This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the
Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
EB1911
@
User:Gog the Mild It is not clear to me if the article contains any text copied from EB1911 (I have not had time to
earwig it). If not then use {{
cite EB1911}} and set parameter ref=harv. If it does then use {{
EB1911}} and because it is being used inline set the parameter inline=1 (it changes the pre-script). See the template documentation for more details. --
PBS (
talk) 17:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
PBS: Thanks. I'll set it back to how it was.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
User:Gog the Mild sorry my mistake if the text had contained text coped from EB1911, then as the EB1911 template would be in the bullet pointed list in a references section at the end, the correct thing to do would have been to move the EB1911 template to the bottom of the list of references and added a line before it in bold:
As there is no text copied from eB1911 then the template {{
cite EB1911}} is in the correct (alphabetical) place. --
PBS (
talk) 17:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
PBS and
Gog the Mild: Actually there is a
24.2% (unlikely) violation, but they are odd fragments and one sentence salted into otherwise non-EB1911 paragraphs. On the cusp of needing an attribution, I'd say, but it would be tough to single the text out. Can't believe I'm putting so much effort into this one :-)
David Brooks (
talk) 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
DavidBrooks: But I appreciate it. Someone in the past should have attributed that. I have rephrased it all and it should now give a much lower score. Thanks for picking it up. I noticed, cough, close paraphrasing, cough, to a couple of sources I have, but a normal Earwig was showing all clear. It even went through GAN recently.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 20:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Coat of Arms
The Yarmouth had their own coat of arms, should that be added? (P.S. I have a fancy title of my ancestry (Worden of Yarmouth)) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ourlittleman6 (
talk •
contribs) 15:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Ourlittleman6, thanks for that, but I don't think that it gets over the relevance threshold for this particular article.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 10:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Also known as The Hundred Years' war
I think the start of the second sentence ("Also known as The Hundred Years' war") creates confusion and suggests that this battle is synonymous with the whole war, so maybe remove it? - especially as the end of the paragraph has the phrase "The battle was one of the opening engagements of the Hundred Years' War.
MeBeMe3000 (
talk) 10:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
MeBeMe3000, someone has removed it. When an article is TFA it attracts a lot of edits. I generally wait a few days and winnow those which don't seem to improve the article, per
WP:FAOWN.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 11:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Geographical location
This article's coordinates are inside the walls of
Sluys, which today is about 6.5km inland. I assume the actual battle took place in the
Zwin or somewhere in between. Is it possible to give a better location? —
Steve Summit (
talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Scs, thanks for the observation. As it says in the lead "It took place in the roadstead of the port of Sluys (French Écluse), on a since silted-up inlet"; and in the article "The entire Zwin estuary has silted up since the battle, and modern Sluis is 5 miles (8 km) from the sea." The location given is correct. Really.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
According to Costain in The Three Edwards (not at my house, so must wait to consider inserting it), the French were at their wits' end as to how to tell their king, and eventually sent in the court fool, who shouted, "Oh, those coward English! Those coward English!" The king asked him why, and he replied, "Because they did not jump into the sea, as our brave Frenchmen did!"
J S Ayer (
talk) 18:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Yep, that's in at least one of my sources. And deliberately not included as being just amusing trivia. (And heaven forfend that we amuse our readers.) You think that it should go in alongside the French-speaking fish?
Gog the Mild (
talk) 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I think it is as colorful in emphasizing the severity of the French loss.
J S Ayer (
talk) 22:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
arrows
We read that arrows or bolts could be fired from the English castles and crows' nests down into the French ships, and that King Edward was wounded in the leg by an arrow or a bolt. My understanding is that an arrow shot from a longbow was a shaft, and one shot from a crossbow was a bolt. Is there any controversy, or should we polish accordingly?
J S Ayer (
talk) 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
J S Ayer and thanks for the input. I hope that you liked the article. Yes, arrows from crossbows are often called bolts and arrows from longbows may be termed shafts, although that is getting a bit specialist. You may have noted that "bolt" is only used in the article as "arrows or bolts" to try and make clear what it is from context. Plenty of RSs on the battle go with "arrow" for both. And given that this article has gone through GAN, ACR and FAC - meaning that 14 different editors have signed off on the current terminology - I don't see any value in breaking as solid a consensus as one is likely to find on Wikipedia to introduce a term - shaft - which virtually no reader will understand, when it is not required by the sources.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 19:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that nine-tenths of our readers will not know the specialist term "bolt" and will think lightning is meant. Better to go with arrows, and not worry about which weapon fired them.
J S Ayer (
talk) 22:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I am inclined to agree. Let's leave as is for a couple off days and see if this section attracts any further comment. If not I'll make the changes with my usual post-TFA tidy up.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) 90% of readers will think the English called down lightning on the French? Seriously?
We can't use "arrow" for something fired from a crossbow, no more than we could use it for something fired from a gun; it's inaccurate, as crossbows can't fire arrows. Saying only "arrows" is inaccurate, as it implies no crossbows were used. Making the association between bolt and crossbow clearer may well be warranted, but misleading the reader isn't the way to do this. --
A D Monroe III(
talk) 22:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I have linked "bolt" to the article
Crossbow bolt, which gives a description of the parts of a crossbow "bolt" . I think that will solve this fairly elegantly?
Wilfridselsey (
talk) 09:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks. That does indeed seem to resolve the issue elegantly.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I absolutely do not have a source for this, but my impression is that bolts shot in the late middle ages were in fact arrows, though different from the shafts shot from longbows. Come to think of it, I believe I have a nephew who knows a good deal about military technology of that period.
J S Ayer (
talk) 02:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The early crossbows did shoot arrows for example the
Oxybeles but a bolt is shorter and usually heavier than an arrow, and by the time of the Hundred Years War they were definitely bolts in fact they may well have been quarrels, (ie: bolts with square arrow heads). From at least the 11th century, crossbowmen had bolts capable of penetrating mail armour. A good reference is "
The Book of the Crossbow" by Ralph Payne-Gallwey.
Wilfridselsey (
talk) 13:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Reviewing a sample of modern scholarly sources of the battle or the period, when referring to projectiles from crossbows, they universally - in the sample I have examined - use "bolt".
Gog the Mild (
talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Gascon language
@
Gog the Mild: I've seen that have changed my
. I assume it was meant to be in good faith like you've told us. But Gascon is disputed by linguists and shouldn't be called just "language". I believe this could be seen the same with Flemish (you know some people say we speak that) or Moldovan (is just Romanian). It could be described distinctly and separated from Occitan. The article "Gascon campaign of 1345" also uses the sentence "The independent-minded Gascons had their own customs and claimed to have a separate language;"? We also discussed this in the
Battle of Auberoche FAC back in the days. I'm not sure why it is removed? Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply
CPA-5, it got caught up in the usual post-TFA tidy up - I lump the 40 or so edits into one diff to review, so I didn't realise that it was you. I will get back to you on this, but can you give me a couple of days? Various things are happening in my life, including a reviewer giving me a hard time with both one of my FACs and one of my ACRs! Can you imagine? Cheers.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 20:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Gog the Mild Twelve days have passed while no progress was made. Far in the ocean was there a Gog who's swimming farther from the coast of this in his duties. Forgetting one of the things he has promised in the almost two weeks ago. ;) Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 12:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
CPA-5, this is Gog the Mild, waving from far off shore. Apologies for the delay. I have changed the wording here to reflect that in the other articles in the series.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 15:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Gog the Mild Oh btw another question, if I can ask you to waste another minute to my perfectionism view (yes I know it's a problem). Do we know what the page number(s) of citation 29 from DeVries is? Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 11:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
CPA-5: The reference os supporting the statement that de Vries made an overview of the subject; in other words, the entire article supports it, not an individual page/range. The only page range possible would be a duplication of that in the bibliography. HTH.
——Serial# 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I was the previous editor of the page about the Battle of Sluys. And I don't understand why it is being reverted back despite such glaring lack of informations. Flemish ships attacked french ones from the rear after seeing initial english successes. That was the whole point of the disaster. They are not mentioned in the infobox, neither are their ships. Only english ones which sailed from England are accounted for. And the page has stayed that way for so long despite it being written in literally every book which goes into detail about the engagement... and hilariously the Flemish intervention being mentioned in the article itself (
93.22.36.11 (
talk) 05:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC))reply
I do agree with most of your edits as the County of Flanders and their ships did join the fight. There were Genoese sailors involved on the French side as well. Those are well documented. But where did you get your 100-130 Flemish ships from? That's almost as many as the English ones. Seems a bit ridiculous. I looked it up and couldn't find any data on it. What's your source? I removed your "Unknown" about English casualties as well (
Jules Agathias (
talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC))reply
The French
What mean « French « at the time ?
France started to exist after the one Hundred Years War .
France was a collection of duchy and independent city.
French monarchy seem to be more accurate than « France «
37.167.239.13 (
talk) 03:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not the opinion of the reliable sources. Could you cite the sources which state this? Thanks.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply