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 was copy editedbyTwofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 2 July, 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Villers-Bocage. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I note that several historians do not appear in the reference section, and are missing first names. Who are Simpson, Melvin, and Hart (Russell or Stephan Ashely)?66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Villers-Bocage. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
A close look at this shows that, relative to the crew, this tank is probably too small to be a Tiger. The mantlet also appears to be the wrong shape. Flanker235 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More concerning is the wildly WP:OR WP caption that has been given it. "Most likely taken on 14 June this photo shows a camouflaged Tiger tank on the Ancienne Route de Caen (the old Caen Road), where Wittmann's company spent the night of 12/13 June." Absolutely no evidence for any of this. I have removed the caption and replaced it with 'camouflaged German tank'. The original caption attributes it being taken on the 1st of June. Re the tank's type, it may be that the pic was taken at a strangle angle or the camera setting was emphasising the crew. It may well be a mark IV. Allied crews were making misidentifications all the time. Now I understand why. Simon Adler (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it appears to be too small to be a Tiger. At the end of the day, though, any caption needs to be reliably sourced, not based on our opinions. I think "Camouflaged German tank" would be the better description, but the only source we appear to have, detailed in the image description, claims it to be a Tiger, so it's not wrong to caption it as such. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a Tiger I, you can see by the open circular driver's hatch and the folded-up piece of front track guard used when running on the narrower transport tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Footage of Villers-Bocage sometime after August 4 1944[edit]
I'd like some guidance regarding the caption text of the article's main picture, as I feel it lacks a source regarding the command of that particular tank and it's destructor.--Ed Wood fan (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were quite correct about the lack of a source. I feel like it probably was at one point, but wasn't when you looked. I have just reviewed Taylor, and cited the photo to his work. On the now cited pages, he comments on who the tank belonged to, that it was an OP machine, and provides a bit of a back and forth of its fate: Victory claimed it was abandoned after it became immobilized by a paving slab, and afterwards was struck once under the turret via a round fired by Wittman's Tiger. Taylor speculates that German infantry set the tank on fire after the fact to deny it being retrieved. Although all that seems a little too much for the caption. Hopefully, that addresses your concern?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the MoS (see MOS:HEAD) - if there are sectional dividers, they should be actual section headings that can be edited, not pseudo-headings. It would be better to simply remove the dividers, IMO, but if somebody felt they were necessary, I don't want to argue. But I don't really see the benefit of having a list of 30 or 40 books and then splitting off a single website or journal article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sometimes there are no easy answers but for three or four books and a journal, section headers seem like overkill. I'd go back to a homogenous bibliography. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that nobody else has commented (and the main author of this page seems to not be active at the moment), I've gone ahead and removed the divisions. There are certainly cases where they make sense (but this doesn't seem to be one of them). Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
