Talk:List of World War I battles

2008
Hi Jethro, Good work. I'd suggest that the article could be improved by not automatically numbering within each month as you have now. It would be better to use the actual date of the battle to show the sequence e.g. For longer battles, perhaps start and end dates. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 23 Battle of Mons
 * 26 Battle of Le Cateau
 * 26 Battle of Le Cateau
 * 26 Battle of Le Cateau


 * thanks very much! i shall get to work right away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethrothompson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you'll find this to your satisfaction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethrothompson (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent start! You may find this article just keeps expanding as there are many more battles that the English Wikipedia doesn't cover yet. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1914
Why is this year not represented? Rklawton (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems to be covered now. I'm marking this as ✅ --BjKa (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for layout
Hello.

I am very much new to Wikipedia (I am involved in other wikis - minor stuff really.)

I feel that the layout of this page is inefficient and confusing. For starters, it only includes dates when the battle begins, and one has to click on the link to access data about the battle, if a link actually exists.

I would like to suggest a new layout for battles in general, which I believe would make the entire system much easier to read and (possibly) edit. Instead of having a list, I would like to suggest a table, perhaps similar to the table here.

The values would be a numeric value for chronological ordering, the name of the battle, location, date of starting and date of ending, and some other information.

For the other information, I am personally divided as to how it should be set out. Either, on the left, we have the victorious combatants and on the right, the defeated combatants, or, on the left, the Entente and the right, the Central Powers, and then in the centre would be the outcome. Also, detailed in the boxes for the combatants would be the size of each force, and the casualties inflicted to each side.

This would (I hope) lead to easier information gathering and statistics, and while more in-depth information could be accessed on the pages themselves, the superficial information is able to be accessed by a reader much easier than having to click on each available battle to receive information.

Does this sound possible or useful to anyone else? I would be willing to (try to) make the template, but I would like to hear opinions before I go in all guns blazing to change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felbah (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Battle of the Bulge" ?
I took the following sentence out of the picture caption at July 1917: "The battle of Ypres was also known as the 'Battle of the Bulge,' because of the bulge effect it had on the lines of allied trenches." I have only ever heard the term Battle of the Bulge in connection with WWII, while the Flanders theater has always been referred to as the "Ypres Salient". I checked the three articles for the Battles of Ypres, and none of them contains the word "bulge". So unless someone provides a valid source, (pre 1940's, mind you!) I call bullshit. --BjKa (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of World War I battles. 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/20080724211204/http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/595496 to http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/595496

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)