Talk:Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux

CE

Trek, the infobox should reflect material in the text so shouldn't need citations. The casualties section added contains the citations. If you want to sub-divide casualties by nature, [please] do it in the text.Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Same goes for embroidering a simple victory/defeat entry.Keith-264 (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahem! I fear I reverted your revert without realising, sorry about that.Keith-264 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always cited at mention regardless, so that may be more personal preference than anything. I have no problem with amalgamating KIA, WIA, & such in a single number, though I wouldn't do it; I take infoboxes as "outcome at a glance". As for the other changes, IMO mention of the higher command remains warranted. Did I miss anything? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

more information

i would like to know why the role of the British 8th and 18th divisions during this battle have been forgotten/left out [perhaps they are unknown,by the people who have written this article] especially as it was involved in actually clearing this village,why has this been overlooked,the graves of these men suggest they were more than there after all?or was it just the aussies that did everything once again!i would like an reason thanksBullseye30 (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is incomplete and I assume that the writer only had Oz sources.Keith-264 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith and others, I've done a little work to expand the article recently, but am probably at the limit of my sources now. In your opinion what else is required for B class? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The strategic situation and the German side need expanding, which is going to be difficult, air operations need a mention, which should be in the RAF OH etc. It's coming together though. Trouble is, I'm still busy on my overdue articles purge, which is why I've only contributed when I see you have....Keith-264 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

All fair points, Keith, thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll have to leave it to you for when you are free as none of my sources provide those details. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

1473 or 2473 Australian Casualties??

The battlebox indicates a different number for the casualties than the main article. why??200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I believe it is because some sources include the 1,000 casualties from the bombardment of 17/18 April, and others do not. Laffin lists 1,000 casualties on 17/18 April, and around 1,400 on 24-27 April; both King and Coulthard-Clark list 1,469 casualties between 24-27 April. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Tank v tank.

I can't help feeling that the lead goes in a bit heavy on the tank thing. One is plunged into a lot of detail, IIMSS rather prematurely, in the lead, much of it repeated further down. I shall try to reshape it. I hope it isn't disruptive editing or edit warring or trolling. Almost everything I do seems to come into one or more of those categories. Hengistmate (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes I think you raise a valid point. Please feel free to have a go at reworking the lead and we can discuss later if there is anything that needs clarifying, etc. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Christ. You mean you have no objections? This must be a first on Wikipedia. Hengistmate (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a first. :) You just went about it in the politest possible way. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fill yer boots Hengist, it's xmas. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Keith. Some time ago, Mr.Trekphiler undertook to thereafter ignore me. Sadly, he has not kept his promise. His intervention here has reminded me of his demonstration of how to go about things in the politest possible way:

(cur | prev) 14:20, 12 February 2013‎ Trekphiler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,303 bytes) (+1,027)‎ . . (→‎Etymology: continued.: somebody doesn't get his way, awwww) (undo | thank)"

Maybe that's where I keep going wrong. Anyway - to work . . . Hengistmate (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits 26th July, 2018.

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I can't agree with very much of that, old boy. a) I don't think the Germans knowingly sent their A7Vs into a tank-v-tank battle. Greiff's orders were clear; the tanks were to support the infantry, prepare to repel counter-attacks, enable infantry to secure gains, and then return to base. There is no mention of tanks. The confrontation was a surprise to all concerned. b) Fifteen A7Vs were "committed," but one broke down at Charleroi, so only 14 were "sent." Also, there were two tank-v-tank battles on this date; Siegfried fired on the Whippets and claimed three kills (although local artillery disputed that). c) Is "substantial" really a better word than "major" here?

The article is, of course, full of holes, as are so many. I've sorted some out further down. As I say, there's too much emphasis in the lead par on the detail of the tanks' roles.

I look forward to the collaborative discussion that invariably follows amendments such as these.

Over to you. Hengistmate (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hengistmate: I don't know that much, I added the citations from the OH to the article a while back and limited my attention today to copy editing. I took out "committed" because this is a flabby Americanism and "sent" is a superior lithe Englishism. If you want to alter the substance of the article, go ahead, my involvement is strictly limited. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)