Talk:Battle of Trafalgar order of battle

Peer Review

Moved from User talk:Toddy1

I've had a look over, and assigned it a rating of B class. As always, this may be challenged or overturned by another editor, but I think that unlikely. There might be one or two little quibbles over points 1 (It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited) and 2 (It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies) but I think certainly not enough to justify downgrading it.

A few suggestions if you wanted to move the list further up the assessment scale:

• 1) A longer lead and introduction, discussing what the background of the battle was, the main points about how it was fought, and the outcome.
• 2) A small section on the historiography might be a useful addition.
• 3) Summarising the results of the tables to follow - brief discussion of total numbers present, those that became casualties, etc. Also on disposition of ships, guns and other potentially relevant factors to the battle and its outcome.
• 4) A picture, just to illustrate the battle or a particular moment, to go with the lead.
• 5) A full reference section, with perhaps some other works mentioned. Separate sections for external links, notes and literature as applicable.

A similar article, currently rated as a Featured list is the Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, and shows some of these points in action, if you wanted a model. As to formatting issues, that's not my particular bailiwick but someone from the League of Copyeditors should be able to offer a few tips. Hope this is all of help. It is a thorough and complete list and with a little work should have no trouble making featured list. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of † note

I notice that some of the commanders have the symbol † after their names. Does this mean they died during the battle? I'm guessing so because both Nelson and Galiano died, and both have that symbol. But I could not find it explained anywhere. Can it be explained somewhere? Pfly (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing that this needed doing.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Spacings

On some browsers, if there is no space between italiced text and a non-italic footnote reference, then the letters overlap making it harder to read them. Therefore such spacings are advantageous.

It should be remembered that how wiki-pages are displayed depends on many things, including the browser, wikipedia preferences, whether users are logged in, the size of the window, etc. So please can people show a little tollerence needed so that everyone can read the page.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gravina

Everything in the article has citations.

Adm Admiral Don Federico Carlos Gravina died on 9 March 1806 due to wounds received in the battle from which he never recovered. Sources for this include:

• p208-9, 212-4, Goodwin The Ships of Trafalgar, the British, French and Spanish Fleets October 1805 - this says he died in 1806.
• hnelson.iespana.es/gravinaingles.html - this gives the exact date - 9 March 1806.
• p355, 384, Schom, Alan, Trafalgar, Countdown to Battle, 1803-1805 describes Gravina as mortally wounded.
• p113, Harbron, John D, Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy - describes Gravina in March 1806 as dying of wounds received at the battle of Trafalgar.

There is absolutely no shortage of evidence from reliable sources that Gravina died of wounds received at the Battle of Trafalgar. Does anyone have any sources that says that he did not?

I have tried to accommodate the objections of User:Pietje96 by changing the wording in the second paragraph to:Named officers marked '†', killed in action or died of wounds.

Unless someone has some sources to justify not listing Gavina as dying of wounds received at the battle of Trafalgar, please can the article be reverted to the state at 05:02, 18 February 2010--Toddy1 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources are quite explicit. Gravina never recovered and died in early 1806, less than five months after the battle, and considerably less than Pietje's claim of dying a year later. It seems reasonable to make the link, and the fact that Gravina died of wounds received, and not during the battle itself is made expressly clear. With reversions with edit summaries like 'desilusional content reverted' [sic] I don't think Pietje's contributions are helping reach a satisfactory conclusion. Benea (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am considering drafting biographical notes for some of the French officers, and I would try to upset nobody; what should I do? I know that one of them died several years after Trafalgar of a stroke consecutive of head injuries sustained during the battle. Rama (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as its made explicit what the link is (a later death as a result of wounds received), I don't see it as a major problem, so long as there are sources that explicitly link the later death with the wounding in the battle. A similar case off the top of my head, Andrew Snape Douglas suffered a severe head wound at the Glorious First of June. He continued to serve at sea for a few more years but complained of severe headaches which eventually ended his seagoing career, and he died almost exactly three years after the battle. An autopsy revealed brain tumours, which were attributed to his injury at the battle. Perhaps take it on a case by case basis depending on what the evidence is. Benea (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The US Department of Defense in 2005 defined Died of Wounds as "A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other than the victim of a terrorist activity, who dies of wounds or other injuries received in action after having reached a medical treatment facility." Source: thefreedictionary. I will try to find out more about the classification.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have checked - under current British practice, the people you refer to would be classified as died of wounds.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lieut Dumay of the Furet

Is Lieut Dumay of the Furet spelled correctly? The article on Lamellerie's expedition spells his name Pierre-Antoine-Toussaint Demai.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Demay in the Dictionnaire des Bâtiments de la Flotte de guerre française. As far as I could tell, "Demai" looks a bit unlikely, "Demay" or "Demais" would be more plausible spellings anyway. Rama (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Corrections

I've corrected the name of two spanish vessels, "Monarca" (in place of Monarcha) and "Montañés" (in place of Montänez)

"Monarca" means Monarch, obviously, and "Montañés" means something like Highlander, people from the mountains; this is because the actual region of Cantabria in Spain, traditionally has the surname of "La Montaña", so the ship was named "Montañés" in the sense she was from Cantabria.

Great work buddies.

Enrique MacDonnell's rank

It is listed as Captain, but this is not definite. I researched it. It seems that his rank is mostly listed as Commodore, occasionally Brigadier ( nearly the same thing in Naval terms) and maybe 40% of the time Captain. During the rescue sortie on the 23rd he was under commodores pennants and after the battle was promoted to Rear Admiral, suggesting he was alread a Commodore as all the Spanish were promoted after the battle. He held the rank of Commodore in former years but came out of retirement to command in the battle, but said at that time he;d accept any rank given. So, a grey area exists here. He also attended the War Council meeting prior to the battle that was only attended by the senior flag officers and commodores. I'm going to give him both ranks for now. I'll research more. ……Ok, here it is….==Rank Of Enrique MacDonnell== I have gone to get the records in the archive in the Spanish Armanda. I have the large file of the Rayo for the day of battle at Trafalgar, it's enormously detailed right down to counting the cannon balls, and listing dozens of senior crew. and their ranks. It is confirmed on this he was a 'Brigadier' which is the same a 'commodore'. In all documents to and from the admiralty at this time he is listed with this rank. I think confusion set in, because when he returned from retirement he offered to return at a lower rank of needs be. There is no evidence this happened, and the record card I have prices his rank, I can post it here if people want or I can direct them to the online records of the Armada. I am changing his rank to commodore. Tommyxx (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Some improvements

I love this article, it shows what Wikipedia can do. It also is the heart of the Battle of Trafalgar article. It looks as though it ought to be telling us something important, but most people will have no idea what. That is because it assumes general knowledge of vocabulary and concepts from the days of sail available to the authors and sailors but generally unknown to the rest. I would therefore like to explain some of these concepts in a lead section applying them to the battle and introducing such terms as coming about, wearing, weather and lee, once commonly known, but no more. I had just enough of an intro to sailing from the USN to do it.

A second issue is the graphic. It took me about an hour to figure out what it is trying to do! The general reader certainly is not going to know or care. What's the point! Looking back in the history of old books and articles I find that this type of study began in 1919 or thereabouts with a general presentation by the head of the Royal Navy's medical corps in a comparison of the casualties of 3 or 4 famous British naval battles in an attempt to improve royal navy shipboard medecine, which, according to him, was mainly a butcher shop hidden away in the dirtiest and darkest part of the ship below sea level. He wanted to see where the casualties were and why. Thus the original of our graphic leapt from his head. The current form appears to be an original arrangement. I think it should be explained with something of the history of it and a statement of where the figures came from with the limitations of their credibility.

A third issue is the refs. They apparently were done by hand some time ago. Wikipedia has gone on since then. This list is a consistent method of giving references and therefore would be allowed. But, it repeats specifications, a problem which WP can solve by various methods. I'm used to Harvard ref, the most common method, but not the only possible. Some of the works cited in the current refs are imperfectly specified. Since I am going to add refs, and I am not going to do it by hand, I thought it would be nice just to change over to harvard ref. All this should not take TOO long and then you can get back to the content with greater clarity and confidence.Botteville (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheese fondue

This whimsical title is about an apparently equally whimsical reference used once in this article and multiple times in others. There is a quasi-harvard ref associated with it, "Fond marine" or "fonds marine." It is generally undefined and leads nowhere. In some uses it is associated with a link, which was a pdf file. You follow that down and you get a "bad request" on Internet Archive. Moreover, one cannot locate any fixed broken link on that archive. One WP link has a message "permanently dead link."

I think it is time for a little reality Wikipedia. I question whether there ever was such a valid link or such a valid work either. There is something on WorldCat called "Fonds marine campagnes : opérations, divisions et stations navales, missions diverses : inventaire de la sous-série Marine BB⁴." And it gives a bunch of library references, the most solid being Library of Congress. We understand from all the catalog entries that the work is incomplete, and that this is Volume 1. It was first published in 2000, but don't let that mislead you. It lay around unpublished 1900-1999 in microfilm form. If there ever was a link it must have been to this microfilm. Problem: all the catalog records show only volume 1. What do you think we have under "external links?" Well, "Fonds Marine. Campagnes (opérations ; divisions et stations navales ; missions diverses). Inventaire de la sous-série Marine BB4. Tome deuxième : BB4 1 à 482 (1790-1826) [1]" Exactly what this is supposed to mean I got no idea. I suppose the acrobat file link once led to the microfilm of Volume 1, as suggested by the "[1]". As far as I can make out, there is not and never has been a volume 2, indicated by the "incomplete." And yet our reference distinctly says, "Tome deuxieme." Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of Wikipedia editors? Not I, nor Lamont Cranston either, and I'm not inclined to play shadow. So, this is why I call it "cheese fondue" instead of marine fondu, landlubber that I am. I cannot see "fonds marine" as a valid reference. If we knew it was volume 1 we could specify Volume 1 as usual. But we don't. Furthermore, let us say it is really supposed to be Volume 1. The catalog entries say that the work is an inventory of articles, not the articles. It tells you what documents in the archive pertain to the subect. Exactly why would we want that instead of the documents? It seems to me I have no choice but to take this "reference" out. I do not know if I will get to all the other cheese fondu articles, but if I do, I suppose there will be problems there also. Meanwhile, keep 'em guessing.Botteville (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions Comment

I have a few concerns about the recent additions to this article, which I would like to air. Not only is it written in the wrong English and in an unencylopaedic fashion but much of it is speculative, arguably off-topic and largely unreferenced. More important than that though, it appears to contain a number of inaccuracies. For example:

• Vessels and aircraft are placed on an imaginary clock with 12:00 on its nose or prow. The clock numbers are "points." There are 4 quarters of three points each. For example, an object at 1:00 is one point off the starboard bow. - Aircraft may use a clock face for relative bearings but as far as I know ships base their system on the compass. Certainly in Nelson's day, they would have used 32 points (the number of points on a compass). Each point was 11.25 degrees so one point off the starboard bow was not one o'clock. Nowadays it is more common to use degrees but the old system is still in use and widely understood. [[1]]

You're both right and wrong. The reference you give me here is no reference. It starts by saying there are several methods of specifying bearing. It might as well have gone on to say that these methods are not usually compatible. You are doing it one way or the other but you may not mix methods. That article has quite a few tags on it. I wouldn't use that as a reference. The wrong part of what you say is your attack of the clock system. I do not mean to be insulting, but you are are dead wrong. It is as I said and in that system "points" means what I said it did. It is clear to me that you have never been in the armed forces, or at least not in any capacity of navigation. The clock system is universal. But, before I get too carried away, I do not know if it was in use in Nelson's time. You are right about that. Possibly not. It has been around for a long time however. However, I was not talking Nelson's lingo, but rather describing what was happening to a sailing ship in modern terms. You propose doing another system, say compass points. The problem with that is, sailing judgements were made referencing the wind direction relative to the ship. Compass points are NOT relative to the ship. They are two different systems. You need to solve that problem. If you want to cut down on some of the clock lingo fine, but you cannot go very far in that direction without being unable to describe Nelson's plan.Botteville (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You have no idea who I am nor what I have done so please do not presume. I don’t know which navy you served in but I would be very surprised if it took ‘one point off the starboard bow’ to mean ‘one o’clock’. The reference you are referring to is not a reference but a link to a section about relative bearings. If you had read down to the paragraph beginning ‘In marine navigation…’ you would have understood to what I was alluding, namely, that relative bearings on a ship are based on the markings on a compass, whether that is the 360 degrees of a modern compass or 32 points of 11.25 degrees, and not a clock which is divided into sections of 3 degrees. Yes, on a sailing vessel, relative bearings are usually given with reference to the wind but that doesn't change the fact that a one point deviation is 11.25 degrees and not 15 degrees.--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thus one point off the starboard bow would be 15 degrees. One point off the port bow would be 345 degrees. - As explained above, one point off the starboard bow is 11.25 degrees off the starboard bow. One point off the port bow would be 11.25 degrees off the port (larboard) bow.(Harland, Bernard (2015) [1984]. Seamanship in the Age of Sail - An account of shiphandling of the sailing man-o-war, 1600-1860. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9.)

Very good! See, you are getting the idea, and right away, too. You'd be an apt learner in the service. But, you are using a different system. If you put that in, you need to define "point" as as compass point. But, it is not as simple as that. British ships used the 64-point rose, many of the directions of which the public never heard of. The specifications appear in the ship logs. I was going to explain all that in notes but I did not get that far. You have a reference there, and that is fine. It's an old sailing manual. Fine. The older the better. Since you are eager to work that in, you probably will do so. Fine. I would say, it would be best if you did so consistently. That is more work but this article represents a lot of work anyway. You seem to enjoy it. Take it. When I get on here again I will be worrying about aspects of the battle I did not get a chance to worry about before my last time window was up.Botteville (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, now I'm getting it? This is what I've been saying all along! It makes no difference whether a 32-point or 64-point compass is used because the 'points' on a 64-point compass are half-points. So one point is still 11.25 degrees!--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

PS, "larboard" went out of use many decades ago, the reason being that it sounds like "starboard." If you are thinking seriously of its use in general description then I would say you are not a nautical person. Nobody uses it. But, you don't have to be either a service or a nautical person to work on this article. A bookish person will do fine. This, however, raises the issue, how extensively do we use Nelson's actual language? He used larboard, no doubt. I don't think we should go back to larboard. I look forward to seeing what you will have done.Botteville (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, you have no idea what I've done. I am not going to start willy-waving over my seafaring exploits but I will say that you can be sure that I am every inch a 'nautical person' so please keep your uninformed and patronising comments to yourself. I am well aware that larboard is deprecated that's why it's bracketed. It is used extensively in sources however so you need to be aware of it if you intend doing any research.--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• There are 4 directions of the ship at which the sails are ineffective. One is directly into the wind. - It's a bit more drastic than that! A square rigger can't sail within 6 points (67.5 degrees) either side of the wind. If the wind is coming from the north, the closest it could sail would be ENE or WNW.(Harland, Bernard (2015) [1984]. Seamanship in the Age of Sail - An account of shiphandling of the sailing man-o-war, 1600-1860. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9.)

Well, I do not think all square-riggers had the same specifications. Moreover, some of those ships had partial lateen rigs. It would make a difference in figuring what angle of approach actually happened and what options either commander had. I have not done such a detailed study. It probably needs to be done and compared to different accounts. This article is a lot of work, but there is no sense in complaining about it. I can't really be critical or fine-tune anything not said yet, and it appears that you have not said it yet (or I either). This will take time, obviously, but in the end I think we can make a better article.

Square-rigged vessels cannot sail within six-points of the wind. They often found themselves unable to leave port or navigate a narrow passage of water because of contrary winds. The lateen sail of which you speak had, by that time, been replaced by the more efficient gaffsail. This was called the spanker or driver and all of Nelson's ships had one. There are other fore and aft sails on a fully-rigged ship including several jibs and staysails but they don't make it sail any closer. When sailing close or with the wind, the fore and aft sails were mainly sheltered by the square sails. The distance a square-rigger had to travel through is the reason they would only risk tacking in a dire emergency; where speed of manoeuvre outweighed the enormous risk of being caught in irons. By far the most common way of working to windward was wearing (gybing). So your edits on that subject are also deficient to say the least.--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• The other disallowed directions are wind directly aft ("abaft") or directly on either side - They are certainly less effective but because the yards can be braced round, the ship will sail with the wind abeam, and, although the sails on the mizzen mast will steal the wind of other sails, it will also sail with the wind behind.(Harland, Bernard (2015) [1984]. Seamanship in the Age of Sail - An account of shiphandling of the sailing man-o-war, 1600-1860. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9.)>

Ah yes. You can sail with the wind abeam if you trim the sails, or move the angle, so that the wind is not actually abeam of the sails. You do that if you have to. The abeam position is sort of equivocal, the ship does not know whether it should go forward or backward. It is a difficult trim to maintain. Slight changes in wind direction cause luffing - it keeps you busy all the time. For wind astern, have you ever tried it? Believe it or not the sails luff. I did not mean to say that you could not sail at all in those directions, I only mean to say that they are avoided. Sailing ships do better falling off a little or coming up a little. I think if you stay with the idea "more effective" and "less effective" you will get the point across.Botteville (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried it, with multiple rigs, including square ones. I didn't say it was easy or efficient, I merely said it was possible. You, on the other hand, said it was not! (irrespective of what you meant).--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

PS. I thought of something else. If a ship can sail efficiently at 180 to the wind, what, exactly, is the point of wearing ship? You don't go either too far into the wind or directly downwind, it is always on a quarter, and then you either come about or wear ship to get to the other side. Well, I'm not on this right now so I will be back after some of this thought has had a chance to get into writing,Botteville (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The point of wearing ship is to ensure wind is kept in the sails.--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• The orders would only apply during the initial moments of attack. There was no need for the ships to assume any such orders at any other time. Nelson's fleet did not sail on patrol in those orders. - Nelson often had his fleet sail in order of battle because he had seen the problems caused by doing otherwise at the Battle of Hyeres.*White, Colin (2005). Nelson the Admiral. Phoenix Mill, Stroud, Glos.: Sutton Publishing Limited. p. 175. ISBN 0-7509-3713-0.

And, in fact, this was precisely what he was doing prior to Trafalgar. "The order of sailing is to be the order of battle".(White, Colin (2002). The Nelson Encyclopaedia. Park House, Russell Gardens, London.: Chatham Publishing, Lionel Leventhal Limited. pp. 238–239. ISBN 1-86176-253-4.)

Well well. If he often had them sail in order of battle, it was not necessarily THAT order of battle. The article gives the impression that he patrolled in double column, and that even after the attack, the ships were all in double column. The point is, that specific battle order was assumed only just before the attack. When he first received the the signal that Vliieneuve had left port, he had a whole squadron more of ships, so the order was not the same anyway. Those ships left on some mission and never returned. Maybe I did not get that point across very well. Take your shot. When I come back I think I will start with the battle order and the events prior to the attack. I do not know what I will say because I do not know what you will say. The idea of a permanent battle order and specifically that battle order is out. Your reference says that he often sailed in battle order. Let's leave it at that. One order does not fit all. He designed it only for those specific circumstances.Botteville (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No, he didn't sail his fleet in two columns but he did sail them in order! There is a difference between order and formation. The line broke into two columns either when the French and Spanish were sighted or shortly before, depending on sources.(Best p.208)--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• A ship with the storm wind abeam is struck longitudinally and rolls treacherously, running a risk of capsizing. To avoid that risk the captain must turn into the wind. - It was more common to run before the wind (the wind directly behind) because there was at least some control over the ship while the sails were drawing.

In fact Harland says there were only two options; scudding or staying close to the wind (not turning into it) ((Harland, Bernard (2015) [1984]. Seamanship in the Age of Sail - An account of shiphandling of the sailing man-o-war, 1600-1860. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 213. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9.)).

OK. Great. If you feel you should use notes to explain these fine points, please do. I think I did distinguish a specifically notes section. I will check.Botteville (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• If the attacked turned suddenly on it, they might smother it with fire and take the rest of the column piecemeal as it came up... ... Nelson’s answer was to double the column’s initial firepower by doubling the column. - This was not Nelson's reasoning.

Yes it was. You didn't read the plan carefully or any of the older books on Neslon strategy. When I get to it I will research it out. Meanwhile I suppose you will do what you like with it. So, when I get to it, I will be looking at it the way it is then. I'm not committed to any of the wording I use here. Feel free.

I am afraid it wasn’t. Nelson’s wanted his largest most powerful ships to the fore to pack the biggest punch in case the line had to be physically broken through. The order of battle is not quite so because he had to consider the individual sailing capabilities of the ships.(White p.175) Yes, keeping station was a problem which could be largely overcome (Willis pp.57-59) but Nelson wanted his ships to "make all sail possible with safety to the masts" to shorten the time they were exposed without being able to return fire. (White p.175) Note how it says without being able to return fire. This is because a column of ships had next to no firepower. Nelson’s ships were armed with perhaps only two small bow chasers and most of the ships would be unable to fire for fear of hitting one of their own. Where are you getting your information?--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, there are a number of arguable points regarding Nelson's strategy and thought processes but I don't want to get into these yet as I would rather check the facts instead of relying on my memory (I'm away from my books at the moment).--Ykraps (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds really good, ykraps. Enjoy, I will try not to be too troublesome.Botteville (talk)

Over the next few weeks, I plan to remove much of the controversial, innaccurate and off-topic information from this article unless anyone has a compelling reason not to. Pinging main contributors - @Botteville: @Toddy1: @GELongstreet: @Creeping Death 1982: @Rama: - --Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there ykraps. My bottom line: go ahead, my blessings. It needs an introduction to sailing, but exactly what should be said there is up for grabs. What you see there is my first cut basically without references. I got another to add but you are right that part is basically without references. A lot of it is general knowledge linked to other parts of Wikipedia. It does not look as though you are disagreeing with the general approach. I did not think I was being especially unencyclopedic, but of course that category is always open to question. I would say, write it the way you think it should be written. I recognize you as a significant editor on this article. It looks as though you plan to take it one point at a time. However, if you want to replace unreferenced paragraphs feel free. I always do. Take your time. I only work on this sporadically as part of an article plan. As far as what you do do is concerned, it will be role reversal. What I will look for is references, the same thing you do. You shouldn't just replace my general opinion with your general opinion. Put a supporting reference in. If I think you are not making a point, I will get a nice reference and put it back or put it in. Then I will object to your removal of it. If you live up to your critique there should be no problem. I will be back on this article from time to time. What I am interested in is first of all the formatting, the elimination of double and triple specifications everywhere. Second, the article as it was was not tied to anyone's account of the battle. Third, none of the data gave any indication of where it came from. Fourth, not enough attention was paid to consistency of language. Now, I cannot possibly pay attention to everything you do and furthermore I refuse to dog you the way some have been dogging me. I will just look at it afresh each time I visit it. From now on YOU have responsibility for referencing. Well, I'm not back on this yet but I thought your extensive critique deserved an adequate reply. I have made a few comments on the points above that seem to have puzzled you.Botteville (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)