Talk:Battle of Passchendaele

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You are correct, and like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME trumps your own selfish, self-centred wants. Resolute 14:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: What have you two contributed to the 3rd Ypres pages apart from contumely? Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith, please read wp:IDHT. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: Fair's fair.Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Battle of Ypres 

message: Thanks for the commemoration edit but is it really notable? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok, I was being a little bit facetious anyway ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terraine 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Add number of casualties to lead section?