User talk:Carre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cranmer

British spellings would be better for that article given the subject, but you are correct, I am not in a position to add them all. I have no preference and would defer in all articles to British spellings as they are more used world-wide. Feel free to make the changes you suggested or any others you think will improve the article. -- SECisek 07:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunstan

Would you be so kind as to correct anglo-usage on the Dunstan page as well. I will nominate for GA in the next day or so. Please add/repair anything you can! -- SECisek 08:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

R Sigs Beret

R Sigs do not wear the Black Beret. The 'standard' Navy Blue Beret worn by those army units that do not have a special colour and the RN is indeed very dark (much the same colour as RN Blue Uniforms) and is often mistaken for black.Blackshod 13:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Siege of Cadiz

Hey there. Regarding your two points about commanders, I suspect you are correct and you can go ahead and alter the Cadiz article if you want, or give me the specifics and I can do it for you :) as for the third, my information on that came from another article on the incident itself (if I remember rightly) so again up to you. The article wasn't my best, was more filling a hole for someone else who knew the topic to fine tune :) SGGH ^speak! 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No I got the refs from the battle article. Sorry for not being particularly lucid, has been a while since I wrote it. Plus we just lost the cricket :( SGGH ^speak! 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Ostend Raid

Sorry, thats really irritating. My spelling is terrible and a lot of people had been changing spellings so I decided to run it throug my Microsoft word spellchecker, which automatically changed everythiung to Americanised spellings. Grrr. I thought I'd got them all. I'll change it back.--Jackyd101 23:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass for Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

Congratulations. An article you contributed significantly to has been awarded Good Article status. You may wish to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|Victoria Wood As Seen On TV}} and paste it to somewhere suitable (such as your user page).

It will produce the following userbox

This user helped promote Victoria Wood As Seen On TV to good article status.

and add you to the category "Good Article contributors".

Well done! EyeSerene^TALK 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're being modest - without your contributions the article would not have got to GA status as smoothly. You fully deserve your share of the kudos ;)

FYI, I use the tool here to get edit counts for GA userbox awards, but I also check the article history for the type of edits (obviously they should be substantial/significant). Since the 'on hold' issues were so minor, the real GA work had clearly already been done. As part of that I felt your edits - mainly the first, although you did a good job with the template fix (which is an underappreciated task IMO) - qualified. EyeSerene^TALK 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review for Battle of Barossa

Hello (again!). I've taken on the above article for GA review, but I noticed it has recently passed an A-class review. As I'm sure you know, GA comes below A in the MilHist WikiProject quality scale. I have no objections at all to proceeding with the GA review, but I thought I'd check with you first to see if you still want to go ahead ;)

I'm also part of the LoCE and I noticed you'd got a request in there for it as well. If you'd rather have a ce I can do that instead, or maybe you want to combine the two...?

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the various timestamps I thought something like that might be the reason ;) With your permission I'll go ahead and delist the article over at GAN - I agree that a GA review serves no real purpose given its A-class rating.

I'd be very happy to help out with a copyedit instead - I'll go over the article tomorrow and hopefully find something useful to do! Your prose looks pretty good to me, but I suppose another pair of eyes never hurts ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've also noticed that I keep spelling Barrosa wrong - made all the worse as the reason this article caught my eye is that there's a training area at Sandhurst named after the battle :P EyeSerene^TALK 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The training area apparently resembles the battlefield, hence the name... but I don't think it's inclusion material either. Re 'irrelevant guff', I was a Scalie myself (spent most of my time in Catterick). Small world ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review for Wisden Trophy

Have added cites to place mentioned. You and Jhall mentioned using books and websites as references to get 'the both of worlds'. I am not sure how this is supposed to be done, any help on that one? Monsta666 15:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Barrosa ce

I've finally got round to the copyedit - apologies for the delay! I went through the lead and first section; hopefully my alterations are acceptable. The prose, as I mentioned, is already pretty good, so what I mostly tried to do was remove the odd repetition and clarify a little where I thought a bit of extra background might help. If you have no objections so far, I'll continue with the rest tomorrow.

One point that did occur to me: the Allied forces are variously referred to as Anglo-Portuguese, British, the Allies and Anglo-Spanish. I think this could be clarified or at least standardised in the lead; obviously Graham's division can be referred to as Anglo-Portuguese or even British (since the Portuguese contingent was integrated into the division and under British command), but the combined force included Spaniards as well, as did the Cadiz garrison. This is potentially confusing, and to be honest I don't think I made it any clearer... but writing Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese all the time would look horrible ;) Any ideas?

Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost there - only the last section to go, which hopefully I'll get the chance to finish tomorrow. I'm sure you've noticed, but I've applied your suggestions for the naming conventions (what you had already written made good sense - I was possibly confusing myself!). I've also corrected the various dashes and explicitly coded them into the text; I have this bad habit of using hyphens for everything (mainly so as not to break a train of thought) and then forgetting to fix them afterwards. On the subject of dashes, I added one to re–form (as in 'form up again')to distinguish it from reform (as in 'mended ways'). I've got a feeling this is the MoS recommendation for this usage, but you'd probably know better than I!

I'm also not sure about the part where I've said Duncan's cannons were positioned on the end of the skirmish line (Leval's attack). This seemed to be what the text was implying, but it also seems more logical that they would be on the main line (which I think was in the process of forming up at the time). Again, you'd know best, so please alter as necessary ;)

Thanks for the encouraging comments! EyeSerene^TALK 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bringing in your info about the cannon, which I think is an interesting point, I'd say something like "...ten cannon under Major Duncan which, having made rapid progress through the woods, arrived in time to support the skirmish line."...?

As for Browne on the hill, I was a little dissatisfied with my edit there anyway... and now I know why ;) The way I've phrased it, it pertains to his state of mind ('unwilling to retreat'), which is not only potential commentary but even if accurate would require a specific reference. Since there are other problems with it too I'll change that tomorrow if you haven't already fixed it by then.

I found the relevant MoS bit re dashes, but (thanks to a 'fashionable' secondary education that omitted formal grammar rules) I'm still not sure I understand it... so I'll leave that to you :P (edit: noticed you've just fixed it anyway!) Thanks again for the feedback! EyeSerene^TALK 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've finished. I'm not sure about the structure of the Consequences section (maybe the first paragraph should come more towards the end...?), and the very last sentence needs a cite. To be honest I'm not convinced that the part about the ships and the Barrosa Valley is necessary, but I suppose there's no harm leaving it in and waiting to see what they say at FA.

I'd also like your opinion on my opening for the fourth para - is it justifiable from the sources to describe la Pena as "incompetent" (although he surely was) or does this come across as editor opinion?

Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, moving the paragraph would probably not improve anything - it's not as though the section doesn't hang together well as it is. My thoughts were more along the lines of separating the immediate Aftermath of the battle (Graham taking his ball and going home, la Pena's righteous navel-gazing and Victor's lucky break) from the later Consequences (the court-martial, renewal of the siege and Graham's reassignment) and the overall outcome (strategic status quo ante). This would really entail splitting the section into two though (possibly as bolded above), and I hesitate to suggest this when there are no real problems as it stands. Re 'incompetent': yes, 'nuff said!

I sincerely hope this does well at FA - I'm not familiar with the process myself, but if you don't mind I'll keep an eye on how things go. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I'd be more than happy to assist if you ever want a hand with anything in the future ;) All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[addendum] I've just noticed the paragraph move, and I do think that helps. The section now falls naturally into the two areas in my last post (1st 2 paras = Aftermath, etc). I don't know what you think about actually splitting the section though...? EyeSerene^TALK 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - your baby ;) I love the image. Sharpe, eat your heart out! It would make the perfect addition - IMO the loss of the eagle, and la Pena's removal from command, were the most notable and beneficial events of the battle. The one harmed the entire French army and dented Victor's self-confidence, and the other strengthened the Spanish (although they never seemed to lack for incompetent commanders... but then neither did the British). It always amazed me that, even after Barrosa, the French still insisted on pitting their columns against British lines. You'd think that the defeat of six battalions attacking downhill towards a semi-organised opponent would be a lesson worth learning :P EyeSerene^TALK 18:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Manuel la Peña

On 5 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manuel la Peña, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GAC expedited evaluation

I have had 30 successful WP:GAC evaluations, but do not recall if you have done any. I have never requested an expedited review. Do you have any advice on my request for an expedited GAC review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cursory review. I have attempted to follow your advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Barrosa

It's been instructive following the FAC process so far, and now the supports seem to be coming in. The article's looking good - I'll put the smarties aside for you ;) EyeSerene^TALK 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out again - and thanks for the vote of confidence (given some of the FA reviewer's comments!). Just let me know when you're ready. EyeSerene^TALK 08:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Freezer Burn

Why isn't it an oxymoron? 75.45.111.4 07:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Answering here, rather than probably variable IP address talk. Why isn't it an oxymoron? I haven't the faintest idea whether it is, or is not, an oxymoron. The reason I reverted the addition, and I suspect the reason subsequent editors have done the same on re-additions, is the big notice in the edit page: "Note to editors: Any additions to this list that are not previously discussed on the talk page will be removed." Not just once, but twice. Carre 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stede Bonnet FAC

Hi Carre. I have replied to all but one of your questions at the Stede Bonnet FAC. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied to your comments here. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

whom

Depends where. "Of whom", yes. We use only when we have to. Tony (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Whom is better in that context. Tony (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) PS precede it with a comma (I'm sure the meaning is that he was comparing all nomads, not a subset of them, to pirates). Tony (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera

Just to keep you informed, I've taken an offline copy of the article, which I intend to work on while I'm away (it'll give me something to do in the evenings when the soaps are on ;) ). I'll carefully merge in any changes when I get back. All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: Do you have any opinions about the reliability of Elizabeth Longford's bio of Wellington as a source? (just curious!)

Jack Sparrow Nomination

Is it alright with you if I'm that one regular contributor who's standing for the Jack Sparrow article's Featured Article nom? BlackPearl14 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, great. Thank you very much! I'm working on edits right now :) [ BlackPearl14 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ]

Whoops! I'm sorry, let me fix that. I wasn't sure myself, it sounded kind of weird... [ BlackPearl14 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC) ]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On November 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Gebora, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Carre. Thanks for all your great WP:MILHIST contributinos.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

File:OblateSpheroid.png

I, EyeSerene, hereby present Carre with the Oblate Spheroid Award for achieving FA status for Battle of Barrosa (in the absence of real smarties).

Congratulations on the FA - fantastic work! Unfortunately the Smarties article has no pictures, and M&Ms just don't taste the same, so I've left a generic oblate spheroid instead. I can see this replacing the FA bronze star one day.

Per your kind comments, I'll award myself an FA assist userbox too (Thank you!:D). I'll get on the Albuera copyedit as soon as I can, although I've been coerced into taking the family away next week (half-term) and won't have internet access. Hopefully I can at least make a start before I go - the GA sweep is important, but it's good to get the chance to do something more creative once in a whilst while. All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Work on Battle of the Gebora—and, it turns out, a whole number of other articles—is beyond praise. Albrecht 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well-deserved. Besides their technical perfection—there's really no reason Battle of Albuera shouldn't be FA-nominated—I've found your articles deploy an impressive array of sources. Juggling, for instance, the classic Oman and Fortescue volumes with the better of the newer narratives, such as Gates and Esdaile, is remarkable. (For the record, I've never had the chance to read Oman, and I imagine few editors can say differently.) Indeed, don't hesitate to comment anytime on any of my edits; I'll be sure to give your position the weight it deserves. Cheers, Albrecht 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera ce

Just letting you know I'm back on the job; I've gone over the article offline & will post the results up in the near future (probably tomorrow). I also have one or two questions... I've stupidly left my working copy on my PC at work, so I'll be back in touch when I've got it in front of me :P EyeSerene^TALK 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I did enjoy the break! I've found incorporating my copyedit into the article has basically turned into a further copyedit of my offline copyedit, but I'll crack on with this as quickly as possible.

Re the lead; I'm reworking a few bits now. I agree that the second para is perhaps a little bloated, but I sometimes find it awkward to strike a balance between summarising the article and structuring the lead to give enough context to a reader unfamiliar with the subject (the 'stand-alone article' bit of WP:LEAD). If you feel it unbalances the article (which is after all about the battle, not the background to it!), please chop away.

Re questions, my initial one is: am I correct in the assumption, from the context, that the majority of Soult's Badajoz garrison (the 11,000 men under Mortier) were not all stationed in Badajoz; hence many of them being driven off by Beresford's approach? Can Badajoz refer to a district as well as the town itself?

I'll get back to work ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That does answer it, thanks. I just wasn't sure I'd understood that part correctly (I think it originally said that much of the garrison had been driven off, which seemed illogical if they were already in Badajoz). The only book I know I have in the house is Vol I of the Longford bio, and I can't find it! (Besides, like you I find her coverage of Wellington's personal life slightly better than her coverage of other stuff... although it's still a very good read). EyeSerene^TALK 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More questions for you (I'll just add them here as I go along):

• "The Emperor's orders were based on outdated intelligence; by the time Soult received them, the situation had changed considerably." What had changed that Napoleon was unaware of (I'm guessing the existence of the Lines)?
• Do we have a date for the despatch of Napoleon's orders?

EyeSerene^TALK 18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to respond to your question! I'm easy too - if you want to keep as we are, or answer under the questions here, or copy everything to the article talk page I'll just follow along. EyeSerene^TALK 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go at the "Background" section and tried to incorporate your explanation without disrupting it too much. Is this suitable? EyeSerene^TALK 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think for transparency that's probably the best place for this, seeing as it's getting beyond a few minor comments. I'll post further items there. EyeSerene^TALK 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

EyeSerene^TALK 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: No Man's Land

You're right, it is very moving. Back in my time in the forces I was privileged to be called on to read the 'They shall not grow old...' verse at a Remembrance Day service (from For the Fallen). That has always got to me as well - I barely got through it... EyeSerene^TALK 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Love to work on a map for the Battles of Gebora and Badajoz

Carre, I'd love to work on a map for the Battles of Gebora and Badajoz. This may take me a couple of weeks since I promised to work on a Muslim history map first. I myself like miliary history and would welcome the opportunity. I was very disappointed to find that the most recent military history Featured Article (forget the name -- it was concerning a 19th century battle on the Afghan frontier) did not have a single good map. What's up with that, anyway?!?!? Thanks for opportunity, MapMaster 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Me again. It looks like my other work has been put on hold, so I'll be getting right to work on this map. My plans were not to re-create the map already in the article, but to hopefully provide a map better suited to a Wikipedia article, something with color that someone can use along with the text, that will enhance the words (and vice versa). If we could add it to the article at about 350px (the present is 300px) that would give me a bit more room to work in. Sound good?? MapMaster 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You don't know the scale of that map, do you?? Not that it makes much difference. . .

Well, I've made a good start on the map -- one that you may critique.

• I decided to focus on the battle itself and leave off the siege lines about Badajoz. When you are ready for a map of the siege, I can draw that up relatively easy, but I find maps are better if they are tightly focused on the area of interest.
• I color-coded the forces. However, I did not know the basic color for Napoleonic Spanish troops, so I used a burgundy sort of color. Do you have a better color?
• I couldn't quite fit the information about Campo Maior or Elvas on the map without it seemingly cluttered. Is this OK?
• I saved the file as a PNG, just in case you had changes, but will save it as an SVG after I incorporate your comments.
• I estimated the scale based on some aerial maps. I also found out that the rivers today are not quite what they were on the old map. Honestly, I suspect that the old map might be wrong, but resisted the temptation to redraw the rivers.
• I think this article could benefit from a campaign map.

All for now. What do you think? MapMaster 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I have uploaded an SVG version and deleted the PNG version. I will think about a "campaign map" (which is as you described). Let me know when you need the Siege of Badajoz map. MapMaster 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

English/Anglish

Tell me about it! I am guilty of sometimes using defense/defence interchangably (if I'm not concentrating), although I have much the same views as you concerning usage of English. I try not to get too picky about it though - I had a very interesting exchange with a top-notch editor recently concerning a minor copyedit I did on Mary Woolstonecraft (a British subject written using Am-En, which I altered as I went along without realising that the spelling was a hot topic elsewhere). It forced me to look at my own prejudices anyway ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was rather cheeky of me... although not entirely unsolicited. You're right though, her output does rather put the rest of us to shame ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed you've changed defence back again... so I looked at my edits and now I'm seriously wondering where my head was yesterday. I honestly believed I was changing it to BE from AE; and all my above posts were based on this belief. I don't know what to say. :P EyeSerene^TALK 12:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The ridiculous thing is, I not only know which is which, but I even checked the link you gave and still didn't catch on. Oh well... EyeSerene^TALK 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've heard the Shaw quote as "... separated by a common language. Is there an authoritative source for the correct version? Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (or should that be "authouritative" in Br-En?)
• My source was this. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Marston Moor

Thanks for extending the GA review deadline on the Battle of Marston Moor.

I think that all of the issues you raised have been addressed, so perhaps you'd take another look at it now and let us know what you think.

Cheers. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC The World Is Not Enough (song)

You stated the MOS breach "version - 15 or 20" but I didnt see this anywhere in the article. Where is it? Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And which quote is unsourced? Vikrant Phadkay 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Gebora

The image is now in the correct place, good work. Well done with the article, it is very impressive. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)