Talk:Battle of Barrosa

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://books.google.ca/books?id=3huwPLzjzYYC&pg=PA340&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This is one of the standard textbook examples of how/why in this period the line should defeat the column - if the line kept its nerve Rjccumbria 01:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: (Warning, this is not a very accurate version of the battle, the battle comprised of two simultanious actions, one on the hill, and one near some woods. It was near the woods that the eagle was taken, not on the hill. The British marched to recapture the hill, as, if the French held the hill, they could march into the flank of the other British troops. This page needs to be edited to provide a more accurate description of the battle.)  
- left on the article page by MJCamp01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gomm (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MJCamp01 was completely correct in his/her comment;  the article as it stood was nonsense.  I have just finished updating it to reflect actual facts, but I would very much appreciate new references in the article.  Weller or Oman would be good - unfortunately, I don't have access to them at the moment, so I've relied on Paget and a couple of web-sites for my refs, but I'd like to see Weller and/or Oman cited on occasion. Carre 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion moved from article page 

message: I've put a  tag on the statement that the laurel on the captured eagle was from the 8eme Ligne's actions at Talavera.  The only online source I've been able to find about the laurel is http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/c_capturedflags.html, which claims the laurel was awarded due to actions at Austerlitz, but I'm not sure of how trustworthy that source is - it looks pretty good to me, anyway.  Additionally, Bernard Cornwell's book Sharpe's Fury indicates Austerlitz as the source of the laurel, but of course that's a work of fiction and hence definitely not citable, although Cornwell usually researches his novels pretty well.
Agree with the comment on the accuracy of this whole article too.  The order of battle is wrong, and to suggest that all the casualties on the British/Spanish side were British is an insult to the Portuguese who fought alongside the Brits. Carre 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8eme's Eagle and Laurel 

message: Could the IP address who changed the number of people in the Regency governing Cádiz please provide a source, since the only reference I have (Glover) clearly states three, and it is that source that's cited.  Without a proper citation to support the number five, I shall revert.
Note that I have no problem with the change in number, but the change contradicts the article's current citation, and as such must be removed, or the citation provided.  I'll revert in a few days if citation isn't forthcoming.  Thanks.  Carre 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regency numbers 

message: There was five persons appointed to  replace the Junta:
-Pedro de Quevedo y Quintano;
-Francisco Saavedra;
-Francisco Javier Castaños;
-Antonio de Escaño; y,
-Esteban Fernández de León
See http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/02581641089125151867857/p0000001.htm#I_1_  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.132.194 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Carre 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put the Spanish link in for now, but if you can find an English translation, that'd be good.  Thanks for the correction on Begines's name - my sources all use the spelling in the article, so I'm not sure whether to change it or not.  I can't find a WP article under either spelling.  If sources vary on La Peña, I think I'll leave it as I have it, since all my sources (and citations) use Manuel - I have seen "de la Peña" on occasion though. Carre 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About number of regents 

message: I have taken on Battle of Barrosa for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Carre. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 13:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE GA nomination delisted at the nominator's request: the article already has an A-class rating. EyeSereneTALK 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Nice aricle, but there is no need to refrain from linking sensibly, even for items that are currently redlinks.  For example, the first HMS Barossa - HMS Barossa (1860) - should be linked, like the second one is. -- !! ?? 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I was unsure about this, since I've seen a number of FACs complain about redlinks, suggesting either creating stubs or removing the link;  I've already created a couple of stubby articles to support this one, but don't know enough about other subjects that could/should be linked (Leval, for example) to be able to do more. Carre 11:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: I've been going around updating references to the London Gazette to use , primarily because a recent change to the Gazette website broke all previous links to individual gazettes - I note that here some fixed this fairly quickly.  Unfortunately this template does not generate the page anchor which  does, so isn't entirely compatible with the referencing style used on this page, which means either leaving the reference in its current form, which leaves it vulnerable if (when) the website is changed again, or using the template, but losing the ability to jump to the full cite from the footnote.  I'll leave the decision to regular editors of the page, rather than trying to impose my own solution.  -- David Underdown (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Gazette ref 

message: A minor matter in the "consequences" section but Light was not Governor of South Australia but Surveyor General. Baska436 (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Light 

message: I'm only halfway through Sharpe's Fury.  This page needed a "Spoiler Alert" banner.  :-D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.160.1 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dang, man 

message: The figures in the information box are incoherent. 
 
"10,000[1]-10,160" 
"1,540–1,640-2,800"
Really? Silent noodling with figures  in this way has a tendency to render trivial both the issue and the article. If there is a discussion to be had regarding relative strengths of opposing forces in this battle (or any other) then surely  that  belongs in the main body of the article
The Bodart entry, the one source cited in this section, details:
12,000 'Anglo-Spanish'  with 2,800 casualties   
10,000 French wih 3000 casualties
I shall amend the section, inserting those figures unalloyed. They have the merit of providing a clear idea of the size of the forces engaged  and the proportion of casualties suffered. If there are more recent, more reliable figures available,  I trust they can been inserted at some future date.
JF42 (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - Bodart over exerts casualty figures & it would be better for more reliable sources particularly a break down of regimental casualties. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength & Casualty figures