Talk:Battle of Poitiers

Additions to the info box

Things that could be added to the info box Smilus32 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No doubt lots of thing could. This does not necessarily mean that they should. Or that it would be helpful to a reader if they were. What did you have in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am wanting to add the following people to the commanders section of the info box.

England:

Thomas Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick

William Montagu, 2nd Earl of Salisbury

Jean III de Grailly

Sir James Audley

France:

Charles, Dauphin of France (later know as Charles V of France)

Philip, Duke of Orléans

Jean de Clermont

Arnoul d'Audrehem

This is because each commanded their own group of troops and some lead attacks as they went, some even without orders. The duke of Orléans left the battle before he attacked, as well as having the men he commanded follow him in an orderly formation. Meanwhile, Jean de Clermont was killed in the fight. Finally the marshal, Arnoul d'Audrehem, was made a prisoner. Although some may have been ordered to by the main leaders, it was they who had to perform the attack and decide who it should play out. Smilus32 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of all that, I wrote most of the article. It sounds like a lot of unnecessary clutter to me. If a reader wants that level of detail, they can simply read the appropriate part of the article. Given that the relevant policy, under "Purpose" includes "The less information it [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I think that keeping the current version, which a consensus for was established at FAC, would be best. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there is anything particular you would like to be added to the infobox or even the page in general? Smilus32 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The infobox seems MoS compliant to me and I can't think of any changes to it which would help a reader. Both it and the article had an unusually strong consensus for more or less their current states at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest utilising a new, previously unknown parameter: | French army's pants colour = only available in brown  :) ——Serial 19:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a strategic withdrawal. Absolutely no one ran away. Definitely no member of the royal family. Oh no. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent revert

Gog the Mild, Okay, I'm in copyedit mode at the moment mainly to keep my Wikipedia Library access alive. Your recent reversion had the edit summary: Mostly reverting the attempted imposition of personal preferences, non-corrections and copy editing of direct quotes, a couple of which changed the intended meaning.

I disagree with this summary statement but so here is what I want to know:

1. copy editing of direct quotes, a couple of which changed the intended meaning — I've checked the diffs and for the life of me, I can't find that so perhaps you could point that out.
2. non-corrections — what is a 'non-correction'?
3. attempted imposition of personal preferences — please ilucidate. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

1. The quote box towards the bottom of "Fourth attack", you added "and" to Geoffrey le Baker's words.

2. Eg changing "a similar ploy by a French force at the 1349 Battle of Lunalonge" to 'a similar ploy by a French force in the 1349 Battle of Lunalonge".

3. Eg changing south west to southwest.

Twelve editors contributed to the consensus for (pretty much) the present version at FAC. You were one of them. ("Support - very enjoyable read".) You supported promotion of this version after just one - very constructive - proposed change. I was nonplussed to see you changing your mind over so many details. And baffled why after our one previous entirely constructive and amicable discussion of this article that having changed your mind you didn't bring your proposals to the talk page first. (All of which may have contributed to the somewhat terse edit summary.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

To (1), I got that wrong and hadn't spotted the fact it was inside a quotebox, but you said that it "changed the intended meaning". It didn't, but nevertheless it shouldn't have been altered.

You said there was another instance?

To (2), the example you quote shows two grammatically correct versions. Surely the appropriate course of action would have been to change that edit without reverting the whole copyedit?

To (3), there were two instances where I changed "south west" to "southwest". The first one was describing a geographical area, and the second was describing a direction of travel, but in both cases, the outcome is the same. If the area is actually called "South West", eg South West (Nigeria), then fine, but if used in a general sense (as it is in the article) then the correct description is "southwest". Usage in terms of a directional movement, the term is also "southwest". So, dispute that those are 'personal preferences'.

Yes, because it's on my watch list, I came back to it to re-read what is undoubtedly a very fine article and I have "not changed my mind" on that, as you appear to be suggesting. My copyediting involved spelling corrections and relatively minor grammatical tweaks that included the removal of wordiness from some of the phraseology. None of these changed the meaning or the tenor of the article nor would they have required 'permission' from talk page discussion. Ironic though that you jumped straight in with a revert coupled with an odd edit summary while I responded to the talk page to seek reasons. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You have twice stated that I reverted the whole copy edit. I did not, as a cursory glance at the history demonstrates. I would be grateful if you would withdraw the accusation. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I used the word "whole" when I should have used the term "most of". --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciated. South west: you are correct that this is wrong - it is my original prose, so I am not sure what I was thinking. Regarding your change, I should have switched it to the hyphenated form, per the OED, but got it wrong again. I need to watch that. Now corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. I appreciate that a lot. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve had to make a couple of changes for grammar because of the last set of edits. Things like “While there were no large French forces were facing them” are gibberish, while some of the other changes were not improvements per se. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You were editing the partially reverted article by Gog the Mild who introduced the rogue "were" into the article. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

FFS, I said my changes were "because of the last set of edits". I wasn't finger pointing at anyone in particular nor do I care who did what. I was just pointing out that I've made some changes. If you want me to go through your edit in particular to pick holes in it, I'd be happy to, but I'm not sure it would be terribly constructive to question your addition of American-style commas, or your choice of dehyphenating "battle axes" when the English language has long had it (like the OED) as "battle-axes", or any other the points Gog the Mild has elucidated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Word missing from this sentence

If they attempted to the French would attack, aiming to defeat them in detail, and if they stood their position they would run out of supplies before the French.[97]

I don't have the source but the missing word is probably "retreat". Viciouspiggy (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, good spot. Thank you. What is missing is a comma, so "... the Anglo-Gascons would find it almost impossible to withdraw. If they attempted to, the French would attack, aiming to defeat them in detail, and if they stood their position they would run out of supplies before the French." Does that work for you? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. :) Viciouspiggy (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)