917 and 28 October/10 November 1917) were the last two of eight battles fought between 31 July and 10 November 1917. At present I am updating a VC biography and noted Passchendaele listed instead of Third Ypres. It is a bit silly listing Passchendaele for a soldier who was posthumously awarded the VC for Menin Road. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Let's stop this before it turns nastier
Thanks, I fear that there is a claque of Canadians who won't be persuaded; shame really.Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME trumps your own selfish, self-centred wants. Resolute 14:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Canadians. I don't see any evidence that the common name has changed since the last discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What have you two contributed to the 3rd Ypres pages apart from contumely? Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, please read wp:IDHT. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It describes the claims of other editors. If I might ask, what have you contributed to the 3rd Ypres pages? Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair's fair.Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

@Sproutly: Thanks for the commemoration edit but is it really notable? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Just mentioned it because it was the centenary of the battle --Sproutly (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I was being a little bit facetious anyway ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terraine

[edit]

@Mukogodo: In "Note on Casualties" pp. 343-347 Terraine wrote "...I may remark that an addition of 20% to the figure stated in the German Official Account (p. 367) gives a total of 260,400...." p. 347. He was writing about the assumptions other writers had made about the different criteria used in casualty counting by the British and Germans and that German counts were not exact by comparison with British methods. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So let's simply perpetuate Terraine's ignorance of how numbers work, just because he wrote them down. Good for you. "Foolish consistency..."Mukogodo (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your alteration was OR so NBG; Terraine was explaining why he thought 20% needed to be added to the Reichsarchiv figure then did it to reach 260,400. It was the Reichsarchiv who gave a precise figure from the Sanitatsbericht, a painstaking casualty count. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add number of casualties to lead section?

[edit]

I can see the numbers are argued over but is there a reason the number of casualties are not summarised in the lead section? This seems important information. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lack ofn consensus makes it too much of a detail for the lead. The lead is next to the infobox which does offer numbers and a link to the discussion. It will unbalance the lead to delve into it there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

[edit]

@Keith-264 Please expand on why my edits were "retrograde". Did they not improve the clarity and grammar? — W.andrea (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they7 didn't. (forgot this bit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. — W.andrea (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with thinking that is that it is subjective. Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate much more. Please be detailed. Refer to WP:BRD, e.g. "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". For my part, it says "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. [... Then] when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but since you haven't explained your concerns yet, how am I supposed to attempt a new edit? — W.andrea (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC) [updated 17:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)][reply]
What else is there to say? You changed things and the changes weren't as good as the status quo. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really said anything yet. Why do you say they "weren't as good as the status quo"? Please be detailed. — W.andrea (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point and that is the opposite of seeking consensus. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is not constructive. Unless you can raise a specific concern, I'm just going to go ahead and apply my edit again. But if you think of anything, by all means reply again. Or if you want to get someone else to explain it to me, by all means. — W.andrea (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I realize my edit might not make the text perfectly clear or grammatical, but it's still an improvement on what was there before, so unless you can tell me how to improve it properly, I don't see any reason not to apply it again. — W.andrea (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see nothing was changed which made the grammar better. I couldn't see anything wrong with it. What did you see as wrong? Puttting the verbs at the beginning didnt make for an improvement in the flow of the sentences
- quite the reverse in fact. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in the edit summary, "Fix grammar (incomplete list)", though, reading it back, maybe that's not super clear. The problem was that there was a missing "and" in the first sentence: the list ends with "debates over the nature of the opening attack and between advocates of shallow and deeper objectives", but there's no "and" before it. It should be "and debates over ... and between ...".
Also, there was a comma before the verb that probably shouldn't have been there.
The other things I changed were for clarity:
Putting the verbs first is more comfortable to read in my opinion. Having them at the end makes it hard to make sense of the sentence while you're reading it. Only once you get to the end of the (relatively complex) list do you get to the verb and can make sense of what the sentence is actually saying. That could be contentious -- I get that -- so if you want to only undo that change while we discuss, I'd totally get it.
Lastly, it's minor, but the link [[1917 French Army mutinies|internal troubles]] should be [[1917 French Army mutinies|internal troubles of the French armies]] so that it's clear what it's referring to. See MOS:LINKCLARITY.
— W.andrea (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, your opinion isn't definitive; I have altered the link to French Army mutinies since it's shorter and there aren't any other mutinies it can be confused with. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons by commanders

[edit]

@Keith-264 Wouldn't putting flag icons next to the commanders of a battle would come under the "Summarizing military conflicts" situation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG if there are commanders from multiple nations, as is seen in many other pages for battles (e.g. Second Battle of Ypres or Battle of the Bulge)? Cadmiz (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point but in an infobox like this, there will be lots of them contrary to [2]. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as per INFOBOXFLAG: "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table. (For example, in this infobox, flags of countries involved in a battle are first given with their names."
The page on another WW1 battle, the battle of the Somme, is given as the example. The flag is listed first by the country and then in the subsequent areas like commanders and strength in order to be used as a quick visual guide to make each segment up. It also states that "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" and points to articles on military conflicts as an example to use them. I think this would be the correct and intended purpose of the use of flag icons.
Friedbyrd (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ——Serial 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're reasoning doesnt make sense. As I pointed out, it is specifically mentioned that military conflicts are an acceptable example of use of flagicons. Also, how can you cite this while you would allow flag icons next to the country and strength categories in the infobox, but not the commanders? And they point to the battle of the Somme page as an example of how to use flagicons, which is exactly the same way I edited this.
Friedbyrd (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my reasoning isn't the point, the WP is. I don't edit the Somme page because I don't like to be associated with mediocrity. As I've pointed out, adducing precedents from bad infoboxes isn't making a case, it's evading one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"adducing precedents from bad infoboxes isn't making a case" Im adducing directly from the precedent you cited which points to the article on the somme as an example of the proper use of flagsicons in the infobox. Thats the point Im making. It doesnt make any sense to include the flagicons for every category except for the commanders of each side.
Friedbyrd (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noooo, the Somme article is one of the ones that has it all wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, its pointing to the battle of Somme articles as an example of the proper way to use flagicons. You use the flags initially by the countries and then subsequently use the flag as a shorthand for the other various fields in the infobox to indicate which commander served which country, the number of troops ect. and causalities for each party. You misunderstand the rule.
Friedbyrd (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. You didn’t comprehend the flagicon rule or didn’t properly read it.
Friedbyrd (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Metropolis and War

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2025 and 12 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CaramelGarnet (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CaramelGarnet (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]