Talk:Battle of Halen

Microformat dispute
On 12:15, 21 February 2009, PigsontheWing reverted this article with the note "(rv remove bogus hCard microformat (a battle is not a person, organsiation nor venue)).  This is an obscure objection that disables wikipedia interoperability with other applications.  For example, due to this edit, it is no longer possible to get a map view of this battle site.  For further details, see  discussion on microformats project talk page.  The revert is without merit and should be reversed.  -J JMesserly (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Belgian OH
Used Belgian OH to add references, more needed.Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Essen p107Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed banner as referencing and expansion nearly complete.Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Place names
Most of the place names were taken from the British Official History and are different from modern usage. I'd prefer it if they were retained at least on first use followed by the modern version - Haelen (Halen) so that the reader will know what the British used at the time. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why using Haelen, when Halen is a Dutch speaking town which official name was Halen, even in 1914? Akadunzio (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the British usage.Keith-264 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit debatable. If the battle features in any English-language book published since 1945, it will certainly adopt the local spelling (i.e. Halen). I'm not sure how many people will be acquainted with the Official History or texts from that period and, if they aren't, there will be a lot more confusion. I could understand it if there were British troops there, but obviously that is not the case here. Actually, if you go far enough back, virtually every town in Belgium had a curious English name... —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that with the disambiguation anyone will be confused.Keith-264 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was - and I'd say my knowledge of small Flemish provincial towns is better than most :) —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I better not add anglophone monoglots then. ;O) I can't really complain if you want to change it but I am rather attached to it just once in the lead.Keith-264 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll move the footnote, see if that works... —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I bow to the power of your Wikimojo.Keith-264 (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The conclusion is that it is British usage to use the archaic French name for a Flemish town. Why don't you change everything back to this British names? Akadunzio (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the conclusion is that it was English usage. Once upon a time. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When it was British or English usage, why do we use it now? Akadunzio (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Halen. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525000936/http://users.skynet.be:80/fonck/zilhelm.html to http://users.skynet.be/fonck/zilhelm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A German victory? I'm pretty sure the Battle of Halen was a decisive victory for David Lee Roth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:89C6:9300:C0FC:15E0:D737:2FC9 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Keith-264 (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)