Talk:Battle of Trafalgar/Archive 4

Reference clean-up
I notice there is something of a ref clean-up problem. Besides the two sections that are marked as not having any refs, the other refs are often a bit shaky. On the surface they appear to follow the harvard ref system. From a distance. In many if not most cases it really isn't the Harvard ref, only the appearance of it. For example, in the current Note 1 we have an Adkin 2007. No such Adkin is defined. There is an Adkin 2005. Adkin wrote other books on the same topic in subsequent years, but not that one. Exactly which book is it? Should it be Adkin 2005? Or is it some other book? We can't seem to get the page number in Adkin 2005. But even if we did, the problem with Adkin is that he doesn't give any sources for his data, and no notes to speak of. We don't know where he got it, hopefully not Wikipedia. All the sources are flashy, well-illustrated modern blog-type books, nice for the public to read, something like a comic book. I'm not saying they should not be there, only that I was looking for something more referential, more encyclopedic, more cautioned. Sure, Trafalgar was a great battle. Sure the participants were all heros. But, we need some scholarship there also; otherwise, why not just cite the Hollywood film? I think I will gradually go over these refs and try to supply more. Don't worry about your writing or your English as this is not an English-language edit. Most of it looks good. I won't be touching that, I hope.Botteville (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The botteville initiative

 * (Note this discussion has notable overlaps with the previous one: . --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC))

Hi there. I am glad to see so many people now taking an interest. What is more, I cannot say that I entirely disagree with you. Roger, you stated correctly, I feel, what the problem with the article is, and what the solution is. I wouldn't presume to grab the article for myself. I was starting in on it but I was soon sidetracked by material that had been moved elsewhere. I am going back to that until you co-editors get your thoughts together. I'm on your side.

Toddy, at last you are making some sense. You want to question the initiative and who had it. I think the issue of tone takes back seat. We can change a few words later. One can argue that Villeneuve took the initiative when he escaped from Brest. Nelson certainly took it back, but that is another phase. We can argue about this forever, just as do the scholars. However, that is not really our place. We need to find references for the strategy and tactics on Nelson. I could go through and put a bunch of tags on, but that would be premature. Toddy, the references usually go on the ideas presented later in the article. If you want to present them and reference them, I feel the article would be improved. I'm sort of a last resort. When you are finished, if there is anything unreferenced I will tag it for you, and the same goes for you other editors. Quibbling over tone is not the right path to improvement, at least not now. I'm here if you want to talk to me. We have our work cut out for us. If the job does not get done then I will be taking more of a hand. You can't argue with botteville. I only put up a fight when you start replacing referenced material with your unreferenced opinions. On with show, my friends. Let's see how it comes out. If you do NOTHING I will be back when I have tackled the subsidiary articles. Ciao and happy editing. Your co-enthisiast, Botteville (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The tone is not a "quibble". Tone is extremely important to an encyclopedia.  If we deviate from pure verifiable facts, adding some emotion or such, it makes it appear we're trying to make the reader see things our way, instead of letting them develop their own opinion.  For this subject especially, the facts are quite dramatic as they are, and letting the reader realize the actual, factual drama for themselves will make more of an impression on them than us appearing to try and inject something extra into it.  If there's even a hint that we're selling some agenda, the reader will be suspect of even the dry facts we present.  The article fails, and worse, WP fails, getting a reputation for low-quality, amateurish writing.


 * And, point of order, we should not edit the lede while it's under discussion. This makes it a moving target, unraveling any chance of gaining consensus in the discussion, and is considered disruptive editing.  Any changes without consensus should be immediately reverted.


 * We seem to have consensus that this recent addition needs a lot of work -- for tone or content or both -- to the point that it is not an improvement in its current form. I propose returning the lede to its status quo before this addition, and start the suggested rewrite the lede from there.  Please comment on this proposal, and (for the time being) leave off discussions of the use of individual words or phrases and other small issues.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My dear Monroe: first of all, you cannot just yank my headings and text out of here because you don't like them. But I will not make an issue of that now as we are on more important matters. Second of all, make up your mind, are these to be important non-quibbles bearing on tone or individual words or phrases and other small issues? But let us set that aside. Certainly, tone is very important. This is not an issue of tone, the tone is mainly fine. This is in part an issue of whether English is being used correctly by a user whose first language is not English. Apart from that you have my full agreement. We do not want to promulgate any agenda. I didn't think I was. False language, false criticism. Ultimateley however I will of course accept the consensus decision, if we can get one (that is often a problem).


 * The main issue, Monroe, is content, as you implied. You mentioned points of order. You are right, the first point of order is, how shall we leave this disputed text? I say, "leave" it because that is what we have to do. An introduction (I assume I do not have to quote you chapter and verse, as you must know it by now), tries to introduce the material in the article. Therefore it has to be about the article. We give it something of a remission of references because they are assumed to be adequately given below and we do not wish to clutter the article. The problem is, the article below is not everything our co-editors say it is not. Here I did slip up a little. I fully intend to add to the rest of the article, but I have not done it yet. I was hoping the intro would point in the direction I intend to go. If these points are called into question, then those questions can only be answered with references. But, this is not the place for references! You see the problem?


 * In reverse direction, the last point of order in an introduction that introduces what is there. The penultimate point of order is to place what is to be there in place. The antepenultimate point, which is the one we are forced to face now, is what goes in the introduction for now. You have put yourself in the position of arbiter. Fine, I can't see how you would not be a good one. We need one, surely. Naturally I favor what is there right this minute. I cannot promise, however, that once I get the referenced material in, it will entirely fit the one there now, which you restored. But, you kmow, I do not feel that I have to write the intro. I feel that it has to be accurate, and our main judge of accuracy is references. I cannot therefore espouse any version not covered by references later in the article. I'm not in much of a logical position to assess anything you might decide to put there, and will not be until the article has been worked over and given full references. I trust you will make an adequate decision. Meanwhile I have a busy Wikipedia schedule and need to get on with it. I will give you, however, whatever time you need. I trust this full exposition will help you.Botteville (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This "full exposition" has mostly only confused me; I find it helps to have only one point discussed at a time, and stick to points that have a direct, immediate effect on improving the article. Yet I've picked out a few points of interest that I think I understood.


 * You've emphasized that the sections and lede should be consistent. Yes, we all agree on that.  But then you seem to imply this means we must change the sections and the lede all at once, or there's some precise process involved in editing.  That's not how things commonly work in WP; the great majority of changes are incremental, with small changes in various sections sparking small changes in the lede, and vice versa, in a continuous cycle.  For examples, see just about any article in WP, including this one, including your own edits.  But there are the occasional exceptions, where one editor has an idea for a single sweeping change to a whole article.  Except in cases of WP:NUKEIT, the specific sweeping changes should be presented first on talk to get consensus.  Are you planning such changes?  If so, fine, but there's very little to discuss until we know details of what changes you propose.  Until then, normal editing should continue.


 * Of more immediate and relevant interest, I also think I've understood these select points:
 * You're not fully pleased with current sections or lede
 * You have no immediate plans to improve the lede
 * You're okay with my attempting to do so


 * Have I got these last three points more or less correct? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with discussion is, you don't have space to discuss everything.
 * Replies to above points.
 * Are you planning such changes?
 * No, I don't imply that. Developed articles are not the place to dump large amounts of changed material, if that is what you mean. That isn't what I mean. Mine is more of a plan of attack to be carried out over time. All I am really saying is, I can't settle the lead (your lede) until the rest of the article is settled. By "settle" I only mean, make sure it does what it is supposed to do in an accurate way.
 * You're not fully pleased with current sections or lede
 * No. I said, I like this article. I think it can be improved. By that I mean mainly references, formatting, accurate and connected ideas. If you were to ask me which ones, I would say, I don't know, only having looked at it cursorily yet. That is consistent with the slow approach we just discussed. The only thing I am not happy with is some fly-by editor determined to revert everything I do for patently absurd and put up reasons or replace it with patently inferor material. Usually I would correct such events with referenced material, but the lead is not the place to make such issues. We are supposed to take changes as honest ones but you and I both know it ain't necessarily so and sometimes results in absurdities.
 * You have no immediate plans to improve the lede
 * You look as though you have the lead under control and I am not ready to work on it beyond the little I did do. Never have so few words resulted in such phony controversy. So, no, I have no plans to work on the lead, unless perchance I happen to see someone else has decided to make an absurdity of it. I'm not giving it any more than a passing glance right now.
 * You're okay with my attempting to do so
 * I trust you so far. You've attempted to arbitrate and restore a reasonable text.
 * Botteville (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Lacking any stated objections and apparent tacit consensus from editors in these two overlapping discussions --, , , , -- I'll start incremental changes to the lede in the next couple of days.  Meanwhile, of course, Botteville is free to develop any larger proposal for the article and present it for discussion when ready.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I got no larger proposals right now and it may be months before I have any, if I do. I may be making some small changes when I get around to it. It seems as though the big changes have already been made. I was hoping the battle narrative could be kept in this article.Botteville (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Per all the above, I have refactored the lede] to add the battle context in a factual matter. I consider this resolves both this discussion and the one before, freeing the lede for normal editing. Thanks, all. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of guns
I had this following edit reverted diff, with the comment "rv unsourced and not entirely relevant". The total is simply calculated from the text in the paragraph, which lists how many ships and the number of guns each had. Does calculating a total need a specific source?

Separately, if it's relevant to talk about how many guns each ship had and the total number of ships, then surely the total number of guns is also relevant. (This is the section on 'The fleets'). What do people think?

I don't want to simply un-revert, so am looking for comments regarding these potential edits. Tom pw (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for bringing this to the talk per WP:BRD. None of that fleets section is sourced at all so actually it should all go. You would need a specific source that discusses the number of guns. (A source covering all of it would be even better). Cleaning up this article is on my to do list but I haven't had time or the resources to cover it yet. Woody (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Counting guns in a sea battle isn't a common or valuable metric. Ships' guns varied greatly, with their shot weights ranging from 3 to over 64 pounds, and some used only for anti-personnel.  Different classes of ships counted their guns differently.  Even counting ships can mislead, but this is a very common metric, and is useful for understanding the units of maneuver in a sea battle.  Adding totals of guns has no benefit, and amounts to WP:SYNTH anyway.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  03:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At the time ships were rated on the number of guns in their broadside, e.g. "100 guns", "a 50-gunner", the various other guns on board were incidental and often irrelevant in a line-of-battle engagement. So probably the only gun count that matters is the combined total number of broadside guns on each ship involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.22 (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, individual ships were often described by their number of guns, but that does not mean guns are equivalent between ships. Two 50-gun ships would be no match for one 100-gun ship.  This example is precisely why sources do not add guns of different ships together -- it's meaningless.  And if sources do not do this, WP editors certainly cannot do this, per WP:SYNTH.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  20:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Intrépide - discrepancy
THis artcile says "Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned" but French ship Intrépide (1800) says "Intrépide was later scuttled on Admiral Collingwood's orders...". Which is correct? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Tone of recent addition to lede paragraph
The first paragraph of the lede currently ends with The British commander, Lord Nelson, had taken, and kept, the initiative. His strategy was to prevent the combination of French and Spanish forces in the harbor of Cadiz into a fleet large enough to invade Britain, which was Napoleon's master plan. Nelson lost no time, but pursued and attacked the enemy squadrons wherever he found them, in this case, headed for Cadiz. They got as far as the Cape of Trafalgar. He was coming north from Gibraltar., added by.

While nothing in this is incorrect, the tone is unencyclopedic, using peacock and dramatic phrasing and reading like the intro to a movie glorifying the battle. I was about to fix this, but noticed that this entire addition had been reverted b with the comment Too much for the lead and does not read particularly encyclopedic., but then quickly restored by the same editor, with the comment I have just read your talk page comment so I self reverted. Go for it....

I'm confused; I find no comment that addresses the tone. I'm not sure what the consensus is on this addition. Is it okay to fix the tone? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought Botteville was in the process of making his contribution more encyclopedic and acceptable. That is why I reverted back to what he was doing, assuming he would carry on editing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you both for your consideration of this paragraph. I was a bit unhappy with it myself and you are right, my contributions are "in process." Since the paragraph has come to your attentions I will fix it now. I am still on this article and will be until I finish with it. I do work rather slowly, and also there is much to do. I don't do it all at once. It would not be fair to you to work it up offline and just drop it in.


 * Why is there a need for such a paragraph? In my opinion, the article tries to explain everything except what Nelson and Villeneuve were doing there in the first place. Why was this battle fought and how did it come about? Battles do not come about because people feel like getting out there and going to war. People try to bring them about following certain strategies, although there is an element of chance. The battle didn't just happen. Each commander had a strategy.


 * "While nothing in this is incorrect, the tone is unencyclopedic." I think it is just the opposite. It is incorrect, and that is probably why you flagged it. You didn't understand it. As to the tone, I don't see anything wrong with it. There is a certain military language writers use when speaking of battles and military matters, such as "taking the initiative" and "pursuing the enemy." The language reflects the way the military men think and talk. If you don't think their way then you do not understand what they are doing, like the signal flags. If you can't read the flags or you do not know the blinker code then how can you know what they say? That is the element lacking from the article. The sailing concepts are another stumbling block to the reader. Those are essential here. If you look at all the Trafalgar articles you see that one of them is actually tagged as not understandable. So, making sense of the battle for the ordinary reader is what I am trying to do. For example, it made all sorts of claims such as this order being maintained throughout the battle when in fact it was only a plan of intial attack only partly implemented. In addition to a general lack of comprehension the article throws out tables and graphs and numbers without any indication of how they were originally obtained, what they signify, and how likely they are to be accurate. So, much work remains on the article. It will have to be "in process" as I cannot possibly do it all at once. I am surprised no one has asked me for references. They are coming. I want to get the best ones. So far fixing the formatting has taken a lot of my time. It is an older article, you know, and we all vary in programming skill. I notice I am being dogged by a format editor, which is a good thing. One more point. It is recommended that references be kept to a minimum in the introduction, which should introduce the detailed information to follow. That is why I do not reference Napoleon's policy or Nelson's method of conducting a blockade in the intro. Those matters will follow below. But, in general, that is what they were doing. Napoleon was trying to build a strike force to invade Britain while Nelson was trying to interfere with it by blockading and pursuing forays. The standard lingo of the business is not unencyclopedic, I feel. In recognition of this principle I have been making blue links to these concepts on Wikipedia, as writers on military matters have been around here for some time. My blue linking, however, is only part of the "process." Well I hope this covers it. Your comments do have the effect of bringing things to my attention. Right now it DOES give an impression of incompleteness. Ciao and thanks. I will rewrite that nowBotteville (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A Royal Navy frigate is not a "spy ship", and the commanding officer of a fleet is an admiral, not a "commander". Toddy1 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your UP is in Russian. I think you mistake English here (still). You are confusing meanings together that in English are distinct. Whether it is "Royal navy," a national organization, or "frigate," a type of ship, has nothing to do with its function. Nelson could have hired a Russian to row out in a bathtub and it would still be a "spy ship." "Spy" is a perfectly good English word refering to an activity any ordinary person can perform in any vehicle for himself or for an employer, provided he or she does not harass or stalk, which, admitedly, many are not inclined to respect. If you don't think so, you don't live in America. There is no privacy of any sort here. The government has to warn and sue its citizens all the time to keep them silent on sensitive matters. We don't generally shoot over-garrulous persons as they do in SOME countries (hint), but we love spy shows in the media. Don't take them too seriously. Now you are totally wrong about concept of commander, even in British English. A lieutenant placed in command of a small boat has authority over an admiral being carried as passenger in his boat. Commander is a functional word, not a rank word. I suggest you read up on "Mutiny on the Bounty" or on the reforms of Wellington. Captain Bligh was disrespected by Mr. Christian, a member of the gentry, because he was only a Lieutenant. He was later cleared of charges that he misbehaved in trying to restore order and was given rank commensurate with command from then on. So, it is your English that is wrong here. It almost seems to me you are trying to get my attention for some reason. I wouldn't have any idea why, but you have it at least temporarily. I can't always spend this amount of time with you.Botteville (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Harbour has a "u" in it in modern British English. (The Battle of Trafalgar was not an American battle.)  Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't care which English it is. If you want to make it all British English, fine with me. Modern English still has to some degree the spelling variations present in Middle English. It seems as though no matter how much you try to be "orthodox" there is always another way to spell a word and that situation is reflected in the dictionaries. It is only in this century that linguists are defining different English dialects as different English languages. It seems to me that process is inevitable. But more to the question, there is no need to ask me about this. Just make your change with a brief statement of what it is, or check the "minor change" block. Unless some American objects it seems to me this article on a famous British battle could as well be in "British English" (as though it were somehow incomprehensible to American speakers).


 * The phrase "patroling at a distance" is confusing. This is because there are terms "distant blockade" and "close blockade":
 * a distant blockade is when you blockade Brest by keeping it under observation with frigates and your main fleet is in Plymouth.
 * a close blockade is when you blockade Brest by keeping it under observation with frigates and your main fleet is at sea off Brest.
 * Nelson's fleet was conducting a close blockade. Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I never heard those terms, and I do have some naval education, as well as some sailing experience and education. I am not a specialist that is true. My phrase is in American English. American blockades in the Civil War and Spanish-American War were conducted right outside the harbor (damn the torpedos, full speed ahead). Sometimes the Americans anchored. They patroled mainly in sight of the harbor where they could be seen by the enemy. Nelson himself when he blockaded never got very close, such as at Brest. He relied on spy ships. That is how Villeneuve got out of Brest. There is a lot of detail in the history books that is not yet in here, perhaps may never be. I would suggest that if you want to use specialized British terms for Nelson's operations, you add notes explaining the terms, or give some indication that a technical concept is being used, preferably with a blue link. I like blue links. If you don't do that, considering that Nelson was 80 miles away when his line of signal ships reported the enemy had left the harbor, I think "patroling from a distance" covers it. You have to remember, Nelson's times did not provide the communication available to us. We can blockade from Washington DC. Not them.


 * Thank you for your opinion my Russian friend. These definitions you throw out look like personal opinions. They are not general definitions but only instances you think fit some definition you have not yet given. If you are going to change the article based on them you would need either blue links or references to the terminology with some explanation in the article or in notes. The idea is, you make the article clearer to the user, and a "close blockade" from 80 miles away is by no means clear.Botteville (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Blockade types include close and distant (in terms of the blockade perimeter from its focus); near and far (in terms of the theater from the blockading country); partial and total (in terms of the blockade's porosity); and paper, pacific, and belligerent (in terms of the level of coercion)"

-

The thread above has gone off the topic of tone; I'm restarting that here.


 * Above, you stated It is incorrect, and that is probably why you flagged it. You didn't understand it. No, I flagged it for tone because of its tone.  I understand you may disagree and think the tone is fine, but it's unhelpful to tell me what I think of the tone, and further unhelpful to tell me I don't understand it when I've made no statement about its meaning.  Please assume I know my own mind.

I'm ignoring the rest of your response paragraph that begins with this, as in this case I truly do not understand it.

Given such evident miscommunication, I'm going to carefully itemize some parts of text with tone problems here. Note that none are significantly unencyclopedic on their own, and might be okay in some form individually; it's the combination that makes the tone problem stand out.
 * Lord Nelson, had taken, and kept, the initiative. While I personally tend to agree that he did this, "initiative" is a subjective thing, measured differently by different people, especially in hindsight.  Giving a subjective opinion in WP's voice is unencyclopedic.  What we could state as objective fact is that he gave orders that put his fleet into action, but that's what any competent admiral would do -- not significant.  We could state this stolen initiative as an opinion held by reliable naval historians, but that's awkward to word well in the lede.  The initiative part of this statement should probably just be removed.


 * His strategy was to prevent the combination of French and Spanish forces.... Calling this a "strategy" makes it sound like something cunning he devised.  It was his obvious duty, known to all beforehand.


 * which was Napoleon's master plan. It was a plan; calling it "master" appears as an attempt to make it sinister.  Also, Napoleon was not at the battle; Nelson was not fighting him personally.  It's enough to say it was the French plan.  (BTW, this is actually somewhat inaccurate to state it was Napoleon's plan at the time of the battle.  Napoleon was sending his armies east at this point, giving up on having them invade Britain, although this wasn't yet known to everyone at Trafalgar.)


 * Nelson lost no time. This is to be expected, so not worth mentioning.  If he wasted time, that would be notable.


 * but pursued and attacked the enemy squadrons wherever he found them... Again, this is to be expected, so not worth mentioning.  If he refused to engage the enemy, that would be notable.  If attacked them wherever he didn't find them, that would be very notable indeed.

Beyond these specific points, the general flow of this addition appears to highlight the drama from Nelson's perspective. The overall idea of adding context to the battle by describing the strategic situation is good, but we should just state the basic facts, typically just in chronological order, boring as that may be.

We should not leave the article in this state while we miscommunicate at length in talk. I'm for removing it while we discuss how best to add context for the battle to the lede. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 03:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * During a blockade, it is usually the side trying to break out who have the initiative. They are the ones who choose when to break out, and (geography permitting) which way to go.  In the case of Trafalgar, the allied fleet came out twice - the first time with the aim of going into the Mediterranean, the second time to try to recapture some of their lost ships.  Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I follow this article at a distance. I would observe that a significant rewrite of the lead should be sandboxed first and not be a "work in progress". Having said that, the lead must be supported by and summarise the body of the article. It should reflect what the body of the article says. It should avoid making statements that might be construed as opinion unless these reflect an overwhelming opinion of the sources - and even then with care. It should also avoid editorialising. I think these observations summarise some of the issues with the recent edits. I dont think that "spy ship" is appropriate. An RN frigate would not be a spy ship. Their purpose was reconnaissance. They did not conceal their purpose by deception - or this does not appear to be supported by the body text. They might be described as a screen but others more expert than I in naval matters may disagree. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I too follow this article from a distance. IMO the whole article needs to be carefully worked through because it is full of questionable text, whether that be factual errors, opinions, or encyclopedic English. This has probably been caused by multiple editors tinkering with isolated parts over time. I agree with everything Cinderella157 said. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That read, what excellent writing IMHO! I spend a pathetic unenviable eye-roll-inspiring amount of time editing WP articles (being married, it's a rare opportunity to feel right)—but one look here and I knew I needed offer no suggestions. Also, bravo to this entry's creator for knowing what a "lede" was, a journalism term I hadn't heard since university. – AndyFielding (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This issue is resolved per the last entry in the next discussion. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 17:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Myth in lede
The French were not preparing to invade the UK. Napoleon had actually cancelled his invasion plans following the Battle of Cape Finisterre in July 1805. (Derscht (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC))

Infobox flags
Cinderella157, about today's revert: the flags deleted, and then put back by you, are in no way adding additional information to the text. You do not need a UK flag next to the words United Kingdom to inform the reader that the United Kingdom means the United Kingdom. You do not need a UK flag next to the words Horatio Nelson to know that Horatio Nelson represented the United Kindom when his name appears in the same column as the belligerant United Kingdom. The phrases you have plucked from the infobox guidelines are there for a reason, but this is not it. What we had is what is called infobox clutter that certain editors love playing around with because it gives them something to do. It is not in any conceivable way adding anything of any value to this article. Infoboxes are there for the absolute basic summary of the critical points of the article, not for squeezng in superfluous infill. Now, there is still a lot of work needed to tidy up this article, including removing a lot of pointless text: so why not focus on that? Thank you for your contribution. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , per my edit summary: ... appropriate per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG because "they convey information in addition to the text" and "acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts". The UK was opposed by two nations: France and Spain.  The two leaders reported as opposing Nelson and Collingwood (of the UK) were from those two respective countries.  This is the information in addition to the text conveyed by the flag icons.  There are lots of one-on-one conflicts where flag icons are unnecessary and I would have no qualms about you removing flag icons in such a case.  I also support removing a lot of superfluous infill to leave the infobox as an absolute basic summary of the critical points of the article. I would include in this, qualifying the "type of victory" or "who won by how much" with non-standard terms and multiple dot-points under this field. However, this is not such a case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I second what user says. There are different nations here.. clearly. Also going by what  is saying: we would then need to revert 99% of other articles in the same field. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have had another look at the infobox and the guidelines in light of your comments. The guidelines are clear in that flags should not be used except when they convey information additional to the text. That is the starting point - don't use flags unless there is a reason to do so. Military infoboxes fall into this catagory in the same way that all other infobox templates do. IMO, the mention of the military template as an exception simply means that there is likely to be exceptions in a military infobox, not that military infoboxes are exempt from the general rule of not using flags. In the case of Trafalgar, I can see your point to an extent about differentiating France and Spain, or more precisely, Villeneuve and Gravina, but that is about it. France is France and Spain is Spain. The problem would then arise of creating an awkward imbalance with flags in that field but not the UK side, but even then I am not too sure about how awkward that would be: just writing in parentheses after a name (Fr) and (Sp) would serve the same purpose.. Another reason for using short text instead of flags is that in many cases it avoids the problem of editors using the wrong flag for the time period concerned. However, on balance I can see a point in keeping the flags as they are now, but that would be the limit. Trafalgar is though not even close to some other military infoboxes when it comes to using flags unnecessarily. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , as I said, I would have no problem with you removing them in a case where there were only two belligerents and they therefore served no purpose. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Escape
I´m woundering why the British let the Principe de Asturias, Héros, Argonaute etc. escape form the battle ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)