Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

French Army
Shouldn't the French Army and Navy be included in the strength statistics? Some estimates put the French relieving army at 50,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.71 (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

CE during June 2013 GOCE Blitz
The CE needed is mostly gramatical simplification for smooth reading and clarification of antecedents and references for the non-expert readers and those whose first language is not American English. Comments welcome.

Consider this thing rather thin. Not sure I wouldn't call it a stub. Needs additional citations. Needs an info box map to illustrate the relative positions of Calais, Dover and the national boundaries. Will be back to do some major hacking on the "Legacy" section. Will split that into a Cultural legacy section and a Political legacy section.

'''There is only one sentence on the value of Calais to the English over two centuries. Not encyclopedic!'''

I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be so much more info on why Calais was important for England and why the French wanted to annex it. Also, on whom backed the French attack finacially - mayhap the hand of Jewry? Lastly, why the local Dutch-speakers were cool with Calais and its English population but not the Romance-speaking French.

Needs a map showing Calais and neigbouring hinterlands as part of England
Folk skipping through this article might think it was the English seiging Calais. Another thing, maybe overset the the article's heading to someting like: 'The French Siege of Calais'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Lower case "siege" in first line of lead
Gog, on this one I slipped while trying to type edit summary "don't make the lead about the term". On this one of yours, are you now OK going back to lowercase siege? Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Gog the Mild.)


 * Hi, I hope you don't mind me moving this part of the conversation here. Non-trivial changes to FAs ideally have some sort of discussion or explanation on their talk pages. (I'm not sure this is non-trivial, but you just know that someone is going to claim it isn't at some point.)
 * This is another one where I have many of the high quality sources in paper. And you won't be surprised to hear that there is a broad consensus for "siege". I am shaking my head at how I have managed to not apply the MoS here. Although "the siege of Calais" isn't that common in the text, while "Siege of Calais" is, in titles etc. But still.
 * So yep, I'm fine with it and will revert my revert.
 * Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've now queued up about a hundred more FAs with the same case error.  I don't think such minor mods need to documented on the talk pages (SMcCandlish had commented on that specifically in the Milhist project discussion, I think). Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure that they are minor and am inclined to err on the cautious side. (From the several recent discussions a number of editors with various opinions don't seem to consider the minor.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet none have pointed out any errors, have they? If you see any cases where "siege" should be capped, please do let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Did someone say they didn't think these were "minor"? I don't recall that.  I thought they just questioned whether there's consensus for them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and finished up fixing over-capitalized "Siege" in FAs, and moved on to GAs, where there are lots more. I never paid any attention to FA and GA status before, but I actually do think now that it's important.  In particular, these are where we should be setting the best example of how to adhere to guidelines such as MOS:CAPS.  So I'll put more emphasis on such fixes in FAs and GAs in the future.  I got a pair of reverts to Siege of Calais to discuss, but no other reactions, and so far no reason give for it on the user's talk page; I invited him to the larger conversation. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm done withe siege case fixing in GAs now. Let me know if you see any I got wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of sculpture
The article claims that the sculpture "The Burghers of Calais" was commissioned in 1880 but the specific article about the sculpture, citing the same source, says 1884. Lieven Smits (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good spot, thank you. I no longer have ready access to that source, but other sources, eg David Wilkins,Art past, art present give 1884 so I can only assume that I committed a bizarre typo. I will change the date to 1884 and re-cite it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Froissart
This edition of Froissart's chronicles calls into question the historicity of that account, at footnote 2 on the linked page, which in turns quotes another history. Is there historic consensus on that story? This article, while it uses the word "claims", may leave the impression that the story is true. Kablammo (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am guessing that "that account" refers to "An account by the contemporary chronicler Froissart claims ..."? If so, consensus doesn't matter: the phraseology is intended to make clear that it was simply an account, not a broadly agreed historical "fact", and the one which which was the basis of the composition. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)