Talk:Crécy campaign

Text imported
Hi. I have imported text from my sandbox for the first four sections. It is a bit rough and ready, so feel free to tweak, edit and amend as you wish. In particular, what do you think of the section titles? There are several unused references, but I have left them there to remind me to use them. I have started work on the last two sections in my sandbox. So far this is just imported material, but please feel free to comment on this too. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - The article states the landing was unopposed. The French article states that the landing force was met by a force led by Robert VIII Bertrand de Bricquebec and his eldest son Robert Bertrand IX, who with 300 men, tried in vain to prevent the English army from disembarking at Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue. Does any other source provide anything different? Also it is stated that Ponthieu was confiscated from Edward III in 1345? The section titles make sense. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards Newm30 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Newm30 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * PS Robert VIII Bertrand de Bricquebec is a mess in case you want to have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Newm30 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Page move without discussion
I strongly object to the page move without proper and prior discussion. Especially when there is further chevauchées of Edward III to be written. Can an administrator please revert page move and I will then create disambiguation page that identifies chevauchées and work towards creating some articles. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Newm30. Thanks for reverting the change. I am not sure how, for an article only created, and named, seven months ago and in the middle of a FAC review, it could be felt that no-one "could reasonably disagree with the move", or that there was no "reason to believe that a change would be contested" as required by WP:MV. If it is still, somehow, felt that the name is inappropriate, then a move request can be opened, as suggested in the same policy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Article name
According to WP:TITLE, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources", and WP:ATDAB says that, for disambiguation (in this case to distinguish the article from other chevauchées of Edward III), the title should have a "name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". Of the sources used in this article, all references to the military campaign I've seen use the term "Crécy Campaign" and not "Chevauchée of Edward III in 1346". Should the name be changed to the former? Aforst1 (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Aforst1, I have seen reliable sources which use Edward III's chevauchée or the chevauchée of 1346, but I get the impression that Crécy Campaign is more common. I would suggest opening a move discussion and let's see if we can reach consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved to Crécy campaign. See general agreement below to move this page and also (perhaps a little roughly) to consider "campaign" a common noun and ergo uncapitalized. No prejudice if editors want to open a new RM immediately to garner consensus for "campaign" as a proper noun, as this is in line with closing instructions; however, be sure to study the MOS on this issue. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  03:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346 → Crécy Campaign – 'Crécy Campaign' appears much more often in sources than 'Chevauchée of Edward III in 1346' Aforst1 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While “Crécy campaign” seems to be a more modern construct by English historians, the chevauchée described in this article goes beyond the normal period associated with the traditional English campaign timeframe and extends to the siege of Calais. The French Wikipedia article is fr:Chevauchée d'Édouard III (1346). Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move at this moment. This article is a featured article candidate under the name "Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)" and it should not be moved to a different title in order to preserve the discussion. Surely a debate about the article's name can occur after promotion. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) RetiredDuke (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move We should go with the majority of English language sources on this one. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  OK with Crécy campaign (not Campaign); the majority of sources do not cap it, so I presume that UnitedStatesian and Aforst would prefer that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I have taken the liberty to read through the references provided on the actual article, and the sources themselves call it the Crécy campaign of 1346. I have only seen two sources that mention the alternative title "Chevauchée of Edward III" but only after clarifying that this is indeed, specifically, the Crécy campaign. With this in mind, I think moving this article is fairly self-evident. Sanctusune (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Question – especially for those supporting this move proposal – do you really mean to capitalize "Campaign", though most sources do not, and most other campaign articles do not and WP:NCCAPS, WP:LOWERCASE, and MOS:CAPS advise against such over-capitalization? That is, please support or challenge my alternative most proposal to Crécy campaign.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you say "most" but I see it as a 50/50 split between capitalization and non capitalization. For example The Journal of Military History, Volume 69, Issues 3-4, A Cumulative Bibliography of Medieval History and Technology , Crécy 1346: A Tourists guide , Medieval Warfare: Triumph and Domination in the Wars of the Middle Ages , By Fire and Sword: The Rise and Fall of English Supremacy at Arms, 1314-1485 , International Medieval Bibliography Volume 45 Part 1 , and A global chronology of conflict: from the ancient world to the modern Middle East, Volume 2  all have it spelled Crécy Campaign. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to have the name spelled Crécy Campaign since there are many authoritative sources that do the same. I would prefer it to be Crécy Campaign personally, but I am not married to this point of view and will bow to the majority opinion on whether it should be Crécy Campaign or Crécy campaign. Sanctusune (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting some of those:
 * The Journal of Military History is capping it in the title-case name of an article. They do not cap it in a sentence.  So they do not provide support for treatment as proper name.
 * A Cumulative Bibliography ... is capping it in the title-case name of an article. They do not cap it in a sentence.  So they do not provide support for treatment as proper name.
 * Crecy 1346: A Tourists Guide caps it only in title-case headings. In sentences they use lowercase.  So this is explicit support for lowercase.
 * Medieval Warfare: ... caps it only in title-case chapter title. In sentences they use lowercase.  So this is explicit support for lowercase.
 * By Fire and Sword: : ... has all-caps running heads; I don't see capped Compaign otherwise. In sentences they use lowercase.  So this is explicit support for lowercase.
 * International Medieval Bibliography I don't see how to look at; what are you seeing?
 * A global chronology of conflict: ... has it capped on the index, so I guess you're right on that one.
 * And even if it was 50/50, per MOS:CAPS we would avoid unnecessary caps and default to lowercase. But in this case it's not even close. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.