Talk:Abdication of Napoleon, 1815

What is this page?
What is this page? "For the sword by which the Empire had been raised and held in subjection, by which Europe itself had been mesmerised and all but conquered, had fallen powerless from his grasp?" That's not encyclopedic language.

Also, there are various other grammatical errors on this page. This page needs some serious improvement, if not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadjorim (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 October 2014‎


 * If you can see errors then you are able fix them. -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Imperial troops had succeeded in quelling the insurrection, — when, in addition to all this, it is considered how great, how extraordinary, was the influence induced by the prestige of Napoleon with the majority of the nation, dazzled as the latter had been by countless victories that outweighed, in its estimation, those fatal disasters which it ascribed solely to the united power of the great European Coalition established against France."

This is...not good. This reads much like an opinion piece attempting to glorify Napoleon. 128.211.185.210 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Just the average Wikipedia article with a bunch of 19th century text pasted in.2A02:AA1:1600:8E5:497:296D:521C:1FB7 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe most of this article is a holdover from the 1911 Britannica, which would account for the old-fashioned language and the frequently opinionated tone. In a way, it's actually pretty impressive.  Something like 99.99% of Wikipedia has moved well past its Britannica starting point, but there are still a few holdout articles like this one.  Anyway, charming as some of us may find the article, it does stand in need of rewriting.  Anyone who feels up to the job should get to it.  Kevin Nelson (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually if one looks at the references the majority of the text is is from
 * However what comes around goes around. When quoted here the IP on 10 July 2021 it may have seemed inaccurate but now three months in to the war in Ukraine with a minor change it seems quite modern:
 * --PBS (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A more useful and constructive task would be to write an article as detailed as this one on the first abdication of Napoleon, 1814 (at the moment it is a redirect). -- PBS (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * --PBS (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A more useful and constructive task would be to write an article as detailed as this one on the first abdication of Napoleon, 1814 (at the moment it is a redirect). -- PBS (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

M. Duchesne
M. Duchesne: The M. in this case is for Monsieur (Mr.), so this may be Antoine Louis Hippolyte Duchesne see fr:Catégorie:Député des Cent-Jours. This need more research. -- PBS (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is confirmed:
 * Antoine Louis Hippolyte Duchesne

-- PBS (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Events in French
-- PBS (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26375/26375-8.txt
 * Title: Les Cent Jours (2/2) Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de la vie privée, du retour et du règne de Napoléon en 1815.
 * Author: baron Pierre Alexandre Édouard Fleury de Chaboulon
 * Publisher: Project Gutenberg
 * Release Date: August 20, 2008 [EBook #26375]

Reversal of move
I reverted the move of Abdication of Napoleon, 1815 ‎to 1815 abdication of Napoleon made at 07:15, 7 June 2019‎. The primary reason for including the year this is that Napoleon abdicated twice once in 1814 and again in 1815. The article could also be called the "second abdication of Napoleon".

The use of a comma in the title allows for an automatic dab extension (just as if the dab extension is in brackets. If the year is placed first then an editor which wishes to include the title in an article will have to manually created the pipe within the article which is to link to this article. Therefore Abdication of Napoleon, 1815 better fits the WP:AT criteria:
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. ...

-- PBS (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)