Talk:Battle of the Somme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBattle of the Somme is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2004.
Article milestones
November 7, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
February 22, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 15, 2004, September 15, 2005, September 15, 2006, September 15, 2013, September 15, 2014, September 15, 2016, and September 15, 2018.
Current status: Former featured article

Philpott 2009[edit]

When you click on Philpott 2009 in the refs it doesn't take you to the work listed below. No idea how to fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone put a long citation in the text instead of linking to the Philpott reference, which overrode it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox question[edit]

"315,000 in 10​ 12" (divisions) ? 31,500 men per division? Seems a bit dodgy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30,000 in a division, so ten of them is 300,000, then a half divison adds another 15,000. (10.5 X 30,000 = 315,000)77Mike77 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historiography (sic)[edit]

Why is a word that means "the philosophy of the study of history" being used as a header for a section on the verdicts on the battle? It's the history of the histories of the battle, which isn't a philosophical inquiry. Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox (result)[edit]

The outcome of the battle as stated in the infobox is quite misleading considering the lack of consensus about it. Deeming most of the Entente objectives in the battle to have been achieved is surprising. It does neither reflect the content, nor the sources linked in the article. (Jules Agathias (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Good. Nice to see that piece of nonsense has been fixed.Paulturtle (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simkins 2003[edit]

@DuncanHill: G'day, Duncan, hope you are well. Reference your here, potentially Simkins 2003 might be: Simkins, P.; Jukes, G.; Hickey, M. (2003). The First World War: The War to End All Wars. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84176-738-3. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure, though. Can anyone else assist? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Thanks - I went further back through the article history, found it was added by an IP which had also edited Operation Alberich at the same time, and found the same sentence, referenced to the work you mention, there. Have now added it here. This is a common problem with harv/sfn references. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
G'day, Duncan, thanks for following it up. Hope you are having a safe and happy Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]