Talk:Assault on Cadiz (1797)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Blockade or attack?[edit]

This page as it stands is a messy collision between an article on the blockade. and an article on the actions of early July 1797. The title indicates that it relates to the blockade and is linked to by other pages on this basis. The main text treats the blockade, with its occasional interruptions, as a single phenomenon lasting from 1797 until 1802, or even encompassing the renewed blockade after the resumption of war. However, the bulk of the content relates to the July actions, and the retention of its designation as "Attack on Cadiz" or "Assault on Cadiz" in the databox, category links etc corresponds to this. The opening summary is concerned with the attacks in the harbour, not the blockade. The databox is a collision between the two, with a heading, date and result based on the attacks, but including in the losses section non-combat losses sustained as late as April 1798, which clearly pertain to the wider blockade. The inclusion of the loss of boats (which currently excludes the Spanish losses, even those itemised in the text) makes sense in the context of an article on boat actions over a few days, but is too trivial to mention in an article on a blockade involving large fleets lasting many months (or years, if the short interruptions are ellided as per the main text). There are other problems, but these will do for now.

The article needs reconfiguration into a full treatment of the blockade, with the option of detaching a separate page on the boat actions to which the relevant section of the current text could be removed. I made an admittedly haphazard start on this but got shouted at and reverted. Can I have another go or is there someone out there who actually thinks the present state of the article is acceptable and can justify this? Zburh (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)