Talk:Battle of Trafalgar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The subjectivity of fame and the uselessness of trying to proclaim it

I chanced across this article and found it jarringly full of claims of fame. So I removed them, finding in all cases that no information was imparted by the word. I was very surprised when someone put them all back, saying Article perhaps overuses "famous" but eg Trafalgar Square is in fact famous. This person must believe that "fame" is an objective quality like "large" or "blue". Trafalgar square, we can surely say, has been heard of by many people. Among people who live in London, surely virtually everyone knows it. Among people who live in Ouagadougou, much less. But whether the article is being read in London or Ouagadougou, the word contains no useful information at all. As I have said in my edit summary, if something really is famous, then the word is redundant, and if it is not famous, the word is incorrect. And apart from simply being bad writing, using such subjective terms of puffery goes against the core policies of NPOV and V. Everything we write must be objectively verifiable. Claims of fame are subjective and thus neither neutral nor verifiable. 2.28.152.97 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems to hang partly on a false dichotomy (either everyone has heard of something, so why tell people it's famous, or no-one has, so it's not) and partly on the mistaken impression that no subjective material can be included. It can provided it is generally agreed upon and not just some editor's personal opinion. It is, I think, generally agreed upon that England expects that every man will do his duty (where this IP is also banging away) is exceptionally well-known - famous, in fact.

It may also be of interest to the hypothetical reader in Ouagadougou who has never heard of the place to know that Trafalgar Square is one of the best known places in London, so of course it is not true to say that it "contains no useful information at all". Pinkbeast (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no false dichotomy. I am outlining a widely held principle of good writing. Are you familiar with the manual of style? It specifically mentions the word "famous", saying that Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. See also external style guides such as The Guardians, which says, as I did, "If something’s famous, you don’t need to tell people; if you need to tell people something’s famous, it isn’t. “Famously” is typically used to mean one of two things: I know everyone knows this, but I can’t think of an original way to start so I am going to say it anyway. ... You don’t know this? I do. That shows I am clever and know lots of stuff you don’t." As for "generally agreed upon", you'll find that nowhere in any policy is that considered a standard for article writing. Firstly, everything must be verifiable. Secondly, everything must be neutral. Both of those qualities are violated in the version of the article that you've edit warred to restore. 2.28.152.97 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the "famously" should be deleted in: Nelson famously replied "Choose yourself, my lord, the same spirit actuates the whole profession; you cannot choose wrong". My impression was that 2.28.152.97, Pinkbeast, and I were agreed on that one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I've assumed the above is correct, and that removing this particular footnoted instance of "famously" has consensus. So I've gone ahead and done it. Please revert if there's strong objection. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@2.28.152.97: In your comment of 20:28, you put in a wikilink to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. That page does not have the quotation you made. It does however use the word "famous" in two examples of correct style. So clearly sometimes, it is OK to use the word.
The page you should have cited is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch; this is not an unrestricted authority to delete all instances of the word "famous" from articles.

I agree with you that there are too many instances of the word "famous" in the article. If you could delete all but three instances, which three would you retain? (Please give reasons.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided a citation for the signal England expects... being famous. The cited source says Nelson's famous signal "England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty" was made from the poop deck of H.M.S. Victory at 11.15 a.m. on 21 October 1805. This was just minutes before the commencement of the Battle of Trafalgar. On some browsers, the text shows as white on a white background, so may be hard to read.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the IP that "famous" is the kind of peacock word we should avoid using in Wikipedia's voice. No problem if we include it as cited commentary from a reliable source (eg. In 1972 Professor X described Nelson's Column as "London's most famous landmark"), but we cannot assert that anything about Trafalgar is famous to everyone, everywhere. I note the use of "famous" on the signal is now sourced, which is a step forward, so thanks to Toddy1 for adding this. Mildly however, I don't think we need to replicate the word three times in the same section, as it is at present. Once is enough to give sufficient weight to the source. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

2.x: There is a false dichotomy; the omitted middle is the normal state of affairs where something is famous but nevertheless not known by everyone, where it is of interest to those who don't know about it to read that it is famous. It is only by eliding this that the argument advanced can be made to make any sense.

Toddy1: Thanks for the citation. I count the following famousses: three on the signal, which could be reduced to one, but I'd keep one - the signal is the one Nelson quote everyone knows (I'm not counting "I see no ships", the Nelson misquote everyone knows :-). One describing his "famous victories". One describing Trafalgar Square. If we are to lose another I think Trafalgar Square is the most dubious one.

Euryalus: I don't think we are asserting that anything is famous to everyone, everywhere. That is based in the false dichotomy - either everyone has heard of it or it's not famous. Of course, nothing is famous to everyone everywhere, and the word "famous" doesn't mean that. It means that something is extremely well-known - perhaps albeit only amongst people interested in a particular field. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but without a source we are asserting that we as the editors of this article think this is famous. And we, alas, are not notable enough for that to be an interesting assertion. Anyway: I don't mind the "famous victories" but think it could do with a source (ie who says these are his most famous victories?). Agree that the Trafalgar Square "famous" is a bit weak, and would be happy for this to be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

the omitted middle is the normal state of affairs where something is famous but nevertheless not known by everyone... that is not the "middle". That applies to every single thing in the universe. What is "famous" to me may or may not be "famous" to you, or to anyone else. where it is of interest to those who don't know about it to read that it is famous it is not of interest to read that. If I have not heard of something that is described as famous in an article, then I regard the writer as parochial and unable to consider that their narrow world view does not generally apply. If I have heard of something that is described as famous in an article, then I regard the writer as unimaginative and patronising. In what circumstance, exactly, do you feel you need to be told that something is famous? Famous, important, significant, notable, pointless, unnecessary, irrelevant, etc etc are subjective judgements. Even if a source says that something is famous, we do not report opinions as if they are facts. That is a situation mandated by the fundamental and irrevocable policy of NPOV.

And you want to keep the word famous to describe something that you think "everybody knows". If everybody knows it, the word is obviously utterly redundant. Not everybody, in fact, knows it. And for people who don't know it, the word is also utterly redundant. So the writer thinks that a lot of other people know it? So what? It doesn't tell anyone anything useful.

And I see that you are too arrogant to wait for a sensible discussion to proceed but have been reverting away on other articles suffering the same defects as this one. You are not acting in good faith.

Euryalus: there was no consensus to remove one single unnecessary instance of a useless word. Seems to me it would be better to wait for the discussion to conclude before changing the playing field. 2.28.152.97 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the normal state of everything in the universe. That's why this argument of yours that if something is famous you don't need to tell people about it is ridiculous; the rest of your polemic is just making the same error.

What I've been doing elsewhere is restoring cited information to an article (which you have then been reverting out), exactly the same information that every other editor here has also restored - that the signal is famous. Furthermore, it takes two to tango; the difference is that your reverts are removing cited information with the support of no other editor. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we might describe the Nile, Copenhagen, and Trafalgar as "major" victories, thus bringing this slightly pointless picking at usage to an end, given that "famous signal" is now cited and appears generally to be favoured?

Also, does everyone except 2.x agree that, if it's a "famous signal" here, it should be a "famous signal" at England expects that every man will do his duty with the same citation? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

When dealing with subjective opinions, it is sometimes useful to report that someone holds that opinion. It is never acceptable to report that opinion as if it is a fact. You do not have a consensus to do that. You will never have a consensus to do that. It's an irrevocable rule of the encyclopaedia. As you have failed to answer any of the questions I put to you, I see that you are acting in bad faith here. I do not think your input is of any use, unless and until you understand the difference between facts and opinions. 2.28.152.97 (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much "famous". Nechemia Iron (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Toddy1, Euryalus, as participants in previous discussion. I was pretty happy with where we left things, somewhere all of us I think could live with, and we now have a new editor leaping in with no discussion except the four words above (to do what a sock of a user banned for repeated abuse wanted, no less).

I propose we revert to the situation beforehand, which was acceptable to us all at the time, I think. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting seems a good idea.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Famous signal" is mentioned in the text. It is not necessary to repeat this twice in figure captions as well. So I took out those two instances. Hardly something to lose sleep over. Nechemia Iron (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also you made an edit which I was opposed to, re Trafalgar Square, citing me as supporting it. Sharp practice. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what your are referring to, perhaps this edit: [1] in which I said "as per your edit"?, where I was referring to this edit: [2]. I'm not sure what you mean by sharp practice, but I was trying to preserve one of your edits. Apologies if I made a mistake. Nechemia Iron (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case the mistake was mine - I associated the wrong edit summary with an edit - and I apologise. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood, and nice to meet you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture (again)

Recent edits have removed and re-added:

Trafalgar: The Greatest Battle in Naval History (2016), Directed by Fabrice Hourlier. French docu-fiction made-for-TV movie, which relates the battle from the point of view of Admiral Villeneuve.

In my view there must be enormous numbers of documentaries and romanticisations of the battle, so why this one?

I suggest we proceed on the basis of only including items in this section which have (or whose authors have) a wikilink, ie some evidence of notability. This would also remove the 1950s children's novel and William Kinsolving's 1996 novel Mister Christian, and generally have the useful (in my view) effect of cutting down on the usual sort of "in popular culture" expansion. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections, I'll support any moves to reduce them.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else? (Particularly Nechemia Iron, who stuck it back in and should be given a chance to explain how it merits inclusion.) Pinkbeast (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the list holistically. Does a French-language docu-fiction rate lower than, say, something from the Bee Gees or Star Trek? Just asking. I am happy to accept consensus on this tiny issue. Thanks for asking. 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nechemia Iron (talk • contribs)

I think the advantage of the approach I suggest is we don't have to think so much about subjective rankings. If an item doesn't have a Wikipedia page (admittedly, the star Jérôme Pradon does), it's out. I certainly think "in popular culture" sections tend to overexpand and so would also be in favour of removing the other items this would cut. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I count Ykraps and I for removal, Nechemia against. I propose to proceed as suggested absent input from other editors. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the Bee Gees' album deserves to be included anymore than Hourlier's docu-drama but Pinkbeast's suggestion does at least seem workable. If we take away subjectivity, we don't have to have a discussion every time someone inserts something. The only other way I can think of to control things, is rewriting the section in prose.--Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Belated addition to this discussion, to share Ykraps' general disapproval of "In popular culture" sections. This is particularly when they are in list form and represent nothing more than a random grab-bag of times this article topic was mentioned by some external source. I'd support an "In popular culture" section in actual prose, for example discussing how the Battle of Trafalgar has been a popular children's fiction topic, or how it spawned a generation of sea-themed video games, or whatever. But what we have currently is not especially informative and, despite some recent pruning, still contains some trivial stuff. Anything to reduce (or delete) it gets my !vote. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't regard the principle above as set in stone and would tend to support a coherent proposal to further reduce it (but I am too lazy to come up with one myself). It just served to stem the flow and cut things back a bit. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, these sections are like weeds, they need trimming back now and again. Thanks for doing it. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Trafalgar. 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/20070427051506/http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/battle-of-trafalgar.html to http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/battle-of-trafalgar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

im done/Battle of Trafalgar

i try to add 1 relevant piece of information, and everyone keeps deleting it. Does Animorphs not count as part popular culture? it was a pretty famous book series. Was it just not good enough? i didnt think it needed to be a masterpiece, just enough to the information across. if it was not "good enough" instead of deleting it, why not improve upon it? it is legitimate information, and part of pop culture. in short, im done. i tried to contribute, but if its just gonna keep getting deleted, whats the point. i wish my account could be deleted, as im never gonna try to contribute again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesenda (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nesenda: Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a famous TV show from 20 years ago. Buffy used to kill vampires with a stake made from wood. Nevertheless, there really is no need to mention this in the article on wood. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@toddy1 that's the most asinine thing I've ever read. That's a specific within a mass generalization. We are talking about the battle of Trafalgar in pop culture, of which animorphs is a part of. If that's the case, remove the whole "in popular culture" section. The battle is featured as a major part in the book, and therefore qualifies to be in the section. Otherwise, delete the whole section. Nesenda 00:02, 15 January 2018‎ (UTC)

It might be important to the book, but what does this tell us about the Battle of Trafalgar? Do you have reliable third-party sources showing that this is relevant?

Looking at the Animorphs article on Wikipedia, it is not clear that there are any reliable third-party sources on the Animorphs books at all; it looks like an excellent candidate for deletion. If you can find some reliable third-party sources that mention the books, please could you use them to improve the Animorphs article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am sorry that you think that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections is "literally the dumbest thing" you have ever read.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Which form of address?

Thank you to user:Toddy1 who has reverted my recent change, which I partly expected. The original wording was "...the French Admiral Villeneuve...", which is clumsy English. What does the adjective 'French' describe? Does it mean 'the French admiral, M. Villeneuve' or the Frenchman, Admiral Villeneuve'? My change was not ideal but it removed the ambiguity. The now replaced original version has gone back to the clumsy version. Any suggestions, if only the insertion of commas? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer your version, "Admiral Villeneuve of France". The most important point about Villeneuve here is that he was in command of the French detachment. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hyphenate: French-admiral (noting case per MilMos) OR Parenthetic commas: ... French admiral, Villeneuve, ... In both cases, "admiral" is not being used as Velleneuve's rank/title but as a descriptor analogous with the French gentleman, Villeneuve. I would lean to the latter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The hyphenated form does not seem to be correct English to me. "French admiral, Villeneueve", could work, if the comma doesn't end up making the sentence clumsy. PS I took the liberty of re-indenting, your comment being squidged into mine. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Describing the result in the infobox

It says here [3] (work down the page to 'result') that terms such as 'decisive' should not be used in the infobox, but says instead that where a result is considered decisive it should be noted as such elsewhere. There seems to be a good reason for this because 'decisive' without clear citation is a POV, and the infobox is not the place for citations or detailed explanations. I am not saying that Trafalgar was not decisive, just pointing out the guidelines. I think following those guidelines and omitting 'decisive' in the infobox is a better approach. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If "decisive" victory is sourced, would you be in favour of retaining that in the infobox? (23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.124.6 (talk)

Personally, no. The issues are separate. The infobox is merely a template summary of what follows, and that of necessity must be succinct. The guidelines are clear - if there is any need to elaborate then that can be done in the infobox by way of a note. If we could insert detail into an infobox so long as it was cited then infoboxes would very quickly become unmanageably cluttered. In this case I do not think a reference, or note, is needed anyway because the decisiveness of the battle will be made more than clear in the article itself. And none of this takes into account the obvious potential for O.R. to slip in when using words like 'decisive'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably then, describing a victory as pyrrhic in the infobox is also contrary to the guidelines. Anybody fancy pointing that out at the Battle of Bunker Hill?--Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I discussed this at User_talk:Roger_8_Roger#"Decisive"_victory. I don't care enough to change it back, but I do think it's faintly absurd to be removing "decisive" here when there are much more egregious examples with half an essay in the infobox. Can we say that the MOS/template advice really represents consensus when it appears consensus is in fact to write considerably more in the result field?

Also, experience shows that the WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and template advice to put nothing where the result cannot be summarised is basically quixotic; it will attract an endless series of driveby "corrections". Pinkbeast (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I took on board your comments on my talk page Pinkbeast. This discussion began afterwards after a later revert, so I replied to it here, which is more appropriate. I knew you would see it. I like the intent of your suggestion here but it can not be a different interpretation of what the guidelines say, because they are so clearly just to prevent an infobox essay or POVs. The original discussion is worth reading: [4], leaving little room for doubt as to why and how infobox result detail should be kept to an absolute minimum. Pyrrhic, Ykraps? I agree, also a breach of the guidelines. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I linked to that discussion here for the benefit of other editors. I haven't made a suggestion here, so I have no idea what it is you like. I'm simply observing that the consensus now appears in fact to be to write more in infoboxes. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"The infobox is merely a template summary of what follows, and that of necessity must be succinct" - Yes. Trafalgar was a decisive battle, so by not including "decisive", we are compromising the accuracy of said summary when contrasted with the article. An example would be the Battle of Cannae. A consensus was reached there that, although some historians apply "decisive" to the result, the majority do not, therefore the article does not, proving the power of the need to reference a decisive victory. I think you're assuming a slippery slope that just because we reference "decisive", that means infoboxes will become incredibly cluttered with references upon references. If the infobox is meant to be a summarised snapshot of the article's topic, then not including words like decisive is counterproductive. I think we need to be brave enough to challenge established policy here, rather than slavishly following it. (81.101.124.6 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

A few comments:

• Yes. Describing a victory as "Pyrrhic" is contrary to the guidelines, and the fact that another article does not follow them does not justify ignoring them in this one.
• Whilst it is correct to assume that the unchallenged addition of "Decisve" to the infobox result parameter of "Random Article", for example, has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, this is not, I believe, transitive. It does not establish a global consensus or policy that can then be applied to other articles. It is also, as that link makes clear, subject to challenge and revision to a different consensus, which is the process under way in this case.
• The infobox is part of the lead, and as such is subject to guidelines contained in MOS:LEAD. Specifically, it should summarise the main points as they appear in the main body. On scanning this article, there is no direct discussion on whether this battle was in fact decisive. There are two sections in which the result of the battle and its consequences are discussed. The only explicit mention of how decisive the battle was is in the statement "The daring tactics employed by Nelson were to ensure a strategically decisive result", which appears in the "Consequences" section. This statement is, however, unsourced, and is contradicted by the statement "Trafalgar had negligible impact on the remainder of the War of the Third Coalition", which appears in the "Results of the battle" section and is sourced. The "Consequences" section also states that "Napoleon had already abandoned his plans of invasion before the battle...", and that "The battle did not mean, however, that the French naval challenge to Britain was over", both of which are sourced. It's therefore difficult to see, from reading the article, how this battle was decisive. Factotem (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Describing a victory as "Pyrrhic" is contrary to the guidelines, and the fact that another article does not follow them does not justify ignoring them in this one." I disagree. Guidelines should reflect custom, not dictate it. If the guidelines are wrong, they should be ignored.--Ykraps (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, user:81.101.124.6, a slippery slope is a good way to describe my concerns. I cannot really see any advantage to inserting 'decisive' into the lead/infobox. A victory is a victory. The extent of that victory will always involve an element of POV. Factotem has illustrated that fact with Trafalgar, probably one of history's most decisive battles ever. The guidelines state that the term 'decisive' should only apply to the actual battle, so any strategic advantage coming from a victory should not be considered, dealing I hope with the strategic consequences of Trafalgar. It's tactical decisiveness is illustrated by the number of ships lost, which should be stressed more in the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"A victory is a victory" is such a gross over-simplification, which is the issue with these oft counter-productive guidelines. There is a clear difference between the British victory at, say, Bunker Hill, and the Plains of Abraham. The lead/infobox is supposed to be a summary / snapshot of the article itself, no? So how is leaving out key information pertaining to the battle's results not advantageous? The guidelines on the usage of the term "decisive" is frankly ridiculous; you simply cannot judge the magnitude of any battle's result without considering the strategic implications of said battle. That's the whole point. Otherwise you just end up with "x victory" which tells you absolutely nothing. Some battles are also more complicated than simply "x victory", such as the Spanish Armada, or the First Battle of Newbury. A slippery slope is a good way to describe your concerns, yes, that's why I used it. It's also a fallacious argument. (81.101.124.6 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

The lead is a gross over-simplification of an article, by design, and the key information about the result of a battle is which side was the victor, not the nuance of that victory. The infobox is not designed to cope with nuance. "x victory" tells us all we need to know at that point of the article. Also, the only sourced assertions in the article itself about the consequences of the battle either state, as explicitly as is possible without actually using the word, that the battle decided nothing, or imply that very strongly. The article clearly states that the French had already abandoned plans to invade Britain and the war continued for another ten years, during which time they rebuilt their fleet to a level that was again well on the way to challenging British naval superiority. So what was decided by the battle? Or are you confusing decisive with big? Factotem (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that the issue of the infobox has been resolved per my edit and edit summary? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems optimistic, given that your edit has already been made more than once by Roger8Roger and your edit summary contains no information not already stated above. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, my edit summary links to WP:MILMOS. Without looking at who is on which "side", to continue to engage in what might be construed as an "edit war" contrary to the guideline might be considered tendentious. There are dispute resolution processes, but they are very likely to uphold MilMos. Repeated reverts achieve little on their own. Regards,Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It does. And since I linked it above, your edit summary contains no information not already stated above. I have no idea why you're writing this in reply to me since I have zero reverts here (and you have one). Pinkbeast (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast, I was replying to you in the first part and making a general observation in the second (not directed at you - Without looking at who is on which "side"). I apologise if this appeared directed at you. Yes, you have cited MilMos but not in this context. To respond to your particular comment earlier, see aftermath (or similar) is probably the preferred solution to leaving it blank, though leaving it blank is said in the context of precluding speculation about the result.

No, I quite literally cited it in this very discussion, absolutely in this context. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. No, the lead is a simplification of the article, not a disservice to the article. A reader should know the basics of a battle just by reading the infobox. At present, it does not do that. You say the key information is the victor, not the nuance, but you failed to address the two (of many) examples I cited, such as the Spanish Armada and the First Battle of Newbury, which are more complex than "x won". Since we're going down the road of condescending discourse now, I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing decisive with big - are you? The definition of a decisive victory is thus: "a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage". Trafalgar qualifies under this: it decisively ended the Trafalgar campaign and secured British supremacy at sea, which:

• Enabled Britain to maintain the blockade of France, secure British trade and sustain the British Empire throughout the war
• It ended French hopes of dominating the British at sea, and they made no further attempt to challenge British naval supremacy
• After Trafalgar, the British blockade of France sapped the morale and effectiveness of the French navy
• After Trafalgar, while the French would be in a position to theoretically challenge British naval supremacy, Napoleon's confidence the French Navy could do so was badly shaken, and the effort was never approached with comparable vigour

I would say these sources more than reinforce the decisiveness of Trafalgar. A battle doesn't have to end the war to be decisive (thus pointing out that the war continued after Trafalgar is irrelevant): after Saratoga, the American Revolution continued for another six years - are you going to therefore imply Saratoga was not decisive? (81.101.124.6 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

References

Apologies if I came across as condescending. It was not my intention, and I've struck that remark. There are two problems that I see with describing the victory as decisive in the infobox:

1. Without a convincing narrative in the article itself (the discussion on this talk page does not qualify), there is nothing to support the qualification of the result in the infobox. I've already pointed this out in a previous post, and I'll add here that nowhere in the article are the sourced points you make immediately above covered.

• The only statement on trade is ambivalent, and suggests that the advantages accrued to the British were mitigated by the Continental System;
• The article specifically states that "The battle did not mean, however, that the French naval challenge to Britain was over";
• The only mentions of morale relate to the low morale of the French leaders and crews before the battle;
• There is no mention at all of Napoleon's lack of confidence in his navy.

2. If these issues are addressed in the article, then there would have to be some justification for over-ruling the template documentation (admittedly no more authoratative than an essay), and WP:MILMOS (which, as a guideline, carries a little more weight). Sources which cast doubt on the decisiveness, such as Clayton and Craig's statement that "...the battle had no immediate effect on the war" and "...its significance was overshadowed by Naoleon's overwhelming victory...at Austerlitz..." would, in my opinion, make that difficult. Even your assertion that the battle was decisive because it ended the Trafalgar Campaign can apparently be challenged by the fact that the campaign did not actually end until the Battle of Cape Ortegal, two weeks after Trafalgar. My source for that is Wikipedia, which is also, please correct me if I'm wrong, the source for your definition of "decisive victory", so cannot really be regarded as reliable. Factotem (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My observations:

1. The lead is a summary of the article. The info box is an even briefer summary of particular points. Neither should make unverifiable claims/statements. They can, however, rely on the main text for verifiability - ie the matter must be discussed in the main text with appropriate citations to support that text.
2. "Decisive" is a matter of nuance. It is a POV issue. It is appropriate to attribute a POV to an author but not to arrive at this conclusion independently (that would be WP:OR). Different authors may refer to an outcome as "decisive" (or not) for different reasons. When noting their opinion, it is necessary to also report why they come to that assessment or what they mean by "decisive" - "Author X has described the battle as a decisive victory because ... but Author Y concluded it was not because ..." The two may have totally different criteria for determining what constitutes decisive.
3. There is nothing in the article presently that directly supports summarising the result as "decisive". Such an assertion must be verifiable. This is a matter of WP:Policy.
4. I am sure that there are many authors that have critically examined the result of the battle. I see scope to improve the article by way of a review of published opinion. Furthermore, there is scope to review how the academic consensus of the result has changed with time by looking at historiographical sources.
5. An infobox, by its brevity, is incompatible with conveying such nuance as to the various potential meanings of "decisive". The advice from MilMos is for that reason and to avoid POV arguements. I observe that not all articles will comply with the present guidance since article improvement at WP is, by the nature of the beast, incremental. On that basis, non-compliance of one article is not justification in another.
6. I would observe that this discussion has essentially stalled - not surprisingly, since the addition or removal of a single word at a particular place gives no scope for compromise per WP:BRD or WP:CON.
7. The alternatives are to either move on or seek dispute resolution. I would observe that adding "decisive" is very likely to fail on the matter of WP:Policy alone.
8. There are much more important issues requiring attention to improve the article than arguing over the placement or removal of a single word at a particular place.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Cinderella157 you wrote The alternatives are to either move on or seek dispute resolution. I would observe that adding "decisive" is very likely to fail on the matter of WP:Policy alone. Which policy? -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@PBS, per above, verifiability. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157.There a lots of reliable sources that describe the decisive outcome of the battle tactically and strategically, so WP:V is not a problem. Do you need the sources to use the word "decisive" (like this, or do you accept that "Battle of Trafalgar, (Oct. 21, 1805), naval engagement of the Napoleonic Wars, which established British naval supremacy for more than 100 years;" or "Similarly, Napoleon's defeat at Trafalgar made it impossible for him to intervene in the other decisive theatre of war, at sea." can be summarised as a "decisive victory"? Do you have any sources that do not consider it to be a decisive defeat/victory. Here is quote that suggests that could prove difficult:

Amongst historians to-day, these opinions have changed surprisingly little, but they have changed sides. Distinguished French scholars such as Jean Tulard, the great authority on Napoleon, agree that, '... after Trafalgar the emperor was beaten, though he did not yet know it.'

-- PBS (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And to complete the rest of that quote, "In Britain, meanwhile, historians for the past half-century have agreed that Trafalgar only confirmed what everybody had always known. Britain controlled the sea after Trafalgar, but then she had always controlled the sea, and would have continued to do so even if Napoleon's Combined Fleet had not put to sea in October 1805." Factotem (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

In that article, NAM Rodger uses the word "decisive" three times. None of them refer to Trafalgar. The only time he qualifies the nature of the victory at Trafalgar is to call it a "famous victory". The two snippets returned to me by your link to Adkins's Nelson's Trafalgar: The Battle that Changed the World that describe the victory as decisive appear, in the same way, simple use of an adjective. Without any scholarly analysis of why the victory was decisive, all we're doing is giving undue WP:WEIGHT in the infobox to an adjective. If we're going to do that, why "decisive"? Why not "famous", or any other adjectives authors use to spice up their narrative? Factotem (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To set your selective quote in context, he leads up to it with the statement that "...there is no easy consensus as to what [the battle] actually achieved", and that whilst British historians believed it was a significant victory, French historians believed it was "...an unfortunate but essentially marginal affair...". Factotem (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

My question was asked of user:Cinderella157, but you,User:Factotem did not actually answer my question do you accept that sources can be summed up as a "decisive victory" even if those precise words are not used, or do you insist that the precise phrase is used in the sources? -- PBS (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I do not regard, for reasons of WP:WEIGHT, the simple use of an adjective enough to warrant that adjective's use in the infobox, regardless of the authority of the author who uses it. For us to even begin to consider ignoring the guidance and qualify the victory in the infobox, this aspect of the topic should be the subject of both scholarly debate and consensus in reliable sources. I don't doubt that there are many sources that describe the victory as decisive. I'm not so sure that they back that up with any meaningful analysis as to why they call it decisive. I don't have access to the Adkins couple's books, so I can't see if they do. I have, however, researched their credentials, and this is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration, per WP:SOURCE. He is a Bachelor of Arts in archaeology; she also studied archaeology to degree level and is a Master of Philosophy. They self-describe themselves as authors and archaeologists. That's not meant to denigrate their work; I accept that they are reliable sources. Compare, though, with Dr. James Davey, a qualified historian at the University of Exeter specialising in the Royal Navy of this period. He does offer some meaningful analysis of the impact of Trafalgar. On pp. 9–10 of his book, In Nelson's Wake: The Navy and the Napoleonic Wars, which is published (unlike the Adkins' books) by a university press and to which I have Gbooks access, he uses airquotes ("Traditionally, this 'decisive' battle...") and asserts that the 'legend of Trafalgar' does not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Chapter 4 discusses the battle, and he titles it as the question, "A Complete and Glorious Victory?" He gives his answers to that question on pp. 111–112 at the end of the chapter:

• "In truth, however, neither action [Trafalgar and Cape Ortegal] had changed the course of the wider war";
• "The Battle of Trafalgar did not end French invasion attempts...and did nothing to preclude a future threat";
• "Nor did the battle have a significant influence on the European continent...";
• "...Trafalgar did not give the British an overwhelming superiority at sea";
• "...in the months after Trafalgar the British could not prevent French fleets from going to sea";
• "Trafalgar had not ended the war at sea; on the contrary, it was only just beginning".

What with this scholarly analysis and Nicholas A. M. Rodger's assertion that "...there is no easy consensus as to what [the battle] actually achieved...", any attempt to describe in the infobox the British victory at Trafalgar as decisive would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Factotem (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, i would support "decisive Brirish victory", since many sources i've seen describe the outcome as being decisive. I was wondering if anyone has considered a RfC for this ? Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC running at the moment about what is appropriate in the the information box see Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment -- PBS (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about it, but as far i can see, this is not a RfC about the decisiveness of this battle, it's about the strict interpretation of the template. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We could wait until the RFC finishes, though. If it confirms the current rule, we can save further discussion - "decisive" is out. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)