Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Flers–Courcelette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of Tanks at Flers

[edit]

Have amended number from 39 to 49. It's a bit awkward because 49 were available but only 36 actually got into action, so one could argue about which figure to quote, but it wasn't 39.Hengistmate (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flers–Courcelette or Flers-Courcelette?

[edit]

The villages are not contiguous as in Sailly-Saillisel but nearly two miles apart. The naming of the battle links them in the sense of "to" so I've put a dash in after the matter cropped up here Battle of Morval during a B-class review.Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a box with 15 Sep casualties as an experiment. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Added a few books from archives org to Ex links ready for a revision of the page soon (ish).Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied references and added a few published ones in place of interweb links.Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Regiment

[edit]

A number of men from the Norfolk Regiment were killed during this battle, some advancing against a trench and other recorded as being killed "15th September- 9th Norfolks ,a tank pasing thro' them in the Flers-Courcelette Battle fired upon them until corrected." First use of tanks, and first "blue on blue" involving a tank? DiverScout (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What division?Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9th (Service) Battalion, Norfolk Regiment, 71st Brigade, 6th Infantry Division. DiverScout (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, it's mentioned in OH 1916 II.Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for personal request, but is there a link to this as my Great Uncle was killed in this action? DiverScout (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The first movement on the 6th Division front was the advance of the single tank following the railway track along its north-western side towards the Quadrilateral. The machine passed through the right of the Norfolk about 5:50 a.m. and by mistake, opened fire on the waiting troops. This was stopped by the gallant action of Captain A. J. G. Crosse, 9/Norfolk, who approached the tank under heavy fire and pointed out its true direction. The machine was afterwards seen to turn northward and move parallel to Straight Trench, firing as it did so." P. 310 (biblio details on article page, the 6th Division part of the F-C is on pp 309-310, the 6th Div history by Marden is on pdf)Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DiverScout (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure.Keith-264 (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This information has allowed me to identify the tank concerned - female C22, under the command of Lt. Basil Henriques. Just trying to work out how and where to add these details. DiverScout (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded several of the Somme pages but then got diverted to 1914 so I think that there are four more to do, including F–C which I hope to get to this year. For starters you might consider putting it into a ===section===, then think about placement when it's done. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

I had intended to abbreviate the battle section where I used Miles by changing to McCarthy as the later days are described by but decided to put the rewrite on the article page as I was at a dead stop and time is running short. Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Flers–Courcelette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Further reading

[edit]

@DuncanHill: [1] Present the items in a bulleted list. You may want to organize the items, either alphabetically, by date, or by some other criterion. In the rare cases when it is useful to sub-divide these sections (for example, to separate a list of articles by an author from books about an author), most editors prefer to use bold-faced text (Books) rather than level 3 headings (===Books===). Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, not a guideline or policy. If people could be bothered to get their references right in the first place then I wouldn't be having to deal with the sections at all. The lack of subheaders makes it harder to correct mistakes, as it means I have to edit a much bigger lump of text. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you over-egg the pudding.Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army

[edit]

@Rastermind: Apropos something specific, would it be to do with cavalry? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@AnnaValley4: Do you have a cite for that pls. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@Ohconfucius: Why remove the full stops from a.m. and p.m.? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The form is cumbersome and its use is declining generally in other publications, maybe style guru @Tony1: might chip in a few words here. But the main reason is because it has for several years been an integral part of my formatting script to impose uniformity… there are many articles that have both formats so the harmonisation is desirable. Although I must say that this article seems to have them consistently formatted, so I can revert that part of the change if you wish. Regards, -- Ohc revolution of our times 21:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attention you've paid to the articles [it makes a nice change ;O)] I would prefer a.m. and p.m. as all of the articles I've worked on have that form. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One argument for not including dots (a general trend in English) is that after a numeral, am and pm are unambiguous. Ohc, I've been meaning to say for many years that in Australia and NZ, no one spaces them: 11am, 1pm. Tony (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather English English was left alone; too much modern usage looks to me to be a race to the bottom. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The style guide says not to dot it. Tony (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[2] This doesn't. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RV

[edit]

@Indefatigable: Foreign words are italicised. regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC contains an exception: "A proper name is usually not italicized". For example, "Bayerische Motoren Werke" would not be in italics, despite the name being constructed out of German words. I would argue that the proper names of German and French military units and the proper names of specific places (such as trenches) should not be in italics, under the same principle. Indefatigable (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indefatigable: Hmmm, I see what you mean; unless you want to make an exception under common style for just about everything I've written since 2006, it's going to take a lot of work to put right. You might want to mention this on the milhist talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio banner

[edit]

Apparently this article was copyrighted on another site in 2024 which is odd because I wrote it here before the 2016 anniversary of the Battles of the Somme 1916. Keith-264 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@86.50.70.58: [3] the manual of style disagrees with you. Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The commanders belong to different nations so it is necessary to distinguish between them. I have even seen talk pages with people saying multi national commanders should be properly distinguished and we could use no flags mainly if there are only two combatants and so all commanders are under the same flag. Most articles distinguish that way and it makes sense to follow this pattern. Operation Alberich distinguishes commanders by nation too for example. Why arent you targeting this article too then? 86.50.70.58 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't and you haven't got consensus for that change. There are always drive-by edits by editors with flagicon preoccupations, they are reverted when they are noticed; using bad editing as a reason for more bad editing is rather poor. Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, I already explained the edit but you obviously ignored everything. It seems you simply want to use the manual of style and enforce its usage regardless of anything and dont care if someone elses edit actually serves a purpose, which in my case it does. Do you understand what distinguishing between commanders belonging to different nations means - yes or no? 86.50.70.58 (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you look at WP:AGF and WP:Civil before you comment again. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wont even bother, you obviously dont care to listen to other people and when they ask a simple question whether you understand or not you accuse them of being not civil. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Flers–Courcelette&oldid=1260106960"