Talk:Waterloo campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo

Military history: British / Dutch / European / French / German / Russian & Soviet / Napoleonic era

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[7th Queen's Own Hussars#Corunna to Waterloo|British 7th Hussars]] The anchor (#Corunna to Waterloo) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Page views

Copied text

Much of this page appears to have been copied from a text which, judging by its style, dates from the nineteenth century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1432:de00:d8b3:87f0:ffa0:7a30 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is and if you look in the References section you will see that it is fully attributed as such per the plagiarism guideline. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's a difference between paraphrasing an author in order to provide a summary and copy-pasting wholesale, particularly from a single author whose method of speech is fairly archaic by 21st century standards. This seems to be a pattern you have followed in the Ligny battle article and the post-Waterloo campaign article as well, which has rendered them (like this one) huge, unwieldy, and difficult to understand. Brianify (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that anyone can edit. If you wish to update the the English you can do so. -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses

British council: will have or would have:

We use would have in past conditionals to talk about something that did not happen

@user:Mild Bill Hiccup with this edit you added the word in red to a sentence:

On this position he might rely upon the aid of a sufficient portion of Blücher's forces from Wavre which combined with his own would have enabled the Coalition to confront Napoleon and his main army with a numerical superiority at a decisive point.

I think the change you have made to that sentence changes it meaning from "could (and did combine)" to "could and didn't combine". As Wellington's and Blücher's armies did combine, I think the insertion of have changes the meaning of the sentence and makes it incorrect. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Without the "have" the grammer is incorrect. It should be "could have" to be factually and grammatically correct. That the armies later combined is not germaine here. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I also removed the "d" from "enabled" "which combined with his own would enable the Coalition-- PBS (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW while I am delighted to see that someone else is watching this page, but what brought you here with millions to choose from? -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question Revision as of 07:31, 24 September 2015 -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing the "d". The short answer to why I landed here is Alistair Horne's book How far from Austerlitz?. Well worth a read. Best, Philg88 ^♦talk 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]