Talk:Battle of Verdun

General statements and questions
The horrifying aspect about this battle is that the Germans never intended to overrun Verdun. Their primary goal was to win through a war of attrition. The German calculus was that they had one number of men coming to military age each year and France had a smaller. Eventually, the theory went, after both sides fought for long enough, France would be the first to run out of fighting men.

At Verdun there is now a memorial to the battle. Aside from the graves there, the bones of soldiers who could not be identified were removed from the battlefield and put in a massive Ostuary. Visitors can walk around the outside and see these bones piled inside through low windows.

I don't have a lot of details, how many soldiers' bones are there? How many graves? What were those numbers in the German calculus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.75.4.159 (talk • contribs) 19:58 3 September 2003 (UTC)

Casualty figures and other problems
The article had considerable confusion about the size of the battle and the casualty figures (probably due to the usual way in which total casualties &mdash; killed, wounded, prisoner, missing &mdash; get reinterpreted as killed only). In particular there was a claim in the opening that the battle caused a million deaths. This seems rather unlikely given the official French figures of 162,308 killed or missing. There was also a claim that it was the bloodiest battle in history, which also seems very unlikely: makes it the twelfth bloodiest in the 20th century. I changed the numbers and claims accordingly.

there was about a quarter million killed in all and a half million wounded.

It would be nice to be able to estimate the maximum numbers of troops on each side in the battle. Gdr 13:31, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Flags
The flags before the commanders names do serve a useful purpose as they make it easier to navigate through the commanders list as the anonymous editor already stated. There are no specific reasons why we aren't allowed to use the flags anyway and they only make the lists easier to read so please stop removing them. There is no reason to do so. The fact that I have to discuss such a minor thing in the talk page is ridiculous.MylowattsIAm (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I find them to be unnecessary duplication and in fact annoying. The column headers already have flags. Sticking one beside each commander's name is pointless and makes the lists harder to navigate. Intothatdarkness 15:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it could possibly be annoying to have some kind of marker that indicates where one commanders name starts and another ends. Otherwise it looks like a long sausage of text, not a list that's supposed to list several items, in this case peoples names. The IP user already proposed an alternative but that obviously got revert bombarded as well. MylowattsIAm (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mind the bullets, but the flags are annoying blobs of color that are totally unnecessary in a column layout when the header already has national flags. What makes the commanders' names tricky is that due to the column spacing some of them carry over to two lines. Still...if you're using the links or paying attention it's not a big deal in my view. Intothatdarkness 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am glad someone did not mind the bullets but they were continously removed all the time so no matter what solution someone proposes, it gets rejected all the time. The flags are a standard across Wikipedia so I fail to see why we could not use them to mark where one name starts and another ends because as you said, the commanders' names are tricky because due to the column spacing some of them can carry over to two lines and thats why we need the markers. Do you support the inclusion of bullets to mark them then? MylowattsIAm (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bullets - possibly, if there's no spacing solution and others feel it helps. Flags - No. Intothatdarkness 20:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How can a list from the left margin be difficult to read? No flags or bullets. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * i agree with putting the flags in.. Where the flags would be different they are very useful. Compare the Battles of Waterloo or ,Monte Casino. where there were commanders from different countries on one side and Blenheim where there were multiple countries on both sides. Passchendaele.is one where there ought to be flags but there are are not and it does not look as good.. I have looked at a number of Battle pages picked at random and nearly all of them have flags for the Generals and Admirals except for Passchendaele and battles of the  English and American civil wars e.g. Naseby and Gettysburg. For two country battles they do not serve the same purpose but they are still there. eg Midway and The Nile (1798). The Battle of Quebec (1759) is an example of a two country battle where there is a different flag for one commander on the British side (although I think the naval flag itself is wrong.- I think it should be the White Ensign not the Red) Spinney Hill (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are only two sides here. Flags for each commander look both messy and is overkill. They also take up space. And Keith-264, the commander list is on the right margin, not the left (at least in the layout I use). On a larger monitor it's fine, but on a laptop it does look cramped (and I refuse to use any kind of mobile device to look at this stuff, but I suspect it's worse there). Intothatdarkness 00:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No flags, that is clearly established by WP:INFOBOXFLAG and WP:MILMOS. Mztourist (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in there is it established that no flags should be used. It literally says it's not recommended nor is it forbidden which means it's completely neutral towards using flags and lets the editor decide. Seems like you just read the first part where it says "not recommended" and decided that it immediately means there should be no flags used. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read those two guidelines and I wouldn't be that dogmatic. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong, MOS says flags should not be used unless they convey useful information not covered in the text. Here the flags are merely decorative and should not be used. Mztourist (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that pretty much everyone is opposed to flags in this specific article. Pretty ridiculous but whatever. It seems that me and another user are in support of using atleast the the bullets. Would you Support it, @Spinney Hill? Then we would have atleast some consensus on how to mark the names. MylowattsIAm (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that flags have obviously been used almost universally in this kind of article with some support from the guidelines. I'm afraid bullet points are neither here nor there but I usually use w/p on a PC using the old layout so I don't know much about you problem. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what you mean. You dont necessarily need to know much about the problem in this context, flags are generally used in articles like these but it seems that there are more of us who support the use of bullets and since you support using at least some kind of markers for the names as far as I understand, then would you support the use of those bullets here in this article? MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If flags can't be used I don't see the point of bullet points I am afraid Spinney Hill (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean.
 * 1. No one said that flags "can't be used". It's just that in this article some of ours seem to have a personal problem with the flags.
 * 2. "If flags can't be used I don't see the point of bullet points I am afraid" What? It's not like we have to use both. You're asked to choose whether you support the use of flags, the use of bullets OR leaving it as a long sausage like it is right now.
 * 3. There is a point in using bullets because that would make it easier to distinguish where one name starts and another ends, especially for mobile users.
 * If you still don't understand what this is about the I don't know what else to say. MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1 Someone has said flags cannot be used -@mztourist. oi disagree I think flags can be used. I thought that's what you wanted.
 * 2 I agree you don't have to use both. I would use flags. I would not use bullet points.
 * 3 If someone uses a lap top or smaller gadget to use wikipedia it is bound to look cramped, whether you use bulet points or not especially if the layout. does not make each name have a separate libe. That is the trade off you probably have to suffer in order to have wikipedia anywhere you go. My wife says I am on w/pedia too much anyway without using it on a bus,in the pub,etc etc. Spinney Hill (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand you would use flags not the bullet points but if flags cant be used and there seems to be more favour in use of the bullets, would you join in supporting the use of them to distinguish between the names? They would be like an alternative to flags then. I also support the bullet points. MylowattsIAm (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It can easily he hard to read, especially on mobile. Some commanders names literally start in one line and end on a second line like happens to the name of Fernand de Langle de Cary where the surname Cary ends up on the line below. Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean others don't as well. We need markers to indicate where one name starts and another ends. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] Interesting, I didn't know that the names could be right aligned; what does that? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Simply open this article from your phone and look at the list. Does it look comfortable to you to read through and immediately notice where one name starts and another ends? It looks like a long sausage of text. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a phone, I use a laptop, hence my surprise. Could the remedy lie in altering your settings? This hasn't come up before. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just checked on my (Android) phone and have no difficulty distinguishing the different names. They are not a "long sausage of text." Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are a long sausage of text and do not even look like a list. Some commanders names literally start in one line and end on a second line like happens to the name of Fernand de Langle de Cary where the surname Cary ends up on the line below and that is no good. It could easily be avoided if we used markers and made it look like a proper list. Two other editors here on the talk page have already said they disagree with you dogmatic, as one described them, views that we should in no way use any markers. The use of bullets already was supported by one user. MylowattsIAm (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All the commanders' names are linked, if you click on any of them that takes you to their respective pages, so no confusion at all. You are creating a WP:MOLEHILL here just because you want to keep purely decorative flags. Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said I "want to keep purely decorative flags". Firstly, they are not purely decorative, I already explained what they are for and secondly I am up for other options as well in how we could indicate the items on a list such as usage of bullets. MylowattsIAm (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but all this settings thing that one could have to do is much harder and could easily be avoided if we could just mark where one name starts and another ends. MylowattsIAm (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There's bound to be a help board on wiki for things like this. Changing Wiki because of one mobile phone seems back-to-front. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is not just one mobile phone, that is exactly how it would look for anyone who opens the page from a mobile phone. Its not like my phone is special and the only phone in the world where it would look like that. Thats not how mobile phones work. MylowattsIAm (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I remain opposed to flags in this case, phones or no phones. With only two sides, flags serve no purpose other than decoration. And to clarify, I said I might not be opposed to bullets if there was a broader consensus to use them. Intothatdarkness 12:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "it would look for anyone who opens the page from a mobile phone" how do you know? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I cant tell if this is a serious question or if youre trolling. MylowattsIAm (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Reading the page for the first time on mobile, I see a list of 9 German commanders and 9 French commanders in the infobox. It is only by selecting every single link that I find we instead have 8 German commanders, with one name breaking across two lines to form an extra entry. Some sort of bullet (in whatever format is preferred) would make it easier for mobile readers to distinguish the different names. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that really an important consideration? Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing your point, "Is it important that we make the information we provide readable for our visitors?" I'd assume so, or else we wouldn't have the manual of style to begin with. The problem has been identified by others above and I have commented that I am also affected. I'd hope that editors would at least consider the matter rather than dismiss it with a note that it isn't worthy of consideration. Consensus may decide not to take any action but that should be after the issues are considered.
 * There are other alternatives to bullet points though. Use of punctuation, such as a full stop or comma, after each name would serve the same purpose to distinguish where one name ends and a new one begins. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly making a list of commanders in an Infobox more readable to people on phones is trivial. If someone is really interested in the battle they should read the page. Mztourist (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is your issue an objection to the information being in the infobox or that we should not consider the needs of mobile users? From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)*
 * I have withdrawn the question due to an accusation that I was acting dishonestly. I don't think I can offer anything more on a constructive level here, so I'll step back from the discussion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The page should be easily readable for everyone no matter what device they're using. This argument is ridiculous. MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there too many commanders listed? Were some of them subordinate? Compare the Battle of Passchendaele (which doesn't have flags.) where only 5 Allied and 3 German Generals are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinney Hill (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly but potentially at the risk of inclusion being arbitrary. I hope that my request on the milhist page might get a reply. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that this is not an honest question.Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted non-consensual edit. Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * (from MilHist) Flags must serve a useful purpose per WP:INFOBOXFLAGS. Where there are two or more belligerents on one side, they serve a useful purpose to distinguish information for a particular belligerent. Where there are only two belligerents they are only decorative and should not be used. I don't have a problem with bullet-points and the rationale for using them is not unreasonable. To the number of commanders, the template documentation indicates a limit of seven a side. We should avoid bloating an infobox as much as possible. While nine on one side is not excessive, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article - ie information in the infobox should be supported by the article and the article should evidence why a commander was key or significant to the event. On a quick look I found a commander on each side listed without support from the article. These should be deleted. Looking critically at how to populate the parameter, how often a commander is mentioned is a metric that can be used. Single or passing mentions of a commander would not generally evidence that they were key to a battle. Apart from the commanders, the infobox is pretty tight but I don't think we need the detail of the dot points in the casualties. The second map does not require a caption and certainly not the digression it contains. A minor point but the location might be trimmed too. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wonder if nowrapping might help? Is it a digression? I have done that in lots of them. RFV is gone. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to simply add flags or bullet points to distinguish the names instead of pointlessly coming up with all sorts of overly complicated solutions. MylowattsIAm (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all because of ONE name in the list. His article is sparse, but he was a key participant so he can't really be removed. I remain opposed to flags. You might like them, but they look horrible in my view and serve no real purpose aside from cluttering things up (the commanders are already sorted by column under headings with flags, and since we don't have multi-national forces here there's no rational need to distinguish commanders further). And I also don't consider removing a commander who isn't mentioned in the article overly complicated. Either edit the article to include the commander and his role/importance or remove him from the list. That's about as easy as it gets. Intothatdarkness 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When you comment on a talk page, you should put your comment at the bottom of the thread so that the chronology is preserved.


 * It isn't complicated; I suggest that we give it a try. Regards [Edit conflict] Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Intothatdarkness 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
The description of the place in France of Verdun having been removed from the loc map, I wonder what "Location within France" adds to it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is the default when there is no caption. I agree, "Location within France" adds nothing but I can't see how to remove it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the map itself and this explanation do add something, especially if you know where the border with Germany is. The border is shown although Germany is not named. And especially if you know where Paris is. Geographical context is important where battles are concerned. It might be better if the map showed the border as it then was, the approximate position of the western Front at the time of the battle and the position of important cities eg Paris, Lille, Amiens, Rheims and Lyon but I don't know if such a map assists on Wiki Commons. The other maps on the page are good but they lack the broad, strategic view. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is in the other maps in the article but since the Infobox is a broad brush it seems too elaborate, I'd remove the loc map instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualties
There are many figures for total casualties reported in the casualties section which are both above and below the reported ranges in the infobox. While the rational for the ranges reported in the infobox are not apparent, the casualty section would also indicate that there is significant nuance to the various reported figures. The German dead reported in the infobox is aligned in the casualty section to a source which reports total casualties outside the range reported in the infobox. French dead and wounded reported in the infobox do not have corresponding figures reported in the casualty section. Consequently, those figures in the infobox are not verifiable?

I found the casualties section a particularly hard slug with multiple sources giving multiple figures. I would observe that significant amounts of numeric data is usually best presented in tabulated form. Unfortunately, these are not my strength. In this sentence (Churchill revised German statistics by adding 2 per cent for unrecorded wounded in The World Crisis, written in the 1920s and James Edmonds, the British official historian, added 30 per cent) I note a contradiction in authorship, the work is not cited and the figures referred to by virtue of the percentages are not given. There is then this sentence (In the second edition of The World Crisis (1938), Churchill wrote that the figure of 442,000 was for other ranks and the figure of "probably" 460,000 casualties included officers), it is apparently referring to figures from the first edition which have not been given. Casualties at Verdun from 1914 to 1918 do not appear relevant.

The last paragraph of the lead deals with casualties. The level of detail regarding casualties is inconsistent with the purpose of the lead being a summary. I am also a bit concerned that the costliness is OR and the verifiability of the symbolism.

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that things could be better; I don't bother with Churchill but other editors do. Some editors also tend to include hyperbole and superlatives, that aren't as evident in recent accounts, which give a sober (albeit sombre) historical, descriptive account of the battle. I can dig out Edmonds's casualty analysis and its discontents if it will help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need to improve the readability of the casualty section in the first instance. Collating all of the various figures into a table would probably be a good start. This should include who wrote what and when. We then need to make any reporting in the infobox transparently consistent with the prose - if this is reasonably possible. In pointing to Churchill, I was indicating issues with the readability of the prose rather than the source. I don't think we can ignore Churchill but this needs to be put into context as to how they are viewed by other sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't accept Churchill as a RS but others do. A table is going to be rather complicated which means that cutting and pasting, which I usually do, might not work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)