This article was created from content previously added to The Battle of Passchendaele; please also consult that article's history for those who contributed those edits, and therefore hold the copyright, subject to the GFDL.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. [show]
Battle of Passchendaele is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
How come there are bullet points under UK in the Belligerents section of the info box? I edited them away, but that was undone. Why is this? ---Jibbsisme (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't really know what you're talking about... I just think that these are odd. Is it because these countries are part of the UK or something? I find them out-of-place. --Jibbsisme (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an almost perverse aversion to the identifying of the key participants within the British Empire in the First World War. The British Empire was unique in creating large and influential Dominions, beginning with Canada, and that added so much to its strength and enriched its history. A reader of today who simply sees 'British Empire' might think that Britain, along with Togo and Guyana fought
on the fields of Passchendaele. The great story of the Dominions troops, in particular, has historical significance with respect to the development of national identities that emerged from
the battles of the First World War, such as Passchendaele and Arras (Vimy). The Uber Fueher of this page seems to think that this is spurious and ahistorical. Good grief. I am a Commissioned Officer
and a former teacher of history and I cannot think of any comment more disingenuous. pidd (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come off it, the facts are that the Dominions and colonies fought in the Great War as part of the British empire, ruled from Westminster under the Union Flag, with some local devolution of power and common trade and foreign policies. French colonial troops and German federal troops did the same with their imperial flags. If you want to add a section to the page on the effect the war/3rd Ypres had on Canadian, Australian etc nationalism fine but please stop adding anachronistic, ahistorical symbols to the infobox which wouldn't have been recognised as legitimate by the Canadian, Australian etc participants. As for your inference about what a reader might think re: Togo and Guyana, Togo was a German colony and Guyanese soldiers fought in the Great War West India RegimentBritish West Indies Regiment and West Indian labourers worked on the Western Front. You might find this interesting: The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (1991) by Avner Offer. I'd like you to reflect on this and agree that flags that wouldn't have been recognised at the time not be shown in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no revert war. Three people have contributed to the debate so I suggest that you address your comments to all of us. Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LeadSongDog. This sort of change requires the input of the entire community. Why has it been changed here and nowhere else? It is inconsistent with nearly every other article which lists all the belligerents. Do you propose doing this to other articles? Like Gallipoli for instance? If so then this should be discussed far more widely before being implemented. If you don't then I have to question your motives. 200.241.132.155 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your change upset the apple cart. The legal status of dominion and colonial contingents in the British army is a simple matter of fact not opinion. LSDs comments were as unhelpful as yours, since they were wrong in fact and inference. You two question my motives and I question your scholarship. If you have nothing more to offer, I will restore the page tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the question of appropriate weight given to the participants. An infobox is a summary of the elements of the event - not the whole detail. To list a very small contributor alongside a major one without qualification could be considered against Undue Weight. To my mind it would be better to briefly state that there were British and Dominion forces in the infobox and then add some information on the makeup of the units available for the battle in the background section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If people want something about Dominions per se the suggestion of a section of text rather than stuffing the infobox seems fair enough, although I would have thought most information about that would be on other pages like this Military history of Canada during World War I so could be linked. If so, German units from Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony etc should be treated similarly. I wasn't sure about including Belgium for its military contribution but thought that since the battle took place in their country they deserved a mention....Keith-264 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be a lot of text on the subject but if the consituent makeup of the British (wide meaning) forces did have bearing at any point (c.f. how it came be that it was the Canadians who ended up on the beaches at Dieppe) then its worth mentioning. The Canadian forces were all volunteers and a high proportion (50% by the end of the war) had been born in the British Isles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usual anti-IP prejudice used to deflect discussion. To equate Australia/Canada/New Zealand to Bavaria/Prussia/Saxony is way too simplistic. The dominions were unique legally and were ultimately independent nations in all but technicality. I see no harm in having their flags in the infobox. Ultimately they became independent whilst the German states clearly didn't so that is another reason. I question why this proposal is being raised here when it should be discussed in a much wider forum. Seems completely invalid, even underhanded. Claims of violating BRD are equally absurd. The infobox flags were removed, that was reverted, and now it needs to be discussed before you change it again. Exactly how BRD should work. Add compliant references of the assertion that the dominion forces were part of the British Army or go away. 211.151.187.169 (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
anti-IP prejudice with good reason: 211.151.187.169 is another singleton, in Beijing this time. [1] says Recently reported forum spam source. (65)
independent nations in all but technicality. No. They had _no choice_ regarding participation in WW1. Definitely _not_ independent.
Ultimately they became independent whilst the German states clearly didn't so that is another reason. Irrelavent. Why not add Republic of Ireland then?
I question why this proposal is being raised here when it should be discussed in a much wider forum. Fully agree. So take it to milhist. So far, none of the objectors have done so. So, go ahead.
Claims of violating BRD are equally absurd. The infobox flags were removed, that was reverted, and now it needs to be discussed before you change it again. Exactly how BRD should work. The infobox flags were added, then reverted, then added again several times. That is a violation of BRD. Hamish59 (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to this nonsense above. Argument re Republic of Ireland is unsupportable and is just added to muddy to waters, how about actually discussing the real issues? Continuing to carpet bag IPs by claiming they have been blocked just indicates the lack of substance to your argument. Discuss the issue. Myself and the others are attempting to take part in an actual discussion but you just seem to want to ignore that. There is no policy that says we need to be signed up users to contribute an opinion so deal with it. Nothing of substance - bullocks, I have raised quite a number of points, none of which you have addressed. You have been asked to provide references for your claims but only provide vague "found this on Amazon have a look at it". YOU show me a quote which supports YOUR claim, that is how it works. As I said above if YOU want to change something YOU need community consensus. I don't need it to object to YOUR proposal. 200.229.206.109 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several thoughts. First, I have reverted back to the bullet point list, as that is the status the article was at before this little edit war began. Per WP:BRD, you don't get to keep reverting to your preferred version while a discussion is ongoing. Second, the entire argument is undone by the fact that the United Kingdom was allowed to remain outside British Empire. If you want to collapse all belligerents, you should collapse all of them. But third, and most importantly, the infobox exists to present key information for the reader. And in the case of this battle, the reader expects a notation of Canada's involvement as a belligerent, and certainly others though I can't speak to Australia or New Zealand's import and impact on the battle, and the battle's impact on those nations. Fourth, While the relationship of the Dominions and the Empire was rather complicated in this time frame, Canada et al were unique national entities, not provinces or territories. The attempts to trivialize them in this fashion belies reality. Fifth, as noted above, this proposed change would affect numerous articles and should not be made piecemeal. If you want to change how infobox information is displayed, I would recommend going to a central discussion point and presenting a case for all such articles, not just this one. Resolute13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No the change to anachronistic labelleling was the unwarranted one so I have put it back to the status quo. As for your claim of what the reader expects, this is pure POV. I quite agree that all three main belligerents should be listed as French, British and German empires and if I knew how to do that I would. The internal arrangements of the British empire were no more complicated than any other and your use of the phrase "attempt to trivialise" is blatant POV, when the point I stand for is to avoid ahistorical anachronistic labels. If you want to begin a discussion on a policy for all articles, good luck to you, I'll support it but the original infobox was stable for ages before the drive-by interpolations, so it should stand while the matter is resolved. Please try to assume good faith. Apropos, was Canada a sovereign state in 1917? Were Canadians British subjects in 1917?Keith-264 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox style held for years in the current format, even through what appears to be well over a hundred of your own edits. Your change to collapse down remains disputed, and as such, no, your personal and POV preference is not status quo. And likewise, your change to collapse down to just the British Empire (along with your POV of the United Kingdom deserving special mention) is the one that warrants wider discussion, and since that is your desire, it is your responsibility to gain consensus. Resolute14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No you have jumped in with a certain degree of effrontery and made unwarranted claims about motive, bias and blamed me for the same conduct as you. You have made no comment about accuracy. I invite you to join me in a request for arbitration. In the meantime I revert your meddling.Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBCOM does not mediate content disputes, only conduct. Also, given you cannot show consensus support for your preferred POV, the original format is the one that remains. Resolute14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can you so the original format should be the historically accurate one I put there ages ago. I take it that your preferred POV is historical accuracy? Have you noticed that there are other participants in this discussion? Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ages ago" being a change you snuck in in January. And that change is in dispute, therefore the version that existed for years prior to your change is what takes precedence, until you can show support for your change. Also, yes, I have noted the other participants. Only one of them supports your position, and at least six (counting both talk page messages and those that reverted you in the article) oppose, and one more implicitly opposing you given they are arguing this should not be done ad-hoc. Resolute14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you impute bad faith. The page was moribund for years so I'm not sure that a change in January challenged in May makes the January change the point of contention. Pidd changed his/her mind, H59 agreed as did GL. The last time I was involved in a discussion about this the upshot was that a policy was futile because there would be drive-bys whatever the resolution, which is what your revert looked like in the light of the comments that were appended. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Messines_%281917%29) Having given due notice when the debate seemed to have ended I think I have been more than fair but am open to contrary opinion. If enough people are willing to try to establish agreement on a broader talk page I'll join in but until now it's seemed like an excercise in futility. Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that your interpretation is wrong is not a synynom of stating you are acting in bad faith. I don't think your actions are bad faith, merely misguided. You are correct, however, that I failed to note pidd's changing of mind (and I also missed Jibbsisme's comment originating this section). But all that means is that your change goes from being outright opposed to, at best, no consensus. Resolute15:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the matter to be decided by facts or opinions? The Westminster parliament declared war in 1914 and that affected all of the empire, unlike in 1939 when seperate declarations were made, so something was different. I assume the Statute of Westminster 1931 amended the laws I noted further up the page. Would you agree that if it could be demonstrated that sovereignty inhered at Westminster in 1914 that settles it? If not, Germany and the USA were federal states so shouldn't we put separate icons in for Saxony, Prussia and Texas etc? If it is to be settled by vote then for consistency's sake other polities ought to be treated the same. Oh and there's a UK icon because I blundered into lots of disambiguation notices. "British Empire" turned out to mean the colonial empire but not the metropole.Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am already aware of the history. As I said, the relationship between dominions and the empire were complicated. While they did automatically end up at war with the empire, they certainly were not mere provinces of Great Britain at that time, so your examples of Texas and Prussia are not applicable. Speaking of facts, the date of Canadian Confederation is 1867, not 1931. While all the former colonies retianed very strong ties to the Empire at the time of WWI, they were already their own unique entities at that time. And indeed, you won't find many sources discussing the battle in terms of "British Empire troops", but specifically as Canadian, Australian/ANZAC, etc. Resolute20:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Texas and Prussia were not provinces, they were states. I can see that I'm wasting my time relating facts to you so I'll leave it there.Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No shit. You're simply arguing semantics now. The point, of course, is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. were not sub-national entities (i.e.: 'mere provinces') of a larger nation the way Prussia and Texas were. Resolute21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Battles Nomenclature Committee named it The Battles of Ypres, 1917, which is followed by the Official History. Are we really to set that aside for facile quantitative analysis and cherry picking, surely there's a difference between RS and pop-history? Notice that there are two Battles of Passschendaele within the Third Battle of Ypres. This isn't pointless, it's history.Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to parrot the Official History. Wikipedia uses Common Names for most subjects, and as Passchendaele seems to be the name most commonly used, not least amongst those who fought in it, we should stick to that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J. P Harris, no parrot, uses the proper name in Douglas Haig and the First World War Cambridge Military Histories 2008; is Passchendaele common or ignorant? I'll leave the question open for a bit longer but I fear it's turning into another beauty contest.Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are all aware of how you are the only enlightened man watching this article. Passing yourself off as intellectually superior is rather ironic given all of your intellectualism fails to realize that you have not made a policy-winning argument in favour of getting your way. Resolute18:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, you don't get to make snide remarks about "pop history" and "another beauty contest" and then complain when people call you out. And please indent properly, instead of abusing indents to make it look like you own the conversation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have policy-winning argument in favour of this? Please, in your response, avoid making personal comments such as "are you mad", "how sad, how lonely", or the like. I will revert any further personal attacks by you, whoever they are aimed at. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am be happy to be reverted on an even handed basis but I fear that you will not revert yourself. I will not agree to one-sided abuse so I suggest that you acknowledge a conflict of interest. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no pecuniary or professional interest in the name of this article. It's hard to imagine how anybody could. Do you have a policy-winning argument in favour of changing the article name? DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, and try reading WP:CONSENSUS. Now, what policy-based argument do you have to support your proposal to change the name of the article? I will not be responding to any more of your sidetracks. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think you've set yourself up as a judge and shown bias by not censoring anyone else. I suggest respectfully that you recuse yourself. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please report this discussion to ANI if you are unhappy with my participation. Do you have a policy-based argument for moving this article? DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As noted above, Passchendaele or the Battle of Passchendaele is a more commonly used name and how people are likely to search for it. Yet another example is this BBC history page, which, while acknowledging the "official name," refers to it as "Battle of Passchendaele." BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"; with 99 years of writing this might be difficult because of the schools of thought, polemics and apologetics on the campaign. I would be happy to join anyone who wants to devise a list of "independent, reliable English-language sources".
Battle of Passchendaele (21 letters) Third Battle of Ypres (18 letters), proposal meets the concision criterion
Confusion with two of the battles that really are battles of Passchendaele. Various commentators had also pointed out that TBoY is the official name.
Oppose. The most common name in the English-speaking nations that fought in it is the Battle of Passchendaele. And that's what we use, not necessarily the "official" name. As long as the latter is recorded in the article that's fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I missed the discussion last year on this issue but I would strongly suggest this article is misnamed Passchendaele. If I was writing a book on the whole campaign I would select Passchendaele for its emotional resonance but the two battles of Passchendaele (12 October 1917 and 28 October/10 November 1917) were the last two of eight battles fought between 31 July and 10 November 1917. At present I am updating a VC biography and noted Passchendaele listed instead of Third Ypres. It is a bit silly listing Passchendaele for a soldier who was posthumously awarded the VC for Menin Road. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mukogodo: In "Note on Casualties" pp. 343-347 Terraine wrote "...I may remark that an addition of 20% to the figure stated in the German Official Account (p. 367) gives a total of 260,400...." p. 347. He was writing about the assumptions other writers had made about the different criteria used in casualty counting by the British and Germans and that German counts were not exact by comparison with British methods. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So let's simply perpetuate Terraine's ignorance of how numbers work, just because he wrote them down. Good for you. "Foolish consistency..."Mukogodo (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your alteration was OR so NBG; Terraine was explaining why he thought 20% needed to be added to the Reichsarchiv figure then did it to reach 260,400. It was the Reichsarchiv who gave a precise figure from the Sanitatsbericht, a painstaking casualty count. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the numbers are argued over but is there a reason the number of casualties are not summarised in the lead section? This seems important information. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lack ofn consensus makes it too much of a detail for the lead. The lead is next to the infobox which does offer numbers and a link to the discussion. It will unbalance the lead to delve into it there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate much more. Please be detailed. Refer to WP:BRD, e.g. "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". For my part, it says "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. [... Then] when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but since you haven't explained your concerns yet, how am I supposed to attempt a new edit? — W.andrea (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC) [updated 17:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)][reply]
OK, this is not constructive. Unless you can raise a specific concern, I'm just going to go ahead and apply my edit again. But if you think of anything, by all means reply again. Or if you want to get someone else to explain it to me, by all means. — W.andrea (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I realize my edit might not make the text perfectly clear or grammatical, but it's still an improvement on what was there before, so unless you can tell me how to improve it properly, I don't see any reason not to apply it again. — W.andrea (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see nothing was changed which made the grammar better. I couldn't see anything wrong with it. What did you see as wrong? Puttting the verbs at the beginning didnt make for an improvement in the flow of the sentences
As I wrote in the edit summary, "Fix grammar (incomplete list)", though, reading it back, maybe that's not super clear. The problem was that there was a missing "and" in the first sentence: the list ends with "debates over the nature of the opening attack and between advocates of shallow and deeper objectives", but there's no "and" before it. It should be "and debates over ... and between ...".
Also, there was a comma before the verb that probably shouldn't have been there.
The other things I changed were for clarity:
Putting the verbs first is more comfortable to read in my opinion. Having them at the end makes it hard to make sense of the sentence while you're reading it. Only once you get to the end of the (relatively complex) list do you get to the verb and can make sense of what the sentence is actually saying. That could be contentious -- I get that -- so if you want to only undo that change while we discuss, I'd totally get it.
Lastly, it's minor, but the link [[1917 French Army mutinies|internal troubles]] should be [[1917 French Army mutinies|internal troubles of the French armies]] so that it's clear what it's referring to. See MOS:LINKCLARITY.
That's the point, your opinion isn't definitive; I have altered the link to French Army mutinies since it's shorter and there aren't any other mutinies it can be confused with. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as per INFOBOXFLAG: "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table. (For example, in this infobox, flags of countries involved in a battle are first given with their names."
The page on another WW1 battle, the battle of the Somme, is given as the example. The flag is listed first by the country and then in the subsequent areas like commanders and strength in order to be used as a quick visual guide to make each segment up. It also states that "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" and points to articles on military conflicts as an example to use them. I think this would be the correct and intended purpose of the use of flag icons.
You're reasoning doesnt make sense. As I pointed out, it is specifically mentioned that military conflicts are an acceptable example of use of flagicons. Also, how can you cite this while you would allow flag icons next to the country and strength categories in the infobox, but not the commanders? And they point to the battle of the Somme page as an example of how to use flagicons, which is exactly the same way I edited this.
my reasoning isn't the point, the WP is. I don't edit the Somme page because I don't like to be associated with mediocrity. As I've pointed out, adducing precedents from bad infoboxes isn't making a case, it's evading one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"adducing precedents from bad infoboxes isn't making a case" Im adducing directly from the precedent you cited which points to the article on the somme as an example of the proper use of flagsicons in the infobox. Thats the point Im making. It doesnt make any sense to include the flagicons for every category except for the commanders of each side.
Incorrect, its pointing to the battle of Somme articles as an example of the proper way to use flagicons. You use the flags initially by the countries and then subsequently use the flag as a shorthand for the other various fields in the infobox to indicate which commander served which country, the number of troops ect. and causalities for each party. You misunderstand the rule.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Requesting immediate archiving...
