Talk:Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1345 and 1346 the English repeatedly defeated the French in both north and south-west France? Source: Wagner, John A. (2006). "Hundred Years' War, Phases of". Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Westport, Connecticut; London: Greenwood Publishing. pp. 160–164. ISBN 978-0-313-32736-0 p. 161.

• Reviewed: Zhong Huijuan

Created by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

• QPQ done, no image to evaluate, created 18 September so totally new enough. The hook is fascinating and, better yet, inline cited! The sources is RS, Greenwood being a reputable publisher. Both article and hook are NPOV. Aside from some false positives on quotes, Earwig shows no obvious signs of copyvio. Looks great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetsford (talk • contribs)

To T:DYK/P7

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hundred Years' War (1345–1347)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Initial notice

I will review this article for GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Djmaschek and many thanks for the review. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Review 1

Overall, it's a nice job. Here is my review. If I see anything else, I will let you know. Djmaschek (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Introduction:
  • Paragraph 3: "to 20 miles from Paris" > "to within 20 mi (32.2 km) from Paris". I see that you use the convert (cvt) tag, but missed it here.

Done.

• • Paragraph 3: There's nothing technically wrong with the sentence beginning with "The English army then turned north...", but it might be more readable if the date was at the end.

Done.

• • Paragraph 3: "4 September" > "4 September 1346". (I was looking around for a year date.)

Done.

• • Paragraph 4: "The war eventually ended in 1453, while Calais served" > Suggestion: "The war eventually ended in 1453 with the English expelled from all of France territory except Calais, which served".

Good idea. Done.

• Background:
  • Paragraph 2: "In 1340 Edward , as" > "In 1340 Edward, as" (space)

Done.

• Plans:
  • There are two lines between Background and Plans sections. (?)

One removed.

• • Paragraph 2: "South-western France". (In Background paragraph 1 south western France is rendered without the dash. Whether dash or no dash, please be consistent throughout.)

It is consistent. I use "south western", but when using the two words as a compound adjective, the rules of English grammar require a hyphen. (As in "the English-led invasion" and "the English led the invasion" not being inconsistent.)

• Crecy campaign:
  • Paragraph 2: "north and become trapped" > "north and became trapped"

Done..

• Battle of Crecy:
  • Paragraph 2: "fleeing Italians" (There is no context for this.) Suggestion: "fleeing crossbowmen" (The reader may understand this was the result of the archery exchange.)

I have added context to the preceding paragraph instead.

• Battle of Neville's Cross:
  • Please give the year date (1346).

Done

• Fall of Calais:
  • Even though the title is 1347, it would be helpful to add the date after "During March and April".

Done.

• • There is a stray "</ref>" after citation 95.

Removed.

GA class

It looks good. I didn't follow the argument about the dash, but I'm OK with that. The maps were very helpful. Djmaschek (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Renaming

Grapple X, I am more than happy for this to be retitled. I only created it two days ago and was struggling for a title which didn't become ridiculously long winded. Any suggestions? (English offensives 1345–1347? Hundred Years' War in France (1345–1347)?) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I also found the title confusing, but I don't have a great suggestion that isn't awkwardly long. "1345–1347 English offensives in France"? "1345–1347 English offensives (Hundred Years' War)"? Is there no established historiographic name for this portion of the HYW? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: I was tempted to go for "Annus mirabilis", but there isn't really support for it in the sources. (Unlike my recent FA with the excellent name of Burnt Candlemas .) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "1345—1347 in the Hundred Years' War" would show that it's a narrow slice of a larger topic? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"1345–1347 during the Hundred Years' War"? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. I think getting the year range out of parentheticals is the main issue, for me at least. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, do not just rename this article like that when there's also Hundred Years' War (1337–1360), Hundred Years' War (1369–1389), and Hundred Years' War (1415–1453). This should be consistent and approached more broadly then. Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Grapple X, that is a good point Reywas92 makes. This title is in keeping with how several others dealing with just part of the war are titled. If we are going to change, we should change all of them consistently. Which would mean gaining quite a big consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a naming convention I haven't seen before and it does seem a little unintuitive, but it's also not something I would express any discontent with if it were kept. That said, however, compare it with how it might look with other titles—would "Queen Anne's War (1702–1703)" and "Queen Anne's War (1712–1713)" be apparent as two phases of one war, or two similarly named conflicts being disambiguated? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Random passerby comment: I would recommend just using a comma or a colon (preferably comma). So Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347, Hundred Years' War, 1337–1360, Hundred Years' War, 1369–1389, and Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453. I think that makes it sufficiently clear that this is a specific time period and not a disambiguator for which Hundred Years War it was. This style isn't uncommon - see Battle of Gettysburg, first day / Battle of Gettysburg, second day, for an example. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objections here, and with Gog mentioning he'd be fine with it on his talk page, I've gone ahead and moved the pages per the above to use a comma rather than parentheses. SnowFire (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Disciplinary regulations

There is evidence of the proclamation of disciplinary regulations in 1346, cf 1385. SN54129 17:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Error?

@Gog the Mild: Surely this edit back in 2022 during the FAC is an error. The text, Edward delayed the disembarkation of his army and his fleet was scattered by a storm, rendering this offensive spectacularly successful, doesn't make any sense. It's still in the article. I can't link it to anything in the FAC. DeCausa (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

DeCausa, you are quite right, it is garbage. Thank you. I have rewritten. Is it better now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all good now - it did look like a slip of the keyboard! Very interesting article, btw. Nice job. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a series of sub-articles if you are interested. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of errors

Twice in the past few days the non-standard spelling "despatch" has been corrected to "dispatch". As is well known the word is pronounced dɪ'spætʃ, however it is spelled, so the idea behind edit-warring the minority variant spelling back in seems to be to show how the French have succeeded in dominating the English through language. (presumed origin: dépêcher QQN) In fact, Wikipedia should not be helping the French cause and should use standard spellings that reflect pronunciation.

As it turns out, the spelling with an "e" is first attested in the 18th C. (so post-dates the hundred years war by rather a bit) and is said to be due to a printing error. Also note that in discussion of this 18th C. change by Samuel Johnson, it is said that the "baleful effect" of the misspelling carried "down to the beginning of the 20th century" (i.e. until 100 years ago). This corresponds to the ngram showing that the older "dispatch" (cf. Italian dispacciare) is once again the dominant spelling even in Island English (see ngram for "British English (only)"). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reasoned objections to restoring the standard spelling that corresponds to pronunciation? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The article uses British English, and the spelling with e is normal in British English. Please see WP:ENGVAR. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why do both the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary list "dispatch" as the primary UK spelling and why does the ngram cited above show that "dispatch" was already 2.3 times more common than "despatch" in British English at the beginning of the 21st century? You are mistaken. Language has moved on, and has corrected for the mistaken etymology of the French dépêche... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

OED give either the Italian (with i) or the Spanish (with e) for the etymology. Anyway, despatch is not incorrect, and your personal preference does not amount to deprecation on a Wikipedia-wide basis. Google results are not reliable sources. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can only say that as a Brit I'm used to seeing despatch rather than dispatch. I assumed dispatch was US only so I'm surprised to see it described as even an option for British usage, but fair enough if it is. SashiRolls, if both can be used and 3 Brit editors are saying they expect, in practice, to normally see despatch per their WP:ENGVAR I fail to see what point there is in making a big fuss about it. It's certainly not antiquated. Quick search: here's one of our leading aerospace companies using it in a press announcement recently. And here's the BBC using it and ITV as well. DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Y'all do what you wish with Johnson's French-influenced spelling :) The ngram shows the wider consensus (see further Google Books Ngram Viewer if you are under the mistaken impression that ngrams have anything to do with internet usage). Of course "local consensus" rules "our" tribe. Incidentally, Duncan wrote on my UTP that the pronunciation of the first syllable was given by Oxford as "duh". RS say differently. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)