Talk:Battle of Sluys

EB1911

@User:Gog the Mild It is not clear to me if the article contains any text copied from EB1911 (I have not had time to earwig it). If not then use {{cite EB1911}} and set parameter ref=harv. If it does then use {{EB1911}} and because it is being used inline set the parameter inline=1 (it changes the pre-script). See the template documentation for more details. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@PBS: Thanks. I'll set it back to how it was. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:Gog the Mild sorry my mistake if the text had contained text coped from EB1911, then as the EB1911 template would be in the bullet pointed list in a references section at the end, the correct thing to do would have been to move the EB1911 template to the bottom of the list of references and added a line before it in bold:

*List of reverences...
Attribution
*This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sluys, Battle of". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

See WP:PLAGIARISM#Where to place attribution.

As there is no text copied from eB1911 then the template {{cite EB1911}} is in the correct (alphabetical) place. -- PBS (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@PBS and Gog the Mild: Actually there is a 24.2% (unlikely) violation, but they are odd fragments and one sentence salted into otherwise non-EB1911 paragraphs. On the cusp of needing an attribution, I'd say, but it would be tough to single the text out. Can't believe I'm putting so much effort into this one :-) David Brooks (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@DavidBrooks: But I appreciate it. Someone in the past should have attributed that. I have rephrased it all and it should now give a much lower score. Thanks for picking it up. I noticed, cough, close paraphrasing, cough, to a couple of sources I have, but a normal Earwig was showing all clear. It even went through GAN recently. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The Yarmouth had their own coat of arms, should that be added? (P.S. I have a fancy title of my ancestry (Worden of Yarmouth)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourlittleman6 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ourlittleman6, thanks for that, but I don't think that it gets over the relevance threshold for this particular article. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Also known as The Hundred Years' war

I think the start of the second sentence ("Also known as The Hundred Years' war") creates confusion and suggests that this battle is synonymous with the whole war, so maybe remove it? - especially as the end of the paragraph has the phrase "The battle was one of the opening engagements of the Hundred Years' War. MeBeMe3000 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

MeBeMe3000, someone has removed it. When an article is TFA it attracts a lot of edits. I generally wait a few days and winnow those which don't seem to improve the article, per WP:FAOWN. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Geographical location

This article's coordinates are inside the walls of Sluys, which today is about 6.5km inland. I assume the actual battle took place in the Zwin or somewhere in between. Is it possible to give a better location? —Steve Summit (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Scs, thanks for the observation. As it says in the lead "It took place in the roadstead of the port of Sluys (French Écluse), on a since silted-up inlet"; and in the article "The entire Zwin estuary has silted up since the battle, and modern Sluis is 5 miles (8 km) from the sea." The location given is correct. Really. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah. They used Wet Nellie... ——Serial ^# 18:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath: What to tell the king?

According to Costain in The Three Edwards (not at my house, so must wait to consider inserting it), the French were at their wits' end as to how to tell their king, and eventually sent in the court fool, who shouted, "Oh, those coward English! Those coward English!" The king asked him why, and he replied, "Because they did not jump into the sea, as our brave Frenchmen did!" J S Ayer (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's in at least one of my sources. And deliberately not included as being just amusing trivia. (And heaven forfend that we amuse our readers.) You think that it should go in alongside the French-speaking fish? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is as colorful in emphasizing the severity of the French loss. J S Ayer (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

arrows

We read that arrows or bolts could be fired from the English castles and crows' nests down into the French ships, and that King Edward was wounded in the leg by an arrow or a bolt. My understanding is that an arrow shot from a longbow was a shaft, and one shot from a crossbow was a bolt. Is there any controversy, or should we polish accordingly? J S Ayer (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi J S Ayer and thanks for the input. I hope that you liked the article. Yes, arrows from crossbows are often called bolts and arrows from longbows may be termed shafts, although that is getting a bit specialist. You may have noted that "bolt" is only used in the article as "arrows or bolts" to try and make clear what it is from context. Plenty of RSs on the battle go with "arrow" for both. And given that this article has gone through GAN, ACR and FAC - meaning that 14 different editors have signed off on the current terminology - I don't see any value in breaking as solid a consensus as one is likely to find on Wikipedia to introduce a term - shaft - which virtually no reader will understand, when it is not required by the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that nine-tenths of our readers will not know the specialist term "bolt" and will think lightning is meant. Better to go with arrows, and not worry about which weapon fired them. J S Ayer (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Let's leave as is for a couple off days and see if this section attracts any further comment. If not I'll make the changes with my usual post-TFA tidy up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 90% of readers will think the English called down lightning on the French? Seriously?

We can't use "arrow" for something fired from a crossbow, no more than we could use it for something fired from a gun; it's inaccurate, as crossbows can't fire arrows. Saying only "arrows" is inaccurate, as it implies no crossbows were used. Making the association between bolt and crossbow clearer may well be warranted, but misleading the reader isn't the way to do this. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have linked "bolt" to the article Crossbow bolt, which gives a description of the parts of a crossbow "bolt" . I think that will solve this fairly elegantly? Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to do this. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That does indeed seem to resolve the issue elegantly. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely do not have a source for this, but my impression is that bolts shot in the late middle ages were in fact arrows, though different from the shafts shot from longbows. Come to think of it, I believe I have a nephew who knows a good deal about military technology of that period. J S Ayer (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The early crossbows did shoot arrows for example the Oxybeles but a bolt is shorter and usually heavier than an arrow, and by the time of the Hundred Years War they were definitely bolts in fact they may well have been quarrels, (ie: bolts with square arrow heads). From at least the 11th century, crossbowmen had bolts capable of penetrating mail armour. A good reference is "The Book of the Crossbow" by Ralph Payne-Gallwey. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing a sample of modern scholarly sources of the battle or the period, when referring to projectiles from crossbows, they universally - in the sample I have examined - use "bolt". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Gascon language

@Gog the Mild: I've seen that have changed my edit. I assume it was meant to be in good faith like you've told us. But Gascon is disputed by linguists and shouldn't be called just "language". I believe this could be seen the same with Flemish (you know some people say we speak that) or Moldovan (is just Romanian). It could be described distinctly and separated from Occitan. The article "Gascon campaign of 1345" also uses the sentence "The independent-minded Gascons had their own customs and claimed to have a separate language;"? We also discussed this in the Battle of Auberoche FAC back in the days. I'm not sure why it is removed? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

CPA-5, it got caught up in the usual post-TFA tidy up - I lump the 40 or so edits into one diff to review, so I didn't realise that it was you. I will get back to you on this, but can you give me a couple of days? Various things are happening in my life, including a reviewer giving me a hard time with both one of my FACs and one of my ACRs! Can you imagine? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild Twelve days have passed while no progress was made. Far in the ocean was there a Gog who's swimming farther from the coast of this in his duties. Forgetting one of the things he has promised in the almost two weeks ago. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hi CPA-5, this is Gog the Mild, waving from far off shore. Apologies for the delay. I have changed the wording here to reflect that in the other articles in the series. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild Oh btw another question, if I can ask you to waste another minute to my perfectionism view (yes I know it's a problem). Do we know what the page number(s) of citation 29 from DeVries is? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• @CPA-5: The reference os supporting the statement that de Vries made an overview of the subject; in other words, the entire article supports it, not an individual page/range. The only page range possible would be a duplication of that in the bibliography. HTH. ——Serial ^# 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, took the words right out of my keyboard. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

New discussion

I was the previous editor of the page about the Battle of Sluys. And I don't understand why it is being reverted back despite such glaring lack of informations. Flemish ships attacked french ones from the rear after seeing initial english successes. That was the whole point of the disaster. They are not mentioned in the infobox, neither are their ships. Only english ones which sailed from England are accounted for. And the page has stayed that way for so long despite it being written in literally every book which goes into detail about the engagement... and hilariously the Flemish intervention being mentioned in the article itself (93.22.36.11 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

I do agree with most of your edits as the County of Flanders and their ships did join the fight. There were Genoese sailors involved on the French side as well. Those are well documented. But where did you get your 100-130 Flemish ships from? That's almost as many as the English ones. Seems a bit ridiculous. I looked it up and couldn't find any data on it. What's your source? I removed your "Unknown" about English casualties as well (Jules Agathias (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

The French

What mean «  French «  at the time ? France started to exist after the one Hundred Years War . France was a collection of duchy and independent city.

French monarchy seem to be more accurate than « France « 37.167.239.13 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not the opinion of the reliable sources. Could you cite the sources which state this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)