Talk:Battle of Trafalgar

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Germany?

With no sign of Villeneuve's fleet, on 25 August, the three French army corps' invasion force near Boulogne broke camp and marched into Germany, where it was later engaged. This ended the immediate threat of invasion.[21][22]

This is impossible, Germany did not exist before 1871! Let's not rewrite history. Mjroots (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

They are talking about the geographical Germany, not the political Germany. The same principle applies to Italy. 2A02:C7C:59DD:E900:6121:7825:5AE4:35CC (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle plans

File:Plan of the Battle of Trafalgar, October 21st 1805, from Alison's Atlas.jpg

Plan of the Battle of Trafalgar, October 21st 1805, from Alison's Atlas

File:Plan of the Battle of Trafalgar after start of action, from Alison's Atlas.jpg

Plan of the Battle of Trafalgar after start of action, from Alison's Atlas

I've uploaded these copyright-free maps to Commons. I'll leave it to the regulars here to decide whether either, or both, will be useful in the article. The first shows the iconic battle plan, and is imho rather beautiful, and an improvement on the plan currently in the Combat section. The second is necessarily somewhat fanciful, the engraver can't have known the precise disposition of all the ships, but he may have known as much as anyone else. Maproom (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

name of the battle

If the battle really occurred in the location given, and I believe it did, then I have to wonder why it is not called the Battle of Cala Del Aceite. That seems closer than Cape Trafalgar.

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

recent edit removed

@Nthep So as a I already said I respect you but I totally disagree with your edit. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Harv errors.jpg

numerous cs1 errors introduced

@Mr.Lovecraft your series of edits started with an edit summary saying "non-referenced books removed" when, in fact, you removed several books that were referenced and/or scrambled the referencing such that after your edits, this is how the references section looked. To me that wasn't an acceptable state to leave the article in, so I reverted back to the version prior to those errors being introduced. I have no opinion of the quality of the edits, content wise, as I am no expert in Napoleonic naval warfare. Nthep (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see. What do you think of the following compromise, the references all remain but I re-insert my text ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll leave to others to offer opinions on the quality, I was only concerned about the referencing. I notice that English isn't your first language, and there was one paragraph that started "Villeneuve's leadership in July/August 1805 has often been criticised. He did not appear sovereign in those months." Apart from the whole paragraph being unsourced, I really couldn't work out what the second sentence was supposed to mean. After you've finished you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for someone to copy-edit the article. Nthep (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion

wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Active disagreement at Third Opinion removed

An item has been removed from the list of active disagreements at Wikipedia:Third_opinion because an editor has already offered to provide a third opinion and is requesting a summary of the dispute on this talk page. If this is an error, please go to Wikipedia:Third_opinion and re-add your dispute.Manuductive (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Manuductive and IOHANNVSVERVS, this request for a third opinion by Mr.Lovecraft was made at 10:43, 20 January 2025, almost immediately after their OP here and before the response by Nthep. Looking at the discussion that has followed, Nthep reverted the edit primarily because it broke a number of references and was quite reasonable as acknowledged by Mr.Lovecraft. At least one other issue has been identified for Mr.Lovecraft to respond to - again, this is quite reasonable. I don't know what they were meaning either. This is being adequately dealt with through the normal BRD cycle and has not reached an impasse where a third opinion would be warranted. Also, this page is well watched. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems resolved then. Thanks @Cinderella157. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)