Talk:Battle of Vimy Ridge

message: I understand theirs alot of national pride flying about here, but shouldn't Canada be listed as a Dominion of the British Empire? The "Canadian" soldiers who served in this battle were part of the British army. So I don't see the logic in listing Canada as an independent nation. Surely by this logic, Scotland could be listed as an independent belligerent, in other British battles, lol. Wikipedia is getting too nationalistic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.200.156 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominion of Canada?

message: Used informantion from this to expand on German losses from German records quoted therein.Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the content to a note as the data expands beyond the battle and into estimates of the entire Battle of Arras. Nonetheless, good info to have.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I wondered if you'd turn up ;O) Thanks for the amendments to my citations, I still haven't got a clue about the short form. If I might quibble though, I don't see the point of putting 'between' in front of 1—11 since it seems to me that it's represented by the dash.
As usual we lack the German perspective except for the fragments in the OH but I hope to get hold of Sheldon's book on Vimy Ridge this year.Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit completed. A significant number of the references are from Sheldon and those details are drawn not from the OH but Sheldon's normal variety of German sources. The problem with Sheldon's book is it drew on a lot of individual/personal details, not necessarily unit or formation level activities. Anyway, there is always room from improvement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

text: OK. In his later books he has put a little bit more commentary in from higher commanders but unless someone publishes translations kept at places like Sandhurst, we'll have to wait for Humphries and Maker http://www.amazon.co.uk/Germanys-Western-Front-Translations-Official/dp/155458373X/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=IHD6GQ9AL567O&colid=3M9QSB4H2OMKD to get to 1916 & 1917Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OH 1917 I 

message: I suggest that the mention of Vimy Ridge Day go as a one-liner in the Influence on Canada section. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vimy Ridge Day]] mention 

message: This article has been chosen to be featured on the main page tomorrow. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's Featured Article on April 9th

message: This is wrong. Its putting WW2 thinking onto WW1. In WW2 the British side was the allies. In WW1 however it was the Germans who were the allies (tripple alliance) whilst the Brits were on the entente side (tripple entente). Best would be the say Canadian and British or some variation thereof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see no issue with using either Canadian/British or Entente. An astute observation that employing "allied" would be incorrect.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *When you reverted my edit, you mentioned the British 5th Infantry Division. My thinking had been that the 5th Division was attached to the Canadian Corps, hence a Canadian victory. However, I was neglecting to remember that British artillery and the 51st Highland Division also contributed to the victory.  You are right, it is important to remember that it was a combined effort. I'm fine with "Canadian/British." Sunray (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Allied was a term used in the Great War - the Entente powers, Britain, France and Russia were allied with Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Rumania, Portugal and associated with the USA. Allied isn't anachronistic though I suggest that "Canadian" is. Vimy ridge was a success of the British First Army with contributions from the British Canadian Corps, part of 5th division and XIII [XVII] Corps (southern operation) with I Corps and 4th Canadian division (northern operation). [PS tongue firmly in cheek]Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, oh! (some honourable members). Sunray (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I knew you'd be pleased.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied victory

message: Is it common for North American English speakers to treat terms like these as synonyms? I ask because Thelus seems to be a village rather than a town. It seems to crop up on other pages too.Keith-264 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  City, town, village, hamlet. 

message: The operational role of British corps command on the Western Front, 1914-18 by Simpson, Andrew (free as the original PhD http://ethos.bl.uk/SearchResults.do ) has some interesting material culled from primary sources on Arras, pp. 84-113, some of which is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_development_on_the_Western_Front_in_1917 Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful structural analysis 

message: I have amended the incorrect reference to date that command of Canadian Corps changed from Alderson to Byng, from January 1917 to 28 May 1916, and moved it to the start of the paragraph on Strategic Planning for chronology. I believed I had changed this a few months ago but either the change was not successfully saved or it may have been wrongly reverted.  The 'old' date would have given Alderson a longer period of command of Canadians that outlasted Sam Hughes' tenure, and given Byng a reduced timeframe for preparations!Cloptonson (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea when that changed happened, but good catch. I'm not sure how 5 Jan (date staff sent to the Neville conference) ended up there but the correction is appreciated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edwin Alderson and Julian Byng

message: There is obviously a conflict between the name for the Ricard Jack painting listed in the lede. The images as it was uploaded to the commons contains Library and Archives Canada citation for the title "The Battle of Vimy Ridge" however the Canadian War Museum website lists a different title. I will check the Canadian War Memorial Fund records (the commissioner of the work) to see what the title is listed there. It could be that there are two titles for the work, which is not uncommon for paintings. In the mean time the long established title should remain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 71.7.229.169 or Frank.  Please discuss on this page.  Until this issue is resolved, please refrain from changing the article page.  Hamish59 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

text: There are sources that employ both. The search term "battle of vimy ridge" richard jack results in 187000 hits, in google books its 322 hits. There is obviously a discrepancy but the matter of the fact is the current title is cited, it is also long established. Your issues is with the name as it appears in the Wikipedia Commons as its the source and frankly what appears here is just being mirrored. The official list of Canadian War Memorials Fund works held in archives (either national or at the war museum) should likely serve as the name source and am happy to go with whatever is written there. that is going to take a couple days so please leave the title as is until I can get an answer.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited sources including the War Museum, did you even look at the links? Sounds like a case of the wiki editor knows more... or at least in wiki-land has the power to say so.. classic wiki.  Frank Logan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.229.169 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be satisfied if we went with whatever the official list of Canadian War Memorials Fund works states?--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we may have several titles for this painting and that there is no rule saying that we have to use the title as legend, any value of just changing the legend to something non specific like "A painting of the Battle by Richard Jack". An other article using the same painting as illustration says "Canadian troops at the Battle of Vimy Ridge" which seems perfectly fine too.--McSly (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Jack painting 

message: Can we not refer to the 'enemy' in Wikipedia articles? I realise the Germans were the enemy from the Canadian point of view, but Wikipedia is not Canadian. The French article has the same problem. Cathfolant (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: its not encourages when its used to communicate a one sided point of view. I had a look through and there are four mentions of enemy. The first describes the German defensive strategy and enemy is used as a generality, not to refer to any specific party. The second for British offensive doctrine changes and once again speaks in generalities, not referring to any specific party. The third and fourth is in reference to trench raiding and how it was employed by all sides against their respective enemy(s). None of the cases in this article employ the term enemy as a replacement for German, so I'm not seeing an issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are. Seems fine then. Cathfolant 23:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Enemy

message: James Battles and Engagements (1924) has I Corps: 24th Division and the Canadian Corps: 5th and 1st–4th Canadian divisions. What happened to the 24th Division? Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OKKeith-264 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oob 

message: You've violated WP:3RR. Stop and discuss or you'll be blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put my hand up here and say that I think I have accidentally also violated 3RR. I believed it didn't apply because I was reverting edits I think are vandalism, but I've just re-read the policy and noted that it says obvious vandalism only, like page blanking or profanity, which this isn't. That's completely on me and I apologise. I'm going to back off from this page and leave other editors to it. Marianna251TALK 01:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over the role of Canadians 

message: Substituted at 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The topic of whether Bavaria, etc were subsidiarity entities to the German Empire or included within it is not a discussion for this article. It should be formalized are agreed to centrally. the British Empire was resolutely concluded at at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_123#WP:MILMOS.23FLAGS_and_WWI_flags_of_Commonwealth_dominions but far as I know no consensus is established for Germany. Either way a solution should be centralized and not tested on an FA article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bavaria flag under German Empire 

message: 99.224.153.192 recently amended the infobox to include the complete the list of Canadian infantry division commanders, with the exception of British 5th Division commander Major-General R.B. Stephen. I'm not at all opposed to including divisional commanders but the complete list would need to exist for both sides. So I undid that edit so that we could first discuss a list that would be complete for both sides. If desirable, this is the list I would propose:
*Entente: Sir Julian Byng,  Arthur Currie,  Henry Edward Burstall,  Louis Lipsett, David Watson and (5th Division commander) R.B. Stephen.
*Germany: Karl Ritter von Fasbender, Georg Karl Wichura, Friedrich Freiherr von Pechmann and Arnold Ritter von Mohl. Ludwig von Falkenhausen could then be removed as von Fasbender was really the principle defending commander.
Any thought on this idea?--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template:Infobox military conflict 
commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted. The  and  templates may be included immediately after the names of commanders who were killed in action or surrendered and were taken prisoner, respectively. The commander3 field can only be used if the combatant3 field is set.
I suggest that the army and corps/gruppe commanders are sufficient.Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, I think the Corps/gruppe commanders would would sufficient but I'm not set in stone in that approach. If we took that appraoch would it not be better to list Fasbender and Wichura on the German side rather than Falkenhausen?--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither am I but when we descend the rank pyramid, the number of people rises exponentially. I think the army commanders are important because it was an offensive and because of F's role in using the relief (Ablosungs) division concept, which managed to leave the front divisions without reserves in the day. Corps/Gruppen commanders obviously since they controlled the formations fighting the battle so not necessarily an equal number, CC commander (No other corps commanders were involved were they?) and the main Gruppen commanders opposite? Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeable. So for the Germans I've listed Falkenhausen, Fasbender and Wichura. For the Canadian side, just left Byng. The intent being that Corps and Gruppe commanders are listed but not divisional commanders.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Perhaps Horne to go with Falkenhausen? I'll leave it to you though. Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders listed in the infobox 

message: Do we really need flags against each name in the infobox when they're already shown in "belligerents"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:FLAG is clear. Flags only as necessary and I don't see it as necessary. I could see there being a purpose if the lack of flag is necessary for clarity but that's not the case here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_parentheses does not deprecate brackets, far from it.Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Style manuals almost all emphasize limitation of parenthesis except in well noted circumstances including emphasized breaks and citation. More importantly the text approved at FA didn't employ them. Just because MOS doesn't mention a limitation doesn't mean it's not standard style practice to do so. Happy to defer to MOS talk for a conclusion on the matter.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Oh come on, that's blatant cherry-picking and gamesmanship. "Returning to state at FA" is disingenuous; if you think edits are retrograde you need to apply for a review, not treat it as un-editable. 
PS are these style manuals US? Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brackets 

message: I've switched the reference formatting to sfn. It's saved almost 10K in size and meant some linking errors were caught. Do feel free to improve on this.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Followed up by changing isbn 10 to 13s, rm dupe wikilinks, tried to homogenise measurements but couldn't tell if the article is metric-imperial or vice versa so stopped to check here; let me know and I'll sort them out. Blammed a few typos, pasted the new Schleswig-Holstein article title in. Added First Army in lead since the article mentions attachment of metropolitan units. Rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference format 

message: It was specifically the 85 work battalion who secured hill 145. The battalion is now called the Cape Breton Highlanders. I believe they should receive recognition. ArizonaRanger21 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve units secure hill 145 

message: Coordinates – optional – the location of the structure, given as a coordinate pair by using  with display=inline,title. Used to display the geographic location of the conflict and the location on a map added with the map_type parameter. Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: British and Canadian participants an empire doesn't make. I suggest Canadian victory.Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This was Entente victory previously, not sure what happened to that. Canadian victory doesn't work as a significant portion of the dedication forces were British formations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that too; can't think of anything descriptive and short. regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The British were on the side of the "Allied powers", so I believe it would be accurate to call it an "Allied" victory. I also support "Entente victory". AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will you change the Battle of Verdun and all the rest of the Western Front battles from French/British/German victory to Allied/Central Powers victory? The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a British empire battle, the principal participants being Canadian and British versus the Germans (Prussians/Bavarians). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, not a bad idea, but that wasn't my intent. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was simply trying to propose a compromise wording that is still accurate yet not controversial. AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Vimy Ridge is universally regarded as a Canadian victory which, furthermore, established the Canadian Corps as an autonomous fighting force. Nothing could be simpler than that. Now, the British Empire still existed and the Canadian Corps was a component of those forces, taking general orders from the British high command. However, the execution of those orders and the tactics and strategies employed by the Canadian Corps were independently constructed, first by Byng with advice from Currie, and shortly after Vimy by Currie himself. The very name Canadian Corps established a distinctly Canadian army in the field. The tactics employed at Vimy were entirely of Currie's design. Only supporting artillery and engineering work were provided by the British forces, the British forces did not participate in the battle on the field. Therefore, the designation of the victory should be Canadian Corps.Tennisedu (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to cite WP:Reliable sources to support your claim of "universally regarded as a Canadian victory". If these are accepted, they could then be cited in the infobox to support the "result" field - Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

text: The attackers were the Canadians Corps period. The supporting British artillery and engineering units were attached to Canadian Corps for the purposes of this battle. Result should be "Canadian Corps victory".Tennisedu (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Empire victory 

message: Does a newspaper report of 1917 by Philip Gibbs, produced under censorship, constitute a reliable source? I have a doubt. Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I don't know what happened, but somehow I made that last edit without an edit summary;  had it written out but must have blanked it by accident.  At any event, I do not think it is appropriate for an editor to dismiss another's edit on the basis that "you're not the audience".  I'm an editor, and a reader.  I am part of the audience.  As an editor, we make style assessments all the time, to make the article as readable and as interesting as possible.  Deal with proposed style changes on the merits, not by dismissing the status of other editors.    Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a simple matter of English grammar, to is conjugated with the verb;  if you enter a conflict of interest you shouldn't complain about it being pointed out. As for missing the edit summary, I did it on an edit yesterday too; I wouldn't worry, you've made your point here rather well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Keith-264, why is "too far back to counter-attack quickly" ungrammatical? It's perfectly legit to move the adverb to the end. Indefatigable (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: First keep in mind that English is not my first language, so I may not be the most qualified person to give an opinion here. That said, the sentence, as written now makes no sense to me. I read it a few times and I have no idea what the quickly refers to. Moving the word at the end of the sentence makes way more sense, at least to me. --McSly (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks for asking here, counter-attack is the verb so "to" conjugates with it. To me "too far back to counter-attack quickly" invites confusion between quick and slow counter-attacks rather than the sense of "promptly" to counter-attack. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that what you're saying is that we can't split an infinitive.  That's not considered a principle of English grammar any longer.  See:  MLA Style Center:  Is it OK to split an infinitive?;  The Guardian:  To boldly go for it: why the split infinitive is no longer a mistake.  "To" is used to conjugate, but it's acceptable to put adverbs between the "to" and the main word of the infinitive.  The question now is one of style;  what wording best achieves the goal of clarity in the sentence?  The wording "to quickly counter-attack" seems to me to be the clearest meaning, and better than "quickly to counter-attack", which doesn't seem to me to be as clear or as easy to read.  Others may differ, of course, so it's a question of consensus rather than a grammatical rule. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

text: How about this for a compromise: "too far back to counter-attack promptly". That makes it clear that the adverb is about reaction time and not attack speed. It also is normal readable English. "Too far back quickly to counter-attack" is simply not easily understood or something an English speaker would naturally write unless they had been trained to be hyperaware of the (false) rule against split infinitives. Indefatigable (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

text: The MLA is about American usage and that's a lost cause, especially in a Canadian article. The Guardian can't parse a sentence for toffee, it is no authority on anything but inanity. I suggest that "any longer" is tendentious. Your definition of clarity is subjective and based on appeals to authority that are dubious in the extreme. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again, "too far back to counter-attack promptly" substitutes the word promptly for quickly, to me it should be promptly to counter-attack. How about something like "too distant to counter-attack before the Canadians could consolidate"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording sounds great to me. Indefatigable (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "quickly to counter-attack" 

message: Dear Spyglasses, please stop adding wikilinks that are already linked. There's a way to avoid this if you're interested. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits