Talk:Action of 23 October 1805

Original research?
I've never seen that the events recounted in this article have been treated separately from the Battle of Trafalgar. In adition, the article describes several events that can hardly be treated as naval fighting and which happened at different places on different moments. I think, in conclusion, that the article is inconsistent with the statements of WP: NOR. It would be better, in my view, merging it with the article on the Battle of Trafalgar. --Sir Ignel (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This action occurred two days after the battle, and has little to do with it. First because Collingwood formed a line of battle against the Franco-Spanish squadron, and only this justifies the name of this article. The second thing that deserves my mention, are the british captors of the Santa Ana and Neptuno, that were made prisoners by the spanish crews, and they're not even yet mentioned here, and also because this action saw ships that were not involved during the battle of trafalgar, like the HMS Donegal. It's already "merged" with the Trafalgar Campaign article. Pietje96 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I must also say I'm unclear as to the significance of the article. The many sources on the battle do not treat this as a separate action (one thinks of Clayton & Craig's Trafalgar: The Men, the Battle, the Storm, for example). The splitting of the two events seems to allow the Franco-Spanish fleet to declare a degree of success. Particularly the infobox, which implies that the British had 4 Ships of the line scuttled, 2 Ships of the line recaptured, 2 Ships of the line driven ashore. This is presuming that once the British had taken possession of the ships, they became British warships, which is simply not true, they became prizes. The statement 'This action occurred two days after the battle, and has little to do with it.' could not be more incorrect. Nor does the argument that Collingwood formed the line of battle, which does not mean that a separate action has occurred, or will occur. Weaknesses in the main Trafalgar article also don't by themselves justify a whole new article that paints a picture of a Franco-Spanish success, by splitting it from the actual battle article. Nor does the fact that British sailors were taken prisoner after the battle, or that ships not involved in the first phase of combat took part in later phases. I'd be certainly happy to see all these elements included in the Battle of Trafalgar article, which could really do with expansion on all these points. But this is tending towards a coatrack. Benea (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Which is the difference between this action and the battle of cape ortegal? weren't those ships captured by Strachan part of the battle? why needs the battle of cape ortegal a separate section? Dumanoir ships escaped, those that engaged Vice-Admiral Collingwood under Cosmao-Kerjulien also did. This must have been merged to the Trafalgar Campaign, and is already done. Strachan's ships did not see action at Trafalgar.. HMS Donegal, that captured the battered Rayo during this action was not present at Trafalgar. Another problem that comes to my mind are the disputed casualties based on the sources. If we merge this into the main article, all the casualties suffered by the british and the ships re-taken by the French, must be noted. Excuse moi, forming another line of battle does not mean that a separate action has occurred? Well... according to the sources it occurred after the encounter had ended on 21th Oct, and during the battle of Trafalgar, when both british lines passed through the combined, never formed a line of battle.Pietje96 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)