Talk:Battle of the Boar's Head
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Boar's Head article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Boar's Head. 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/20141105095129/http://www.cwgc.org/media/211116/btm_june1916_boars_head.pdf to http://www.cwgc.org/media/211116/btm_june1916_boars_head.pdf
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits
edit@Factotem: Did I just tread on some of your edits? Keith-264 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- No. Don't think so. I think I misunderstood what you were trying to do with the addition of "(1/5th Gloucester)". They're not mentioned again in the article, so not sure we need to show an abbreviated form, but either way, the Glosters' battalion involved was the 2/5th. FactotEm (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Odd. That last change you made changed an edit I had made a few minutes before, but the diff of the previous version on your edit was not what I changed it to. FactotEm (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- I got a bit confused too, If I did spoil any, apols.Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- No problems here. FactotEm (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)