I removed the Operation Hush link because it was never executed. It would be appropriate for inclusion in a box, but the Passchendaele family of articles currently doesn't have one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like it back in because of its influence on the operations that did take place.Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me altering the title of the campaignbox to The Flanders Offensive 1917 so that the contents can be labelled The Battle of Messines and The Battles of Ypres (with or without ", 1917")? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm in support. I've made my general distaste for referring to the campaign as whole as Passchendaele well known in the past largely because I believe so many items named the same causes confusion. I think this is a good move and recognizes the current status of things wherein elements not directly attached to the battle (ex: OP HUSH) are noted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Passchendaele had been used for the main article because it was a better known term than 3rd Battle of Ypres, so decided I should ask before removing it from the campaignbox for the same reason. I think it's more apt to confuse than enlighten too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually think the whole campaign is best known as Battle of Passchendaele. I'm pretty sure academically Third Battle of Ypres is now more common but I don't think there will ever be a desire to move it. I believe Canada's strong attachment and publication of the 2nd Battle of Passchendaele will forever screw up an common name analysis as they simply refer in broad sweeping strokes to "Passchendaele". If you are at all curious, I think the last time I suggested the move was here: Talk:Battle_of_Passchendaele/Archive_1#Requested_move. Returning to the main topic, this is a good move. I remember opposing the inclusion of OP HUSH because it was not directly related to the battles. I however would agree it's part of the wider offensive and the move makes sense.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(Didn't I support that move proposal?) At first I added too many categories trying to make the Somme and Passchendaele ones consistent with the Arras box, then remembered to use the brackets, which meant more detail, in less space, with less fuss, so that German attacks could fit in too. I thought that associated articles heading had worked well in the Somme box, since the title distances the contents somewhat from the official nomenclature, so I let it be; I'm glad you agree. Now all I have to do is get the last three Somme articles done and I can press on with the red links I've added. Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Article titles beginning with Action of... are ones with no obvious label in the RS, except for 22 October, which has this as a map title in a divisional history. I took as a precedent because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history has "Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre" or "raid" should be used with care." so I moved the other titles from attack... for continuity. Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)