Talk:Peninsular War/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Peninsular War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Commanders and Leaders
In commanders and leaders section, the then monarch of the United Kingdom should be mentioned along with the Prince Regent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.223.0 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Length
@PBS:, what do you think of moving the last third of the article into Campaign in south-west France (1814), the same way of Campaign in north-east France (1814)? Frangars (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- As you are probably aware Campaign in south-west France (1814) links into this article.
- It is not one third. The article is currently 164,504 characters long the section campaign in France is 15,162 characters long or about 9% of the article. Unlike the rest of the article this is a a better balanced summary than much of the rest of the article as it is a copy of the article in the EB1911. I suggest that there are other sections that could do with moving out into their own articles and summarised here.
- In comparison the EB1911 article on Wikisource s:Peninsular War is about 50,000 characters long of which about 20,000 covers the battles in the Pyrenees and France.
- The Campaign in north-east France (1814) is often described as a standalone campaign chiefly because many consider it to be one of Bonaparte's most brilliant campaigns (six battle in six days). The Campaign in south-west France (1814) is usually treated as an adjunct to the Peninsular War.
- The EB is a British source and as such it gives unbalanced weight to the British battles (or more probably only them, I didn't read it), so it's no surprise the last of seven years of war to receive more attention than it should deserve, specially when war articles should focus on more broad aspects than details that should be on elsewhere. Well, you're are aware that I tried to improve the article but you rv me. Frangars (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Given the current size of the article the invasion is proportionately similar to the other years. The reason I reverted your change was because the detailed articles do not yet exist. Once those exist this can be paired down to a summary article. Until that is done to deleting text here goes against WP:PRESERVE and to remove details from one year alone would breach WP:WEIGHT. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry but this don't make sense, as yourself didn't follow what you regard as rules when changed the text. Frangars (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given the current size of the article the invasion is proportionately similar to the other years. The reason I reverted your change was because the detailed articles do not yet exist. Once those exist this can be paired down to a summary article. Until that is done to deleting text here goes against WP:PRESERVE and to remove details from one year alone would breach WP:WEIGHT. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The EB is a British source and as such it gives unbalanced weight to the British battles (or more probably only them, I didn't read it), so it's no surprise the last of seven years of war to receive more attention than it should deserve, specially when war articles should focus on more broad aspects than details that should be on elsewhere. Well, you're are aware that I tried to improve the article but you rv me. Frangars (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"..the Paris Moniteur"
"As Junot's army loomed closer, John dithered between offering complete submission and fleeing to Brazil. Finally, Adm. Smith produced a 13 October edition of the Paris Moniteur, which declared that the House of Braganza had been deposed."
I'm 95% certain, especially given the implication that Smith was using a source of official news or propaganda, that this is Le Moniteur Universel. Please comment if you have further information. Harfarhs (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Madrid and Alcantara
Just deleted this line, referenced to [1].
- In August, Wellington entered Madrid, destroying a famous ceramic factory in the city, and a wool factory and Roman bridge at Alcantara.
One of the arches of the Alcántara Bridge was destroyed, but that was in 1809 and the bridge is actually near the Spanish-Portuguese border not Madrid. As such I think the whole sentence is probably dodgy. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Geographic Location of the last campaigns in Spain
I have changed the names of the sections:
- North-eastern campaign → Campaign in the eastern Atlantic region
- South-eastern campaign → Campaign in the northern Mediterranean region
Although I think those titles are clearer than they were I am not happy that they are the best. Does anyone have any better/other suggestions? -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Captain General of the Spanish Navy
@User:Barbudo Barbudo with regards to the edit you made on 10 July 2017 . This article uses short inline citations linked to long citations in a References section. If you add an inline citation to such an article please use the same citation style. What was the the "Captain General of the Spanish Navy" doing at a battle that took place a long way from the sea? What if anything did he do that was notable during the Battle of Toulouse (1814)? -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:Barbudo Barbudo has edited since I asked this question. I haver remove the image, as I do not see the what the man's notable contribution to the battle was. -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peninsular War. 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/20121011021658/http://www.95thrifles.com/Old-Website/Articles/Plunkett/ to http://www.95thrifles.com/Old-Website/Articles/Plunkett/
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/napoleonic_wars/6361907.html?page=2&c=y
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) 02:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone has to change the casualties section
As it is now, it looks like only 25,000 spaniards were killed But if we count the Spanish regulars rather than just "guerrillas", it goes in the hundreds thousands When the total casualties of one side aren't known, there should be something to point it out, rather than just displaying known figures and letting it as it is Right now it looks like the Allies only lost a few dozens thousands killed, while in reality they definitly had more than the French in total — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.174.178 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarify "Allied" in result
The infobox result says "Allied victory" but not which side is "Allied". The French side lists more Belligerents although they are a sublist under French Empire. The only "allied" in the opening paragraph is in "Napoleon's empire (as well as the allied powers of the Spanish Empire)". World War I and World War II have an "Allied Powers" heading in the infobox. I don't know whether the same is suitable here but something should be done. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- In reliable sources the allies are on the side of the British. I have never seen the French forces in Spain referred to as "Allied" in Reliable English language sources. AFAICT The reason for not using Coalition is that not all allies were always part of the numbered Coalitions -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Coalition victory" wouldn't currently be helpful because the infobox doesn't use that term to describe any of the belligerents. My point is that whatever the sides are called, you should be able to tell from the infobox which side won without having to read the article or know in advance what the sides are called. If "Allies" is the common name for the Spanish-British side then use that as heading for that side of the belligerents. If the name isn't common enough for that then don't use "Allied victory" as the only description of the result but for example say "Spanish-British victory". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- What no Portugal? -- PBS (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- One of the problems with Wikipedia is that people tend to "me too" trivial facts into campaign and battle boxes. If one cook from a nation was involved in a war there will be someone who adds that nation as a combatant in the battle box. See for example the article Peninsular War by Britanica.com that states "part of the Napoleonic Wars fought in the Iberian Peninsula, where the French were opposed by British, Spanish, and Portuguese forces." No mention there of all the other countries that were subjugated by France and that might (or might not have contributed a few soldiers to the war). -- PBS (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Coalition victory" wouldn't currently be helpful because the infobox doesn't use that term to describe any of the belligerents. My point is that whatever the sides are called, you should be able to tell from the infobox which side won without having to read the article or know in advance what the sides are called. If "Allies" is the common name for the Spanish-British side then use that as heading for that side of the belligerents. If the name isn't common enough for that then don't use "Allied victory" as the only description of the result but for example say "Spanish-British victory". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- In reliable sources the allies are on the side of the British. I have never seen the French forces in Spain referred to as "Allied" in Reliable English language sources. AFAICT The reason for not using Coalition is that not all allies were always part of the numbered Coalitions -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter I have changed it to "French defeat", and so far no one has reverted. Does that solve the problem? -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)