Talk:Campaign in north-east France (1814)

Campaign box Belligerents
I think that the Belligerents should be reduced to those who actually participated in the fighting in north-east France or who were in that theatre of operations. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, see proposition here:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaue Max (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 November 2014‎


 * I think that looks better but three observations. Charles XIV of Sweden was not king of Sweden until 1818(?). (I have changed his name in the current box). It would probably be best to mention the French Marshals who were under independent command as French commanders (with a footnote to mention that Napoleon was Commander In Chief). I am not sure about the numbers deployed, the three armies listed had a total of about 300,0000 Allies and according to EB1911 Napoleon had "less than 80,000 remained available for the east and north-eastern frontier" -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blaue Max I see you have made the changes to the proposed box. I think that is better now (I've made one minor change Bernadotte had been given a new name by the King of Sweden "Charles John"), would you like to make the changes to the article? -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm doing it.Blaue Max (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
Please, try to reach consensus on the talkpage instead of reverting each other's contribution. Make a proposal on the talkpge before editing the article. Thank you Blaue Max (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this extensively above. The second opinion that PBS sought agreed that the "fail-safe position" was not needed, and it is even less so given further edits made to the article; he is welcome to seek another second opinion on that issue if he chooses. Without such support, though, it remains unclear to me why he is so insistent on using Wikia content, and he has yet to offer any other justification for why his preferred text is "better". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nikkimaria you wrote on 22 May 2016 "The fact that we disagreed about something completely unrelated over a year ago has no bearing on that determination."
 * So if you no longer disagree with me, can I take it that you will not object to me putting back the attribution in this article? -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say I no longer disagreed with your position on this article; I said we disagreed about this article over a year ago and that the issue here is unrelated to the issue under discussion at the page you cite. That isn't an invitation to be pointy. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * we still have a disagreement over the attribution of this article and the other changes that I think are an improvement. -- PBS (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So it would appear, though at the time that I made the comment you cite, this discussion had been dormant for over a year. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sweden and Norway?
Should it really be "Sweden and Norway"? Sweden-Norway was a personal union of two separate kingdoms, under a common monarch. Do we know that forces also from Norway participated? However, I do not know if that is relevant. The union had a common foreign policy, maybe that is what counts. Best regards /EriFr (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)