Talk:Waterloo campaign: start of hostilities

Title

Nice article, but the title feels a little jarring to me. Rather than using a sub-title format, which when I was glancing through a category and saw this made it almost seem like the title of a book, couldn't it be rephrased to something like Beginning of hostilities in the Waterloo Campaign or Start of hostilities in the Waterloo Campaign. I'm not sure the exact date is necessary either, it's not disambiguating from anything else which is what parentheses are normally used for. Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Waterloo Campaign, 8–15 June. PBS (t c) was the only one who objected to this title, so consensus is clearly pro-move. —Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June) → Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities – As I mentioned in the section above, I don't think having the date is necessary here. As far as I'm aware, there is no other Waterloo Campaign starts to disambiguate it from and it's also excessively precise as the article actually covers the 8th to the 15th of June. I would also be OK with a more descriptive title such as Beginning of hostilities in the Waterloo Campaign or Start of hostilities in the Waterloo Campaign, rather than the sub-title format currently used, but I should note that this article appears to be part of a series that all use the sub-title format, and some of them don't seem to have an obvious descriptive title to change to. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest Waterloo Campaign, 8–15 June, which is more descriptive and clear, and akin to the likes of Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. I'd also tentatively recommend moving Waterloo Campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo to Waterloo Campaign, 17 June and Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo to Waterloo Campaign, 18 June. This would also require adjusting the articles a bit, and then adding main templates - I'm not an expert or even that familiar with the Waterloo Campaign, but I *think* that Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo is just repeating some of the info from the Quatre Bras to Waterloo article for clarity's sake concerning events of 17 June, which can be shortened safely without making the article incoherent. Anyway, {{main}} templates go pretty far in removing confusion when there's more detailed articles on the events of a day, e.g. the Battle of Waterloo itself on the 18th. I'm willing to defer to the experts if the current title phrasings are very common in the literature, but if Wikipedia made up these titles ourselves, I suspect just using the dates will be more explicit. SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The hostilities started on June 15. there were no hostilities before that date.
• There were two simultaneous retreats by two different armies on the 17the June. "but I *think* that Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo is just repeating some of the info from the Quatre Bras to Waterloo article for clarity's sake concerning events of 17 June" If you have read the articles how can you come that that conclusion? Why not read the articles and then make suggestions? -- PBS (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• You're splitting hairs in an odd way? Sure if you define "Campaign" as "people shooting at each other" I guess, but I think it's fair to include the manueverings beforehand. And anyway, if you really insist, I'd be fine with "Waterloo Campaign, June 15" as a title.
• For the other two articles: Yes, I understand that one article covers the Prussian Army's movements, and the other the Anglo-Belgo-Dutch force. Some of the French army movements seem to be replicated, though. I still think separating by dates would make more sense from my layman's perspective, though. I'd also argue that if we are going to separate by army, say so in the title, and if not the title, very directly in the lede: name them "Waterloo campaign, Prussian retreat of June 17-18" then. Clearer than the placenames IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is probably best to to start with Waterloo Campaign and then read the more detailed articles. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• That doesn't address my alternate proposal that doesn't include the phrase "Start of hostilities" - what's wrong with Waterloo Campaign, 8–15 June ? Seems descriptive enough, and avoids the faux subtitle implied via a colon... SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The campaign did not start until the 15 June. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• See above - why not "Waterloo Campaign, June 15" then? (For all that this title is misleading then since it includes events from earlier... although it's arguably misleading *now* by your perspective of "it wasn't really the Waterloo Campaign yet"...) SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is usual to include a prelude section etc to describe events see for example the article World War I. See also my comment lower down under the same time stamp as this comment and descriptive titles. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @User:Jenks24 The reason for including the date is because most people think that the start of hostilities was on the 16 June (battles of battle of Ligny and Quatre Bras), so the date extension is not a dab extension but information about the scope of the article. -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, but there are lots of true facts that don't go into the title; we don't have French and Indian War (not actually a war between the French and the Indians). SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not know which war you are referring to do you mean the Seven Years' War? -- PBS (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

French and Indian War (apologies if it was sarcasm). But irrelevant to my point anyway, no? That common misconceptions of facts are covered in the article, not the title? SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• @User:Jenks24 If you think that anything in brackets means a dab then it could be rewritten without the brackets eg "Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities, 15 June".-- PBS (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• @User:Jenks24 The name "Start of hostilities in the Waterloo Campaign" is not a good one. The problem is "in" one does not usually write "start of hostilities in the Second World War" etc. It is grammatically clumsy (do you mean "during" rather than in?) -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't see any problem with that phrase myself.... and "during" sounds wrong, "in" would be correct. ("During" implies that World War II was already ongoing before hostilities began, which is weird. "In" says "Which start of hostilities? The start in World War II.") SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The hostilities did not start in the Waterloo Campaign they started in France. Hostilities took place during the Waterloo Campaign. -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@SnowFire with regards to your posting that includes "(apologies if it was sarcasm)". I was playing dumb because it is known as the "Seven Years' War" in the UK not the "French and Indian War" which is an American name for the war. The reason it is titled the "French and Indian War" and not the "Seven Years' War" is the same reason that the "American War of Independence" is titled the "American Revolutionary War" is first come first serve on national varieties of English, and using the name most frequently used name in (the nations) reliable sources. If the description was weighed in WP:UCRN then clearly the names "French and Indian War" and "American War of Independence" would be more appropriate than "Seven Years' War" and "American Revolutionary War" (in the latter case the war was fought over independence -- the type of government an independent American state would have was not a war aim for the British -- whether the Americans set up an alternative constitutional monarchy (as the Greeks did after Greek War of Independence), a republic or a caliphate was not what the issue that the war was fought over. However in the case of this article we are discussing a descriptive name and that is different (see WP:NDESC). -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure why you're going on with the history lesson we both know, then. My point had nothing to do with regional differences and solely with "there is a common misconception about the event that is not explained in the Wikipedia article title," since you've offered that as a reason to maintain "15 June" in the title. Descriptive names for articles should almost never need parenthetical disambiguation and shouldn't require mentioning "commonly misunderstood facts". At best, it should be "Waterloo Campaign, Start of hostilities on 15 June" or the like if you truly feel that both the date and the description are so important as to go in the title. Brevity is a virtue, though, so I'd personally prefer either "Waterloo Campaign, {date}" or the proposed "Waterloo Campaign, Start of hostilities". Further details will be in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is to use a colon not a comma after "Campaign". The date is there because without it one does not know from the rest of the descriptive title the scope of the article. It could for example mean everything up to 11 am on the 18th of June. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're going in circles, and like I said before I'm ultimately willing to defer to the people who put a bunch of work in the article (i.e. you), but if you really think that both bits of information are merited, I'd still suggest as a matter of good titling that the title be something like "Waterloo Campaign, Start of hostilities on June 15" or "Waterloo Campaign, Start of hostilities, June 15." We have Battle of Gettysburg, First Day not Battle of Gettysburg (First Day). SnowFire (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move at this time. -- PBS (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and support more Waterloo Campaign, 8–15 June per Snowfire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've been away while most of this discussion took place unforunately. I agree that some of my initial proposals weren't the best, but I like SnowFire's idea of Waterloo Campaign, 8–15 June. It seems most consistent with other similar articles and is also an accurate description of what this article covers. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  The campaign did not start until the 15 June, so that is a very misleading title. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  But half of the article is dedicated to the "operations" of June 8–14. Personally I find the current title (15 June) misleading because the article scope is much larger than that. Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  As I said above, this is a descriptive title. "Start of hostilities" describes what it is, the date is useful because it defines the scope of what the descriptive titles "Start of hostilities" means -- as without it it could mean anything up to the start of the Battle of Waterloo (which was the beginning of the end of hostilities). As to "but half of the article..." you exaggerate. The article is currently about 85k the prelude sections up until the start of hostilities takes up about about 12k. The text for the rest takes up 42k and the remainder is citations and templates (about 31k). This is one of several detailed articles, about the campaign the total of those detailed articles comes to well over over 500k, so it is not unreasonable that 12k at the start of the detailed campaign is taken up thus. By comparison the summary article the "Waterloo Campaign" has a size of 7k after the lead before the start of hostilities and about 30k in the rest of the article. The "Battle of Waterloo" has 14k after the lead and before the battlefield section and 68k in the battle section. This means that the ratio in this article is not dissimilar to the campaign article and the amount of information about the run up to the battle of Waterloo article is some what more than in this article. The point of this ramble is that it is common for history articles to have a section about the run-up to a war, campaign or battle, but that does not mean one includes the dates of the run-up to the war campaign of battle in the dates of the event. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 30 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Waterloo Campaign: 8–15 June → Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities – user:MarcusBritish has already altered the title from that of the last WP:RM in 2015, but the title is still inaccurate. The campaign did not start until the 15 June, so including the date that preparations started in the title is confusing. It is not customary to include the dates for the preparations for a campaign as the start of the campaign: Eg Russian Campaign is dated as starting on 24 June 1812 when Napoleon's Grande Armée crossed the Neman River (not the day that Napoleon issued his commands for the forward concentration of his army), the Normandy landings are dated from D-Day (6th of June 1944) not the date that planning for the operation started back in 1942. PBS (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 21:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note – I didn't really "alter" the title as such, just changed the comma to a colon in it so that it was consistent with a series of other articles about the Waterloo Campaign. — Marcus^(talk) 01:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. This is better and less astonishing than the old Start of hostilities (15 June) title, but still less clear than the current title. That said, if PBS really prefers this title, fine... but... if we're relitigating this, it would hopefully be acceptable that "15 June" alone is not restored anywhere (including the campaignbox, which should probably say 8-15 June), and the main series article just says "Start of hostilities" with no date (this edit)?
  • Longer version: As said in the previous RM, PBS is splitting some hairs in an unusual way here that imply campaign start dates are more precise than the term is usually used. Regardless of when exactly a "campaign" starts, this article indisputably currently covers events on June 8 and forward, and outright says so in its infobox (and this was armies marching around, a little more direct than "planning"). So... there isn't anything wrong with the current title IMO. That said, this is only Comment rather than an oppose because PBS is entitled to some deference since they worked on all these subarticles; they're not the way I'd personally have labeled them (e.g. Waterloo Campaign: peace negotiations is a very weird name, remove all the colons or turn them into commas IMO), but whatever, let the main contributor pick a naming method and do it the way they want, similar to citation style. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral – Overall, I don't think there is an impending need to change the title. The use of "8–15 June" does not have to mean or imply that those dates were part of the campaign, only that they are relevant to the campaign, even if they were just preparations and early marches. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I think having a date in the title is more natural for searches and more precise, especially as there are 8 results for a "Waterloo Campaign" search. It would be far more helpful to the series of "Waterloo Campaign" articles if all the titles were dated, since the articles are independent of one another and not chronologically ordered chapters of a book, it would make them easier to identify. Which means two or three of the articles, Waterloo Campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo and Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo, and perhaps Waterloo Campaign: peace negotiations had their titles disambiguated, i.e. altered or extended to make it clearer where they fit into the timeline, since the only thing available as a guide right now is Template:Campaignbox Waterloo. As thorough as this series is, it assumes too much on the part of the reader, which is not good encyclopedic practice; titles and accessibility are the issue for me for the whole series, not just this single article, and if it is renamed to "Start of hostilities" I think that could take matters in the wrong direction. I would even go so far at suggest that if using dates does not fit into the "campaign period" of the actual Waterloo campaign, as expressed by PBS, then renaming the entire series to "The Hundred Days: dates" which encompasses the entire period detailed in the series might be a better alternative approach to this larger concern. I'm borderline Oppose right now, and would need to see more debate before I make my mind up. — Marcus^(talk) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  The article Waterloo Campaign is a summary style article and each of these sub-articles along with the battles are placed in context there. I have deliberately not included the major battles in these sub-articles as they are sub-articles of the Waterloo Campaign in their own right. For the discussion Talk:Hundred Days/Archive 2#War of the Seventh Coalition and Hundred Days I created a tree of all the articles that are sub-articles or sub-sub-articles of the Hundred Days. I suggest that you take a look at it. I think it would be a mistake to rename the sub-articles of the "Waterloo Campaign" to incorporate "Hundred Days" in their title for two reasons. The first is that the Waterloo campaign is only one of several fought during the Hundred Days and the articles that start "Waterloo Campaign" are specific to the Waterloo Campaign. For example the peace negotiations were between the French Provincial government and the two generals fighting the Waterloo Campaign it did not involved other nations such as the Austrians and the Russians. I have not included those articles that I created by using Siborne's text under the name "Waterloo Campaign" if they are not directly relevant eg "Minor campaigns of 1815" and "Abdication of Napoleon (1815)" or others if they are not explicitly sub-articles of the Waterloo Campaign eg Reduction of the French fortresses in 1815 and such articles are stand alone articles as are the battles so do not need to incorporate Hundred Days or Waterloo Campaign in their names (see the tree on the Hundred Days talk page). It is only those sub-articles that describe the beginning, end and interludes between battles that need the glue of Waterloo Campaign to make the titles recognisable. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I don't think that we have an applicable naming convention for the situation – extremely detailed sub-articles about several stages of an important event, where we cannot apply any sort of WP:COMMONNAME to the stage. I can't even think about a more appropriate naming scheme that wouldn't violate internal WP:CONSISTENCY among those articles, so I agree with SnowFire's suggestion to let the main contributor pick a naming method and do it the way they want, similar to citation style. No such user (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Waterloo Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)