Talk:Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue

.

Old & New style dates

Probably this template should be used: Template:OldStyleDate Lateg (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Battles need to be split

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the spelling "la Hogue" is wrong, the place was and is called la Hougue (Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue). There is no la Hogue in Northern Cotentin, all the la Hogue are located further south or further east. Nortmannus (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Order of battle

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)

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)

That's perfect now. Thanks! Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The order of battle was removed by User:Jay D. Easy with Revision 16:57, 3 June 2019‎ with the comment "i hate hate hate everything about this article: fixed sloppy refs, fixed gross abuse of infobox, minor fixes throughout". Personally I would have commented differently as the edit reduced the the size of the article by −8,767 bytes or by about a third. However the biggest deletion was the order of battle which was not adequately sourced and under WP:CHALLENGE User:Jay D. Easy's edit was within guidence. I am going to reproducd the deleted table here so that anyone can add sources and meet the challange. I suggest that if someone wishes to do so they should seek a consensus here as to whether to reinstate it here or in a new order of battle article. — PBS (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for tagging me, PBS. 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)

Order of battle in the article (just prior to Revision 16:57, 3 June 2019)

White Sqdn (Almonde) (Dutch) Guns Fate Blue&White Sqdn (d'Amfreville) (French) Guns Fate Noordholland 68 Bourbon 68 Burnt at La Hougue Zeelandia 90 Monarque 90 Ter Goes 54 Aimable 70 Gelderland 64 Saint-Louis 64 Burnt at La Hougue Veere 62 Diamant 60 Conink William 92 ... Eerste Edele 74 ... Medenblick 50 … Brandenburg 92 … Westvriesland 88 Gaillard 68 Burnt atLa Hougue Zeeland 64 Terrible 80 Burnt at La Hougue Ripperda 50 Merveilleux 90 Burnt at La Hougue Slot Muyden 72 Tonnant 80 Burnt at La Hougue Prins 92 Saint-Michel 60 Elswoud 72 Sans Pareil (Vermandois?) 62 Schaterschoeff 50 … Leyden 64 … Princes 92 … Amsterdam 64 Sérieux 64 Stad en Land 50 Foudroyant 84 Burnt at La Hougue Veluw 64 Brillant 62 Casteel Medenblick 86 … Ridderschap 72 … Maegt van Doort 64 … Captein Generael 84 … Zeven Provincien 76 … Red Sqdn (Russell) (English) Guns Fate White Sqdn (Tourville) (French) Guns Fate St Michael 90 Fort 60 Burned at La Hougue Lenox 70 Henri 64 Bonaventure 50 Ambitieux 96 Burned at La Hougue Royal Katherine 82 Couronne 76 Royal Sovereign 100 Maure 52 Captain 70 Courageux 58 Centurion 50 . . . . Burford 70 ... Elizabeth 70 Perle 52 Rupert 66 Glorieux 64 Eagle 70 Conquerant 84 Chester 50 Soleil Royal 104 Burned at Cherbourg St Andrew 96 Sainte Philippe 84 Burned at La Hougue Britannia 100 Admirable 90 Burned at Cherbourg London 96 . . . . Greenwich 54 . . . . Restoration 70 . . . . Grafton 70 . . . . Hampton Court 70 Content 68 Swiftsure 70 Souverain 80 St Albans 50 Illustre 70 Kent 70 Moderé 52 Royal William 100 . . . . Sandwich 90 . . . . Oxford 54 . . . . Cambridge 70 . . . . Ruby 50 . . . . Blue Sqdn (Ashby) (English) Guns Fate Blue Sqdn (Gabaret) (French) Guns Fate Hope 70 Excellent 60 Deptford 50 Prince 56 Essex 70 Magnifique 86 Burnt at La Hougue Duke 90 Laurier 64 Ossory 90 ... Woolwich 54 ... Suffolk 70 ... Crown 50 ... Dreadnought 64 ... Stirling Castle 70 ... Edgar 72 Brave 58 Monmouth 66 Entendu 60 Duchess 90 Triomphant 76 Burnt Cherbourg Victory 100 Orgueilleux 94 Vanguard 90 Fier 80 Burnt at La Hougue Adventure 50 Fleuron 56 Warspite 70 ... Montague 62 ... Defiance 60 ... Berwick 70 ... Lion 60 Courtesan 64 Northumberland 70 Grand 84 Advice 50 Saint-Esprit 74 Neptune 96 Sirène 64 Windsor Castle 90 ... Expedition 70 ... Monck 60 ... Resolution 70 ... Albemarle 90 ... England: 56 ships Netherlands: 26 ships Total allied: 82 ships, plus auxiliaries France: 44 ships, plus auxiliaries References

BTW the former order of battle was in a collapsed box in article space. This was a breach of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Scrolling lists and collapsible content and Wikipedia:Accessibility guidelines; so I think if it is to be restored it should be placed in a separate order of battle article per Wikipedia:Summary style. NB if this is done to meet copyright needs it is important that the new article states that this text was copied from Revision as of 16:46, 30 January 2019 (oldid=880968352) of Battles of Barfleur and La Houguearticle (WP:CWW). -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature for eliminated ships

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)