Talk:Battle of Trafalgar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vice Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood

Vice Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood, should he not be also recognised as the British Commander in the battle of Trafalgar?
Is it not true that Vice Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood, became Commander-in-Chief following Nelson's death, only half an hour into the Battle of Trafalgar - and thus help to ensure that the British fleet was victorious? Under this presumption, should he not be mentioned along side Nelson as a British Commander of the Fleet in the drop box? Collingwood is first mentioned briefly as Nelson's second in command (Battle section, Nelson's plan) and in other snippets throughout the article, but hardly the recognition he deserves. This is largely due to his modestly and being fortunate enough not to die in the battle, thus Collingwood became a largely forgotten British hero. My knowledge in this field is quite limited, but I am curious if someone could confirm this and edit said article. Specifically in the drop box, which usually catches the reader's attention first. I hope this will encourage more people to learn about the great man. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.219.130 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on what the sources say; however there is a fundamental error in your statement in that Nelson died at 4:30pm, several hours into the battle. Though he had been wounded three hours earlier the article says he was still capable of giving orders for some time. Again it would depend on the sources, but because of the limited communication capabilities at the time it wouldn't surprise me if Collingwood wasn't aware of Nelson's condition until later in the day. Is someone really "Commander in chief" if they don't know they are supposed to be?

As a side note I shortened your section title. Using full sentences as the title clogs up the edit summaries. Road Wizard (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Wikipedia:Handling trivia gives some guidance on "in popular culture" sections:

"Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir (which really existed) lands on Kenny McCormick (a fictional character), killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir."

To be honest, I do not think that any of the things listed in the "in popular culture" section are important to the Battle of Trafalgar, but I suppose that some of them do at least show that it resonates in popular culture. The list was vastly too long. I have pruned it down, eliminating books by unimportant authors. If you think I have gone too far, please discuss it here before restoring the one you like.

The Blackadder episode was deleted for a different reason. Whilst the TV sitcom is arguably significant in English culture, the reference to Trafalgar was a throwaway joke in the show - not a significant reference.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The recent creation of the article Action of 23 October 1805, which essentially splits Trafalgar into two battles, one were the Franco-Spanish fleet lose, and then one when they win, has I think some major issues in terms of potential coatrack issues and npov problems, that would be resolved if this material were merged into the main article to produce a fuller and more balanced account of the battle. I've copied and pasted the material from the talk page there to here, so that a full discussion can take place on the talkpage of the proposed destination for the merge in keeping with recommended procedure. Benea (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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) 01:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a little hard to follow your English, so apologies if I've misunderstood anything...

• Your comparison with Cape Ortegal is flawed, as a quick look at the situation there should clearly reveal. Dumanoir's ships remained at large for several weeks after Trafalgar, and even sought battle with Royal Navy ships themselves during their passage north, which took them hundreds of miles from Cape Trafalgar. Dumanoir really has himself to blame for letting himself get caught up in another battle, had he just stuck to reaching Rochefort he would probably have made it unmolested. You might as well consider Calder's action at Finisterre unworthy of a separate section, on the grounds that the ships Calder captured were part of the combined fleet that would have been at Trafalgar. The comparisons you make between Donegal and Strachan's ships are also disingenuous. I urge you strongly to examine modern literature on the battle, you will see there that while Calder's and Strachan's actions are treated as separate battles, the Battle of Trafalgar is not, repeat not, ever split up this way into an action on the 21st, and then a separate action to cover Cosmao's sortie.
• Your final comment about the forming of the line of battle I can only assume stems from a misunderstanding of what a line of battle is. Of course the act of forming a line of battle does not mean an action has occurred, and I must stress that strongly. I'm frankly amazed that you take it that it does. The British formed two lines of battle on the 21st, the combined fleet formed one, and as Nelson planned, the two British lines cut the Franco-Spanish one. The forming of one line of battle, broadside to the enemy, was the traditional form of naval warfare. The British chose to disrupt this with their two column approach, hence their victory. But even if what you write was true, it does not validate the assertion that there was a separate action.
• As I have stated merging this into the actual article on the battle to cover all its phases including the storm will of course involve a full mention of the British sailors captured and drowned in the storm and wrecks, and the fate of the ships scuttled, retaken and wrecked. I would be very happy to see the information used to expand the Trafalgar article, which is weak in a number of areas. But when we have such an egregious departure into Original Research so as to split the Battle of Trafalgar into two to create an action which was never fought, and is not accepted as being one in the copious literature on the subject, and one that seems to be created only to create the illusion of a Franco-Spanish victory, wikipedia has a serious problem. Benea (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I already knew that my English skills are not those of a native speaker. anyway, if you can't "follow" your own language, which is a bit sad, It's not really my fault... so let me give you my apologies too. Have in mind that if my article is going to be merged with this one, all the ships of the line that were re-taken by Cosmao (and also the brave British captors that were made prisoners of war by the allied squadron) must be included, in my opinion just below the number of deaths, because they were not precisely "few". I've made the "action of 23 November 1800" because as you said, the area of the main article referring to the sortie commited by Cosmao-Kerjulien was very weak. What solution do you propose? Pietje96 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No criticism intended, your English is better than my Spanish. I propose the development of a full section in this article to cover the storm and sortie, the return of the British fleet and prizes to Gibraltar, and the remnants of the Franco-Spanish fleet to Cadiz, and the escape of Dumanior's squadron to the north. The negotiations between the British and Spanish authorities would also make an interesting addition, concerning of course the repatriation of prisoners, and the use of medical facilities for the wounded. Of course each development will be covered; which ships were captured, which ships the British allowed to sink or scuttled, the Franco-Spanish and British casualties in the wrecks, the numbers that became prisoners on the ships, etc. Would this be acceptable? Benea (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Benea. You couldn't have found a better and 'reasonable' solution! GreetingsPietje96 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page Archiving

This page is getting pretty long and some edits date back to the early 2000s. I propose to set up automatic archiving of this page some time next week unless anyobne objects to that here. Dabbler (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"crossing the T"

The tactics employed by Nelson is often referred to as "crossing the T". It was a tactic (first?) employed by the Dutch admiral <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiel_de_Ruyter">Michiel de Ruyter</a> during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Dutch_War">Third Anglo-Dutch War</a> (1672-74), some 130 years prior to Trafalgar. This should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing Crossing the T with 'breaking the line'. We already include two of Nelson's more direct influences on implementing the tactic of breaking the line (Jervis and Duncan at Cape St Vincent and Camperdown respectively). I don't think this is the place to trace all the antecedents of the tactic back through naval history. Benea (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can the reference to Signal 72 be clarified ? Is it the famous "England expects" ? or another signal ? Diggers2004 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Naval Temple

I removed the material pertaining to the Naval Temple because, dating from 1801, it is clearly not a consequence of Trafalgar. It might better be mentioned at Horatio Nelson. I also don't think you can commemorate someone who isn't dead; so it is reasonable to refer to the post-Trafalgar monuments as "first to commemorate" Nelson. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Some comments/observations/questions:

1. I can't get the total of the Franco-Spanish first rate ships-of-the-line in the text and the table to agree (Three and Five) respectively.

Can't see this either. The article says there were four, both in the table and the text. What bit are you looking at exactly?--Ykraps (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

2. Nelson's prayer - there is a picture of it written on one of Victory's timbers, but no separate display of the words; my vision is not good enough to read it off the photo, so how about a rendering? The prayer is mentioned at least twice in this article.

Nelson's prayer can be found here [[1]]. I'm not entirely against its inclusion but I do consider the article to be quite long already.--Ykraps (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

3. "A broadside from the 1850s recounts the story" is how one image is captioned. Is 'broadside' in this sense the right word, particularly as I understand it (so does my dictionary), to mean something like the discharge of all guns on one side of a ship.

There were different types of broadside. A rolling broadside would be performed if raking vessel whereby each gun would fire as it passed the stern of the ship. There's one here on you tube [[2]]--Ykraps (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

4. In 'Consequences' para 3, the article states: "...Villeneuve spent months at sea crossing the Atlantic twice". But I can find only one crossing (in the 'Caribbean' section).

He crossed the Atlantic once going to the West Indies and a second time on the way back.--Ykraps (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

5. Who, or what, is 'Lapentière'? The word (admittedly linked), pops up without introduction or explanation.

I can't see where this is in the article but I assume this is referring to Lt. John Lapenotiere, the commander of HM Schooner Pickle.--Ykraps (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

RASAM (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The term "broadside" was also used to mean a printed document intended for wide and indiscriminate distribution - by analogy to the rather "to whom it may concern" nature of a broadside from smoothbore guns on a moving ship. I'm about to go and insert a link to Broadside (printing). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification, part II

For Ykraps, thanks for answering my queries:

1. As I said, the totals are in the table; I believe it's the only table in the article. I can't call it anything, as it has no title. But it is to do with 'ships-of-the-line', 'first rates' and so on. I think it's located in the 'Fleets' section. Looking at it again, I think you may be right about the totals; but it doesn't gell too well with the text. Maybe the writing is at fault, not the table.

It seems agreeable to me but I am familiar with the way the ships are rated. Is it the ratings that are confusing? If I said that:

The British had three 100 gun first-rates (ships with 100+ guns), one of which was HMS Victory; four 98-gun second rates (90-98 guns) and 20 third-rates (60-80 guns) comprising one 80 gun, sixteen 74 gun and three 64 gun vessels. This amounts to 27 ships of the line. There were 6 other British vessels which weren't large enough to stand in the line of battle, they were four frigates, one cutter and one schooner.

The Franco-Spanish fleet had four first-rates (one 136 gun, two 112 gun and one 100gun), no second rates and 29 third rates comprising six 80 gun, twenty-two 74 gun and one 64 gun. This amounts to 33 battleships. The combined fleet also had 7 other vessels made up of five frigates and two brigs.

Is that any clearer?--Ykraps (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

2. The prayer just needs a link; at least then the article would not be any longer. But I do think that as there is a prominent illustration, there should be some means of knowing what it says; otherwise, why have it at all?

I would just as soon not have the image as I think there are far too many in this section. If the image goes then perhaps the prayer needs to be included in the main text but I don't see the point in having something in the text that is repeated in an image.--Ykraps (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

3. See '3' above and more significantly, Pinkbeast's contribution at the bottom.

Gotcha.--Ykraps (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

4. OK, but it could maybe made more clear.

Okay, if you feel it needs clarifying you can of course do that.--Ykraps (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

5. I've added 'Lieutenant John Richards' to 'Lapentière', which is in the '200th anniversary' section.

Hopefully, that's a few more mistakes rectified. Talking of mistakes, should HMS Leviathan be amongst French ships? ('Battle' section, para 10; which starts with "At 13:55 Captain Lucas...").

RASAM (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that question. Leviathan seems to be clearly identified as British there. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the paragraph: "At 13:55, Captain Lucas, of the Redoutable, with 99 fit men out of 643 and severely wounded himself, surrendered. The French Bucentaure was isolated by the Victory and Temeraire, and then engaged by Neptune, Leviathan and Conqueror; similarly, the Santísima Trinidad was isolated and overwhelmed, surrendering after three hours"; then I agree with Pinkbeast. The only ship identified as French is Bucentaure. If it says elsewhere in the article that Leviathan was French, then it is probably referring to the fact that it was French built or an ex-French vessel.--Ykraps (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my queries; as far as Levithan was concerned, as I said above, it seemed a bit strange that she was 'amongst French ships', but if you and Pinkbeast are happy with the article, then it's fine by me. RASAM (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, could you be more clear on which words specifically led you to say that Leviathan was "amongst French ships"? Pinkbeast (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake - it was a long session ! ! RASAM (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

great graphics but scaling needed

Awesome article, including graphics, but... The two bar graphs included in the article (and copied below) are great for showing, in fact, the high percentages of casualties on the French and Spanish ships, and lower percentage casualties on the British ones. With interesting, dramatic differences between the British ships in the van vs. the other section. But, too bad, it's hard to see this in the article. Because the scales of the graphics are different. It looks in fact like the British casualties were higher, their bar graphs go higher. Could one combined graphic be made all on the same scale, with the same groupings and colorings? Or could they both be put onto 0-100% scale? It is really too bad that the great info in these graphics don't come across properly with their dramatic story, for most readers who won't explore them in detail and figure it all out. Here are the graphics below. Again thanks for great article! --doncram 03:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar (1805) French and Spanish Casualties	Battle of Trafalgar British Casualties
Data for this chart are in Trafalgar order of battle and casualties. Blue = French (the two ships that took no casualties were both French.) Red = Spanish The number is the order in the line	Data for this chart are in Trafalgar order of battle and casualties. Yellow = HMS Africa Green = The Weather Column, led by Nelson Grey = Lee Column, led by Collingwood The number, is the order in the column.

P.S. Maybe at least changing the captions to state the essential takeaway would help: Try: "Battle of Trafalgar (1805) French and Spanish Casualties range up to 90%" and "Battle of Trafalgar British Casualties max out at 30%" or whatever the appropriate numbers are. That would invite the reader to examine more closely. As it is, the general appearance is that British casualties were higher, counter to the facts. --doncram 03:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Update: I tried editing the captions to give more info, in this diff of 2 edits; won't mind the wording being edited or reverted if someone thinks that stating the 84%, 19%, and 35% rates in caption is not helpful. --doncram 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Another issue: It is stated below the graphics in the article that the casualty rates are per Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar, however the tabulated percentages at that article do not exactly match up to the graphics. French Fougueux showed 18% casualty rate in table vs. mid-80% in graphic. Adding the post-battle wreck casualties given in table gets up to 84% for Fougueux, so i edited the table to state that explicitly in the wreck column, at the Order article. But for French Achille the table gives 64% while graphic shows mid-80% casualty. The 64% doesn't include wounded and doesn't include later wreck casualties, so higher rate is probably an estimate that was justified somewhere once, but it seems to me that the table should document the estimate. There may be other discrepancies, not checking now. Maybe the graphic should present the within-battle percentages and not the post-battle wreck casualties; i think it could/should be clarified which is presented, either way. Hope these comments help. --doncram 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation for any differences between rates in the graphic and rates in the article. At the time the graphic was made, the data available was as at the version of 11:50, 21 October 2007. Since then people have improved the table: fixing typographical errors, amending the spelling of the names of allied captains and wikilinking. There have been other changes - someone separated the casualties in the wrecks from the casualties during the battle - at one stage someone wanted the casualties in the wrecks removed altogether.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Trafalgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100526163947/http://www.musee-marine.fr:80/cartel2.php?id=55 to http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Signal 72

I edited out that stuff about Signal 72. Minotaur and Bellerophon both record 72 as one of the signals plural given to form up for battle, but I have no source that says (and it seems unlikely) that 72 was also the signal for "close action", flown once the battle had begun. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pinkbeast,

I thought signal 72 was to do with the order of sailing being the order of attack but I didn't bother to clarify as I can't find a source and was therefore also planning to remove it. I think 16 is the signal for close action but again don't have a source.--Ykraps (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The numbers are entirely arbitary, anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Trafalgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315204240/http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk:80/dockyard/hmsvictory.php to http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/dockyard/hmsvictory.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Villeneuve's heroic defence

In the sub-section Battle it is claimed that, "Villeneuve thought that boarding would take place, and with the Eagle of his ship in hand, told his men, 'I will throw it onto the enemy ship and we will take it back there!'". A grand tale but from the not unsubstantial sources available to me, I am unable to find one that corroborates it. In addition, the phrase gets no hits on Google, Bing, or Google books. If it can be referenced I am happy to keep it even though, like the less than heroic story of Villeneuve laughing at the headless corpse of George Duff, it is probably undue here.--Ykraps (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree; sources only seem to discuss Villeneuve parading the Eagle around the ship before the battle (eg [3], not that that's the most scholarly book ever as I recall from reading it a few years ago). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have found the story here [[4]]. I don't know why I couldn't find it last week. Do you think the story's worth keeping?--Ykraps (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that link doesn't go to where I want it to. At the top of that page, you need to click again on 'view all'.

I don't see "view all", but I own a physical copy of the book in question so if you quote a page number I could look it up. I _think_ that only has the Eagle being paraded around beforehand. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

At the top of the viewing pane is an orange bar which reads, "Showing results 1-5 in this book of villenueve eagle trafalgar <previous next> - view all". Unfortunately it doesn't give page numbers but from the limited view of the index, I would guess either page 134 or 152?--Ykraps (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I came to miss your reply but I'll try and have a look this weekend. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Loose or looser?

OK, we've got a new editor making good faith edits and getting canned for them. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the term "a loose blockade" or "a looser blockade", both are reasonable descriptions of the situation. So that an edit war doesn't break out, I'm raising the issue for discussion. Which term should be used? Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ykraps, CLCStudent and ZingyAwesome. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think looser makes more sense grammatically, Cornwallis maintained a tight blockade while Nelson's was looser. It takes some specialist knowledge to understand what a loose blockade is so describing it as looser probably makes more sense to the layman. I don't feel strongly either way but think the new editor has a valid point and perhaps opening it up for discussion serves as good introduction to how things work round here.--Ykraps (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ykraps, Mjroots and ZingyAwesome, I'm sorry, I confused the word "looser" with "loser", and I thought ZingyAwesome was calling somebody a loser. My apologies. CLCStudent (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well that makes more sense now. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel we should use "loose blockade". That is the correct term of art; if the term is confusing, it can be discussed. Also, a "looser blockade" sounds like it might be intended to be leakier for some reason. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations for "loose blockade", see this Google Books search. If the term needs explanation, perhaps that could be added in. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The term is discussed at Blockade#Close, distant and loose blockades, so maybe using the term "loose blockade" wikilinked to that section is better. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're going down that route, might I suggest we also change the term "tight blockade" for "close blockade" so both terms are "correct"?--Ykraps (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I propose to make these changes (including Mjroots' wikilink) unless there are no objections. We seem to have a reasonable consensus. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No objections from me.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Animal Farm

I suggest we remove the mention of "Animal Farm" from the popular culture section. Animal Farm is an important work but the mention of Trafalgar would be incidental at best... even if the preface actually appeared in the book, which in almost all editions it does not. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more and, as no-one else has shown an interest, I have removed.--Ykraps (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ykraps, pile-on agreement that this reference was unnecessary. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

MacDonnell Cosmao Sorite

I consider this section to be biased. I also consider the Franch wikipedia comparison to be equally biased in reverse. Here it is 'poo poo-ed' as a jolly sortie that amounted to nothing much, and on the Franch wiki page its is treated as a heroic counter-attack. In my opinion accuracy lies between both versions. This mission while having mixed consequences for the French/Spanish was for most part a success. four ships were freed 3,000 prisoners made it ashore, although two ships did flounder on the rocks, their crews were rescued. Because of the storm sinking two of the rescue mission ships the Franco-Spanish end up with the same number of ships in Cadiz harbor, but they did rescue and recapture approximately 3,000 of their imprisoned crews including Vive Admiral Alava. From a British perspective this rescue mission resulted in the forced release and lost of 4 captured ships, the lost of the 3,000 prisoners, the loss of some 300 cannon and other weapons aboard these ships. Also, in this recapture mission approximately 150 English prize crew were captured as the ships changed hands. These prize crews were only English prisoners as none were captured during the Battle itself. This proved to be crucial as it meant the British fleet had to stay off Cadiz and Capt. Blackwood rowed ashore to negotiate a prisoner swap a week later. So, I think this section needs attention or a re-write. I won;t do this now, but at a later date. I'd like people's opinions too. From a humane point of view the civility shown by both sides during this prisoner phase is also worthy of mention Tommyxx (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Commas and other details.

As per a request that we use the talk page a bit more, I am noting that I made a bunch of minor edits, mostly commas and minor changes in a few words. Nechemia Iron (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens in ships of the line

@Pinkbeast:. User talk:Nechemia Iron has raised the issue of whether the article should say:

• ships of the line, or
• ships-of-the-line

I checked a few books (History of Naval Architecture by Fincham, The Ship of the Line by Lavery) and they use the term without hyphens.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that this matters, providing it remains consistent within individual articles.--Ykraps (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why I made those edits, for consistency with other instances of "ships of the line" in this article. Thanks, Nechemia Iron (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, inconsistency between articles is not an issue. There is inconsistency between different English variations throughout Wikipedia and apart from a handful of editors who think all articles should be in American English, for consistency's sake, the rest of us accept that the spellings in the first non-stub version should be retained.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your post. What inconsistencies within this article?--Ykraps (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Presently, the article has 15 instances of "ships of the line" and 14 of "ships-of-the-line". I had corrected this inconsistency but was reverted with this edit: [5], which also removed other changes I'd made (some to words, some to getting commas right, etc.). Just for your information, and thank you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the problem again. Nechemia Iron (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In this diff [[6]] immediately before your editathon, I counted 14 instances of ships-of-the-line but only 9 ships of the line.Ykraps (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am mostly indifferent as to which we use, as long as we are consistent. The hyphenated expression is ugly, but can help where sentence structure tries to couple "of the line" with whatever comes after it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)