Talk:Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar
Moved from User talk:Toddy1
I've had a look over, and assigned it a rating of B class. As always, this may be challenged or overturned by another editor, but I think that unlikely. There might be one or two little quibbles over points 1 (It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited) and 2 (It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies) but I think certainly not enough to justify downgrading it.
A few suggestions if you wanted to move the list further up the assessment scale:
- 1) A longer lead and introduction, discussing what the background of the battle was, the main points about how it was fought, and the outcome.
- 2) A small section on the historiography might be a useful addition.
- 3) Summarising the results of the tables to follow - brief discussion of total numbers present, those that became casualties, etc. Also on disposition of ships, guns and other potentially relevant factors to the battle and its outcome.
- 4) A picture, just to illustrate the battle or a particular moment, to go with the lead.
- 5) A full reference section, with perhaps some other works mentioned. Separate sections for external links, notes and literature as applicable.
A similar article, currently rated as a Featured list is the Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, and shows some of these points in action, if you wanted a model. As to formatting issues, that's not my particular bailiwick but someone from the League of Copyeditors should be able to offer a few tips. Hope this is all of help. It is a thorough and complete list and with a little work should have no trouble making featured list. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Meaning of † note
I notice that some of the commanders have the symbol † after their names. Does this mean they died during the battle? I'm guessing so because both Nelson and Galiano died, and both have that symbol. But I could not find it explained anywhere. Can it be explained somewhere? Pfly (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On some browsers, if there is no space between italiced text and a non-italic footnote reference, then the letters overlap making it harder to read them. Therefore such spacings are advantageous.
It should be remembered that how wiki-pages are displayed depends on many things, including the browser, wikipedia preferences, whether users are logged in, the size of the window, etc. So please can people show a little tollerence needed so that everyone can read the page.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Everything in the article has citations.
Adm Admiral Don Federico Carlos Gravina died on 9 March 1806 due to wounds received in the battle from which he never recovered. Sources for this include:
- p208-9, 212-4, Goodwin The Ships of Trafalgar, the British, French and Spanish Fleets October 1805 - this says he died in 1806.
- hnelson.iespana.es/gravinaingles.html - this gives the exact date - 9 March 1806.
- p355, 384, Schom, Alan, Trafalgar, Countdown to Battle, 1803-1805 describes Gravina as mortally wounded.
- p113, Harbron, John D, Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy - describes Gravina in March 1806 as dying of wounds received at the battle of Trafalgar.
There is absolutely no shortage of evidence from reliable sources that Gravina died of wounds received at the Battle of Trafalgar. Does anyone have any sources that says that he did not?
I have tried to accommodate the objections of User:Pietje96 by changing the wording in the second paragraph to:Named officers marked '†', killed in action or died of wounds.
Unless someone has some sources to justify not listing Gavina as dying of wounds received at the battle of Trafalgar, please can the article be reverted to the state at 05:02, 18 February 2010--Toddy1 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- The sources are quite explicit. Gravina never recovered and died in early 1806, less than five months after the battle, and considerably less than Pietje's claim of dying a year later. It seems reasonable to make the link, and the fact that Gravina died of wounds received, and not during the battle itself is made expressly clear. With reversions with edit summaries like 'desilusional content reverted' [sic] I don't think Pietje's contributions are helping reach a satisfactory conclusion. Benea (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am considering drafting biographical notes for some of the French officers, and I would try to upset nobody; what should I do? I know that one of them died several years after Trafalgar of a stroke consecutive of head injuries sustained during the battle. Rama (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think as long as its made explicit what the link is (a later death as a result of wounds received), I don't see it as a major problem, so long as there are sources that explicitly link the later death with the wounding in the battle. A similar case off the top of my head, Andrew Snape Douglas suffered a severe head wound at the Glorious First of June. He continued to serve at sea for a few more years but complained of severe headaches which eventually ended his seagoing career, and he died almost exactly three years after the battle. An autopsy revealed brain tumours, which were attributed to his injury at the battle. Perhaps take it on a case by case basis depending on what the evidence is. Benea (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- The US Department of Defense in 2005 defined Died of Wounds as "A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other than the victim of a terrorist activity, who dies of wounds or other injuries received in action after having reached a medical treatment facility." Source: thefreedictionary. I will try to find out more about the classification.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Lieut Dumay of the Furet
- It's Demay in the Dictionnaire des Bâtiments de la Flotte de guerre française. As far as I could tell, "Demai" looks a bit unlikely, "Demay" or "Demais" would be more plausible spellings anyway. Rama (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected the name of two spanish vessels, "Monarca" (in place of Monarcha) and "Montañés" (in place of Montänez)
"Monarca" means Monarch, obviously, and "Montañés" means something like Highlander, people from the mountains; this is because the actual region of Cantabria in Spain, traditionally has the surname of "La Montaña", so the ship was named "Montañés" in the sense she was from Cantabria.
Great work buddies.