Talk:Capture of Jericho

Other captures?

A quick skim of our article on Jericho indicates several other instances in which the city was captured - 1967, 19148, the Biblical incident, etc. Should these be distinguished by year, or by overall campaign, or...? DS (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would moving the article to "Capture of Jericho (1918)" fix this?--Rskp (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hello! It was my pleasure to work on this article over the past couple days—it practically copy edited itself. I just tried to improve the flow by moving commas around, throwing in some dashes, and breaking up a sentence or two. There's a lot of quality stuff in there; I especially liked the description of the terrain in the Prelude section. I just had a couple comments/questions:

1. serial commas – I noticed that the article tended to omit them. So I tried to follow that precedent, using them only when I thought they resolved some ambiguity. Thanks.--Rskp (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
2. wadi vs. wady – Is there really a distinction between a wadi and a wady? *Thanks - done.--Rskp (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
3. nested parenthesis – There are a few instances of this. e.g. "...Chetwode's infantry force (formed by the 60th (2/2nd London) Division from XX Corps) was to make the attack towards Jericho,..." Is this acceptable, or should those parenthetical phrases be set off in another way, or should square brackets be used? I'm not sure, maybe it's no big deal. There are a couple sentences about it here.

Again, very nice work. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work. Its really appreciated. I've been on festive season break and am just getting back into the swing of things in Wikiworld. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Thanks once again. --Rskp (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I've just spent a very pleasant time enjoying your work. Thank you very much. I had forgotten how lovely it is to see meaning not only being retained but fostered, and I'm happy you enjoyed the tolkienesque descriptions. All the best. --Rskp (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the brackets commas should be used. Chetwode's infantry force, formed by the 60th (2/2nd London) Division from XX Corps, was to make the attack towards Jericho Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Infantry unit names

The following units have had their names changed from the way they appear in the source quoted.

• the 180th Brigade in the centre, the 181st Brigade on the left and the 179th Brigade has become 180th (2/5th London) Brigade in the centre, the 181st (2/6th London) Brigade on the left and the 179th (2/4th London) Brigade
• the 2/23rd London (181st Brigade) has become the 2/23rd London Regiment (181st Brigade)
• the 2/20th London has been left unchanged while the 160th Brigade (53rd Infantry Division) and the 2/10 Middlesex have become the 160th (Welsh Border) Brigade (53rd (Welsh) Division) the 2/10th Middlesex Regiment.

I presume the editor who made these changes did so on the basis of credible sources but he has chosen not to add them.

My concern is that as it stands it appears these new names can be found in the original sources quoted. But they are not there.

This same editor has made similar changes to the names of numerous units in a number of articles covering this theatre of WW1. I'm beginning to think there may be a rather large problem here, if the sources used to change the names are not supplied. --Rskp (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Braincricket has raised the problem of nested brackets, e.g. the 160th (Welsh Border) Brigade (53rd (Welsh) Division). Should the 'Welsh' in this division name be in square brackets?--Rskp (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The credible sources are the units correct names, or are you disputing that. There is no need to cite the obvious. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)