Talk:Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue

message: Probably this template should be used:  Template:OldStyleDate   Lateg (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Article needs to be compatible with Action at Barfleur. Suggest it's easier to change Barfleur to suit as its one date. These dates need to be used at the two Commons pages too.  Broichmore (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Old & New style dates

message: Is it possible to be brave and define a start date for the Battle of La Hougue, so we can differentiate the whole host of artwork available on Commons which are in separate folders for this sprawling event. Are we saying (giving some emphasis in the article) that it includes the whole pursuit starting on 20 May (OS) (30 May (NS)) or later? Broichmore (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Battles need to be split

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battles of Barfleur and La Hogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914173826/http://www.bataviawerf.nl/7provincien_geschiedenis.html to http://www.bataviawerf.nl/7provincien_geschiedenis.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that the article would work better if the order of battle at the bottom were to be moved to a separate article. This seems to be standard these days. Does anyone have a view on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes or there could be a 'pull down' like this 
Order of battle  Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue	
----                                             	
----
 Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's perfect now. Thanks! Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Hey, thanks for tagging me, . I apologize for my edit summary at the time. This was back when I still tried to spice up my edit summaries with a little humor and bluntness. As you can tell, I frequently failed to hit the mark. So to clarify, my edit summaries have been brought to the admins' attention on multiple ocassions, and in all honesty, I was lucky to get away with just a month-long block. Also, looking back at my edit now I feel that I may have been a little excessive in my attempt to streamline the article. I have no problem with reinstating the order of battle at all! I believe what motivated me at the time to remove it was its excessive styling, and as such, its perceived incompatibility with MOS. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of battle 

message: Under Casualties and Losses, French lost ships are described as "destroyed", while Anglo-Dutch ships are described in one case as "sunk" and in another as "destroyed". Is there a good reason for a difference in nomenclature here? Maabonnet (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature for eliminated ships