Talk:Hohenzollern Redoubt action, 2–18 March 1916

It wasn't a battle

Are you familiar with the Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France? It established the names and dates of battles etc. It gives Loos as 25 Sep to 8 October 1915 and an Actions of the Hohenzollern Redoubt 13–19 October 1915. There's also the Hohenzollern Redoubt (1916) not listed in the Record... which isn't a battle but is described in the OH part I for 1916, hence me not labelling it as a battle. Please move the 1916 page back to Hohenzollern Redoubt (1916) and separate the Battle of Loos operations at the Hohenzollern Redoubt and relabel the 13–19 October 1915 gig as Actions of the Hohenzollern Redoubt. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hohenzollern Redoubt (1916). 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/20150510184955/http://www.1914-1918.net/tunnelcoyre.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/tunnelcoyre.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved move

@Jnestorius: Altered move to the OH term (Edmonds 1993 [1932]) p. 174. The earlier events are part of the Battle of Loos 1915 not The Actions of Spring 1916. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Keith-264: That looks to me like a description, not a name. What exactly does page 174 say? Does that text occur only as a section title or is it used in a sentence? jnestorius^(talk) 13:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a section title, the text has "The fighting at the Hohenzollern Redoubt". It's part of Chapter VII Trench Warfare; all of the contents are headed "Blah blah date/s" followed by Note: The German Account. James "A Record of the Battles and Engagements...." p.9 doesn't have an entry so when I wrote it I wasn't sure about the title, hence Hohenzollern Redoubt (1916) to distinguish it from Loos 1915. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the names of OH chapters, still more the headings within chapters, are not intended to coin a new name for the events described, simply to provide a minimal description to aid the reader's navigation. If something has one or more real-world names, then the Wikipedia name should be the most common of those names; however, if the thing has no real-world name, only an ad-hoc description, Wikipedia is not obliged to use that same description. Wikipedia's naming conventions are different from those of Edmonds et al and where their descriptions do not conform to our conventions there is no cause for us to defer to them, and several reasons not to do so; two of which are:

1. the OH descriptions presuppose that the reader knows we are discussing First World War operations, which ours cannot.
2. the OH descriptions reflect British POV, which we should not.

jnestorius^(talk) 21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)