Talk:Battle of Passchendaele/Archive 1

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

Resources

Add any websites that you think are reliable and useful for the creation of this article. DJDunsie (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these to the 'Other websites' section. --Orashmatash 11:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One problem. Spartacus Educational seems to be a non-RS. Shall I remove it? DJDunsie (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may have written the books though. DJDunsie (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Removed - We can add it back if we find that it's reliable. --Orashmatash 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinating heavy improvement.

Okay. I will make a campaign-box template for the Battle of Passchendaele. –Orashmatash 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that would be great! :) DJDunsie (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Orashmatash 18:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes question

In the notes section, the battle is also known as the Third Battle of Ypres'. Is the ' at the end a typo or not? DJDunsie (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a tyop typo. I'll fix it, thanks. –Orashmatash 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed, both on this wiki and en.wiki. DJDunsie (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, maybe we should make a campaign-box for the entire Western Front? –Orashmatash 11:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all the battles? DJDunsie (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It'll give me articles to write, so why not? –Orashmatash 19:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
XD Yes, good point! DJDunsie (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make it then. :P –Orashmatash 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction again

The sentence, He expected three parts to the battle., is unclear. I tried to simplify it but you reverted my changes. Was that because Haig did not plan it, but just told people to attack and "expected" the outcome? DJDunsie (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he didn't plan the battle (according to the EN article). According to the EN article, he expected it. I'm not sure about it to be honest. –Orashmatash 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm … interesting. This will require research. DJDunsie (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Should we remove that part until it's confirmed? –Orashmatash 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the intro to this, it says Haig planned it. DJDunsie (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a reliable source. I do apologise; change it back. Cheers! –Orashmatash 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed DJDunsie (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the reliability of the website, I think it's good because the author says he received a BA (Honours) in History. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we can't really go with a reference because of the purported qualifications of the author. For historylearningsite to be made more reliable we'd need it to be referenced by, and spoken about by, other people; newspapers, journals, other education *.edu etc.,). As it stands now it's not a RS. For instance this page talks about obtaining an online degree whilst at the same time advertising for such matters. How do we know the author's reason d'etre is not to make money via advertising? Either way, it might also be a conflict of interest. Thoughts? fr33kman 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's good because we used it in school once... :P –Orashmatash 21:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did use it too. But not any more. I ran out of subject options. *Sobs, Weeps* ;( DJDunsie (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through what Fr33kman posted on my talk, and having a look through the website, I have decided that it's not the most reliable website in the world. My comment above is basically voided now... Perhaps we should remove that website from the list of reliable sources (above), and source the information from the other sites. Thanks to Fr33kman for taking the time to explain that to me. :) Orashmatash is travelling 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for removing it. Sorry for not replying - I somehow missed it in my watchlist. DJDunsie (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery quote

Any ideas about the author of the mystery quote?

The purpose of the battle was to "wear out the enemy" and "to secure the Belgian coast and connect with the Dutch front lines".

I would guess that it's Haig, but I'm not sure. DJDunsie (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's ENWP. That's where the entire lead is sourced from. –Orashmatash 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So did an English Wikipedia editor write that? DJDunsie (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, but they'll be the ones with the source. And by the way, regarding this edit. Why add brackets there? They're not needed and it looks quite silly having an entire sentence that is bracketed... –Orashmatash 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly grammatically possible to have a sentence entirely in brackets. I added them because the sentence does not really have much relevance to the battle itself. Whether they look "silly" or not is debatable, but I agree the article would be simpler without them (young children might not know what they mean) so I'll remove them if you don't like them. DJDunsie (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done DJDunsie (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Perhaps we should put them back... It doesn't really have much to do with the battle. Yep, I'll put them back. Sorry about that! –Orashmatash 23:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Added back –Orashmatash 23:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had an idea. How about putting that fact in the notes section. That way, it does not look a bit odd and an unrelevant(-ish) fact is moved to a better place. Thoughts? DJDunsie (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll convert it into a note. Best, Orashmatash 21:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

I added the 'Background' section that I simplified in my sandbox. Feel free to further simplify it. Best, Orashmatash 21:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately, I am very busy with GCSEs at the moment so I can't help that much. However, I will do my best to help when I can. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Passchendaele/Archive_1&oldid=4671931"