Talk:First Battle of Ypres

message: All you need are some pictures of the battle
This article seems to have been locked against further edits. This is unfortunate since it contains numerous text errors, including at least one nonsense sentence, the meaning of which is now so jumbled it cannot be understood. Can whoever has assumed proprietorial control over this page plesase either proof read it properly and start to bring it up to standard, or allow others to do so?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Hello, it should be noted that this term is quite misleading.
The Germans brought 4 new built "reserve corps" to Northern France and Belgium, fall 1914.
Some of its regiments had a large number of (most young) volunteers (e.g.: Reserve Infantry Regiment 215, from Hanover region, as can be seen in prussian 1914-15-casualty rolls, consisted to more than a half of "Kriegsfreiwillige" = "volunteers for wartime duration", men without any peacetime service experience).
But: The youngest volunteers were around 17, 18 years of age. And so far as "students" are concerned: the german grammar school leaver qualified for attending university ("Abiturient") was 19 years old - hardly younger than the average "active" soldier of 20,21 years. In other words, the university STUDENT was of the same age as the active soldier. But as soon as such a student had served his "One Year" in peacetime (the privilege of one year service for men from higher education which built the reserve officer pool) he couldn't have been a "Kriegsfreiwilliger" at all. So can be spoken of "Kindermord?"
The point is that the bulk of german volunteers came from an urban background (grammar schoolboys not finished "abitur", or secondary schoolboys: 17-19 years of age), but not to forget apprentice boys, trainees, and unskilled workers from the cities and so on. 
And as far as higher educated youth is concerned: it's obvious that most of them came from well-to-do families and used to live under more comfortable conditions than the average and predominating draftees: farm hands, craftsmen and rural people like that. This better-off youth was obviously more irritated and stressed by the hardships of basic training and barrack life, maltreatment by sergeants or comrades as the ordinary recruit. On the other hand it's a fact that the german student was taller and heavier than his contemporaries from other classes.
So "Kinder" ? --- one sees, the term "child" is quite doubtful, and even more in conjunction with "student". Moreover, the number of university students in germany around 1910/20 was not very great - some 40-50,000, virtually all male. Germanys population was 60-65 mill. Compare this with present times: 1,000,000 male students alone at 80 mill. population.
- for a more detailed examination see Karl Unruh "Langemarck - Legende und Wirklichkeit" (german), 1986.
Pure kitsch is 'unschuldig' / innocent. What should that mean ? One might say, some of the Kriegsfreiwillige were 'misled', but innocent is the wrong word for people rushing voluntarily to the colours, ready to fight, shoot, kill, and, not to forget - eventually being wounded, mutilated or killed.
In the end, that term might be a sign for german tending to emotional extravagance, not to say hysteria - besides of ill military leadership in that particular case. German over-emotion can be noticed here but also in other historical circumstances, past and present.
WernerE (german wiki), 07.12.2005
I completely agree with Werner's logic. It's misleading, and is Germany-biased if it is indeed not true. 
true_avatar47  — Preceding unsigned comment added by True avatar47 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For an explanation of why the KinderMord legend mattered, see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25556  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinder-Mord ist indeed an legend  because no kids were involved!  And: "Kindermord von Ypern" is totally unknown in Germany and pure fantasy -- Waterthrower (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a literal equivalent of "Massacre of the Innocents" a reference to King Herod. It isn't referring to literal children. In the same way that labelling armoured vehicles "tanks" does not mean they were ever used to hold water, referring to a slaughter of innocent youth doesn't mean literal children were involved. (Wilfred Owen's "Anthem for Doomed YouthW" isn't 'false' because Britain wasn't using child soldiers either.) Perhaps instead of following false etymologies you could improve the quality of contributors to this page. 157.14.243.139 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinder-Mord (Child murder)? 

message: Battles are not fought just because the enemy is there in front of you: that's the squaddie's viewpoint, the generals have other views, right or wrong. The Race to the Sea was a German effort to outflank the relatively static French lines to the West, and it nearly succeeded: if it had, then the French would have surrendered and the UK would have lost the BEF.
In its bias towards the British troops who eventually had the victory, this Article ignores the Belgian line between Ieper(Ypres) and Nieupoort, who took the first step in the eventual victory by stopping the German forces virtually single-handed: had it not been for the Belgians, the Germans, who had won the Race to the Sea, would have outflanked the British and French forces to the West, with a clear run to Paris and the French heartland, cutting the entire BEF supply route off into the bargain. The German forces, initally attacking along an axis southwards from Brugge(Bruges), ran into the final Belgian last-ditch suicide defence: my own great-grandfather's citation, for instance, states he was the only survivor of what can only be termed a suicide squad of five men who destroyed a German machine-gun nest of a dozen machine-guns, approximately fifty troops.
This defensive line was principally along the railway embankment over the marshland between the two towns, which was the only consistently high ground in the area. The Belgian command of this was split, Nieupoort to Vuurne (Furnes) and Vuurne to Ieper. The Belgian forces had fought a running retreat from Namur in the East of Belgium, across the plain north of Brussels, past Ghent and Brugge and finally made a last-ditch stand on the railway: there was barely a couple of miles of land back to the French border. 
When it finally became clear that the remaining Belgian forces were in the process of finally being wiped out, and that even this would fall, the Belgian King ordered the demolition of the sea-sluices at Nieupoort, thereby destroying the drainage of the entire area between there and the Ardennes, which then turned into the sea of mud so closely associated with the Battlefields of Flanders. This bought enough time for the British and French forces to catch up, threatening the German flank to the North of Ypres, and in an attempt to circumvent the flood to the East, the Germans ran into the BEF and French. The rest is as described.
It was, therefore, probably an even more closely-run thing than Waterloo: had the advancing British forces been any slower to come up, or the Germans quicker to disengage around Ramskapelle, then they would have probably broken through around Kortrijk(Courtrai) and the war would have been lost, at least as far as the French were concerned. This lesson did not get missed: the error was not repeated in WWII, leaving the Brits evacuating at Dunkerk.
Jelmain 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead-up to the battle 

message: The text of this page and the dates suggest that the last 2 entries (1st battle of Ypres and Battle of the Yser) appear in the wrong order.
: Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjusting the order of appearance in campaignbox 

message: This page is part of campaignbox western front but the box is lacking, can someone add it? Thank you and awesome work! Now if i just had the discipline not to read these pages during worktime... 200.222.3.3 (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaignbox western front 

message: "Each battalion of infantry contained just two machine guns and 18,073 men each."
God might be on the side of the big battalions, but 18 thousand men in one has to be a mistake. In the proceeding paragraph, 154000 men / 71 battalions = 2169 per division, which sounds more reasonable. Bungo77 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Army 

message: The image :File:Capper.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:Capper.jpg 

message: Why is this page SemiProtected? 
Regards, Ben Aveling 08:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protection? 

message: There is a small mis-spelling in the right bar at the top, under the "strength" category, it is said: "Total strenth: 4,400,000". Should be "Total strength: 4,400,000".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.197.251 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-spell 

message: > most of the German casualties were a mixture of young inexperienced [volunteers] and [some] highly trained reserves.
This line, from the intro, doesn't read right.
Regards, Ben Aveling 09:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the term "kindermord", b.t.w., is highly exaggerated, not to say misleading nonsense. A german university "student" was 19 years or older (rather the same age as normal conscript or career soldier); what the english mean is rather "pupil"; no question, there were some, predominantly northern-german regiments, with a remarkably high number of 17, 18 (even 16 year) old "pupils", "apprentice boys" a.s.o. But does this rectify the term "kindermord" ? Not to forget at 1st Ypres fought trained and experienced bodies like II Bavarian Corps (Armeegruppe Fabeck) and others. --Widlotic (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  inexperienced and highly trained 

message: :at "Langemarck Legend" (22 Oct) is rather meant "XXIII German Reserve Corps" - not XXIII Corps" - right ? --Widlotic (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the source as that. But on review I think you're right. Dapi89 (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Reserve Corps 

message: User:XXstuyXx recently made a change to the Strength fields in the infobox, stating German Army Strength was 5.4 million and French Army was 3,989,103.  This latter is obviously 4,400,000 (Total strength) minus 163,897 (British Army) minus 247,00 (Belgian Army). 
My first reaction was to simply revert: these numbers are not the respective strengths of the German and French armies at the First Battle of Ypres.  According to Order of First Battle of Ypres, the French employed 12 Infantry and 8 Cavalry Divisions (lets say 20,000 per Infantry Division plus 5,000 per Cavalry Division = 280,000 total - no where near the almost 4 million stated); the Germans deployed 28 Infantry and 8 Cavalry Divisions (similar "back of an envelope" calculations yield 600,000 - not 5.4 million).  
These Total Strength numbers are the mobilisation strength of the entire armies, for instance, as stated in the article First Battle of Ypres#German Army.  Surely the infobox should contain information pertaining to the battle itself?  Anything else is misleading.  Hamish59 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength in infobox 

message: Farndale describes five phases:
* I. Encounter battle 19-21 Oct
* II. Battle of Langemarck (I and IV Corps) 26-28 Oct
* III. Battles of La Bassee and Armentieres late Oct-2 Nov
* IV. Battle of Gheluvelt coincident with III
* V. Battle of Nonne Boschen 11-21 Nov.(p. 72)
Farndale also claims that the creeping barrage emerged during British-French discussions about artillery tactics in mid-October. (p. 69) Hope this helps.Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodisation 

message: Cut 'n' pasted the Messines material into the Battle of Messines (1914) page and linked.Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messines 1914 

message: Altered the German total to exclude casualties in France and in the Battle of the Yser.Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the same to the British total using Edmonds and removed the French and Belgian totals (French needs to be split between France, Yser and Ypres).Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I think this article is a logical step and will go along way to putting the 1914 campaigns into context. One can see clearly see the progress of operations from south to north whilst providing a succinct overview of the battles and of course the rationale for the northward creep of the warring factions. As ever I think the military strategic context is a must, though I would try to be brief (pot calling the kettle black there).
I thought if you added in a brief line about the grand geostrategic realm you could add in a link for Causes of World War I, but perhaps it would be better to keep this solely to military matters.
On a small note, I see you use "Tactical Developments" as a sub-heading. It is an interesting choice in place of "Operational Developments" which I thought would have been better. Then I had a think about it. After some reading, I note that perhaps you were right. Moltke the Eder had spoken of the operativ in the 19th century, but it appears this was not crystallised into doctrine until much later—possibly after the Soviet Soviet deep battle concept which officially was the first to recognise operational warfare. The French had done the same as the Germans and the British had not injected the term into doctrine until the 1980s. I find that the combatants at the time tended to use the term "grand tactics" to describe what we would call "operational manoeuvre".
Sorry for the ramble. Dapi89 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tempting to paraphrase Foley: German Strategy and the Path to Verdun - Erich Von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition 1870-1916 and have done with it. ;O) Strachan is similar without the detail so the northern extension of the fighting is not too controversial  subject. I tend to split pages up the way I do because of the lack of French and German sources in English, which means they're usually a patchwork of authors. I divide the Background section like that to keep in mind the Eastern Front etc which had a symbiotic relationship with the Western (and southern) front, that way I can keep shenanigans at GHQ, GQG and OHL separate from the fighting. The tactical developments are usually changes in the way existing resources were used and why - since both sides were always trying to use what they had in the context of outsmarting the opposition, which was difficult when any use of the army, tended to destroy it as fast as the the opposing one, reducing well-trained units to novice status in a few days.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The page is an outline at the moment and modelled on Arras 1917, which I used for the 3rd Ypres and Somme hub pages, which seemed to go down well with the punters. Since we usually write the lead last, it might stay in the sandbox for a while as I do something about the sub-pages. I used your material copied from 1st Ypres for Battle of Armentières Battle of La Bassée so perhaps you might want to consider how much of it needs to stay on the 1st Ypres page? Keith-264 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it would be acceptable to leave just a two-line summation and a link to those articles? Dapi89 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

text: No, the last time I checked the recommendation was a paragraph (see here Battle of the Somme) so I tend to adapt the lead of the article. In the outline I've just copied and pasted such lead material as exists. I've been doodling with the structure of the First Ypres page here User:Keith-264/sandbox5, same as RttS here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 but I don't think there's a straightforward way of organising so many battles in the region, which overlapped at some times and reacted against each other at others. I think that the RTTS can be restricted to mid-September to mid-October when the Belgians took up the Yser line, so have put Yser and Ypres at the bottom of the page as Subsequent Operations. La Bassee, Armentieres and Messines seem to fall into two parts, the meeting engagements during the RttS and then supporting operations to the main event at Yser-Ypres after mid-October, so I've experimented with putting them into the prelude for 1st Ypres. I've limited the headers in the Battle section to those in "Battles and Engagements" for the moment but I wonder if sub-sections for La Bassee, Armentieres, Messines and/or Yser might be necessary as "Supporting" or "Subsidiary" attacks after mid-October. 
It seems to be an intractable problem with battles that last for more than a day or two, either you chop it into bits and write half a dozen new articles which are almost identical in the Background and Prelude sections or risk having a "Battle" section a mile long. When I was writing some of the pages for the Somme (Other engagements) I asked Oz Rupert, who pointed out that they may look repetitive to us but to a punter they're necessary on each page, since we can't assume they're as knowledgeable as the writers.
Anyway they're thought experiments rather than decisions, so I'm interested in your views as to structure too. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I stripped out as best I could. I might suggest that the "Strategic developments" part - from the point "Germany Army was the strongest" to the end, could conceivably go into the First Ypres Orbat articles it relates to mobilisation. That would go some way to reducing size. Dapi89 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

text: In this section we stand to benefit from continuity, because it seems to me that the Marne-Aisne pages end the beginning of the war> battle of the frontiers>great retreat period. RttS takes the story from the end of the Aisne to the North Sea and Yser-1st Ypres cover operations to the end of the year in northern France and Belgium. I'd concentrate on Falkenhayn taking over and shifting the German effort to the northern flank, Joffre doing the same, the influence of the Eastern Front (demands for reinforcements from France/opportunity to exploit German difficulties) a few sentences re RttS and then the strategic situation in the north once the ground had been occupied and the flank closed, with a para somewhere on the move of the BEF from the Aisne front (although quite a bit of it ended up south of Ypres in the Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee areas. I had another doodle with 1st Y here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 by removing everything but the headers to see if I could find a satisfactory structure but the three battles specific to Ypres would need separate pages. Are you OK with sources for the bits you're interested in?Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I can add them in. I note there was one paragraph missing a citation. I will sort it shortly. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTTS 

message: Look much more manageable now.Keith-264 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Bassee and Armentieres 

message: In this section of the article, the actual dates range from 25 Oct to 30 Oct so I think this title ought to give those dates. A later section headed German attack at Gheluvelt, 29–31 October, may have led to confusion on this point. As a reader, it certainly confused me! There could not have been attacks from both sides at the same time but covered in different sections.
Budhen (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes authorities differ, I'm working on a re-edit here User:Keith-264/sandbox5Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied attack in Gheluvelt sector, 29–31 October 

message: Under the sub column of "casualties and losses" the following for Germany are listed:
8,050 killed
29,170 wounded
10,545 missing
Total: 46,765
This is frankly extremely incorrect (and misleading to people who look this article up). According to the various established sources, in the entire course of the battle: the Germans suffered more than 120,000 casualties, and more than the combined entente armies.
A quick google search provides a website with the following figures:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/WWIWesternFront/p/World-War-I-First-Battle-Of-Ypres.htm
"German losses for their efforts in Flanders totaled 19,530 killed, 83,520 wounded, 31,265 missing."
Whatever a credible figure that can be obtained, could it please replace the completely false figures currently displayed?
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielJosephEyre (talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany's casualties and losses. 

message: BEF casualties                                                 	BEF casualties                                                 	BEF casualties                                                 	BEF casualties
Month                                                          	Losses                                                         	                                                               	
August                                                         	14,409                                                         	                                                               	
September                                                      	15,189                                                         	                                                               	
October                                                        	30,192                                                         	                                                               	
November                                                       	24,785                                                         	                                                               	
December                                                       	11,079                                                         	                                                               	
Total                                                          	95,654                                                         	                                                               	
Casualty data fromStatistics of theMilitary Effort....1914–1920	Casualty data fromStatistics of theMilitary Effort....1914–1920	Casualty data fromStatistics of theMilitary Effort....1914–1920	Casualty data fromStatistics of theMilitary Effort....1914–1920
In 1925 J. E. Edmonds, the British Official Historian recorded that a great number of Belgian casualties had been suffered from  including  British casualties from  were  losses were  and of the total German casualties in Belgium and northern France from  of   were incurred on the front from the Lys to Gheluvelt between  In 2003 Beckett recorded  casualties,  casualties,  losses and  casualties. In 2010 Sheldon recorded  casualties,  casualties, that the French had more losses, after the mass casualties of the Battle of the Frontiers and that the Belgian army had been reduced to a shadow. Sheldon also noted that Colonel Fritz von Lossberg recorded that up to 3 November, casualties in the Fourth Army were  and that the Sixth Army had lost  of which  had occurred in Army Group Fabeck from 
User:Keith-264/sandbox5 I've been working on a revised article here on and off, after I realised that the existing one was to cluttered for ad hoc alterations, with a view to disentangling the Battle proper with the military operations further south, which belong to the battles of Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee and the French and Belgian contributions at Ypres and the Yser. Since the Battle has been divided into three episodes, I have in mind a general article and then three specific ones for Langemarck, Gheluvelt and Nonne Bosschen to go with the three areas further south. If my edits are incomplete it is because the sources I've got don't warrant other changes. 
I'm having a purge on unfinished business at the moment and will shortly complete the long-awaited rewrite of Delville Wood, after which I can give more attention to 1st Ypres, if you're interested. You can look up German casualty statistics here  or in the British OH (on Archives org) as above or Sheldon.Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: There are several references in the article to the 'Royal Worcesters' whose 2nd Battalion played a decisive part in the action around Gheluvelt.  The regiment was called simply the Worcestershire Regiment, commonly abbreviated to 'Worcesters'.  It never had a 'Royal' pre-fix either officially or colloquially (Royal Worcester was a porcelain company). I suggest all instances of 'Royal Worcesters' are changed to 'Worcesters'.
Source: http://www.worcestershireregiment.com/nicknames.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.31.163 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IP, you are completely correct.  Change made.  Hamish59 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Royal' Worcesters 

message: Battle of Langemark: form -> from
Patrick Crozier (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Cannolis (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014 

message: Finally finished the re-edit from last year. I envisage separate pages for the three battles in this section but I'm not sure about the links and redirects so have put them inside  for the moment. Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The old page is here User:Keith-264/sandbox5, the beginnings of an article for Langemarck User talk:Keith-264/sandbox here, Gheluvelt User:Keith-264/sandbox2 here and Nonne Bosschen User talk:Keith-264/sandbox2 here. Is there a view on how to write Nonne Bosschen? I've copied this form from James (Record of Battles and Engagements)Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox total for the German army is all told, not the Western Front. Does anyone know the number in the west? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PS where's the Talk archive gone?Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re edit 

message: Please note that the casualties listed in the infobox are cited in the casualties section. German losses in the 4th and 6th armies were not all from the 1st BofY. Total 4th and 6th army losses are in the note and occurred in France and Flanders. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: In their zeal the latest editors have butchered the article. You can't just jump into debunking the alleged "kindermord myth" without explaining first what it is. Suggest finding some sources and talk about this - the myth is important since it contributed to public consciousness of the battle, and the war in general, for decades. 46.193.174.6 (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not but I had another look and the section seems good enough to me but then I wrote it so I have a potential conflict of interest. Perhaps you could suggest improvements here to discuss? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kindermord 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Ypres. 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:
*Added  tag to https://ia700407.us.archive.org/32/items/principalevents100grea/principalevents100grea.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160802130005/https://archive.org/details/statisticsofmili00grea to https://ia700607.us.archive.org/5/items/statisticsofmili00grea/statisticsofmili00grea.pdf
*Added  tag to http://ia700300.us.archive.org/10/items/fifthdivisioning00huss/fifthdivisioning00huss.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Greetings, why no 300 px with the pic in the infobox? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey . I've got in the habit of removing image sizing from infoboxes, as they are generally handled as defaults now. It's displaying at exactly the same size for me when logged in, but smaller now when logged out, so I've restored that sizing. Sorry about that. That said, a clearer map would be good; it might be worth getting the WP:WikiProject Maps people onto that :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks Owen, I see some infoboxes with the 300px in and some not, so I thought that there was an indication in the image file data (or something) which showed if the image size criterion was unnecessary, as in your edit; I'll give trial and error a go. The map could be a lot better but what with copyright and a rather disappointing experience trying to get a map from the cartographers, I'm reduced to the goodwill of others who know how to do maps. Thanks for taking an interest, I can use your edit as a model to put right my own mistakes. Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits