Talk:Battle of Ligny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page views[edit]

More Images needed[edit]

This article needs more images. There is a good collection here:

but the problem is although many of them are out of copyright, there is a watermark across many of theses images, so it will be necessary to find the original sources.

There is also a question of artistic licence for the description of the windmill on the heights of Naveau (AFAICT also known as the "Windmill at Fleurus"). There is currently a brick windmill on that site, and there seems to be confusion over whether it was standing in 1815 or if it is a later replacement. The next two articles discuss this issue:

The ‘Moulin Naveau’ (windmill) is situated on the left hand side of the road leading out of Fleurus to Gembloux, and was used by Napoleon as an observatory during the battle of Ligny. At the time of our visit it was in very good condition, although whether or not the original windmill was made of brick is debateable, many paintings of the battle showing it to be a wooded structure? At the foot of the windmill is the monument celebrating the three French victories at Fleurus (The Battle of Ligny Battlefield Anomalies)

After 11 am Napoleon arrived at Fleurus and was greeted with loud "Vive l'Empereur!" He ordered his sappers to build an observation post - a circular gallery around the windmill near Fleurus - and, map in hand, began to survey the battlefield. "From Napoleon's observatory in the mill at Fleurus, the Prussian positions did not appear as strong as they really were." (Henri Houssaye cited by Battle of Ligny 16 June 1815, Napoleonistyka

Why build a circular gallery around the windmill if it was not circular? Also those articles contain more images that would be useful if we can find the originals.

There may also be some pictures by Richard Knötel (January 12, 1857 – April 26, 1914), a German artist and pioneer of the study of military uniforms.

-- PBS (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The article by Pierre de Wit (2008) The windmill of Naveau - The campaign of 1815: a study is a detailed study which, to me, strongly suggests that the windmill is the brick one which is mentioned above. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Fleurus[edit]

I recently became aware that the Trois Burettes was notable in both the Battle of Fleurus (1690) in the Nine Years' War and in the Battle of Ligny. There were two other battles of Fleurus

Is there any evidence that the commanders or their staff were aware of the details of these battles, as such a knowledge could have been useful at the Battle of Ligny? -- PBS (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Size and Style[edit]

I don't mean to intrude on, from what I can see, is a labor of love from several editors, but I believe that the understandable impulse to inform the reader has been allowed a bit too free of a rein. Speaking as a relatively neutral observer who has not read this article in over a year, I have to express my shock as to what it has become. What was previously a fairly concise (if admittedly thin) article on the battle of Ligny has now somehow metastasized into an enormous, seemingly entirely copy-pasted lifting of the works of Siborne, with nary a paraphrase to help those who were not born in the 19th century along. The article's index of the battle's phases, by itself, spans more than an entire screen. I want to emphasize that I have no dog in this fight other than being a Napoleonic Wars enthusiast, but this article seems like it desperately needs not only pruning, but actual original content. Simply lifting an entire chapter from a book, slapping quotations around it and attributing it, and then calling it a day is not a conducive format for those who want to read a summary of the battle, which is the format for most, if not all, other Wikipedia battle and campaign articles.

I would humbly suggest to the resident editors that the article be remodeled so that, while keeping the main action covered and well-sourced, it informs the reader in a timely and understandable manner of what occurred during the battle. Brianify (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's dreadful. Awful. A massive, misguided waste. The complete lack of editorial judgement has produced an article that's enormous but largely uninformative and unfit as a reference work. Furthermore it's almost entirely copied from a single source written in the late 1800s! Which results in rubbish like "the battle, on this part of the field, now presented an awfully grand and animating spectacle, and the hopes of both parties were raised to the highest state of excitement intermingled with the quick but irregular discharge of small arms throughout the whole extent of the village, came forth alternately the cheering "En avant!" and exulting "Vive l'Empereur!" as also the emphatic "Vorwärts!" and the wild "Hourrah!"..." and so forth ad infinitum. Whoever did this was hard-working but wrong, which is a terrible combination of attributes.- (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It is not as large as the sister article the Battle of Waterloo and there are many larger articles take for example Deepwater Horizon oil spill, however if you like we can discuss how to make this a summary style article. As for the style of the text, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress, any editor can copy edit it, providing the changes are supported by the source or another reliable sources is added to support the change. -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Lack of citations in the "Background" section[edit]

@user:Howcheng I have reverted this edit which placed a {{refimprove section}} at the top of the section:

consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step (It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}). ... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. (WP:PROVIT

Why did you not use citation needed tags? Did you try to find citations for the text that concerns you? Have you read he article see also article at the top of the section? It is called Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June) also did you look at the main campaign article: Waterloo Campaign. Are there any cited sources in those articles that cover you concerns? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: The first two paragraphs in that section do not have any citations at all. My job is to vet articles for inclusion on the Main Page as part of WP:Selected anniversaries and I'm looking at 30–40 articles on a daily basis, so I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to do the research myself. Yes, this article has previously appeared there, but in the past year the standard for inclusion has gotten higher, so I've been re-examining articles with a more critical eye. By tagging the section as such, my hope is that editors who are more familiar with the material will be able to quickly add the additional citation. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you compared the article as it is now with how it was a year ago (here)? If you are tagging 30–40 articles on a daily basis without attempting to find sources yourself then you are not following the WP:V policy. In this case if you meant the first two paragraphs why not tag those paragraphs instead of the whole section. -- PBS (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the state of the article a year ago has to do with this. I see that it has changed quite a lot (nice work, assuming that you are primarily responsible for it), but when we consider articles for inclusion on the Main Page, we are looking at the current state. Furthermore, WP:V states "The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (I didn't add the material) and "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself" (not required). I am NOT tagging 30–40 articles/day. I am examining that many. I use the maintenance tags because visually it makes things easier for me and anyone else who happens to be deciding which articles are eligible for use in OTD. See a yellow or orange tag? Automatic disqualify. In a perfect world where I didn't have other commitments (work, family, other volunteer jobs), then yes I could take the time to carefully examine each article closely and attempt to do the research myself. At any rate, it appears that my tagging the article has had the desired effect and you've since included additional citations. As you are the subject-matter expert, it was far more efficient for you to do get that done, rather than myself. Would you be able to improve Battle of Quatre Bras#Aftermath as well, so that we can get these guys both back in for next year? Thanks so much for your work. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Bold edits and reverses[edit]

@user:Display name 99 see WP:BOLD BRD Its make an edit and if it is reverted discuss on the talk page. Not revert the revert (iw start an edit war). Please justify each of you changes and seek consensus for the change here on the talk page before making it again. -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PBS, so the AN3 thread was closed. You can click on my post to see what I wrote. I maintain my position that the burden is on the person doing the reverts to explain why the material doesn't belong. Display name 99 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have struck BOLD above and replaced it with BRD as it is is a better explanation. I responded to your comments at 3RR (3AN) there as it is not directly pertinent to the discussion about the content of this article. -- PBS (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

With the first of your consecutive edits you removed two images from the battle box with the comment "(It's not common practice to include images of commanders in the infobox)". It is common practice on German Wikipedia and this article was for a long time a copy of the German Wikipeia article "de:Schlacht bei Ligny" where it is a "Exzellente Artikel" (Featured Article). While it may not be common practice on English Wikipedia, I think that when there are only two commanders it is an elegant thing to do. One of the principles of Wikipedia is that while there ought to be consistency within an article, there is no justification for consistency between articles. So what is your policy/guideline justification for making this edit? -- PBS (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

PBS, first of all let me respond to the two points you made on the AN3 page. The first edit that you listed was made after an editor reverted one of my edits, calling it "original research" and telling me to justify it on the talk page. I did so, and he did not respond, so I reverted his revert. Makes more sense now, doesn't it? As for the second one, I am of the opinion that whenever one undoes or dramatically alters another's work, a clear explanation is needed. This includes reverts and also image changes. I reverted that edit because an editor changed the lead image without explaining why. That is all the explanation I need.
Now, onto the infobox images. I really don't care what people do on German Wikipedia. People who come to this page are more likely to have read other articles on English Wikipedia than they are anything on German Wikipedia. Like I said, I've read and edited many articles about battles, and never once have I seen images of commanders in the infobox. It seems to me generally best to have consistency between articles in format if they are covering the same type of topic. It makes browsing easier and simpler. It would be especially cumbersome to try to apply this format to articles where more than two commanders are listed. I don't particularly like the way it looks in this article either, but that's more of a personal matter.
Now what about my other edits? Display name 99 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
As this battle only had two generals more than two is not an issue, and you suggested change is one of style alone (as you have not produced policy or guidance to back up the proposed change.
I think you have this process the wrong way round. It is you who is proposing changes not I, so it would be better if you were to propose what it is that you would most like to change, but in the interests of keeping this process moving along I will now discuss your second edit:
Changing [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] to [[Napoleon|Napoleon Bonaparte]] There is specific guidance against making this type of edit see WP:NOTBROKEN with explanations there of why it is a bad idea. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I explained the rest at AN3. Here's what I said:
"I made 3 more edits in which I removed periods from captions. Generally they aren't included unless they follow complete sentences. I noted this in the first of the three edits that I made. I also removed an image of the Battle of Waterloo from the "Aftermath" section. It's normal to include some information about what happened after a battle, but a picture of a battle that isn't the same as the one covered in the article is overdoing it, in my opinion. In my edit summary, I noted that the picture was not "directly relevant" to the article. I made a couple more edits which, regrettably, did not have edit summaries. Usually notes in the article which are meant to expand upon something are separated from footnotes. In this case they weren't, so I split them myself into separate sections. [The two things are of an entirely different nature. The "Notes" expand on the main text or offer background. The footnotes are simply sources. It make sense to have them separate.] I also made an edit to the lead in which I attempted to explain how the battle constituted a tactical French victory. All that was explained is how it was a strategic defeat. There was also a "However" thrown into the lead which should not have been there because both points that were made were in support of it being a strategic defeat for the French. There was no contradiction, and the presence of the word was quite confusing for me at first. In my edit summary, I said: "Previously the lead did not explain how the battle consistuted [sic] a tactical French victory."" Display name 99 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it better we discuss each separately otherwise things get confusing. So far we have discussed to issues and the first seems to be a difference in style (so there is no consensus for that change) while with the second change the guidance in WP:NOTBROKEN is against the edit. So do you accept that there is no consensus for these two changes?
In the next edit you state "More fighting in Ligny: No periods in captions unless they follow complete sentences." I presume that you mean a full stop when you write period. What is the guidance that you are using to support this change? I ask because the examples in Help:Files, do not support you. There are two good reasons for finishing the text in such statements with a full stop. (1) it helps to make it easy to see where a link to an artists name ends and the enclosing square brackets end: ie with a full stop ]].]] is easier to readn than ]]]] and so is less likely to cause an error. (2) ending the statement with a full stop allows for a reference to be placed after it. This looks better than abutting the reference up against an alpha numeric character. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I accept that there is no consensus for the infobox edit and that policy is against the other edits mentioned thus far. As for periods in captions, go to WP: Manual of Style/Captions, then "Formatting and punctuation." Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I accept that WP: Manual of Style/Captions as currently written is in your favour so I will not oppose those changes. In fact I think the guidance needs changing to include the possibility of elliptical sentences (or more precisely in grammar: elliptical main clauses). What I mean by this is that because the text in the caption explains the image we write "Gneisenau at the Battle of Ligny, by Richard Knötel.", rather than stating the obvious "This is a painting of Gneisenau at the Battle of Ligny, by Richard Knötel." The "This is a painting of" is not usually stated, but is implied in captions.

However I do not accept this edit that the removes of the full stop after the author name of a quote is covered by the same thing guideline. This is largely to do with style. It looks far better to place the citations after a full stop than next to the last character in a surname.

I have no objections to you change to the lead, what you are removing is a POV inserted by another user, and as it is in my opinion overeggs the pudding.

I do object to your removal of the Waterloo picture, the major aftermath was the Battle of Waterloo one of the most decisive battles in history, so this image is on topic. Yes it is eye candy (as are all these types of pictures), but it is not as if there are many images in this article given its size—There are 18 images in the Battle of Ligny (145K), and 41 in the Battle of Waterloo article (157K) — so I think it should stay. More eye candy needs to be added!

Your edit to the section headings on Notes and References is against the guidance in MOS:APPENDIX (in WP:LAYOUT), and the current version is the same as that used in examples of the section short notes section in WP:CITE — Short citations in footnotes are notes, just as are none citations footnotes.

-- PBS (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I've made the changes that you approved. I see no reason to pursue the others further. In the future, I will attempt to be more concise in my edit summaries, and to use them more often. I would also appreciate, if ever in the future you revert one of my edits, you provide as clear an explanation as the edit summary bar will allow, not merely stating the obvious: that you "oppose" the edits. In that case, if I still wish to pursue it, I will go to the talk page, rather than revert again. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)