|Trench warfare is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2004.|
|This article is written in British English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Version 0.5 (Rated C-Class)|
|This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale.|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
Changed caption of Civil War image; often misidenified as Petersburg, this image has in fact been shown to capture an image of soldiers of VI Corps prior to the 2nd Battle of Fredericksburg, wherein Marye's Heights were finally successfully carried; VI Corps' advance was latter stalled in fighing at the Battle of Salem Church.
World War I focus?
Why does this article only talk about trench warfare in WWI, and no mention of its history or development? It seems like this will mislead a lot of people into thinking trench warfare only occured in WWI. Only lightly touches on the Korean war. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- To answer this, yet again... The page isn't History of entrenchment (which WP appears to need, since this keeps coming up here...), it's Trench Warfare. This is limited to WW1, because no other war has used it so extensively. The U.S. Civil War used entrenchment. So did WW2. So did the Iran-Iraq War. They aren't examples of trench warfare, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I realize it's cited, but Dupuy says the majority of casualties for the war was due to artillery, & considering the effect of HE & frag compared to MG, I tend to doubt MG was the #1 killer, contrary to popular myth. How good is this source on the subject? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would need to go back and read some accounts, but I think artillery will prove to be the big killer of men sitting in the trenches (which is where they spent most of their time) while machine gun fire was the main cause of death during assaults, when the men came out of the trenches. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
British or American English?
A changing IP vandal who is repeatedly changing various articles to British (?) English in violation of WP:ENGVAR changed "armor" to "armour". I changed it back.
Another editor reverted my change stating the article is in British English. I don't see a clear tie to one nation (as with London or American Civil War), so WP:ENGVAR states we should stick with the national variety of English used by the first editor. The original stub has nothing to indicate a variety. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The static trench situation was established in the Great War before US involvement. Because of that I say the article ought to be British spelling and date style. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- (I should have mentioned at first that it isn't just about that one word. This article is a complete mess. We have numerous uses of "meter" throughout, "theater" twice, "armored" and whatever I missed. On the other hand, we have "kilometre" x2, "milimetre", "armoured", and "favourable". Neither one currently dominates.) Yes, the UK (and Australia & New Zealand; I don't know about Canada and can't be bothered to look it up) were directly involved in WWI far earlier and longer that the U.S. While trench warfare has earlier and subsequent uses (that the article should probably discuss more...) and I'm not truly moved to consider this a "strong national tie", I don't particularly care. We just need a consensus before I (or someone else) goes through and cleans it up.
- I'll wait a bit for any other comments/opinions before I would clean it up. (If consensus is for American English, I'm confident I can do a decent job. If it leans to anything else, I can try, but would appreciate assistance.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was the author of the last major revisions to this article a few years back and it was certainly written in British English. Spellings in my text have been changed to US English. The article is also written substantially from a British perspective, though that may be seen as a weakness, and the subject-matter has a far greater connection to the UK than to the United States. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)